Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
Transplantation Publish Ahead of PrintDOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000002453
1
International Liver Transplantation Society Asian Consensus on the
Management of Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Resource Limited Setting –
From Noncirrhotic to Decompensated Disease and Following Liver
Transplantation
Michael R. Charlton, MB, MBBS1, Edward J. Gane, MD
2, Akash Shukla, MD
3,
Bekhbold Dashtseren4, Davaadorj Duger
5, David H. Muljono, MD, PhD
6,
Diana A. Payawal, MD7, Ganbolor Jargalsaikhan, MD
4, Hery D. Purnomo, PhD, MD
8,
Ian H. Cua9, Irsan Hasan
10, Jose Sollano Jr., MD
11, Khin Maung Win
12
Laurentius A. Lesmana, MD, PhD13
, Mohammad Salih, MD, MBBS14
,
Pham Thi Thu Thuy15
, Ravi Shankar16
, Vivek A. Saraswat17
1Professor of Medicine, Director, Transplant Institute, Director, Center for Liver Diseases,
The University of Chicago Biological Sciences, 5841 South Maryland Avenue
2Hepatologist and Associate Director, New Zealand Liver Transplant Unit, 15th Floor
Support Building, Auckland City Hospital, Park Road, Grafton, Auckland 1142, NEW
ZEALAND
3Professor and Head, Department of Gastroenterology, LTMMC and LTMGH, Sion Mumbai
(India),
4 Physician, Liver Center Clinical Research Center, Mongolia & Mongolian National
University of Medical Science (MNUMS)
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
2
5Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
6Eijkman Institute for Molecular Biology, Jakarta, Indonesia, Faculty of Medicine,
universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney,
Australia, National Expert Committee for Hepatitis, Ministry of Health, Indonesia`
7President-Elect, Asian Pacific Study of the Liver Chair, Department of Internal Medicine,
Chair. Digestive Health Center, Fatima Medical University Center, MetroManila, Philippines
8Internist-Consultant of Gastroentero-Hepatology, Head of Division of Gastroentero-
Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine Dr Kariadi Hospital, Diponegoro University
Semarang Indonesia
9Active Consultant, St. Luke’s Medical Center, Institute of Digestive and Liver Diseases,
Quezon City, Philippines
10Staff of Division of Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine
University of Indonesia / Dr Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital
11Professor of Medicine at the University of Santo, Tomas Faculty of Medicine and Surgery,
Manila, Philippines
12Honorary Professor, Department of Hepatology, University of Medicine (1), Yangon,
Ministry of Health and Sports, Myanmar
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
3
13Professor in Internal Medicine, Consultant Gastroentero-Hepatologist, Department of
Medicine, University of Indonesia, Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo teaching hospital, Jakarta
14Director Hepatology Quaid e Azam International hospital, Islamabad
15Hepatology Department, Medic Medical Center, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
16Global Center of Excellence Lead for Infectious Disease and Head of Medical Affairs,
Mylan Laboratories Ltd.
17Professor and Head, Department of Gastroenterology, SGPGIMS, Lucknow
Corresponding author:
Prof. Michael R. Charlton
Professor of Medicine,
Director Transplant Institute and Center for Liver Diseases
The University of Chicago
5841 South Maryland Avenue, Rm M-454| Chicago, IL 60637
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 773-702-2395
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
4
Authorship page
Name Contribution
Michael R. Charlton
Conceptualization, synopsis development, presentation
of content during the consensus meeting, participated in
consensus development meeting, involved in manuscript
development, review and final approval of manuscript
Edward John Gane
Conceptualization, synopsis development, involved in
manuscript development, review and final approval of
manuscript
Aakash Shukla, Ravi Shankar, Bekhbold
Dashtseren,
Davaadorj Duger, David H
Muljono, Diana A Payawal, Ganbolor
Jargalsaikhan, Hery D Purnomo, Ian H Cua,
Irsan Hasan, Jose Sollano Jr., Khin Maung Win,
Laurentius A. Lesmana, Mohammad Salih,
Pham Thi Thu Thuy, Ravi Shankar, Vivek A
Saraswat
Participated in consensus development meeting,
involved in outline development, manuscript review and
finalization
Conflict of interest: None to disclose
Funding: The development of the consensus document was supported by an educational
support from Mylan Laboratories Limited.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
5
Abbreviations Page
ALT – Alanine aminotransferase
APRI – Aminotransferase/platelet ratio index
AST – Aspartate aminotransferase
CBC – Complete blood count
COSMOS – COmbination of SiMeprevir and sOfoSbuvir
CYP – cytochrome P
DAAs – Direct-acting antivirals
DCV – Daclatasvir
DSV – Dasabuvir
EBV – Elbasvir
FDC – Fixed-dose combination
GFR – Glomerular filtration rate
GT – Genotype
GZV – Grazoprevir
HCV – Hepatitis C virus
HIV – Human immunodeficiency virus
LDV – Ledipasvir
OPTIMIST – OPtimal Treatment with a sIMeprevIr and Sofosbuvir Therapy
OMV – Ombitasvir
PAR – Paritaprevir
Peg-IFN – Pegylated interferon
P-gp – P-glycoprotein
RBV – Ribavirin
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
6
RNA – Ribonucleic acid
RTV – Ritonavir
SIM – Simeprevir
SOF– Sofosbuvir
SVR – Sustained virologic response
VEL– Velpatasvir
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
7
Abstract
Background: The population of Asia exceeds 4.4 billion people. Chronic hepatitis C virus
(HCV) infection in Asia is characterized by specific distribution of genotypes, lack of access
to specific therapeutic agents, relatively high cost of treatment, and lack of experienced
healthcare providers. Clear consensus on the diagnosis, management, and monitoring of HCV
infection specific to the Asian region is a major unmet need. The consensus guidelines
documents that have been published to date by major medical societies presume access to an
array of direct acting antiviral agents and diagnostic tests that are not broadly applicable to
resource limited settings, including Asia. Methods: To address the lack of an Asia-specific
set of HCV treatment guidelines, we assembled a panel of 15 HCV experts in the field of
hepatology from India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Pakistan, Philippines, and Mongolia
convened in April 2017 to review the updated literature and provide recommendations on the
diagnosis and management of chronic HCV infection that reflects local conditions. Results:
An evidence-based comprehensive compilation of the literature supported by the graded
recommendations from the expert panel for the optimization of the diagnosis, pre, on, and
posttreatment assessment, and management of chronic HCV infection has been presented in
this article. Conclusions: With the evolving treatment landscape and addition of several new
direct-acting antiviral agents and combination regimens into the therapeutic armamentarium,
the current article may serve as a guide to the clinicians in optimizing the diagnosis and
treatment selection for the management of chronic HCV infection in resource-limited
settings.
Keywords: Asian consensus, Direct-acting antivirals, Genotype, Hepatitis C virus infection.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
8
Introduction
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a blood-borne virus belonging to the genus Hepacivirus and
family Flaviviridae.(1) Infection with HCV manifests as acute and chronic hepatitis, with
disease severity ranging from mild, short-term illness to severe, chronic, life-threatening
disease. A total of 7 major genotypes (GT1–GT7) and 67 different subtypes of the virus have
been identified.(1)
A recent systematic review of the literature estimated the global prevalence of HCV infection
to be about 2.5% (177.5 million HCV-infected cases), of which 67% cases (118.9 million
cases) were positive for HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA).(1) The most prevalent HCV genotypes
were GT1 (49.1%), followed by GT3 (17.9%), GT4 (16.8%), GT2 (11.0%), GT5 (2%),
mixed (1.8%), and GT6 (1.4%). GT4 and GT5 are found to be more prevalent in lower
income countries.(2) The population of Asia exceeds 4 billion people, 60% of the World’s
population, with a prevalence of chronic HCV infection in Asia was reported of about 2.8%
(111.6 million cases), accounting for more than 60% of HCV cases worldwide, of which 71.9
million (64.4%) are estimated to have chronic infection.(2) The prevalence of HCV infection
is likely to vary substantially between countries and regions. Although the distribution of
HCV genotypes in Asia is closely aligned to the global pattern, with GT1 being the most
common genotype (46.6%), followed by GT3 (22.4%), GT2 (18.6%), GT6 (7.0%), mixed
genotype (4.3%), GT4 (1.0%), and GT5 (0.1%), there is a wide variation in the genotype
distribution within the 5 major Asian regions studied in this review, that included (1) Asia-
Pacific (high income) (Japan and South Korea), (2) Central Asia (Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan), (3)
East Asia (China and Taiwan), (4) South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, and
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
9
Pakistan), and (5) Southeast Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Malaysia, The
Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam). The prevalence of GT1 was 58.7%, 70.4%,
53.5%, 15.5%, and 35.2% in the Asia-Pacific, Central, East, South and Southeast Asian
regions, respectively.(3) The corresponding prevalence rates for GT3, the second common
genotype were 0.4%, 19.6%, 5.4%, 66.7%, and 19.9%, respectively.(3, 4) The estimates for
GT2 were the highest in the Asia-Pacific (high-income) region (39.7%) and the lowest in the
South Asian region (1.9%).(3, 4) Southeast Asia had the highest estimates of GT6 cases,
whereas there were no cases of this genotype from Central Asia.(3) GT3 is the most prevalent
HCV genotype in Thailand and Malaysia, GT1 is the most common genotype in Singapore,
Philippines, and Indonesia, GT4a is the most commonly reported in Malaysia, Singapore,
Indonesia and the Philippines, and GT6 is most frequently reported in Myanmar, Laos, and
Vietnam.(5)
Unmet needs for the management of HCV in low and middle income countries in Asia
include: (1) lack of awareness of the disease, its risk factors, and modes of transmission,
resulting in under diagnosis; (2) lack of awareness and/or reimbursement coverage for
testing, resulting in low rates of HCV testing; (3) perceived complexity or low success rate of
the treatment; (4) high treatment cost and lack of reimbursement coverage for treatment; (5)
fear of treatment side effects; (6) fear of discrimination on disclosure of drug use or
revelation of hepatitis diagnosis; (7) lack of access to treatment and experienced healthcare
providers, and (8) delayed regulatory drug approvals due to of lack of specific clinical trial
data in the local population or data for the less common genotypes. (3) Consensus guidelines
documents that have been published to date, including those by the European Association of
the Study of Liver Diseases, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
(AASLD) and the International Liver Transplantation Society (ILTS) presume access to an
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
10
array of direct acting antiviral agents and diagnostic tests that are not broadly applicable to
Asia, and to low and middle income countries in general, due to specific local conditions.
