abt-333 and Fibrosis

Interferon-based regimens with first-generation protease inhibitors have a limited efficacy and an unfavorable safety profile. Combination therapies with two or more second-generation direct-acting antivirals plus/minus ribavirin revolutionized treatment strategies in patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. In this rapidly evolving era, patients in the transplant setting benefit from interferon-free treatment regimens. Scientific societies can barely keep up with this development, making it necessary to update the clinical guidelines by the American and European Associations for the Study of Liver Diseases within short periods. This review presents and discusses the currently available data of the use of interferon-free treatment in the setting of liver transplantation. However, costs, different reimbursement strategies, and health-care options cannot be answered by guidelines and recommendations from scientific societies. Further investigator-initiated trials are needed to individualize treatment concepts.

Topics: 2-Naphthylamine; Anilides; Antiviral Agents; Carbamates; Cholestasis, Intrahepatic; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclopropanes; Drug Interactions; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fibrosis; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Interferons; Lactams, Macrocyclic; Liver Cirrhosis; Liver Transplantation; Macrocyclic Compounds; Proline; Ribavirin; Simeprevir; Sofosbuvir; Sulfonamides; Uracil; Valine

This study compared the cost-effectiveness of direct-acting antiviral therapies currently recommended for treating genotypes (GT) 1 and 4 chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients in the US.. A cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for CHC from a US payer's perspective over a lifelong time horizon was performed. A Markov model based on the natural history of CHC was used for a population that included treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Treatment alternatives considered for GT1 included ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin (3D ± R), sofosbuvir + ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), sofosbuvir + simeprevir (SOF + SMV), simeprevir + pegylated interferon/ribavirin (SMV + PR) and no treatment (NT). For GT4 treatments, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + ribavirin (2D + R), SOF/LDV and NT were compared. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included rates of compensated cirrhosis (CC), decompensated cirrhosis (DCC), hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death (LrD), total costs, life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and QALYs were used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.. In GT1 patients, 3D ± R and SOF-containing regimens have similar long-term outcomes; 3D ± R had the lowest lifetime risks of all liver disease outcomes: CC = 30.2%, DCC = 5.0 %, HCC = 6.8%, LT = 1.9% and LrD = 9.2%. In GT1 patients, 3D ± R had the lowest cost and the highest QALYs. As a result, 3D ± R dominated these treatment options. In GT4 patients, 2D + R had lower rates of liver morbidity and mortality, lower cost and more QALYs than SOF/LDV and NT.. While the results are based on input values, which were obtained from a variety of heterogeneous sources-including clinical trials, the findings were robust across a plausible range of input values, as demonstrated in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.. Among currently recommended treatments for GT1 and GT4 in the US, 3D ± R (for GT1) and 2D + R (for GT4) have a favorable cost-effectiveness profile.

Topics: 2-Naphthylamine; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anilides; Antiviral Agents; Benzimidazoles; Carbamates; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Cyclopropanes; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Fibrosis; Fluorenes; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Lactams, Macrocyclic; Liver Neoplasms; Macrocyclic Compounds; Male; Markov Chains; Middle Aged; Models, Econometric; Proline; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Ribavirin; Simeprevir; Sofosbuvir; Sulfonamides; Uracil; Valine