Efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in NS3/4A protease inhibitor-experienced individuals with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 and HIV coinfection with and without cirrhosis (ANRS HC31 SOFTRIH study)

OBJECTIVES

Studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of the fixed-dose combination ledipasvir (LDV)/sofosbuvir (SOF) in patients coinfected with HIV-1 and hepatitis C virus (HCV) have mainly included treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this combination in treatment-experienced patients with and without cirrhosis.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, open-label, double-arm, nonrandomized study in patients coinfected with HIV-1 and HCV genotype 1 with and without cirrhosis, who had good viral suppression on their antiretroviral regimens. All patients were pretreated with a first-generation NS3/4A protease inhibitor (PI) plus pegylated interferon/ribavirin. Patients received a fixed-dose combination of LDV/SOF for 12 weeks, or for 24 weeks if cirrhosis was present. The primary endpoint was a sustained virological response (SVR) 12 weeks after the end of therapy. Secondary endpoints included safety, pharmacokinetics and patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 68 patients enrolled, 39.7% had cirrhosis. Sixty-five patients [95.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 87.6-99.1%; P < 0.0001] achieved an SVR, with similar rates of SVR in those with and without cirrhosis. Tolerance was satisfactory, with mainly grade 1 or 2 adverse events. Among patient-reported outcomes, only fatigue significantly decreased at the end of treatment compared with baseline [odds ratio (OR): 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14-0.96; P = 0.04]. Mean tenofovir area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) at week 4 was high, with mean ± SD AUC variation between baseline and week 4 higher in cirrhotic than in noncirrhotic patients (3261.57 ± 1920.47 ng/mL vs. 1576.15 ± 911.97 ng/mL, respectively; P = 0.03). Mild proteinuria (54.4%), hypophosphataemia (50.0%), blood bicarbonate decrease (29.4%) and hypokalaemia (13.2%) were reported. The serum creatinine level was not modified.

CONCLUSIONS

LDV/SOF provided a high SVR rate in PI-experienced subjects coinfected with HCV genotype 1 and HIV-1, including patients with cirrhosis.

[Evaluation of three testing strategies for detection of hepatitis C in a hospital medical consultation and in an HIV testing center]

AIMS

Testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) is recommended. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of HCV testing in a medical consultation without an appointment and in an HIV testing center based on three testing strategies: 1997 French Consensus Conference, "Lettre de la Direction Générale de la Santé" (January 1996), and extension to other risk factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

For 6 months a free blood test was offered to any patient with a risk factor according to the literature.

RESULTS

There were 1 736 new patients at the medical consultation and 1 616 at the testing center. The patients were younger at the testing center than at the medical consultation (31.1 vs 43.3 years; P<0.001). Acceptance of screening was better at the testing center (97.8% vs 75.2%; P<0.001). There were more patients exposed to one of the risk factors at the testing center (31.2% vs 13.9%; P<0.001). Tests were more efficient at the testing center: 30 HCV positive patients/1 616 (1.86%) vs 11/1 736 (0.63%, P<0.01). Tests based on the 1997 French Consensus Conference provided detection in 27/30 (90%) of HCV positive patients at the testing center but only 4/11 (36.3%) at the medical consultation (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Testing was effective in both places but was more efficient at the testing center. Efficacy of the testing strategies differs significantly according to the place of screening. At the testing center, screening can be restricted to patients with a history of intravenous drug use and blood transfusion. At the medical consultation, screening should be extended to other risk factors.