Furthermore, the lack of nation-wide treatment guidelines for the management of HCV has
also been acknowledged by most physicians in the Asia-Pacific region in an international,
multidisciplinary survey of HCV treatment providers.(6-9) To address the lack of an Asia-
specific set of HCV treatment guidelines, we assembled a panel of 15 HCV experts in the
field of hepatology from India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Pakistan, Philippines, and
Mongolia convened in April 2017 to review the updated literature and provide
recommendations on the diagnosis and management of chronic HCV infection that reflects
local conditions.
The objective of the current consensus document is to guide physicians on the treatment of
chronic HCV infection with cost-effective regimens in resource-limited settings in Asia to
ensure optimal treatment outcomes.
Methods
Between April 2017 and April 2018, a panel of 15 HCV experts in the field of hepatology
from India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Pakistan, Philippines, and Mongolia convened to
review the updated literature on the management of HCV and provide recommendations to
optimize the:
Diagnosis of HCV infection
Use of cost-effective treatment regimens for the management of HCV infection in
resource-limited settings in Asia
Pre, on-, and posttreatment assessments during HCV management
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
11
The recommendations for the use of optimal treatment regimens in the management of HCV
infection in Asia were graded by the expert panel as Preferred, Alternative, or Not
Recommended (Table 1). DAA availability by region is shown in Table 2.
Diagnosis of HCV Infection
Current guidelines recommend initial HCV serological testing for the detection of anti-HCV
antibodies.(7) A negative test result does not completely rule out the diagnosis of hepatitis as
a negative test result may be possible during the first 6 weeks of exposure or in
immunosuppressed individuals. In such cases, an identifiable source of transmission and/or
clinical signs and symptoms such as alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels >10 times the
upper limit of normal may be used as an index of suspicion for acute HCV infection.(9-12)
Chronic HCV infection should be confirmed by a nucleic acid test for the detection of HCV
RNA.(9-12) Index values of anti-HCV >10, ALT >40 IU/L, and albumin <3.8 g/dL have
been found to be independently associated with a positive HCV RNA result and the presence
of HCV infection in the setting of positive HCV serological testing.(9-12) Quantification of
HCV core antigen, a marker of HCV replication, may also be used instead of the HCV RNA
test for the diagnosis of infection. Core antigen tests are marginally less sensitive than HCV
RNA assays but have the distinct advantage of being suitable for field testing.(13) As HCV
core antigen is a protein-based assay, HCV core antigen levels are less sensitive to variations
in sample handling conditions (eg, temperature) than HCV RNA assays.
Patients with confirmed HCV infection may be further evaluated to assess the degree of liver
fibrosis and cirrhosis by liver biopsy or other noninvasive tests.(10) In countries with
resource-limited settings, the use of liver biopsy may be limited by the cost, invasiveness, and
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
12
the risk of complications. Furthermore, noninvasive tests such as elastography and FibroTest
may have cost and availability constraints. In such settings, noninvasive tests such as
aminotransferase/platelet ratio index (APRI) or FIB-4, which rely on indirect markers such as
ALT, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and platelet count, are recommended.(12) An APRI
score greater than 1 has been found to have a sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 72% for
predicting cirrhosis.(12) In addition to the noninvasive tests, testing for genotype is also
recommended before treatment initiation to detect the HCV genotype and tailor the treatment
strategy.(14)
Consensus Recommendations for the Diagnosis of HCV infection
Anti-HCV testing is recommended for screening/initial testing and, if the result
is positive, current infection should be confirmed by sensitive HCV RNA or core
antigen testing.
Qualitative HCV RNA testing is a reasonable, good, and cost-effective method,
and it can be used in lieu of quantitative testing.
Genotyping is recommended to guide selection of the most appropriate antiviral
regimen.
Pan-genotypic regimens may obviate the need for genotyping when genotype
testing is difficult to obtain or is unavailable.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
13
Screening of HCV Infection
Considering the high prevalence of HCV in Asia, screening programs should be implemented
based on the local epidemiology to detect infected individuals and provide appropriate
treatment and care. Serological testing for HCV may be offered to adults born from 1945
through 1965, high-risk individuals, and those with a history of HCV risk exposure or
behavior such as: (1) individuals who have undergone medical or dental interventions in
settings with a high prevalence of inappropriate infection control practices; (2) individuals
who have received blood transfusions without HCV serological testing of the donated blood;
(3) patients on long-term dialysis; (4) people who inject drugs (annual testing is
recommended); (5) individuals who have had tattoos, body piercing, or scarification
procedures done with in settings with suboptimal infection control practices; (6) children
born to mothers infected with HCV; (7) persons with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
infection (annual testing is recommended for HIV+ men who have unprotected sex with
men); (8) individuals who use/have used intranasal drugs; and (9) prisoners and previously
incarcerated persons. (12) A positive anti-HCV test result should be confirmed with a HCV
RNA or HCV core antigen assay. Rapid diagnostic tests employing serum, plasma,
fingerstick whole blood, or saliva may be used as an alternative to the standard enzyme
immunoassays as a part of the screening programs.(9, 12) Routine HCV screening is not
recommended for the general population, pregnant women, healthcare workers, or nonsexual
contacts of HCV-positive persons.(10)
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
14
Treatment of HCV infection
The goal of HCV treatment is the attainment of sustained virologic response (SVR; defined
as the continued absence of detectable HCV RNA and/or HCV core antigen for at least 12
weeks after the completion of therapy) and subsequent reduction in all-cause mortality, liver-
associated adverse effects such as hepatic cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular
carcinoma, and severe extrahepatic manifestations. (9)
Pretreatment assessment
Assessment of liver disease severity and virologic parameters before initiating treatment will
help in optimal treatment selection. The contribution of other factors or causes that may
influence the progression of liver disease and subsequent treatment outcomes, such as
alcoholism, hepatitis B virus/HIV co-infection, renal impairment, diabetes mellitus,
autoimmunity, and cardiac diseases, should be assessed to provide appropriate patient
counseling and tailor treatment choices. Assessment of HCV RNA or HCV core antigen is
recommended before initiation of treatment. Staging of cirrhosis or fibrosis and assessment of
potential drug-drug interactions are also important. An important limitation of HCV antibody
followed by PCR testing is that, while providing diagnostic accuracy, this two-step laboratory
process has an inherent temporal gap between results resulting in an inevitable loss of some
patients to follow-up confirmatory testing. In addition, the expense and technical constraints
of PCR methods (eg, difficulty in maintaining samples at ideal temperatures, limited
availability of diagnostic equipment and operators) favor point of care testing that meets the
World Health Organization’s criteria of being affordable, sensitive and specific, user-
friendly, rapid and robust, equipment-free, and delivered to those who need it
(ASSURED).(15) HCV core antigen measurement, using a chemiluminescent immunoassay
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
15
(ARCHITECT-i2000R Immunoassay Analyser, Abbott Diagnostics, Illinois, USA). has
demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for detection of pretreatment and posttreatment
HCV viremia.(16, 17)
Fibrosis stage may be evaluated using liver biopsy, imaging, and/or noninvasive markers.
Genotype assessment and testing for HCV resistance will help in individualizing the
treatment regimen and optimizing the treatment outcomes. Assessment of HCV genotype is
not a prerequisite for initiating HCV treatment where pangenotypic HCV treatment regimens
are available. When formal assessment of fibrosis stage not possible beyond history and
physical examination, treatment regimen choice should presume the presence of cirrhosis.
Who should be treated?
Pretreatment Assessments
Liver fibrosis assessment: The use of liver biopsy, imaging, and/or
noninvasive markers is recommended for deciding on the regimen and the
need for initiating additional measures for the management of cirrhosis (eg,
hepatocellular carcinoma screening)
Assessment for potential drug-drug interactions with concomitant
medications
Following laboratory tests are recommended:
o Complete blood count (CBC)
o Hepatic function tests (albumin, total and direct bilirubin, ALT, AST,
and alkaline phosphatase levels)
o Calculated glomerular filtration rate (GFR)
o Hepatitis B surface antigen
o Alfa-fetoprotein and INR in patients with cirrhosis
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
16
All patients with chronic HCV infection should be considered for treatment, except for those
with limited life expectancy, which cannot be improved by treatment or transplantation.
