antiviral treatment prioritization in hcv-infected ... · original article antiviral treatment...
Post on 22-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Advanced Research (2016) 7, 391–402
Cairo University
Journal of Advanced Research
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Antiviral treatment prioritization in HCV-infected
patients with extrahepatic manifestations – An
Egyptian perspective
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: +20 25790267, mobile: +20 1222107182.
E-mail address: Rashad.barsoum@gmail.com (R. Barsoum).
Peer review under responsibility of Cairo University.
Production and hosting by Elsevier
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2016.02.0062090-1232 � 2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Cairo University.
Hussein El-Fishawya, Gamal Saadi
a, May Hassaballa
a, Mohamed Hussein
b,
Wahid Doss c, Gaafar Ragab b, Rashad Barsoum a,*
aKasr-El-Aini Nephrology and Dialysis Center, Cairo University, EgyptbRheumatology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Cairo University, EgyptcDepartment of Tropical Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt
G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T
392 H. El-Fishawy et al.
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 12 December 2015
Received in revised form 19 February
2016
Accepted 23 February 2016
Available online 2 March 2016
Keywords:
DAAs
Cryoglobulinemia
Chronic kidney Disease
Dialysis
Transplantation
A B S T R A C T
Egypt, the single country with highest incidence of HCV infection in the world, has embarked
on a government-sponsored mass treatment program using several combinations of DAAs.
Recognizing the importance of extrahepatic manifestations, independently of the hepatic, a sub-
committee was assigned to develop national guidelines for respective prioritizing indications and
protocols. It evaluated the benefit of treating patients with different extrahepatic manifestations,
and reviewed relevant clinical trials and guidelines concerning DAA combinations available in
Egypt. The latter included Sofosbuvir plus either peg-interferon, Simeprevir, Ledipasvir or
daclatasvir, and the Viekera family comprising paritaprevir/ritonavir + ombitasvir with (GT-
1) or without (GT-4) Dasabuvir. Any of these protocols may be used with or without Ribavirin
according to indication. A blueprint was subjected to peer debate in dedicated workshops in two
national meetings and subsequently to an online professional review, eventually leading to a
final report that was adopted by the health authorities. Seven compelling and 10 optional indi-
cations were identified for treating patients with predominantly extrahepatic manifestations.
The former include kidney disease at different stages, cryoglobulinemic vasculitis and non-
Hodgkin lymphoma. Selected treatment protocols, were encoded and their use was prioritized
on the basis of evidence of efficacy and safety. We concluded that any of the studied protocols
may be used, preferably with ribavirin, for 12-week treatment in all patients with extrahepatic
manifestations without cirrhosis and with eGFR above 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm. Ribavirin should
be included in protocols for treating patients with compensated cirrhosis. Daclatasvir-based
protocols are recommended for decompensated cirrhosis, while the Viekera family is recom-
mended in patients with eGFR< 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm, including those on dialysis. In kidney-
transplanted patents, caution is due to avoidance of the pharmacokinetic interaction with the
Cytochrome-P450 enzyme system, in-between immunosuppressive agents and most DAAs, par-
ticularly the Viekera family.
� 2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Cairo University.
Introduction
The remarkable success of the current wave of Direct AntiviralAgents (DAAs) against Hepatitis C virus (HCV) offers an
unprecedented cure opportunity for millions of patients world-wide. Sustained viral response 12 weeks after completion oftreatment (SVR12) is currently achievable in the vast majority,
which predicts viral eradication in 98% of patients. This isassociated with recovery from most clinical sequelae of HCVinfection [1], and provides a survival advantage to many sub-
sets of patients, including reduction of cardiovascular mortal-ity. This imposes a moral responsibility on the healthauthorities to offer treatment to all infected patients, regardlessof the extent of clinical disease.
Meeting this goal in Egypt is a hard challenge, because; (a)it is a unique country where the virus has its highest impact inthe world (serological prevalence of 13.9–15.5% (14.7%) [2];
positive nucleic acid test in 7.0–12.2% (9.8%) [3]); (b) theprevalent viral strain in 90% of patients is Genotype-4 (GT-4) [4], which is typically difficult to treat, and on which only
a few therapeutic trials have been published; and (c) the avail-able health budget cannot accommodate the high demand formass treatment.
Nevertheless, the ambitious strategic decision in Egypt is totreat millions of infected patients in successive stages, whichrequires a comprehensive prioritization system. This was devel-oped according to the extent of liver damage and according to
Child-Pugh criteria and MELD score, and implemented for thetreatment of the first 60,000 patients. But it was soon realizedthat prioritization according to hepatic criteria refutes many
patients with predominantly extrahepatic manifestations,
which may be even more life threatening despite relativelylow liver scores. Accordingly, a subcommittee of the EgyptianNational Commission for Viral Hepatitis was assigned the task
of developing a prioritization system for patients with extra-hepatic manifestations regardless of the extent of liver affec-tion. The subcommittee was also required to prioritize the
treatment protocols for those patients, limiting the choices tothose available in the country.
Process
The subcommittee was composed of 7 members: 4 nephrolo-gists, 2 rheumatologists and a hepatologist. They were pro-vided with a list of approved DAAs, as well as those under
local clinical trial, pending registration in Egypt.A five-step action plan was developed and completed in
9 months.
1. Literature survey for evidence of:a. Benefit from treatment of different extrahepatic
manifestationsb. Preferred treatment protocols for extrahepatic
manifestations
2. Selecting evidence-based protocols that meet the localneeds
3. Peer debate
4. Online professional survey5. Preparation of the final documents for publishing and
governmental implementation.
Antiviral treatment prioritization in HCV-infected patients 393
Literature survey
� The basic pharmacokinetics of each drug on the avail-
ability list provided by the Egyptian National Commis-sion for Viral Hepatitis (ENCVH) were reviewed, withemphasis on its protein binding, metabolism, excretion,
half-life with normal or impaired glomerular filtrationrate, dialyzability, major drug–drug interactions and tar-get viral proteins.
� Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) on each DAA werescreened by Medline search and manufacturers’ websites.These were tabulated and shortlisted according to theirrelevance.
� Approval status of individual drugs as well as combinationprotocols by regulatory authorities in the USA (FDA)and Europe (EMA) was obtained from their respective
websites.� Recommendations made by the following guideline initia-tives were reviewed and integrated. The respective terms
for the strength of evidence and recommendations wereused where applicable.
Table 1 Rating by AASLD-IDSA classification and level of eviden
Description
AASLD classification
AASLD Class I Conditions for wh
evaluation, proced
AASLD Class II Conditions for wh
the usefulness and
AASLD Class IIa Weight of evidenc
AASLD Class IIb Usefulness and effi
AASLD Class III Conditions for wh
evaluation, proced
be harmful
Level of Evidence
Level A Data derived from
Level B Data derived from
Level C Consensus opinion
Table 2 Evidence grading used by the European Society of Liver D
Notes
Evidence quality
High Further research is very unli
confidence in the estimate of
Moderate Further research is likely to h
on our confidence in the esti
change the estimate
Low Further research is very like
impact on our confidence in
is likely to change the estima
estimate is uncertain
Recommendation
Strong Factors influencing the stren
recommendation included th
presumed patient-important
Weak Variability in preferences an
uncertainty. Recommendatio
certainty, higher cost or reso
� American Association for the Study of Liver Disease
(AASLD) and Infectious Diseases Society of America(IDSA) issued in August 2015 [5] (Table 1).
