Real-world effectiveness of voxilaprevir/velpatasvir/sofosbuvir in patients following DAA failure

Background & Aims

Voxilaprevir/velpatasvir/sofosbuvir (VOX/VEL/SOF) is highly effective for re-treatment of direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-experienced patients with chronic HCV infection. In the present study, predictors of virologic treatment response were analyzed in an integrative analysis of three large real-world cohorts.

Methods

Consecutive patients re-treated with VOX/VEL/SOF after DAA failure were enrolled between 2016 and 2021 in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and Switzerland.

Results

A total of 746 patients were included: median age was 56 (16-88) years and 77% were male. Most patients were infected with HCV genotype 1 (56%) and 3 (32%). 86% of patients carried resistance-associated substitutions in the NS3, NS5A or NS5B regions. Overall, 95.4% (683/716) of patients achieved a sustained virologic response. Treatment effectiveness was significantly affected by advanced liver disease (p <0.001), hepatocellular carcinoma (p <0.001), higher baseline ALT levels (p = 0.02), HCV genotype 3 (p <0.001), and prior VEL/SOF treatment (p = 0.01). In a multivariate analysis, only HCV genotype 3, hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis turned out to be independent predictors of treatment failure. Resistance-associated substitutions, as well as the presence of rare genotypes, did not impact treatment outcome. The effectiveness of rescue therapy with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir and SOF, with or without ribavirin, for 12 to 24 weeks was found to be high (100%).

Conclusions

Infection with HCV genotype 3, the presence of liver cancer and cirrhosis are independently associated with failure of VOX/VEL/SOF re-treatment. It is unclear whether the addition of ribavirin and/or extension of treatment duration may be effective to avoid virologic relapse on VOX/VEL/SOF. However, rescue treatment with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir+SOF seems to be effective.

Impact and implications

Representative data on the effectiveness of voxilaprevir/velpatasvir/sofosbuvir (VOX/VEL/SOF) in clinical practice are still scarce and the collection of a larger number of patients with difficult-to-treat cofactors including the assessment of resistance-associated substitution profiles is required before more specific recommendations for optimal re-treatment in these patients can be given. Thus, we aimed to analyze treatment effectiveness and predictors of virologic response to VOX/VEL/SOF in an integrative analysis of three large real-word cohorts. The study results, derived from a multicenter cohort consisting of 746 patients, demonstrated that re-treatment with VOX/VEL/SOF is an effective salvage therapy associated with an overall per protocol sustained virologic response rate of 95%. Hepatocellular carcinoma onset, cirrhosis and HCV genotype 3 were identified as independent negative predictors of treatment response, whereas resistance-associated substitutions, as well as rare genotypes and chimera, did not impact sustained virologic response rates following re-treatment with VOX/VEL/SOF.

Salvage Therapy with Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/Voxilaprevir in DAA-experienced Patients: Results from a Prospective Canadian Registry

BACKGROUND

Despite the current highly effective therapies with direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), some patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection still do not achieve sustained virological response (SVR) and require retreatment. Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (SVV) is recommended as the first-line retreatment option for most patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of SVV as salvage therapy after at least one course of DAA.

METHODS

Data were collected on all HCV-infected patients who failed DAAs and were prescribed SVV from a prospective Canadian registry (CANUHC) including 17 sites across Canada. Factors associated with failure to achieve SVR with SVV therapy and the utility of RAS testing and ribavirin use were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients received SVV after non-SVR with DAA treatment: 80% male, median age 57.5 (31-86), 44% cirrhotic, and 17 patients post liver transplant. First line regimens included: sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (27.3%), sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (26.5%), grazoprevir/elbasvir (12.5%), other (33.5%). Ribavirin was added to SVV in 26 patients due to past sofosbuvir/velpatasvir use (n = 8), complex resistance associated substitution profiles (n = 16) and/or cirrhosis (n = 9). Overall SVR rate was 96% (123/128). Of 35 patients who previously failed sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, 31 (88.5%) achieved SVR compared to 92 of 93 (99%) among those receiving any other regimen (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to reports from phase 3 clinical trials, SVV proved highly effective as salvage therapy for patients who failed a previous DAA therapy. Those who failed SVV had at least 2 of the following factors: genotype 3, presence of cirrhosis, past liver transplantation, past exposure to sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and/or complex resistance profiles.