Patients with decompensated cirrhosis should be referred to a tertiary care center and should
be managed by an expert with relevant clinical experience.
Treatment of patients with HCV GT1 infection
Six regimens have been proposed for the treatment of patients with chronic HCV GT1
infection (Table 3). A minimal testing schedule is presented in figure 1.
Sofosbuvir + ledipasvir ± ribavirin
Several clinical studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir
with or without ribavirin for the treatment of chronic HCV GT1 infection in a wide range of
patient populations. In the phase III ION-1 trial, this regimen, given for 12 or 24 weeks, was
found to be highly effective with SVR ranging from 97% to 99% in treatment-naïve patients
with chronic HCV GT1 infection (n=865), including 16% with cirrhosis.(9) Similar results
were noted in treatment-naïve patients in the LONESTAR trial (n=60; 95% SVR with
sofosbuvir and ledipasvir for 12 weeks; 100% SVR with sofosbuvir and ledipasvir plus
ribavirin given for 8 weeks)(18) ELECTRON trial (n=25; 100% SVR with sofosbuvir and
ledipasvir with ribavirin given for 12 weeks),(19), and other Asian studies.(20) The SVR rate
noted in a recent real-world, observational study in 4365 treatment-naïve HCV GT1 patients
was found to be high and aligned with the results from clinical studies.(21-23). Furthermore,
8 weeks of treatment with a combination of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir was found to yield high
SVR rates (94%) comparable with the 12-week regimen (SVR: 95%) in previously untreated
patients with HCV GT1 infection without cirrhosis and with HCV RNA <6 million IU/mL in
the ION-3 trial.(24) Similar findings have been noted in recent real-world studies.(25)
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
17
In treatment-experienced patients, including those with cirrhosis, advanced liver disease,
decompensated cirrhosis, or postliver transplantation, who have had treatment failure with
prior peg-IFN and ribavirin, NS3/4A protease inhibitors ± peg-IFN/ribavirin, sofosbuvir and
ribavirin, or NS5A inhibitor therapies, sofosbuvir and ledipasvir with or without ribavirin for
12 or 24 weeks have been found to yield high SVR rates.(26) These findings are aligned to
the results of recent real-world studies in similar patient cohorts.(19, 20, 27-32) High SVR
rates have also been noted in HCV GT1 patients co-infected with HIV-1 (both treatment-
naïve and treatment-experienced patients, including those with cirrhosis) in both clinical trials
and real-world studies.(33, 34) A significant improvement in the quality of life has been
reported with the ribavirin-free sofosbuvir and ledipasvir regimen in Asian patients with
HCV GT1, including treatment-naive or -experienced patients, without cirrhosis or with
compensated cirrhosis, and with or without coinfection with HIV.(35-37) Addition of
ribavirin was found to increase the adverse effect profile of the treatment regimen. (38, 39)
Sofosbuvir + velpatasvir ± ribavirin
The recommendation for the use of this regimen in patients with chronic HCV GT1 infection
is based on the phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized (5:1 ratio; n=624 in
the velpatasvir and sofosbuvir combination group and n=116 in the placebo group)
ASTRAL-1 trial.(38, 40, 41) This study enrolled both treatment-naïve and previously-treated
patients with HCV GT1, GT2, GT4, GT5, or GT6 infections (68% and 32%, respectively, in
the active treatment arm), including those with compensated cirrhosis (19% in the active
treatment arm). Treatment with the combination of once-daily sofosbuvir and velpatasvir for
12 weeks resulted in an overall 99% SVR, and 98% and 99% SVR in GT1a and GT1b
patients, respectively, with safety comparable to placebo. In the phase III, open-label
ASTRAL-4 study, treatment-naïve and -experienced patients with HCV GT1 through GT6
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
18
infections (n=267; GT1: 78%) and decompensated cirrhosis were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio
to receive sofosbuvir and velpatasvir once daily with (n=87) or without (n=90) ribavirin for
12 weeks or sofosbuvir and velpatasvir for 24 weeks (n=90). The corresponding SVR rates in
GT1a-infected patients were 94%, 88%, and 93%, respectively, and in GT1b-infected
patients were 100%, 89%, and 88%, respectively.(42) In the phase III, open-label, single-arm
ASTRAL-5 study in HCV GT1 through GT6 patients with HIV-1 co-infection, including
those with compensated cirrhosis, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir regimen given for 12 weeks was
safe and resulted in 95% SVR in GT1 patients.(43) High SVR rates have also been noted
with the 12-week velpatasvir and sofosbuvir regimen in other randomized clinical studies in
HCV GT1-infected patients, both in treatment-naïve noncirrhotic and treatment-experienced
patients with or without cirrhosis.(44) Furthermore, improvement in patient-reported
outcomes has been noted with the velpatasvir and sofosbuvir regimen, especially in patients
with decompensated cirrhosis.(45, 46) Addition of ribavirin in the ASTRAL-4 study,
however, was associated with a temporary decrease in these outcomes.(30, 47, 48)
Sofosbuvir + daclatasvir + ribavirin
Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin was evaluated in previously untreated
patients with HCV GT1 through GT3 infection for 24 weeks and in previously treated
patients with GT1 infection for 12 or 24 weeks in an open label study. The SVR rates were
98%, both in previously untreated and treated patients with GT1 infection.(47) In the open-
label, phase III ALLY-1 trial that enrolled patients with HCV of all genotypes, daclatasvir
plus sofosbuvir with ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks was safe and exhibited high SVR rates:
82% in GT1 patients with cirrhosis and 95% in GT1 transplant recipients.(48) The findings
from the multicenter, observational ANRS/AFEF HEPATHER study group suggest the use of
a 12-week daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir in noncirrhotic GT1 patients and a 24-week regimen
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
19
including ribavirin in cirrhotic GT1-infected patients.(49) High SVR rates (97%) have been
noted with daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir given for 12 weeks in HCV GT1 patients co-infected
with HIV-1 in the ALLY-2 trial that enrolled patients with GT1 through GT4 infections.(50)
This regimen given for 24 weeks has been found to be safe and effective for the treatment of
HCV recurrence post liver transplantation in GT1 patients, including those with HIV-1 co-
infection or with decompensated cirrhosis.(51, 52) Recent real-world studies and meta-
analyses support the efficacy and safety of this regimen.(53)
Grazoprevir + elbasvir
Grazoprevir plus elbasvir combination regimen, with or without ribavirin, for 12 weeks has
been found to yield high SVR rates in HCV GT1-infected patients, including treatment-naïve
(SVR range: 92%–99%),(54-56) and treatment-experienced (SVR range: 91%–100%)(57-59)
cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients, and those co-infected with HIV-1 (SVR: 87%–97%).(59,
60) The SVR rates with the 12-week regimen in HCV GT1b treatment-naïve and -
experienced patient cohorts were noted to be close to 100%.(61, 62)
Sofosbuvir + simeprevir ± ribavirin
The COmbination of SiMeprevir and sOfoSbuvir in HCV-infected patients (COSMOS) study
investigated the safety and efficacy of the combination of sofosbuvir and simeprevir with or
without ribavirin in chronic HCV GT1-infected adult patients (n=167) (both treatment-naïve
and -experienced patients). The combination was well tolerated with high SVR rates (92%–
94%).(58) Two open-label, randomized studies assessed the efficacy and safety of 12 weeks
of sofosbuvir and simeprevir in treatment-naïve and -experienced GT1 patients, without and
with cirrhosis, respectively. SVR rates were 79-97%, with the combination being well
tolerated in both the studies.(63) Other real-world studies and studies enrolling HCV GT1
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
20
patients co-infected with HIV-1 have also proven the efficacy and safety of the 12-week
sofosbuvir and simeprevir regimen with or without ribavirin.(64, 65) Furthermore, the
combination of sofosbuvir and simeprevir without ribavirin was found to achieve 87.5% SVR
rate in chronic HCV GT1 infected patients who failed to achieve SVR on prior treatment with
a daclatasvir-containing, sofosbuvir-free regimen in real-world settings.(66, 67)
Treatment of patients with HCV GT2 infection
The preferred regimens recommended by the expert panel for the treatment of patients with
chronic HCV GT2 infection are given in Table 4.