� European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL),
June 2015 [6] (Table 2).� Kidney Disease: Improvement of Global Outcomes(KDIGO), April 2008 [7] (Table 3).
� ‘‘Real Life” observational data of the Hepatitis C Therapeu-
tic Registry and Research Network (HCV-TARGET) [8].
Protocol prioritization
Four factors were taken into consideration while prioritizing
DAA combinations in different clinical settings.
Genotype
1. Higher priority to documented efficacy against GT-4.2. Approved anti-GT-1 combinations including pangenotypic
agents, usually targeting NS5B nucleoside inhibitors.
ce [AASLD-IDSA 2015] [15].
ich there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given diagnostic
ure, or treatment is beneficial, useful, and effective
ich there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about
efficacy of a diagnostic evaluation, procedure, or treatment
e and/or opinion is in favor of usefulness and efficacy
cacy are less well established by evidence and/or opinion
ich there is evidence and/or general agreement that a diagnostic
ure, or treatment is not useful and effective or if it in some cases may
multiple randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, or equivalent
a single randomized trial, nonrandomized studies, or equivalent
of experts, case studies, or standard of care
isease [EASL 2015] [16].
Grading
kely to change our
effect
A
ave an important impact
mate of effect and may
B
ly to have an important
the estimate of effect and
te. Any change of
C
gth of the
e quality of the evidence,
outcomes, and cost
1
d values, or more
n is made with less
urce consumption
2
Table 3 Levels of strength of recommendations used by the Kidney Disease: Improvement of Global Outcomes [KDIGO 2008] [17].
Strength of recommendation Wording of recommendation Basis for strength of recommendation
Strong An intervention ‘should’ be done High’ quality evidence and/or other considerations support a
strong guideline
Moderate An intervention ‘should be considered’ ‘Moderate’ quality evidence and/or other considerations support a
moderate guideline
Weak An intervention ‘is suggested’ ‘Low’ or ‘Very Low’ quality evidence; predominantly based on
expert judgment for good clinical practice
394 H. El-Fishawy et al.
Evidence
1. Proven efficacy in RCTs.
2. Approved combinations by credible regulatory authoritiesfor specific clinical settings.
3. Higher grading in recognized guideline recommendations.
Efficacy, toxicity and duration of therapy
1. Higher SVR 12 in respective clinical settings.
2. Lower incidence and significance of reported adverse drugreactions.
3. Preference of Interferon-free regimens.
4. Preference of Ribavirin-free regimens in the absence of cir-rhosis and in patients with Stages IV–V CKD(eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm).
5. Shorter duration of treatment
Table 4 Scoring of patients with CKD for DAA treatment
priority.
Positive points
Post-renal transplant 5 points
Regular Dialysis 5 points
Cryoglobulinemic vasculitis 5 points
Non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma 5 points
Biopsy confirmed MCGN
with hypocomplementemia
4 points
Biopsy-confirmed MCGN without
hypocomplementemia
3 points
Nephrotic syndrome regardless
of histological type
2 points
Previous treatment failure 2 points
HBV/HIV/CMV co-infection 2 points
Stage of kidney disease (MDRD-4) 1 point/stage
Stage of liver disease (Fibroscan) 1 point/stage
Negative points
Age >70 �1 point/5 years
Decompensated cirrhosis �3 points
Concurrent drug–drug interaction
with selected Protocol
�3 points
Concomitant heart disease �1 point/NYHA score
Concomitant pulmonary disease �1 point/�10% FVC1
Concomitant CNS disease �1 point/10% disability
Pharmacokinetics
In the absence of credible evidence in certain clinical settings,the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic features of indi-vidual drugs were the basis of suggestion for clinical use, par-
ticularly with regard to the following:
1. Pharmacokinetics in impaired kidney function.
2. Dialyzability and/or extent of protein-binding (when usedin dialysis patients).
3. Drug–drug interaction with immunosuppressive agents
(when used post-transplantation).4. Drug–drug interaction with common medications for co-
morbid conditions.
5. Spectrum of antiviral action in multiple viral co-infection.
Peer debate
The first blueprint was distributed, presented and discussed in2 dedicated workshops at the 34th national congress of theEgyptian Society of Nephrology and Renal Transplantation,
and the 7th Annual Congress of The National Hepatologyand Tropical Medicine Research Institute, both in Cairo(2015), leading to an amended version, approved by respective
national societies.
Online professional review
The amended version was subject to public review using the free‘‘SurveyMonkey” online tool for one month starting 1stMarch
2015. Participants included a selected cohort of experts,as well as those who requested participation following
the congress discussions. Comments were reviewed by thesubcommittee and incorporated, where applicable, into thefinal document.
Final documents
1. An official report was submitted to the National Commis-sion for Viral Hepatitis, along with a scoring list (Table 4),
for prioritizing patients according to relative urgency andexpected benefit of treatment in different clinical settings,score 5 being the highest. Relative limitations were
expressed as ‘‘negative points” in order to boot the priorityof those who are more likely to benefit from treatment. Anarbitrary acceptance threshold of 10 points was set as abeginning, based on the estimated numbers of patients in
relation to the immediately available budget. This thresholdwould be lowered as funds become available for treatingmore patients.
2. The report was reformatted into this article for formal sci-entific publication.
Antiviral treatment prioritization in HCV-infected patients 395
3. Given the rapid evolution of knowledge and experience
with the use of DAAs in HCV, and the long list of neweragents in the pipeline, the committee is aware of the needfor frequent updating of its recommendations, which shall
be available through a website designed for easy reference(under construction).
Guidelines
Based on the mentioned criteria, the subcommittee developedthe following clinical guidelines for Egyptian patients,
expressed as either ‘‘recommendations” or ‘‘suggestions”according to the strength of evidence and level in referenceguidelines. For suggested items, treatment decision should be
made on individual case to case basis, granting priority tohigher severity scores and life threatening co-morbid condi-tions that are likely to tolerate and benefit from eradication
of HCV infection.
Section I. Indications for treatment
I. We suggest evaluating HCV-infected patients according to six
factors, namely:
1. The stage of liver disease.
2. Estimated glomerular filtration rate, and nature of chronickidney disease (CKD) if present.
3. Nature and severity of extrahepatic manifestations.
4. Presence of co-morbid conditions and related chronic drugadministration.
5. Previous antiviral treatment with interferon or direct anti-
viral agents.6. HCV genotyping only prior to prescribing the Viekera
family.
Stage of liver disease
II. We recommend that patients indicated for the treatment
due to their liver condition be treated according to standard
indications [9], implemented by the Egyptian NationalHCV Control Program, based on fibrosis stage (determinedby Fib4 calculation and fibroscans when available) and
compensation of hepatocellular function (according toChild-Pugh criteria and the Model for End-stage LiverDisease (MELD)) scores.
Glomerular filtration rate
III. We recommend estimating the glomerular filtration rate
(eGFR) by the Modified Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD)
formula-4 [10] or Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Col-laboration (CKD-EPI) [11] for appropriate choice and dosingof DAA combinations.
Nature of chronic kidney disease
IV. We recommend treatment of all HCV-infected patients with
any of the following conditions even in the absence of a com-
pelling liver indication or cryoglobulinemia:
(a) Kidney transplant recipients [AASLD-IDSA-I, LB].