Sofosbuvir + daclatasvir ± ribavirin
In the AI444040 trial, daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, given for 24
weeks was associated with an SVR of 92% in previously untreated HCV GT2-infected
patients without cirrhosis.(67) In the ALLY-1 trial, daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir with ribavirin
for 12 or 24 weeks was safe and exhibited 80% SVR rate in GT2-infected patients with
cirrhosis.(48) Furthermore, in HCV patients co-infected with HIV-1 in the ALLY-2 trial, the
overall SVR rates across GT1 through GT4 in previously untreated and treated patients
treated with the 12-week daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir regimen were noted to be 97% and 98%,
respectively.(49)
Sofosbuvir + velpatasvir ± ribavirin
The effectiveness of this regimen for the treatment of HCV GT2-infected patients is based on
the results of the randomized, phase III, open-label ASTRAL 2 trial. In this study, previously
untreated and treatment-experienced patients, including those with compensated cirrhosis,
were randomized to receive once-daily sofosbuvir and velpatasvir (n=134) or sofosbuvir plus
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
21
weight-based ribavirin (n=132) for 12 weeks. The corresponding SVR rates were 99% and
94%, respectively (p=0.02).(51) In the ASTRAL 1 trial, the SVR rate with this 12-week
combination regimen without ribavirin was 100% in GT2-infected patients.(68) In the
ASTRAL 4 study that enrolled patients with decompensated cirrhosis, the SVR rate was
100% in GT2-infected patients treated with this combination, with or without ribavirin, for 12
weeks.(42) In the ASTRAL 5 trial, which included HCV patients co-infected with HIV-1,
including those with compensated cirrhosis, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir regimen given for 12
weeks resulted in 100% SVR in GT2-infected patients.(43) Greater than 95% SVR rates have
also been noted in other clinical trials evaluating this 12-week combination regimen in HCV
GT2-infected patients.(44)
Sofosbuvir + ribavirin
In the FISSION trial, sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks was associated with 97% SVR in
previously untreated patients with GT2 infection, including those with cirrhosis.(46) This
regimen exhibited 93% and 86% SVR rates in previously treated patients in the POSITRON
and FUSION trials, respectively.(69) In the VALENCE trial, which enrolled 21% cirrhosis
patients, the SVR rate with the regimen was 93% in HCV GT2-infected patients.(70) In the
BOSON study, in treatment-experienced GT2-infected patients, including those with
cirrhosis, 16 weeks of this regimen was associated with 87% SVR rate at 12 weeks.(71)
Furthermore, this regimen was effective in both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced
HCV GT2-infected patients co-infected with HIV-1 in the PHOTON 1 and 2 trials (SVR:
88% and 92%, respectively, in PHOTON 1; SVR: 89% and 83%, respectively, in PHOTON
2).(72)
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
22
Treatment of patients with HCV GT3 infection
The preferred and alternative regimens for the treatment of HCV GT3 infection are given in
Table 5.
Sofosbuvir + daclatasvir ± ribavirin
In the phase II AI444040 trial, the SVR rate with daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir, with or without
ribavirin, for 24 weeks was 89% in previously untreated HCV GT3-infected patients without
cirrhosis.(48) In the ALLY-3 trial, the SVR rates with daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir for 12
weeks in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced GT3-infected patients were 90% and
86%, respectively. The SVR rate was high in patients without cirrhosis versus those with
cirrhosis (96% vs 63%, respectively).(73) The ALLY-3+ trial assessed the safety and efficacy
of daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir with ribavirin for 12 weeks or 16 weeks in both treatment-naïve
and treatment-experienced GT3-infected patients with advanced fibrosis or compensated
cirrhosis. The overall SVR was 90%, with 88% in the 12-week cohort and 83% in the 12-
week cohort with cirrhosis. The rates were not affected by past treatment history.(74) In the
ALLY-1 trial, daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir with ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks exhibited 83%
SVR rate in GT3-infected patients with cirrhosis and 91% in GT3-infected transplant
recipients.(49) Furthermore, in the ALLY-2 trial, in HCV patients co-infected with HIV-1,
the overall SVR rates across GT1 through GT4 with daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir for 12 weeks
in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients were noted to be 97% and 98%,
respectively.(51, 52) High SVR rates have also been noted with this regimen in real-world
settings in the European and French Compassionate Use programs, and in a study in
Myanmar in HCV GT3-infected noncirrhotic and cirrhotic patients, including those with
advanced liver disease and decompensated cirrhosis.(54, 75-77)
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
23
Sofosbuvir + velpatasvir ± ribavirin
In the ASTRAL-3 trial, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir combination regimen for 12 weeks was
found to be effective with 95% SVR rates in HCV GT3-infected patients. This study enrolled
both treatment-naïve (SVR: 97%) and treatment-experienced (SVR: 90%) patients, including
those with compensated cirrhosis (SVR: 91% in patients with cirrhosis vs 97% in patients
without cirrhosis). The SVR in treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis treated with this
regimen was 89%.(78) In the ASTRAL-4 study, which enrolled treatment-naïve and
treatment-experienced patients with decompensated cirrhosis, the SVR rate with sofosbuvir
and velpatasvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks was 85% in GT3-infected patients.(79)
Furthermore, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir once daily for 12 weeks were found to be effective
with 92% SVR rate in HCV GT3-infected patients co-infected with HIV-1.(44)
Sofosbuvir + ledipasvir + ribavirin
Evidence in support of the ledipasvir and sofosbuvir regimen with ribavirin in GT3-infected
patients is limited to very few studies. In a phase 2, open-label trial in patients with HCV
GT3 or GT6 infection, this regimen given for 12 weeks was associated with 100% SVR rate
in GT3-infected patients.(80) Another recent open-label trial revealed an overall 89% SVR
with the regimen in HCV GT3-infected patients, with 79% SVR in patients with cirrhosis and
94% SVR in patients without cirrhosis.(81)
Treatment of patients with HCV GT4 infection
Six treatment options have been proposed by the expert panel for the treatment of patients
with HCV GT4 infection (Table 6).
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
24
Sofosbuvir + ledipasvir + ribavirin
In the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) SYNERGY trial,
sofosbuvir and ledipasvir combination for 12 weeks resulted in 100% SVR rate in treatment-
naïve and treatment-experienced HCV GT4-infected patients, including those with
cirrhosis.(82) High SVR rates were also noted with this regimen in other phase 2 studies in
similar patient cohorts.(83) Real-world studies also stand in support of the efficacy of this
combination regimen with high SVR rates (95.4%) in GT4-infected patients, including those
with cirrhosis (SVR: 93.2%).(84) In the SOLAR-2 study, sofosbuvir, ledipasvir, and ribavirin
combination for 12 and 24 weeks was associated with 78% and 94% SVR, respectively, in
HCV GT4-infected patients with advanced liver disease.(85) Furthermore, in the ION-4 trial,
sofosbuvir and ledipasvir fixed-dose combination for 12 weeks was associated with 100%
SVR in GT4-infected patients co-infected with HIV-1. This study enrolled both treatment-
naïve and treatment-experienced patients, including those with cirrhosis.(35)
Sofosbuvir + velpatasvir ± ribavirin
In the phase III ASTRAL-1 trial, once-daily sofosbuvir and velpatasvir combination for 12
weeks was associated with 100% SVR in GT4-infected patients. This study included both
treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients, including those with compensated
cirrhosis.(42) In the ASTRAL-4 study, which included patients with decompensated
cirrhosis, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir combination for 24 weeks or for 12 weeks with or
without ribavirin yielded 100% SVR in GT4-infected patients.(43) Sofosbuvir and
velpatasvir combination for 12 weeks was found to be safe and was also associated with
100% SVR in GT4-infected patients co-infected with HIV-1.(44)
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
25
Sofosbuvir + daclatasvir ± ribavirin
Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir with ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks was associated with 100% SVR
in GT4-infected patients with cirrhosis in the ALLY-1 trial.(49) In the ALLY-2 trial,
daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir given for 12 weeks was found to be effective in treating GT1
through GT4 HCV patients co-infected with HIV-1, with 100% SVR in GT4-infected
patients.(51, 52)
Grazoprevir + elbasvir
The SVR rate with grazoprevir and elbasvir combination for 12 weeks was found to be 100%
in GT4-infected treatment-naïve patients, including those with cirrhosis.(58) Other phase 2
studies have also supported the efficacy of grazoprevir and elbasvir with or without ribavirin
in GT4-infected treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis.(86) High SVR rates have also
been noted with the regimen in studies that enrolled GT4-infected, treatment-experienced
patients with or without cirrhosis (SVR with grazoprevir and elbasvir with or without
ribavirin for 12 weeks: 93.3% and 77.8%, respectively).(87) The efficacy of this regimen also
remains proven in GT4-infected patients co-infected with HIV-1.(61)
Sofosbuvir + simeprevir
Combination therapy with sofosbuvir and simeprevir for 12 weeks has been found to be
effective and well-tolerated in chronic HCV GT4-infected patients (n=6211) in a recent real-
world study, with an overall SVR rate of 94% and treatment response rate of 97.6%.(88) In a
separate real-world study, this combination has also been found to be effective as rescue
therapy in chronic HCV GT4-infected patients who failed on daclatasvir-containing
(sofosbuvir-free) regimen, with SVR rate of 87.5%.(67)
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
26
Treatment of patients with HCV GT5 or GT6 infections
The preferred and alternative regimens for the treatment of HCV GT5 or GT6 infections are
given in Table 7.
Sofosbuvir + ledipasvir ± ribavirin
Evidence in support of this regimen for the treatment of HCV GT5 or GT6 infections is
limited to two phase 2 studies. In the open-label, single-arm trial by Abergel et al, treatment
with the sofosbuvir and ledipasvir combination for 12 weeks in GT5-infected treatment-naïve
and treatment-experienced patients, including those with cirrhosis, was associated with 95%
SVR rate. The SVR rates were 89% and 97% in patients with and without cirrhosis,
respectively. The combination was well tolerated.(84) In another open-label trial in patients
with GT3 or GT6 infection, treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients with GT6
infection (n=25) were treated with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir combination for 12 weeks. The
SVR rate with the combination was noted to be 96%.(80) However, in recent real-world
studies, the SVR rates have been found to be low with this regimen in GT6-infected
patients.(75)
Sofosbuvir + velpatasvir ± ribavirin
In the ASTRAL-1 study, which enrolled patients with GT1, GT2, GT4, GT5, or GT6
infections, treatment with once-daily sofosbuvir and velpatasvir for 12 weeks was associated
with 97% and 100% SVR rates in patients with GT5 and GT6 infections, respectively.(42) In
another phase 2 study that assessed the safety and efficacy of this combination in treatment-
naïve noncirrhotic patients with HCV GT1 through GT6 infections, the SVR rate was 95%-
96% for GT5- and GT6-infected patients.(46) The ASTRAL-4 study, which enrolled both
treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients with decompensated cirrhosis, had less
than 1% patients with GT6 infection. Treatment with sofosbuvir and velpatasvir for 24 weeks
in this cohort was associated with 100% SVR rate.(43)
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
27
Sofosbuvir + daclatasvir ± ribavirin
Data in support of this regimen for the treatment of GT5- or GT6-infected patients are very
limited. In the ALLY-1 trial, sofosbuvir, daclatasvir, and ribavirin combination was used
across all genotypes in HCV patients with advanced liver disease. Sustained virologic
response was achieved in 1 GT6-infected liver transplant recipient treated with the
combination.(49)
Treatment of patients in whom liver fibrosis assessment is not possible and HCV
genotyping is not available or HCV genotype is indeterminate or GT7
The expert panel recommended the use of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir in combination with
ribavirin for 12 weeks or sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir in combination with ribavirin for 12
weeks, with extended duration of 24 weeks in treatment-experienced patients, as the preferred
regimens for the treatment of these patient cohorts. Evidence in support of this
recommendation is limited. Sofosbuvir and velpatasvir combination for 12 weeks was found
to achieve SVR in a recent HCV case report with GT7 infection.(89)
Renal Impairment
Although the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir in patients with severe (estimated GFR
<30mL/min) have not been clearly established, there is increasing evidence that treatment
responses remain high and comparable to those without renal impairment.(90, 91)
A report of the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir-containing regimens in patients with mild to
severe renal dysfunction (eGFR groups: <30 mL/min; 31-45 mL/min; 46-60 mL/min; and
>60 mL/min)(92) found the regimens were well tolerated with comparable SVR rates and no
increased discontinuation among patients with low eGFRs. Progressive deterioration of renal
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
28
function was observed, however, in patients with an eGFR <30 mL/min, highlighting the
need for close monitoring of renal function in these patients.
Daclatasvir, elbasvir, grazoprevir, ledipasvir, and simeprevir are primarily hepatically
metabolized and do not require dose adjustments in the setting of renal impairment.
Drug-Drug Interactions
DAAs have the potential for drug-drug interactions with concomitant medications, including
important interactions with many commonly used medications, such as proton pump
inhibitors (reduce bioavailability of ledipasvir and velpatasvir), hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-
coenzyme (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors, and antiretrovirals. A detailed review of drug-
drug interactions is beyond the scope of this review. In order to minimize the likelihood of
clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions we strongly recommend cross referencing any
concomitant medication with planned DAA therapy at the publicly accessible, comprehensive
and regularly updated reference site, http://www.hep-druginteractions.org.
On- and Posttreatment Assessments
On-treatment assessments are recommended for monitoring the treatment efficacy and safety
and possible drug-drug interactions, and ensuring medication adherence. Posttreatment
follow-up and assessment helps in confirming the successful elimination of the virus and
preventing relapses. The on- and posttreatment assessments recommended by the expert
panel have been listed in Table 8.
Decompensated Cirrhosis
The preferred and alternative regimens for the treatment of patients with decompensated
cirrhosis are given in Table 9.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
29
Patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis, defined by CPT class of B or C, CPT score of
>/=7, are at substantial risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality. Understanding the
potential benefit and risks of treatment in this population is particularly important. Large,
prospective, randomized controlled multicenter clinical trials have consistently demonstrated
a high frequency of SVR (>90%) good tolerability and frequent improvement in clinical and
lab indices of severity of liver disease.(29, 43, 93-95) Improvement can be substantial enough
for patients to be removed from liver transplant waitlists.(96) Although the frequency of SVR
is lower than for patients without HCC, the great majority of patients with HCC achieve
SVR.(97) HCC is not a contraindication to DAA therapy in and of itself. Although some
patients with decompensated cirrhosis will fail to achieve SVR, because access to liver
transplantation is especially limited in resource limited settings, consideration should be
given to treating HCV in patients with decompensated cirrhosis who do not have an obvious
contraindication to treatment with DAAs. Because protease inhibitors are contraindicated in
patients with decompensated cirrhosis, treatment should be with sofosbuvir and an NS5a
inhibitor. There are no data describing the safety and efficacy of DAA therapy in patients
with MELD score >/=30 nor in patients with severe hypoalbuminemia, stage 2 ascites or
stage 2 encephalopathy. The risk to benefit profile of treatment of HCV infection with DAAs
is not known in patients with 1 or more of these characteristics.
PostLiver Transplantation
The preferred and alternative regimens for the treatment of patients with decompensated
cirrhosis are given in Table 10.
Left untreated, recurrence of HCV infection can be a major cause of posttransplant graft
failure and mortality, with one third of patients with posttransplant HCV infection developing
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
30
cirrhosis or losing their graft by the fifth postoperative year. HCV infection should be treated
early (by the fourth postoperative month) following liver transplantation, regardless of
fibrosis stage. Because of the potential for hepatotoxicity and for exacerbated drug-drug
interactions, all protease inhibitors should be avoided in patients with decompensated
cirrhosis.
Treatment
Two large, multicenter, open-label, phase 2 trials of nearly 400 liver transplant recipients
across a wide spectrum of severity of HCV recurrence reported an SVR frequency of >95%
with 12 weeks of treatment with sofosbuvir and ledipasvir with low (600mg/day) initial dose
ribavirin, for disease severity up to compensated (CPT-A) cirrhosis. SVR rates were lower,
~85 and 60,% among patients with CTP class B and C cirrhosis respectively.(98) Sofosbuvir
and ledipasvir with ribavirin are thus recommended for the treatment of HCV genotypes 1, 4,
5, and 6 following liver transplantation in patients who are noncirrhotic or who have
compensated cirrhosis. Sofosbuvir with daclatasvir has also been reported to be safe and
effective in liver transplant recipients, including those with HCV genotypes 2 and 3,(99)
Although there are no published data in liver transplant recipients, because of the superior
efficacy observed in the nontransplant setting and because of the similar drug-drug
interaction profiles of velpatasvir and ledipasvir, we recommend sofosbuvir with daclatasvir
or velpatasvir with ribavirin for 12 weeks for patients with HCV infection with genotypes 2
and 3 following liver transplantation. Although there are reports of similar efficacies with
and without ribavirin in retrospective analyses, (100, 101) we recommend ribavirin at an
initial dose of 600mg/day in treating posttransplant HCV infection unless contraindicated.
Longer (24 weeks) duration of treatment should be considered in patients who DAA
treatment experienced, have cirrhosis or who are intolerant or ineligible for ribavirin therapy.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
31
Treatment of severe/decompensated liver disease following liver transplantation should be
managed in the same fashion as in the nontransplant setting.
Risk of Rejection and Alloimmune /Plasma Cell Hepatitis
Improved hepatic function can lead to altered pharmacokinetics of immunosuppressive agents
following eradication of HCV infection,(102) increasing the risk of acute cellular rejection
and alloimmune / plasma cell hepatitis, necessitating and usually responding to responding to
increased immunosuppression.(103, 104) For these reasons, we recommend increased
frequency of monitoring of calcineurin inhibitor trough levels and liver biochemical profile in
the first 3 months following end of DAA therapy.
Drug Interactions Between DAAs and Immunosuppressive Agents
Drug-drug interactions, which are complex and can be unpredictable in the setting of
polypharmacy and labile hepatic and renal function, are an important consideration in liver
transplant recipients. Careful assessment of potential drug-drug interactions should be
performed in all liver transplant recipients before initiation of DAA therapy. We recommend
the HEP Drug Interactions website as a resource for screening for potential drug-drug
interactions (http://www.hep-druginteractions.org). All protease inhibitors are contraindicated
in patients who are receiving cyclosporine. Cyclosporine and tacrolimus increase daclatasvir
area under the curve (AUC) by amounts that are not clinically significant (40% and 5%,
respectively). Sofosbuvir, ledipasvir and daclatasvir do not cause clinically meaningful
changes in calcineurin inhibitor, mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor, steroid,
or mycophenolate levels.(105) Based on the metabolism of grazoprevir and elbasvir, a 15-
fold increase in grazoprevir AUC and a 2-fold increase in elbasvir AUC can be expected with
cyclosporine co-administration. Therefore, this combination should be avoided. Since a 40%
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
32
to 50% increase in tacrolimus level is predicted during co-administration with grazoprevir, no
dosing adjustments are anticipated but tacrolimus levels should be monitored.