(b) Patients on the waiting list for kidney transplantation[AASLD-IDSA-I, LB]; EASL-A1.
(c) Patients on regular dialysis [AASLD-IDSA-IIa, LC].
(d) Patents with mesangiocapillary (Membranoprolifera-tive) glomerulonephritis [AASLD-IDSA-IIa, LB].
(e) Patients with the nephrotic syndrome due to anyhistopathological type of glomerulonephritis [AASLD-
IDSA-IIa, LB].
V. We suggest treatment of patients with the following HCV-
related kidney disorders:
(a) Patients in CKD stages 3–5 (eGFR < 60 ml/
min/1.73 sqm), regardless of etiology [not graded)].(b) De-novo HCV infection persisting for over 12 weeks
in patients with any grade CKD. (KDIGO 2008[Weak]).
Extrahepatic manifestations
VI. We recommend DAA treatment for cryoglobulinemic
vasculitis with end-organ manifestations (joints, peripheralnerves, skin, kidneys, lungs, eyes, gut, brain, etc.)[AASLD-IDSA-I, LB], graded according to severity[opinion].
VII. We recommend DAA treatment for HCV-associated
Non-Hodgkin B-cell lymphoma [12] [opinion].VIII. We suggest DAA treatment for the following conditions
in the context of HCV infection, even in the absence of
cryoglobulinemia.
� Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (insulin resistant) [AASLD-IDSA-IIa, LB].
� Debilitating fatigue [AASLD-IDSA-IIa, LB].
� Porphyria cutanea tarda. [13] [AASLD-IDSA-IIb, LC].� Hodgkin’s lymphoma [14] and other lymphoproliferativedisorders [15] [not graded].
� Chronic arthritis of undetermined etiology [16] [not
graded].� Autoimmune thrombocytopenia [not graded] [17].� Oral [18] and cutaneous [19] Lichen planus [not graded].
� Low C4, positive rheumatoid factor, negative Anti-CCP,yet with negative cryoglobulins [20] [opinion].
Co-morbid conditions
IX. We suggest investigating all patients before prescribing
DAAs for the presence of co-infection with HBV, HIV, or other
co-morbid conditions that may require modifications inrecommended treatment protocols [Opinion] (see guidelineXIV).
Previous antiviral treatment
X. We recommend reviewing each patient’s history for previous
anti-HCV therapy with interferon, ribavirin or other DAAs
[EASL-A1], since this predicts viral non-structural proteinmutations and guides the selection of re-treatment protocols(see guideline XIII).
396 H. El-Fishawy et al.
Genotyping prior to treatment with Viekera family
XI. We recommend genotyping only prior to treatment with the
Viekera family owing to the protocol variance in the treatmentof either GT-4 or GT-1 infection (see later). These constitutethe only genotypes reported in Egypt in a proportion of 9:1
respectively [4]. Genotyping is not recommended in candidatesfor other protocols, which are equally effective in both
genotypes.
Section II. Treatment protocols
XII. We recommend individualization of the use of DAA proto-
cols for treatment-naive patients guided by the priorities shown
in Table 5
Selected protocols
Selected DAA combinations in this section are chronologicallyordered according to their availability in Egypt. Other DAAs,
even with better pharmacokinetics, FDA approval and inclu-sion in international guidelines, are omitted. Selected protocolsare identified by letters A–E. Numbers following the letters dif-ferentiate additional antiviral agents as follows: (1) no addi-
tions; (2) ribavirin in a weight-based fixed dose; (3) ribavirinin a reduced dose; and (4) interferon. The target non-structural viral protein, the market name and manufacturer
are provided following each drug. A suffixed asterisk indicatesmodification of a standard protocol. The common side effectsassociated with their use are appended to each protocol. Rec-
ommendations for their use in different clinical conditions areprovided in Table 5.
Protocol A: Sofosbuvir (NS5B-Sovaldi)-based protocols
A2: Sofosbuvir (400 mg) and weight-based RBV (1000 mg[<75 kg] to 1200 mg [>75 kg]) for 12 weeks [FDAapproved for GT-1] or 24 weeks [FDA approved for
GT-1 & GT-3], [Egyptian Ancestry Study in GT-4] [21].A4: Sofosbuvir (400 mg) and weight-based RBV (1000 mg
[<75 kg] to 1200 mg [>75 kg]) plus weekly PEG-IFNAlpha 2A (180 mcg subcutaneously) or PEG-IFN Alpha
2B (1.5 mcg/kg subcutaneously) for 12 weeks (NeutrinoStudy [22], FDA approved for GT-1 & GT-4].
Adverse reactions. Over one-third of patients using Sofosbuvirwill complain of headache, fatigue and nausea; and 10–20%will have insomnia, irritability, anemia, shortness of breath,
diarrhea, dermatitis and muscle aches. Some patients maydevelop transient increase in serum bilirubin and lipase, whichresolve spontaneously.
Protocol B: Ledipasvir (NS5A)/sofosbuvir (NS5B) [Harvoni]-based protocols
B1: Fixed-dose combination of ledipasvir (90 mg)/sofosbuvir
(400 mg) for 12 weeks in GT-1 (ION studies [23–25]), orGT-4 or GT-5 (GS-US-337-1119, O056 trial [26]); FDAapproved for 12-week treatment in GT-1 without cirrhosis,
or treatment-naıve patients with cirrhosis; or for 24 weeksGT-1 in treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis];NAID SYNERGY study for 12 weeks in GT-4 [27].
B2: Fixed-dose combination of ledipasvir (90 mg)/sofosbuvir
(400 mg) plus weight-based Ribavirin (1000 mg [<75 kg]
to 1200 mg [>75 kg]) for 12 weeks in GT-1 (ION studies[23–25]), and GT-4 (SOLAR studies [28,29]).
Adverse reactions. Since Ledipasvir is invariably used withSofosbuvir, it is not possible to figure out the former’s inde-pendent side effects. However, the reported frequency and
severity of adverse reactions with this protocol are much lessthan with Protocol A combinations. They include headacheand fatigue in 15%, nausea in 8% and diarrhea in 5% of
patients. Transient elevation of serum lipase and bilirubinhas also been reported.
Protocol C: Simeprevir (NS3-Olysio) + sofosbuvir (NS5B)-
based protocols
C1: Simeprevir (150 mg) plus sofosbuvir (400 mg) for12 weeks. (FDA approved for GT-1 without
(OPTIMIST-1) [30] or with (OPTIMIST-2) [31]cirrhosis].
C1*: Simeprevir (150 mg) plus half-dose sofosbuvir (200 mg)for 12 weeks (in GT-1 infection with renal insufficiency
[32]).C2: Simeprevir (150 mg) plus sofosbuvir (400 mg) plus
weight-based RBV (1000 mg [<75 kg] to 1200 mg
[>75 kg]) for 12 weeks in GT-1 (COSMOS Study [33]).C4: Simeprevir (150 mg) plus weight-based RBV (1000 mg
[<75 kg] to 1200 mg [>75 kg]) plus peg-interferon for
12 weeks (FDA approved for GT-1).