Summary and Future Directives
The treatment landscape for HCV infection has been greatly affected by the introduction of
several new DAAs and combination regimens, access to which is highly variable between
geographic areas. The selection of an appropriate combination regimen for achieving optimal
outcomes should take into consideration both patient-related factors (genotype, affordability,
access to treatment, and treatment adherence) and treatment-related factors (efficacy, duration
of therapy, safety, drug-drug interactions, formulation type, and dosing regimen) at a local
level. In addition to optimizing the treatment regimen, simplification of HCV management at
various levels, including screening, treatment, and monitoring, is an essential prerequisite for
achieving successful treatment outcomes in resource-limited settings in Asia where disparate
epidemiology is a major challenge. Furthermore, improving patients’ access to newer,
effective, and safer treatments and enhancing patients’ awareness to the disease, testing, and
treatment will help in early detection and successful management of the HCV infection in
these settings.
The current consensus document is a joint effort by key hepatology experts from Asia and is
aimed at providing guidance to the physicians in the region for the management of HCV
infection with optimal treatment regimens. Evidence-based recommendations from the expert
panel on the diagnosis, treatment, and pre, on-, and posttreatment assessment of patients with
HCV infection in the focus settings have been comprehensively summarized in this article.
Acknowledgement: We would like to thank BioQuest Solutions Pvt. Ltd for their editorial
services.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
33
References
1. Smith DB, Bukh J, Kuiken C, Muerhoff AS, Rice CM, Stapleton JT, Simmonds P.
Expanded classification of hepatitis C virus into 7 genotypes and 67 subtypes: updated
criteria and genotype assignment web resource. Hepatology. 2014;59:318-327.
2. Petruzziello A, Marigliano S, Loquercio G, Cacciapuoti C. Hepatitis C virus (HCV)
genotypes distribution: an epidemiological up-date in Europe. Infect Agent Cancer.
2016;11:53.
3. Wasitthankasem R, Vongpunsawad S, Siripon N, et al. Genotypic distribution of
hepatitis C virus in Thailand and Southeast Asia. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0126764.
4. Messina JP, Humphreys I, Flaxman A, Brown A, Cooke GS, Pybus OG, Barnes E.
Global distribution and prevalence of hepatitis C virus genotypes. Hepatology. 2015;61:77-
87.
5. Wasitthankasem R, Vichaiwattana P, Auphimai C, et al. HCV core antigen is an
alternative marker to HCV RNA for evaluating active HCV infection: implications for
improved diagnostic option in an era of affordable DAAs. PeerJ. 2017;5:e4008.
6. Nguyen LH, Nguyen MH. Systematic review: Asian patients with chronic hepatitis C
infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;37:921-936.
7. McGowan CE, Monis A, Bacon BR, et al. A global view of hepatitis C: physician
knowledge, opinions, and perceived barriers to care. Hepatology. 2013;57:1325-1332.
8. Berto A, Day J, Van Vinh Chau N, et al. Current challenges and possible solutions to
improve access to care and treatment for hepatitis C infection in Vietnam: a systematic
review. BMC Infect Dis. 2017;17:260.
9. Panel AIHG. Hepatitis C guidance: AASLD-IDSA recommendations for testing,
managing, and treating adults infected with hepatitis C virus. Hepatology. 2015;62:932-954.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
34
10. European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address eee. EASL
Recommendations on Treatment of Hepatitis C 2016. J Hepatol. 2017;66:153-194.
11. In: Recommendations for Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents for Chronic Hepatitis C
Genotype 1. Ottawa (ON). 2014.
12. Guidelines for the Screening Care and Treatment of Persons with Chronic Hepatitis C
Infection: Updated Version. In: Guidelines for the Screening Care and Treatment of Persons
with Chronic Hepatitis C Infection: Updated Version. Geneva. 2016.
13. Lee CH, Shin HP, Lee JI, et al. Predicting factors of present hepatitis C virus infection
among patients positive for the hepatitis C virus antibody. Clin Mol Hepatol. 2013;19:376-
381.
14. Le Calvez S, Thabut D, Messous D, et al. The predictive value of Fibrotest vs. APRI
for the diagnosis of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2004;39:862-863.
15. Mabey D, Peeling RW, Ustianowski A, Perkins MD. Diagnostics for the developing
world. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2004;2:231-240.
16. Grebely J, Lamoury FMJ, Hajarizadeh B, et al. Evaluation of the Xpert HCV Viral
Load point-of-care assay from venepuncture-collected and finger-stick capillary whole-blood
samples: a cohort study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:514-520.
17. Lamoury FMJ, Soker A, Martinez D, et al. Hepatitis C virus core antigen: A
simplified treatment monitoring tool, including for post-treatment relapse. J Clin Virol.
2017;92:32-38.
18. Afdhal N, Zeuzem S, Kwo P, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for untreated HCV
genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1889-1898.
19. Lawitz E, Poordad FF, Pang PS, et al. Sofosbuvir and ledipasvir fixed-dose
combination with and without ribavirin in treatment-naive and previously treated patients
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
35
with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection (LONESTAR): an open-label, randomised, phase
2 trial. Lancet. 2014;383:515-523.
20. Gane EJ, Stedman CA, Hyland RH, et al. Efficacy of nucleotide polymerase inhibitor
sofosbuvir plus the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir or the NS5B non-nucleoside inhibitor GS-9669
against HCV genotype 1 infection. Gastroenterology. 2014;146:736-743 e731.
21. Mizokami M, Yokosuka O, Takehara T, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir fixed-dose
combination with and without ribavirin for 12 weeks in treatment-naive and previously
treated Japanese patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C: an open-label, randomised, phase 3
trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15:645-653.
22. Chuang WL, Chien RN, Peng CY, et al. Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir fixed-dose
combination tablet in Taiwanese patients with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus. J
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31:1323-1329.
23. Lim YS, Ahn SH, Lee KS, et al. A phase IIIb study of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir fixed-
dose combination tablet in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced Korean patients
chronically infected with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus. Hepatol Int. 2016;10:947-955.
24. Backus LI, Belperio PS, Shahoumian TA, Loomis TP, Mole LA. Real-world
effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in 4,365 treatment-naive, genotype 1 hepatitis C-
infected patients. Hepatology. 2016;64:405-414.
25. Kowdley KV, Gordon SC, Reddy KR, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 8 or 12
weeks for chronic HCV without cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1879-1888.
26. Lai JB, Witt MA, Pauly MP, Ready J, Allerton M, Seo S, Witt DJ. Eight- or 12-Week
Treatment of Hepatitis C with Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir: Real-World Experience in a Large
Integrated Health System. Drugs. 2017;77:313-318.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
36
27. Wyles D, Pockros P, Morelli G, et al. Ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for patients
with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus previously treated in clinical trials of sofosbuvir regimens.
Hepatology. 2015;61:1793-1797.
28. Akuta N, Sezaki H, Suzuki F, et al. Ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir as salvage therapy for
HCV genotype 1 failures to prior NS5A inhibitors regimens. J Med Virol. 2017;89:1248-
1254.
29. Charlton M, Everson GT, Flamm SL, et al. Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir Plus Ribavirin
for Treatment of HCV Infection in Patients With Advanced Liver Disease. Gastroenterology.
2015;149:649-659.
30. Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Feld J, et al. Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir Combination
Improves Patient-reported Outcomes for Patients With HCV Infection, Without or With
Compensated or Decompensated Cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:421-430
e426.
31. Saab S, Rheem J, Jimenez MA, et al. Effectiveness of Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir
with/without Ribavarin in Liver Transplant Recipients with Hepatitis C. J Clin Transl
Hepatol. 2017;5:101-108.
32. Ueda Y, Ikegami T, Akamatsu N, et al. Treatment with sofosbuvir and ledipasvir
without ribavirin for 12 weeks is highly effective for recurrent hepatitis C virus genotype 1b
infection after living donor liver transplantation: a Japanese multicenter experience. J
Gastroenterol. 2017;52:986-991.
33. Flisiak R, Lucejko M, Mazur W, et al. Effectiveness and safety of
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+/-ribavirin in the treatment of HCV infection: The real-world
HARVEST study. Adv Med Sci. 2017;62:387-392.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
37
34. Tapper EB, Bacon BR, Curry MP, et al. Real-world effectiveness for 12 weeks of
ledipasvir-sofosbuvir for genotype 1 hepatitis C: the Trio Health study. J Viral Hepat.
2017;24:22-27.
35. Naggie S, Cooper C, Saag M, et al. Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir for HCV in Patients
Coinfected with HIV-1. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:705-713.
36. Osinusi A, Townsend K, Kohli A, et al. Virologic response following combined
ledipasvir and sofosbuvir administration in patients with HCV genotype 1 and HIV co-
infection. JAMA. 2015;313:1232-1239.
37. Bhattacharya D, Belperio PS, Shahoumian TA, et al. Effectiveness of All-Oral
Antiviral Regimens in 996 Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1-
Coinfected Patients Treated in Routine Practice. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64:1711-1720.
38. Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Omata M, Mizokami M, Walters M, Hunt S. Quality of
life of Japanese patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e4243.
39. Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Chan HL, et al. Patient-reported Outcomes in Asian
Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Treated With Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir. Medicine
(Baltimore). 2016;95:e2702.
40. Chao GF, Krishna N, Aizer AA, et al. Asian Americans and prostate cancer: A
nationwide population-based analysis. Urol Oncol. 2016;34:233 e237-215.
41. Tao T, Jiang X, Chen Y, Song Y. Efficacy and Safety of Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir with
and without Ribavirin in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 Infection: a
meta-analysis. Int J Infect Dis. 2017;55:56-71.
42. Feld JJ, Jacobson IM, Hezode C, et al. Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir for HCV Genotype
1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 Infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2599-2607.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
38
43. Curry MP, O'Leary JG, Bzowej N, et al. Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir for HCV in
Patients with Decompensated Cirrhosis. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2618-2628.
44. Wyles D, Brau N, Kottilil S, et al. Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir for the Treatment of
Hepatitis C Virus in Patients Coinfected With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1: An
Open-Label, Phase 3 Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:6-12.
45. Pianko S, Flamm SL, Shiffman ML, et al. Sofosbuvir Plus Velpatasvir Combination
Therapy for Treatment-Experienced Patients With Genotype 1 or 3 Hepatitis C Virus
Infection: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:809-817.
46. Everson GT, Towner WJ, Davis MN, et al. Sofosbuvir With Velpatasvir in
Treatment-Naive Noncirrhotic Patients With Genotype 1 to 6 Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A
Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:818-826.
47. Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Charlton M, Curry MP, O'Leary JG, Brown RS, Hunt S.
Patient-reported outcomes with sofosbuvir and velpatasvir with or without ribavirin for
hepatitis C virus-related decompensated cirrhosis: an exploratory analysis from the
randomised, open-label ASTRAL-4 phase 3 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1:122-
132.
48. Sulkowski MS, Gardiner DF, Rodriguez-Torres M, et al. Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir
for previously treated or untreated chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:211-221.
49. Poordad F, Schiff ER, Vierling JM, et al. Daclatasvir with sofosbuvir and ribavirin for
hepatitis C virus infection with advanced cirrhosis or post-liver transplantation recurrence.
Hepatology. 2016;63:1493-1505.
50. Pol S, Bourliere M, Lucier S, et al. Safety and efficacy of daclatasvir-sofosbuvir in
HCV genotype 1-mono-infected patients. J Hepatol. 2017;66:39-47.
51. Wyles DL, Ruane PJ, Sulkowski MS, et al. Daclatasvir plus Sofosbuvir for HCV in
Patients Coinfected with HIV-1. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:714-725.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
39
52. Luetkemeyer AF, McDonald C, Ramgopal M, Noviello S, Bhore R, Ackerman P. 12
Weeks of Daclatasvir in Combination With Sofosbuvir for HIV-HCV Coinfection (ALLY-2
Study): Efficacy and Safety by HIV Combination Antiretroviral Regimens. Clin Infect Dis.
2016;62:1489-1496.
53. Castells L, Llaneras J, Campos-Varela I, et al. Sofosbuvir and daclatasvir in mono-
and HIV-coinfected patients with recurrent hepatitis C after liver transplant. Ann Hepatol.
2017;16:86-93.
54. Welzel TM, Petersen J, Herzer K, et al. Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir, with or without
ribavirin, achieved high sustained virological response rates in patients with HCV infection
and advanced liver disease in a real-world cohort. Gut. 2016;65:1861-1870.
55. Boglione L, Pinna SM, Cardellino CS, et al. Treatment with daclatasvir and
sofosbuvir for 24 weeks without ribavirin in cirrhotic patients who failed first-generation
protease inhibitors. Infection. 2017;45:103-106.
56. Liao H, Tan P, Zhu Z, Yan X, Huang J. Sofosbuvir in combination with daclatasvir in
liver transplant recipients with HCV infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin
Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2017;41:262-271.
57. Dore GJ, Altice F, Litwin AH, et al. Elbasvir-Grazoprevir to Treat Hepatitis C Virus
Infection in Persons Receiving Opioid Agonist Therapy: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern
Med. 2016;165:625-634.
58. Zeuzem S, Ghalib R, Reddy KR, et al. Grazoprevir-Elbasvir Combination Therapy for
Treatment-Naive Cirrhotic and Noncirrhotic Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus
Genotype 1, 4, or 6 Infection: A Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:1-13.
59. Lawitz E, Gane E, Pearlman B, et al. Efficacy and safety of 12 weeks versus 18 weeks
of treatment with grazoprevir (MK-5172) and elbasvir (MK-8742) with or without ribavirin
for hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection in previously untreated patients with cirrhosis and
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
40
patients with previous null response with or without cirrhosis (C-WORTHY): a randomised,
open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1075-1086.
60. Buti M, Gordon SC, Zuckerman E, et al. Grazoprevir, Elbasvir, and Ribavirin for
Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 Infection After Failure of Pegylated Interferon and
Ribavirin With an Earlier-Generation Protease Inhibitor: Final 24-Week Results From C-
SALVAGE. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;62:32-36.
61. Rockstroh JK, Nelson M, Katlama C, et al. Efficacy and safety of grazoprevir (MK-
5172) and elbasvir (MK-8742) in patients with hepatitis C virus and HIV co-infection (C-
EDGE CO-INFECTION): a non-randomised, open-label trial. Lancet HIV. 2015;2:e319-327.
62. Sulkowski M, Hezode C, Gerstoft J, et al. Efficacy and safety of 8 weeks versus 12
weeks of treatment with grazoprevir (MK-5172) and elbasvir (MK-8742) with or without
ribavirin in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 mono-infection and HIV/hepatitis C
virus co-infection (C-WORTHY): a randomised, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet.
2015;385:1087-1097.
63. Lawitz E, Sulkowski MS, Ghalib R, 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 randomised
study. Lancet. 2014;384:1756-1765.
64. Kwo P, Gitlin N, Nahass R, et al. Simeprevir plus sofosbuvir (12 and 8 weeks) in
hepatitis C virus genotype 1-infected patients without cirrhosis: OPTIMIST-1, a phase 3,
randomized study. Hepatology. 2016;64:370-380.
65. Lawitz E, Matusow G, DeJesus E, et al. Simeprevir plus sofosbuvir in patients with
chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection and cirrhosis: A phase 3 study (OPTIMIST-2).
Hepatology. 2016;64:360-369.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
41
66. Bruno G, Saracino A, Fabrizio C, et al. Safety and effectiveness of a 12-week course
of sofosbuvir and simeprevir +/- ribavirin in HCV-infected patients with or without HIV
infection: a multicentre observational study. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017;49:296-301.
67. Hezode C, Chevaliez S, Scoazec G, et al. Retreatment with sofosbuvir and simeprevir
of patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 or 4 who previously failed a daclatasvir-
containing regimen. Hepatology. 2016;63:1809-1816.
68. Foster GR, Afdhal N, Roberts SK, et al. Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir for HCV
Genotype 2 and 3 Infection. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2608-2617.
69. Lawitz E, Mangia A, Wyles D, et al. Sofosbuvir for previously untreated chronic
hepatitis C infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1878-1887.
70. Jacobson IM, Gordon SC, Kowdley KV, et al. Sofosbuvir for hepatitis C genotype 2
or 3 in patients without treatment options. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1867-1877.
71. Zeuzem S, Dusheiko GM, Salupere R, et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin in HCV
genotypes 2 and 3. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1993-2001.
72. Foster GR, Pianko S, Brown A, et al. Efficacy of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin with or
without peginterferon-alfa in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection and
treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis and hepatitis C virus genotype 2 infection.
Gastroenterology. 2015;149:1462-1470.
73. Nelson DR, Cooper JN, Lalezari JP, et al. All-oral 12-week treatment with daclatasvir
plus sofosbuvir in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 3 infection: ALLY-3 phase III
study. Hepatology. 2015;61:1127-1135.
74. Leroy V, Angus P, Bronowicki JP, et al. Daclatasvir, sofosbuvir, and ribavirin for
hepatitis C virus genotype 3 and advanced liver disease: A randomized phase III study
(ALLY-3+). Hepatology. 2016;63:1430-1441.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
42
75. Hlaing NKT, Mitrani RA, Aung ST, et al. Safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir-based
direct-acting antiviral regimens for hepatitis C virus genotypes 1-4 and 6 in Myanmar: Real-
world experience. J Viral Hepat. 2017;24:927-935.
76. Herzer K, Papadopoulos-Kohn A, Walker A, et al. Daclatasvir, Simeprevir and
Ribavirin as a Promising Interferon-Free Triple Regimen for HCV Recurrence after Liver
Transplant. Digestion. 2015;91:326-333.
77. Hezode C, Lebray P, De Ledinghen V, et al. Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir, with or
without ribavirin, for hepatitis C virus genotype 3 in a French early access programme. Liver
Int. 2017;37:1314-1324.
78. Foster GR, Mangia A, Sulkowski M. Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir for Patients with
HCV Infection. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1687-1688.
79. Curry MP, Charlton M. Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir for Patients with HCV Infection.
N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1688.
80. Gane EJ, Hyland RH, An D, et al. Efficacy of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, with or
without ribavirin, for 12 weeks in patients with HCV genotype 3 or 6 infection.
Gastroenterology. 2015;149:1454-1461 e1451.
81. Feld JJ, Ramji A, Shafran SD, et al. Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir Plus Ribavirin in
Treatment-Naive Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 3 Infection: An Open-Label
Study. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65:13-19.