Adverse reactions. Much of the side effects of this protocol are
attributed to Sofosbuvir rather than Simeprevir. Fatigue,headache and nausea occur in 20–25% of patients, insomnia,diarrhea and muscle pains in about 15%, and dyspnea andpruritus in 10%. Transient hyperbilirubinemia has been
reported in a minority.
Protocol D: Daclatasvir (NS5A-Daklinza, Clatazev)-based
protocols
D1: Daclatasvir (60 mg) plus sofosbuvir (400 mg) for 12 weeks[Study AI444040 for GT-1,2,3; FDA-approved for GT-3][34].
D2: Daclatasvir (60 mg) plus sofosbuvir (400 mg) plus weight-based RBV for 12 weeks [European Multicenter Compas-sionate Use Program [35] for Genotypes 1,2,3,4].
D3: Daclatasvir (60 mg) plus sofosbuvir (400 mg) plus fixeddose RBV (600 mg) for 12 weeks (ALLY-I trial [36]).
D4: Daclatasvir (60 mg) plus weight-based RBV plus Inter-
feron for 24 weeks [COMMAND-4 Study in GT-4 [37]).
Adverse reactions. Daclatasvir is well tolerated, even in combi-nation with Sofosbuvir. Fatigue and headache occur in less
than 15%, and nausea and diarrhea in less than 10% of cases.Transient increase in serum lipase has been reported.
Protocol E: Paritaprevir (NS3)/ritonavir (CYP450 inhibitor)+ ombitasvir (NS5A)-based protocols
E1: Paritaprevir (NS3)/ritonavir (CY450), ombitasvir (NS5A)(AbbVie 2D, Viekerax, Technivie, Qurevo)] (PEARL-1
study [38], FDA approved for GT-4 with cirrhosis).E1*: Paritaprevir (NS3)/ritonavir (CY450), ombitasvir
(NS5A) and dasabuvir (NS5B-Exviera) (AbbVie 3D,
Viekera Pack) (FDA approved for GT-1).
Table 5 Selected DAA treatment protocols for HCV-extrahepatic manifestations. Refer to text for protocol codes and citations of
RCTs and guideline recommendations. eGFR = estimated glomerular filtration rate; RBV = Ribavirin; CyA = Cyclosporin-A;
TAC= Tacrolimus; SIR = Sirolimus; EVE = Everolimus.
eGFR [1]
>30ml/min/1.73sqm <30ml/min/1.73sqm
Na�ve Kidneys Transplanted
On Conserva�ve Rx or Dialysis Transplanted
No Cirrhosis
Compensated Cirrhosis [2]
Decompensated Cirrhosis [3]
No Cirrhosis
Compensated Cirrhosis [2]
Decompensated Cirrhosis [3]
Selected Protocol E2:Paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) and ombitasvir (25mg) (Querevo)*+ Ribavirin
B2: Ledipasvir 90mg+ Sofosbuvir 400mg (Harvoni)+ Ribavirin
E2: Paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) and ombitasvir (25mg) (Querevo*)+ Ribavirin
D3: Daclatasvir 60mg (Daklinza)+ Sofodbuvir (Sovaldi) 400mg + Ribavirin
D3: Daclatasvir (Daklinza) 60mg + Sofodbuvir(Sovaldi) 400mg + Ribavirin
Basis of recommenda�on
PEARL-I (GT-4); AASLD-I-LB
SOLAR-2 (GT-4); AASLD-I-LB; EASL A1
RUBY-I (GT-1); AASLD-Iib-LB; EASL A1
ALLY-1 (GT-I) ; AASLD-I-LB; EASL A1
ALLY-1 (GT-I) ; AASLD-I-LB; EASL A1
Alterna�ve Protocol 1
B2: Ledipasvir90mg+ Sofosbuvir 400mg (Harvoni)+ Ribavirin
D3:Daclatasvir (Daklinza)60mg+ Sofodbuvir (Sovaldi)400mg + Ribavirin
C1*: Simeprevir (Olysio)150mg+ Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) 200mg without Ribavirin
E2: Paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg) and ombitasvir (25mg) (Querevo)* + Ribavirin
Basis of recommenda�on
SYNERGY (GT-4); ION-
1 (GT-1); AASLD IIb-
LB
ALLY-1 (GT-1); AASLD-I-
LB;EASL A1 Ram et al (Ref 32) CORAL-1 (GT-1); AASLD-I-LB
Alterna�ve Protocol 2
C2: Simeprevir (Olysio)150mg+ Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) 400mg + Ribavirin in the presence of cirrhosis
Basis of recommenda�on
COSMOS (GT1); EASL B2
EASL B2
Ribavirin dose [4]
Protocols B,C,E 2: Body weight-based 1000 mg [<75 kg] or 1200 mg [>75 kg] daily; Protocol D3: Daily fixed dose 600mg
200 mg daily to be reduced if not tolerated to 200mg 3 �mes weekly. If on dialysis, 200mg 4
hours before dialysis 3 �mes weekly
200 mg daily to be reduced if not tolerated to 200mg 3 �mes weekly. If on dialysis, 200mg 4
hours before dialysis 3 �mes weekly
Treatment dura�on with RBV
12 weeks 12 weeks 12 weeks
Treatment dura�on without RBV
12 weeks OR 24 weeks in the presence of cirrhosis
24 weeks 12 weeks
24 weeks 12 weeks 24 weeks
Remarks
(*) For GT-4 only. Add Dasabuvir 250mg b.i.d. for GT-1
Modify doses of CyA, TAC, SIR, EVE according to desired blood levels
(*) For GT-4 only. Add Dasabuvir 250mg b.i.d. for GT-1
Reduce doses of CyA, TAC, SIR, EVE accordingto desired blood levels
Use cau�onwith Protocol
E [5]
AvoidProtocol E
Use cau�onwith Protocol E [5]
AvoidProtocol E
1 Estimated by MDRD(4) equation.2 >F3 by Fibroscan or equivalent chemical model.3 Child Pugh score Class B-7 or higher.4 Withdraw if not tolerated or hemoglobin level drops by 2 g/dl despite Erythropoietin treatment.5 Use only by a transplant expert.
Antiviral treatment prioritization in HCV-infected patients 397
398 H. El-Fishawy et al.
E2: Fixed-dose combination of paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir(100 mg) and ombitasvir (25 mg) (Viekerax, Technivie,Qurevo) and weight-based ribavirin (1000 mg [<75 kg]
to 1200 mg [>75 kg]) for 12 weeks (PEARL-1 Study[38], FDA approved for GT-4 without cirrhosis or hepato-cellular failure).
E2*: Fixed-dose combination of paritaprevir (NS3)/ritonavir(CY450), ombitasvir (NS5A) and dasabuvir (NS5B-Exviera) (AbbVie 3D, Viekera Pack) and weight-based
Ribavirin (1000 mg [<75 kg] to 1200 mg [>75 kg]) for12 weeks (CORAL-I trial post-transplant [39]).
E3*: Fixed-dose combination of paritaprevir (NS3)/ritonavir(CY450), ombitasvir (NS5A) and dasabuvir (NS5B-
Exviera) (AbbVie 3D, Viekera Pack) and ribavirin inadjusted doses for renal insufficiency (RUBY-I trial inGT-1 [40]).
Adverse reactions. This protocol is well tolerated. One-third ofpatients complain of fatigue, up to asthenia in half of them.
Less common side effects include skin reactions, myalgias,nausea and insomnia. Hyperbilirubinemia with >5 fold-elevation of hepatic transaminases occurs in 1% of cases, yet
up to 25% in women receiving estrogen therapy. While thisis usually transient, progression to severe hepatic failure hasbeen reported in patients with advanced cirrhosis, which war-ranted a relevant FDA warning.
Ribavirin adverse reactions. Since many protocols includeRibavirin, its significant side effects may be superadded to
those of the individual protocols. Ribavirin administration,by its own right, is associated with fatigue in about two-thirds of cases, headache in one half and insomnia, irritability,
fever, nausea and dermatitis in one-third. Less common sideeffects include arthralgias and myalgias, dizziness, diarrheaand shortness of breath. Owing to its retention in patients with
impaired kidney function, many of these side effects are aug-mented, in addition to the development of Coombs negativehemolytic anemia that can be very severe in CKD StagesIV–V.
Re-treatment protocols
XIII. We recommend re-treatment of patients that do not
achieve a SVR or recur after treatment. The choice of re-treatment protocol depends on the failed initial protocol asfollows:
� Those with failed Interferon + Ribavirin protocol shouldbe treated according to the same recommendations fortreatment-naıve patients (AASDL-IIa, L-B; EASL-A1).
� Patients with failed second-wave DAAs and that have nourgent indication for retreatment, may wait until more reli-able data are obtained by randomized clinical trials (EASL-
A1).� Those who are indicated for treatment may use a differentprotocol that includes ribavirin, for 12 weeks. This may
be extended to 24 weeks if the liver pathology is moreadvanced (F4) or the platelet count persists below 75,000/cmm, which is a predictor of poor response (EASL-B1).
The following successful re-treatment protocols have beenreported in small clinical trials:
� Protocol C2 for failure with any of Protocols B or D.
� Protocol B2 or D2 for failure with any Protocol C.� Protocol B2, C2 or D2 for failure with any Protocol E.
Viral co-infection
XIV. Patients with viral co-infection should be granted high
priority for treatment, regardless of the stage of liver disease,
owing to the rapidly progressive organ damage and potentialof infectivity to the community [AASLD-IDSA-I, LB].
HBV co-infection
Patients should be treated with the same protocols as HCVmono-infected patients (Protocol-B1) [AASLD-IDSA-IIa-LC]. If HBV replicates at a significant rate, concurrent HBV
nucleoside/nucleotide analogue therapy is indicated [41](Protocol-B1) (EASL-2015).
HIV co-infection
Patients co-infected with HCV and HIV have higher HCV-RNA levels, higher rate of HCV persistence and faster progres-sion to cirrhosis and end stage liver disease. The same IFN-free
HCV treatment recommendations for HIV/HCV co-infectedpersons as for those with HCV-only infection, as the virologi-cal results of therapy are identical [42]. However diligence is
due for potential drug–drug interactions with HIV medications(EASL-A1) and (I-B, AASLD-IDSA-2015).
Drug–drug interactions
XV. We suggest using an automated drug compatibility checker
for identifying potential drug–drug interactions in between theselected DAA protocol and contemporary medications for co-
morbid conditions [Opinion].Historically, the interaction in between sofosbuvir and
amiodarone was the earliest life threatening complication, hall-
marked by bradycardia and cardiac arrest. Interaction wassubsequently reported in between DAAs and amlodipine, betablockers, psychoactive drugs, proton pump inhibitors,
substrates or for Cytochrome P450 and P-glycoprotein andmany others [43]. Adverse reactions to other drugs areupdated, by law, in different online databases as well as
drug inserts. As mentioned earlier, we recommend checkingfor such interactions through an automated resource, in orderto keep pace with the rapid expansion of information in thisarea.
Discussion
Extrahepatic manifestations of HCV infection constitute a
broad spectrum of multisystem involvement due to a combina-tion of cytotoxic and immunologically-mediated injury. Thelatter may be propagated by autoimmune mechanisms, which
may not be cured by merely eradicating the infection. We havelimited our prioritization to conditions that have proved byevidence to respond to HCV treatment. This does not deny
potential benefit in many other extrahepatic manifestations,whether the infection is causal or associated, yet they need evi-dence to claim priority.
Antiviral treatment prioritization in HCV-infected patients 399
Owing to the complexity of extrahepatic manifestations,and the frequency of associated renal damage, we opted toprovide multiple choices for different clinical settings (Table 5),
which provides room for enlightened individualization oftreatment on case-to-case basis.
Liver disease
Many clinical trials have shaped the preferred protocolsaccording to three levels of structural and functional liver
damage, namely chronic liver disease without cirrhosis, thatwith cirrhosis, and decompensated cirrhosis. All protocolsincluded in our recommendations achieve a SVR12 over
90% following 12-week treatment in patients without cirrhosis.While most protocols include ribavirin, they can still be usedwithout it for a price of slightly reduced SVR12 and higherpossibility of recurrence.
The presence of cirrhosis calls for obligatory inclusion ofribavirin to improve efficacy of the 12-week protocols andreduce the chance of NS protein mutation. Treatment may
be extended to 24 weeks if the parameters of response areunsatisfactory. Fortunately some ribavirin-free protocols arestill effective when used for 24 weeks in ribavirin-intolerant
patients (Table 5).Decompensated cirrhosis constitutes a significant challenge,
since most patients are ribavirin-intolerant, and many wouldfurther decompensate with the initiation of treatment. Of our
selected protocols, daclatasvir offers a significant step forwardwhen combined with sofosbuvir even without ribavirin (Proto-col D – Table 5). By way of contrast, Protocol E is contraindi-
cated owing to the risk of hepatic failure or death, according toa recent FDA warning.
Kidney disease
Since most DAAs are metabolized by the Cytochrome P450 inthe liver and intestinal wall, the kidney has a minimal role in
their excretion, ranging from 1% to 13%. So, even moderatedegrees of renal insufficiency do not require modification ofprotocol priorities or drug doses. This is in sharp contrast toolder treatment protocols including interferon and ribavirin.
Both are mainly metabolized in the kidneys, which are respon-sible for elimination of 90% [44] and 61% [45] respectively ofadministered single doses, hence the need for caution if the
eGFR is less than 50% of normal.Severe impairment of kidney function, defined as
eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm (CKD stages IV and V) consti-
tutes a barrier to using Interferon or ribavirin, as well as a sig-nificant constraint to using several DAAs, which tend to buildup significantly high blood levels along the course of treat-
ment. Sofosbuvir-containing regimens were reported in theHCV-TARGET study [8] to impair kidney function in 5 of17 (29%) patients with eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm and 6of 56 (11%) of those with eGFR 30–45 ml/min/1.73 sqm.
The manufacturer of Harvoni (Protocol B) explicitly doesnot recommend using it with severe renal impairment due tolack of data [46]. Despite favorable pharmacokinetics, there
are no RCTs on daclatasvir in this subset of patients. On theother hand, the sofosbuvir-free protocol E, with or without asmall dose of ribavirin, has been FDA approved for patients
with severe renal impairment, on the basis of the RUBY-1
trial. Although the latter included only patients with GT-1infection, it proves the concept of safety with very low eGFR.The earlier proof of efficacy in GT-4, provided in the PEARL-
1 trial makes Protocol E most appropriate for Egyptianpatients with eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm. It is importantto note the genotype constraint on using this protocol, where
dasabuvir is included only for GT-1. This imposes the necessityof genotyping prior to embarking on a Viekera familyprotocol.
While the drug pharmacokinetics in severe renal impair-ment apply to those on regular dialysis, the latter adds con-founding factors including drug dialyzability and unstableinternal environment. Dialyzability is the complex outcome
of the drug’s molecular size, configuration and charge, andthe extent of its protein binding. Differences in these factorsin between DAAs make it difficult to predict the pharmacoki-
netic skewing imposed by dialysis, which reflects on efficacy aswell as safety. Unfortunately very few pharmacokinetic studiesand even fewer clinical observations have been made in the
dialysis population. Yet, on the basis of available data, themost appropriate for hemodialysis patients seems to be Proto-col E, achieving 100% SVR12 in the RUBY-1 trial. Slightly
inferior results (10/13) have been reported in a small numberof patients receiving full dose simeprevir with either daily halfdose or alternate day full dose sofosbuvir (Protocol C1*) [32].
Kidney transplant recipients
The pharmacokinetics of antiviral agents in kidney transplantrecipients are influenced by two factors: graft function and
drug–drug interactions.The impact of graft function is the same as that of native
kidneys. So, recipients in stages I–III CKD can be treated
according to the general recommendations, with due consider-ation only to drug–drug interactions. In those with moreadvanced graft dysfunction, the recommendations for severe
renal impairment apply.Drug–drug interactions impose a lot of noise in choosing
protocols for transplant recipients. Since four of the mainimmunosuppressive drugs used in transplantation, namely
cyclosporine, tacrolimus, sirolimus and everolimus are metab-olized by Cytochrome P450 (CYP450), as most DAAs do, sub-strate competition is expected to play a significant role in the
metabolism of both. There is considerable variation in thistype of interaction. For example, the interaction in betweenCyclosporine and simeprevir is so clinically relevant that it is
recommended to avoid this combination all together (EASL-B1). On the other hand, simeprevir may be used concomitantlywith Tacrolimus or Sirolimus, yet with frequent monitoring oftheir blood levels. No dose adjustment is required for tacroli-
mus or cyclosporine with Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, ledipasviror daclatasvir (EASL-A2).
The CYP450 interaction becomes even more relevant when
the enzyme is inhibited, leading to accumulation of bothimmunosuppressive and antiviral drugs. The list of CYP450inhibitors is immense, which constitutes the main challenge
in the selection of treatment protocol, as well as in monitoringtherapy. Of particular importance is ritonavir, included in Eprotocols with the specific objective of protecting paritaprevir
by inhibiting CYP450. By essence of this effect, Protocol Edrugs are bound to augment the blood levels of the mentioned
400 H. El-Fishawy et al.
immunosuppressive agents, which requires avoiding the use ofmTOR inhibitors all-together, dramatic dose reduction ofTacrolimus to 0.5 mg weekly and Cyclosporine to one-fifth
its dose before initiating HCV treatment (EASL-A2).Clinical data obtained from liver transplants have shown
excellent results with B and D protocols, hence their
prioritization in this guideline. No dose adjustment is requiredfor tacrolimus or cyclosporine with either protocol (EASL-A2).
While pre-transplant HCV eradication was highly desirablein the interferon era, owing to the risk of graft loss if the dugwas administered after transplantation, this policy becamequestionable with the availability of safe DAAs. This provides
considerable relief if transplantation becomes an urgent neces-sity, including that from deceased donors. However, when itcan wait, we strongly recommend treating patients on the wait-
ing list to avoid the HCV-associated many-fold increased riskof thrombotic microangiopathy and acute transplant glomeru-lopathy in the early post-transplant period. Since pre-
transplant patients are essentially in severe renal failure, oftenalready on dialysis, respective recommendations in protocolselection and drug doses apply.
Non-renal extrahepatic manifestations
There is no evidence that any of the currently available DAAsis preferred specifically for the treatment of extrahepatic man-
ifestations of HCV infection. The choice of a treatment proto-col should follow the same recommendations based on thestages of liver and kidney disease. However, the integration
of antiviral treatment within the overall management strategyin individual conditions warrants due consideration in themanagement of cryoglobulinemia.
Cryoglobulinemia
Circulating cryoglobulins are frequently detected in patientswith chronic HCV infection, but the clinical syndrome of
Cryoglobulinemic Vasculitis as defined in the AASLD Classi-fication [20] occurs only in 1–2.5% [47] of patients. It is thissubgroup that requires treatment before receiving DAAs.
Patients with asymptomatic cryoglobulinemia, and those withmild manifestations as arthralgia, fatigue or purpuric skineruptions (Meltzer triad) may be treated according to the gen-eral recommendations as described above.
Patients with minor intermittent inflammatory signs, suchas arthritis, without major organ involvement rapidly respondto low-dose steroids, without undue delay in starting antiviral
treatment. It is noteworthy that HCV-associated peripheralarthritis can also occur without cryoglobulinemia. Whileresponse of this form to interferon-based treatment is conflict-
ing [48], the effect of virological cure by DAAs has not beenspecifically addressed in any randomized trials.
On the other hand, in those with significant organ involve-
ment as the heart, brain or kidneys, induction treatment isindicated with intravenous pulses of methyl prednisolone(10–15 mg/kg/dose for 3–5 consecutive days) followed by IVCyclophosphamide (10 mg/kg). Maintenance immunosuppres-
sion is required following successful induction [49].Alternatively, Rituximab may be used to eliminate the
active B-lymphocyte clone producing the cryoglobulins. We
recommend a weekly dose of 375 mg/m2 for four doses. The
same monoclonal antibody may be used for maintenance ofremission in a fixed dose of 200–500 mg every 6–9 months [50].
Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) may be needed to
induce remission in patients with more fulminant or catas-trophic cryoglobulinemic vasculitis [51]. Double-filtrationplasmapheresis is preferable, where available, for the selective
removal of pathogenic immunoglobulins while preservingother, essential components [52]. Maintenance immunosup-pression remains essential following this induction course.
Antiviral treatment may be initiated upon induction of ini-tial remission of the manifestations of cryoglobulinemic vas-culitis. Interferon is not preferable since it may exacerbatedisease activity, and the virological response rate is modest
[53]. DAAs may be used according to the general recommen-dations based on liver and kidney staging. Unfortunately,there are no published data on the outcome of such treatment
in cryoglobulinemia. An Egyptian study is underway to answerthis question in GT-4, including SVR-12 in the face ofimmunosuppressive therapy and the potential of recurrence
of cryoglobulinemia (Egyptian STDF, protocol 15083).
Malignant lymphomas
There is convincing evidence that chronic HCV infection is
causally related to B-Cell Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Severalreports have shown regression of the lymphoma upon success-ful viral elimination, which justifies our recommendation to
prioritize treatment of this condition despite the lack of RCTs.We also suggest treatment of other lymphomas on the basisstatistical evidence of their reduced incidence after interferon
treatment [15] or case reports of clinical regression [14].
Other extrahepatic manifestations
Despite the evidence of a causal role of HCV in the pathogen-
esis of other extrahepatic manifestations (as outlined in Section ‘Indications for treatment’ above), there is no hard evidenceof their regression following HCV elimination. Accordingly,the strength of treatment recommendation in these conditions
remains meager, stopping short at the level of ‘‘suggestion”whether in this set of guidelines, or in other internationalguidelines as the EASL or AASLD.
Conclusions
Recognizing the clinical and epidemiological impact of extra-
hepatic manifestations of HCV infection, independently fromthe extent of liver injury, we identified 7 compelling and 10indications for antiviral treatment. The former include HCV-
associated and certain other glomerulopathies, dialysis andpre- and post-renal transplantation, cryoglobulinemic vasculi-tis and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. We reviewed different
treatment protocols based on the available DAAs in Egypt,encoded and prioritized their use according to specific criteriato optimize their benefit. We concluded that any of the men-tioned protocols can be effectively and safely used for 12-
week treatment in all patients with extrahepatic manifestationswithout cirrhosis and with eGFR above 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm.Ledipasvir–Sofosbuvir or Simeprevir–sofosbuvir protocols
are readily available in the country and lead to impressivelyhigh SVR12. Patients with compensated cirrhosis usuallyrespond to a ribavirin-containing protocol, and yet they may
need to extend the duration of treatment to 24 weeks.
Antiviral treatment prioritization in HCV-infected patients 401
Daclatasvir-based protocols are recommended for those withdecompensated cirrhosis, while the paritaprevir/ritonavir+ ombitasvir ± Dasabuvir protocol (Viekera family) is con-
traindicated. The choices are much more limited in patientswith eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm, including those on dialy-sis, where the Viekera family protocols are currently the most
suitable. In transplanted patents, caution is due to avoidanceof the pharmacokinetic interaction with the Cytochrome-P450 enzyme system, in-between immunosuppressive agents
and most DAAs, particularly the Viekera family. Factors thatmodify the choice of DAAs include previous treatment failure,co-infection with other viruses, and the concomitant adminis-tration of other medications for comorbid conditions. Patients
with significant immune-mediated injury as cryoglobulinemicvasculitis may need concomitant treatment with immunosup-pressive agents.
Funding
The authors have volunteered to produce this set of recom-
mendations. The office work was offered for free by the lastauthor. No additional funding was needed.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
Compliance with Ethics Requirements
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal
subjects.
References
[1] van der Meer AJ, Veldt BJ, Feld JJ, Wedemeyer H, Dufour JF,
Lammert F, et al. Association between sustained virological
response and all-cause mortality among patients with chronic
hepatitis C and advanced hepatic fibrosis. JAMA 2012;308
(24):2584–93.
[2] Cuadros DF, Branscum AJ, Miller FD, Abu-Raddad LJ.
Spatial epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection in Egypt:
analyses and implications. Hepatology 2014;60:1150–9.
[3] Gower E, Estes C, Blach S, Razavi-Shearer K, Razavi HGJ.
Global epidemiology and genotype distribution of the hepatitis
C virus infection. J Hepatol 2014;61(1 Suppl.):S45–57.
[4] Kamal SM, Nasser IA. Hepatitis C Genotype 4: what we know
and what we don’t yet know. Hepatology 2008;47:1371–83.
[5] AASLD/IDSA HCV Guidance Panel. Hepatitis C guidance:
AASLD-IDSA recommendations for testing, managing, and
treating adults infected with hepatitis C virus. Hepatology
2015;62:932–54.
[6] European Association for the Study of the Liver. (EASL)
recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C 2015. J Hepatol
2015;63(1):199–236.
[7] KDIGO. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention,
diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C in chronic
kidney disease. Kidney Int 2008(Suppl. 109):S1–S99.
[8] Hepatitis C therapeutic registry and research network (HCV-
TARGET). <http://www.hcvtarget.org/> [accessed 15th Sep
2015].
[9] Øvrehus ALH, Blach S, Christensen PB, Gerstoft J, Weis N,
Krarup H, et al. P0714: impact of prioritizing treatment in a
high resource setting-minimizing the burden of HCV related
disease in 15 years. J Hepatol 2015;62:S591–2.
[10] Fadem SZ. MDRD GFR calculator. <http://nephron.org/
mdrd_gfr_si> [accessed 10th Feb 2016].
[11] (No authors listed). eGFR using CKD-EPI. <https://
qxmd.com/calculate/egfr-using-ckd-epi> [accessed 10th Feb
2016].
[12] Arcaini L, Vallisa D, Rattotti S, et al. Antiviral treatment in
patients with indolent B-cell lymphomas associated with HCV
infection: a study of the Fondazione Italiana Linfomi. Ann
Oncol 2014;25(7):1404–10.
[13] Gisbert JP, Garcıa-Buey L, Pajares JM, Moreno-Otero R.
Prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection in porphyria
cutaneatarda: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Hepatol
2003;39(4):620.
[14] Takahashi K, Nishida N, Kawabata H, Haga H, Chiba T.
Regression of Hodgkin lymphoma in response to antiviral
therapy for hepatitis C virus infection. Intern Med 2012;51
(19):2745–7.
[15] Kawamura Y, Ikeda K, Arase Y, Yatsuji H, Sezaki H, Hosaka
T, et al. Viral elimination reduces incidence of malignant
lymphoma in patients with hepatitis C. Am J Med 2007;120
(12):1034–41.
[16] Sayiner ZA, Haque U, Malik MU, Gurakar A. Hepatitis C virus
infection and its rheumatologic implications. Gastroenterol
Hepatol (NY) 2014;10(5):287–93.
[17] Chiao EY, Engels EA, Kramer JR, Pietz K, Henderson L,
Giordano TP, Landgren O. Risk of immune thrombocytopenic
purpura and autoimmune hemolytic anemia among 120 908 US
veterans with hepatitis C virus infection. Arch Intern Med
2009;169(4):357–63.
[18] Carrozzo M, Scally K. Oral manifestations of hepatitis C virus
infection. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:7534–43.
[19] Baccaglini L, Thongprasom K, Carrozzo M, Bigby M. Urban
legends series: lichen planus. Oral Dis 2013;19:128–43.
[20] Quartuccio L, Isola M, Corazza L, Ramos-Casals M, Retamozo
S, Ragab GM, et al. Validation of the AASLD-classification
criteria for cryoglobulinaemic vasculitis. Rheumatology
(Oxford) 2014;53(12):2209–13.
[21] Doss W, Shiha G, Hassany M, Soliman R, Fouad R, Khairy M,
et al. Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for treating Egyptian patients
with hepatitis C genotype 4. J Hepatol 2015;63(3):581–5.
[22] Lawitz E, Mangia A, Wyles D, Rodriguez-Torres M,
Hassanein T, Gordon SC, et al. Sofosbuvir for previously
untreated chronic hepatitis C infection. N Engl J Med
2013;368:1878–87.
[23] Afdhal N, Zeuzem S, Kwo P, Chojkier M, Gitlin N, Puoti M,
et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for untreated HCV genotype 1
infection. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1889–98.
[24] Afdhal N, Reddy KR, Nelson DR, Lawitz E, Gordon SC, Schiff
E, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for previously treated HCV
genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1483–93.
[25] Kowdley KV, Gordon SC, Reddy KR, Rossaro L, Bernstein
DE, Lawitz E, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 8 or 12 weeks
for chronic HCV without cirrhosis. N Engl J Med
2014;370:1879–88.
[26] Abergel A, Loustaud-Ratti V, Metivier S, Jiang D, Kersey K,
Knox SJ, et al. High SVR12 in ledipasvir/sofosbuvir treatment
in patients with chronic genotype 4 and 5 HCV infection. J
Hepatol 2015;S2:S219–20.
[27] Kohli A, Kapoor R, Sims Z, Nelson A, Sidharthan S, Lam B,
et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for hepatitis C genotype 4: a
proof of concept phase 2a cohort study (NIAID SYNERGY
(Genotype 4). Lancet Infect Dis 2015;15(9):1049–54.
[28] Charlton M, Everson GT, Flamm SL, Kumar P, Landis C,
Brown Jr RS, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for
treatment of HCV infection in patients with advanced liver
disease. Gastroenterology 2015;149:649–59.
402 H. El-Fishawy et al.
[29] Manns M, Forns X, Samuel D, Denning J, Arterburn S, Brandt-
Sarif T, et al. G02: ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with ribavirin is safe
and efficacious in decompensated and post liver transplantation
patients with HCV infection: preliminary results of the
prospective solar 2 trial. J Hepatol 2015;62:S187–8.
[30] Kwo P, Gitlin N, Nahass R, Bernstein D, Rojter S, Schiff E,
et al. A phase 3, randomised, open-label study to evaluate the
efficacy and safety of 12 and 8 weeks of simeprevir (SMV) plus
sofosbuvir (SOF) in treatment-naıve and-experienced patients
with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection without cirrhosis:
OPTIMIST-1. J Hepatol 2015;62(Suppl. 2):S270.
[31] Lawitz E, Matusow G, DeJesus E, Yoshida E, Felizarta F,
Ghalib R, et al. LP04: a phase 3, open-label, single-arm study to
evaluate the efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of simeprevir (SMV)
plus sofosbuvir (SOF) in treatment-naıve or-experienced
patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection and cirrhosis:
Optimist-2. J Hepatol 2015;62:S264–5, 39.
[32] Ram BK, Frank C, Adam P, Cynthia L, Maria H, Lennox J,
David R, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of half-dose sofosbuvir
plus simeprevir in management of hepatitis C in patients with
end-stage renal disease. J Hepatol 2015;63:763–73.
[33] Lawitz E, Sulkowski MS, Ghalib R, Rodriguez-Torres M,
Younossi ZM, Corregidor A, et al. Simeprevir plus sofosbuvir,
with or without ribavirin, to treat chronic infection with
hepatitis C virus genotype 1 in non-responders to pegylated
interferon and ribavirin and treatment-naive patients: the
COSMOS randomized study. Lancet 2014;384(9956):1756–65.
[34] Sulkowski MS, Gardiner DF, Rodriguez-Torres M, Reddy KR,
Hassanein T, Jacobson I, et al. (AI444040 Study Group).
Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir for previously treated or untreated
chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2014;370(3):211–21.
[35] Welzel TM, Herzer K, Ferenci P, Petersen J, Gschwantler M,
Cornberg M, et al. Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir with or without
ribavirin for the treatment of HCV in patients with severe liver
disease: interim results of a multicenter compassionate use
program. J Hepatol 2015;62:S619–20.
[36] Poordad F, Schiff ER, Vierling JM, Landis C, Fontana RJ,
Yang R, et al. Daclatasvir, sofosbuvir, and ribavirin
combination for HCV patients with advanced cirrhosis or
posttransplant recurrence: phase 3 ALLY-1 study. J Hepatol
2015;62(Suppl. 2):S261–2.
[37] Hezode C, Alric L, Brown A, Hassanein M, Rizzetto M, Buti M,
et al. Randomized controlled trial of the NS5A inhibitor
daclatasvir plus peginterferon and ribavirin for HCV
genotype-4 (COMMAND-4). Antivir Ther 2015.
[38] Pol S, Reddy KR, Baykal T, Hezode C, Hassanein T, Marcellin
P, et al. Interferon-free regimens of ombitasvir and ABT-450/r
with or without ribavirin in patients with HCV genotype 4
infection: PEARL-I study results. Hepatology 2014;60:1129A.
[39] Kwo PY, Mantry PS, Coakley E, Te HS, Vargas HE, Brown Jr
R, et al. An interferon-free antiviral regimen for HCV after liver
transplantation. N Engl J Med 2014;371(25):2375–82.
[40] Pockros PJ, Reddy KR, Mantry PS, Cohen E, Bennett M,
Sulkowski MS, et al. Safety of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir
plus dasabuvir for treating HCV GT-1 infection in patients with
severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease: the RUBY-1
study. In: 50th Annual meeting of the European association for
the study of the liver (EASL), Vienna, Austriam, vol. S257;
2015. p. 22–6.
[41] Potthoff A, Berg T, Wedemeyer H. Late hepatitis B virus relapse
in patients co-infected with hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C
virus after antiviral treatment with pegylated interferon-a2b and
ribavirin. Scand J Gastroenterol 2009;44:1487–90.
[42] Molina JM, Orkin C, Iser DM, Zamora FX, Nelson M, Stephan
C, et al. Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for treatment of hepatitis C
virus in patients co-infected with HIV (PHOTON-2): a
multicentre, open-label, non-randomised, phase 3 study.
Lancet 2015;385:1098–106.
[43] Kiser JJ, Burton Jr JR, Everson GT. Drug–drug interactions
during antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C. Nat Rev
Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;10(10):596–606.
[44] Scott GM. Interferon: pharmacokinetics and toxicity. Philos
Trans Roy Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1982;299(1094):91–107.
[45] University of Liverpool: Ribavirin PK fact sheet. <http://
www.hivdruginteractions.org/data/FactSheetImages/FactSheet_
DrugID_112.pdf> [last accessed 16th October 2015].
[46] Full prescribing information for HARVONI. FDA-approved
patient labeling issued: 2015. Reference ID: 3642283. U.S.
<www.gilead.com>; 2015[Last reviewed on RxList: 4/7/2015].
[47] Mangia A, Clemente R, Musto P, Cascavilla I, La Floresta P,
Sanpaolo G, et al. Hepatitis C virus infection and monoclonal
gammopathies not associated with cryoglobulinemia. Leukemia
1996;10:1209–13.
[48] Khattab MA, Eslam M, Alavian SM. Hepatitis C virus as a
multifaceted disease: a simple and updated approach for
extrahepatic manifestations of hepatitis C virus infection.
Hepatitis Mon 2010;10(4):258–69.
[49] Shahin AA, El-Desouky SM, Zayed HS. A retrospective
analysis of treatment outcomes in patients with hepatitis C
related systemic vasculitis receiving intravenous
methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide. Clin Rheumatol
2011;30:607–14.
[50] Sansonno D, Dammacco F. Hepatitis C virus,
cryoglobulinaemia, and vasculitis: immune complex relations.
Lancet Infect Dis 2005;5:227–36.
[51] Cacoub P, Terrier B, Saadoun D. Hepatitis C virus-induced
vasculitis: therapeutic options. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:24–30.
[52] Ramunni A, Brescia P. Double filtration plasmapheresis: an
effective treatment of cryoglobulinemia. In: Dammacco F,
editor. HCV infection and cryoglobulinemia. New
York: Springer; 2012. p. 337–41.
[53] Dammacco F, Sansonn D. Therapy for hepatitis C virus-related
cryoglobulinemic vasculitis. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1035–45.
top related