82. Kohli A, Kapoor R, Sims Z, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for hepatitis C genotype
4: a proof-of-concept, single-centre, open-label phase 2a cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis.
2015;15:1049-1054.
83. Abergel A, Asselah T, Metivier S, et al. Ledipasvir-sofosbuvir in patients with
hepatitis C virus genotype 5 infection: an open-label, multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 study.
Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:459-464.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
43
84. Abergel A, Metivier S, Samuel D, et al. Ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir for 12 weeks in
patients with hepatitis C genotype 4 infection. Hepatology. 2016;64:1049-1056.
85. Manns M, Samuel D, Gane EJ, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in
patients with genotype 1 or 4 hepatitis C virus infection and advanced liver disease: a
multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16:685-697.
86. Brown A, Hezode C, Zuckerman E, et al. Efficacy and safety of 12 weeks of elbasvir
+/- grazoprevir +/- ribavirin in participants with HCV genotype 2, 4, 5, or 6 infection: the C-
SCAPE study. J Viral Hepat. 2017.
87. Kwo P, Gane EJ, Peng CY, et al. Effectiveness of Elbasvir and Grazoprevir
Combination, With or Without Ribavirin, for Treatment-Experienced Patients With Chronic
Hepatitis C Infection. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:164-175 e164.
88. Eletreby R, Elakel W, Said M, et al. Real life Egyptian experience of efficacy and
safety of Simeprevir/Sofosbuvir therapy in 6211 chronic HCV genotype IV infected patients.
Liver Int. 2017;37:534-541.
89. Schreiber J, McNally J, Chodavarapu K, Svarovskaia E, Moreno C. Treatment of a
patient with genotype 7 hepatitis C virus infection with sofosbuvir and velpatasvir.
Hepatology. 2016;64:983-985.
90. Desnoyer A, Pospai D, Le MP, et al. Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of a full
dose sofosbuvir-based regimen given daily in hemodialysis patients with chronic hepatitis C.
J Hepatol. 2016;65:40-47.
91. Nazario HE, Ndungu M, Modi AA. Sofosbuvir and simeprevir in hepatitis C genotype
1-patients with end-stage renal disease on haemodialysis or GFR <30 ml/min. Liver Int.
2016;36:798-801.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
44
92. Saxena V, Koraishy FM, Sise ME, et al. Safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir-containing
regimens in hepatitis C-infected patients with impaired renal function. Liver Int.
2016;36:807-816.
93. Sulkowski MS, Naggie S, Lalezari J, et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for hepatitis C in
patients with HIV coinfection. JAMA. 2014;312:353-361.
94. Molina JM, Orkin C, Iser DM, 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;385:1098-1106.
95. Afdhal N, Everson GT, Calleja JL, et al. Effect of viral suppression on hepatic venous
pressure gradient in hepatitis C with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. J Viral Hepat.
2017;24:823-831.
96. Belli LS, Berenguer M, Cortesi PA, et al. Delisting of liver transplant candidates with
chronic hepatitis C after viral eradication: A European study. J Hepatol. 2016;65:524-531.
97. Beste LA, Green PK, Berry K, Kogut MJ, Allison SK, Ioannou GN. Effectiveness of
hepatitis C antiviral treatment in a USA cohort of veteran patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2017;67:32-39.
98. Charlton M, Gane E, Manns MP, et al. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for treatment of
compensated recurrent hepatitis C virus infection after liver transplantation.
Gastroenterology. 2015;148:108-117.
99. Salcedo M, Prieto M, Castells L, et al. Efficacy and safety of daclatasvir-based
antiviral therapy in hepatitis C virus recurrence after liver transplantation. Role of cirrhosis
and genotype 3. A multicenter cohort study. Transpl Int. 2017;30:1041-1050.
100. Pyrsopoulos N, Trilianos P, Lingiah VA, Fung P, Punnoose M. The safety and
efficacy of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin in the treatment of orthotopic liver
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
45
transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C: real-world data. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2018.
101. Elfeki MA, Abou Mrad R, Modaresi Esfeh J, et al. Sofosbuvir/Ledipasvir Without
Ribavirin Achieved High Sustained Virologic Response for Hepatitis C Recurrence After
Liver Transplantation: Two-Center Experience. Transplantation. 2017;101:996-1000.
102. Raschzok N, Schott E, Reutzel-Selke A, et al. The impact of directly acting antivirals
on the enzymatic liver function of liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis C.
Transpl Infect Dis. 2016;18:896-903.
103. Coilly A, Fougerou-Leurent C, de Ledinghen V, et al. Multicentre experience using
daclatasvir and sofosbuvir to treat hepatitis C recurrence - The ANRS CUPILT study. J
Hepatol. 2016;65:711-718.
104. Brown RS Jr, O'Leary JG, Reddy KR, et al. Interferon-free therapy for genotype 1
hepatitis C in liver transplant recipients: Real-world experience from the hepatitis C
therapeutic registry and research network. Liver Transpl. 2016;22:24-33.
105. Dick TB, Lindberg LS, Ramirez DD, Charlton MR. A clinician's guide to drug-drug
interactions with direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of hepatitis C viral infection.
Hepatology. 2016;63:634-643.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
46
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
47
Table 1: Definitions of the grading of the recommendations
Grading of the recommendation Definition of the grading
Preferred Treatment can be used in most patients and
recommendation is based on optimal efficacy,
favorable tolerability and toxicity profiles, duration,
and pill burden.
Alternative Treatment can be the one that is effective but with
potential disadvantages/limitations for use in certain
patient populations or with less supporting data as
compared with the recommended regimens. In certain
situations, an alternative regimen may be an optimal
regimen for a specific patient population.
Not Recommended Treatment is clearly inferior compared with
recommended or alternative regimens because of
factors such as lower efficacy, unfavorable tolerability
and toxicity, longer duration, and/or higher pill
burden. Unless otherwise indicated, such regimens
should not be administered to patients with HCV
infection.
HCV, hepatitis C virus.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
48
Table 2. Direct-acting antiviral treatment regimens available in specific Asian countries
Country SOF LDV/SOF DCV SOF/VEL SIM GZV+EBV
Mongolia √ √ √
Indonesia √ √a √
a √ √
c
Philippines √ √ a √
a
India √ √ √ √
Pakistan √ √ a √
a √
a
Vietnam √ b √
b √
b √
Myanmar √ √ √ aAvailable under special access;
bAvailable under quota;
cExpected launch in early 2018 for HCV genotype 1.
DCV, daclatasvir; EBV, elbasvir; GZV, grazoprevir; LDV, ledipasvir; OBV/PTV/r:
ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir; SIM, simeprevir; SOF, sofosbuvir; VEL, velpatasvir; 3D,
ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir plus dasabuvir.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
49
Table 3. Recommended treatment regimens for HCV GT1 infection (ordered
alphabetically within categories, not by preference)
Recommendation
category
Treatment
option/s
Treatment regimens
Preferred 1. LDV + SOF ±
RBV
LDV + SOF for 12 weeks
In treatment-naïve patients having HCV RNA <6 million
IU/mL in whom cirrhosis has been conclusively ruled out by
transient elastography (Fibroscan) or biopsy: LDV + SOF for
8 weeks
In treatment-experienced cirrhotic patients/patients with
decompensated liver disease/postliver transplant patients:
LDV + SOF + RBV for 12 weeks OR LDV + SOF for 24
weeks if RBV is ineligible
2. SOF + VEL ±
RBV
SOF + VEL for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered in difficult to treat [treatment-experienced,
cirrhotic] patients)
In patients with decompensated cirrhosis (currently treated
hepatic encephalopathy or ascites or Child-Pugh-Turcotte
class B or C): SOF + VEL + weight-based RBV for 12 weeks
Alternative 1. SOF + DCV ±
RBV
SOF + DCV for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered if cirrhosis has not been conclusively ruled out)
In patients with compensated cirrhosis: SOF + DCV ±
weight-based RBV for 24 weeks
In patients with decompensated cirrhosis: SOF + DCV +
RBV for 12 weeks (OR) SOF + DCV for 24 weeks if RBV is
ineligible
2. GZV + EBV GZV + EBV for 12 weeks for only patients with GT1b
infection
(Since RAS testing is not available in resource-limited settings,
this regimen is not recommended for GT1a infection)
Other alternatives 1. SOF + SIM ±
RBV
SOF + SIM for 12 weeks
o In patients with cirrhosis (Child-Pugh-Turcotte class A):
SOF + SIM ± RBV for 24 weeks
o This regimen is not recommended in patients with
decompensated liver disease
o As rescue therapy (without RBV) in patients who failed
on daclatasvir-containing (sofosbuvir-free) regimen
DCV, daclatasvir; DSV, dasabuvir; EBV, elbasvir; GT, genotype; GZV, grazoprevir; HCV, hepatitis C virus; LDV, ledipasvir; OMV,
ombitasvir; PAR, paritaprevir; RBV, ribavirin; RNA, ribonucleic acid; RTV, ritonavir; SIM, simeprevir; SOF, sofosbuvir; VEL, velpatasvir.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
50
Table 4. Recommended treatment regimens for HCV GT2 infection (ordered
alphabetically within categories, not by preference)
Recommendation
category
Treatment
option(s)
Treatment regimen
Preferred 1. SOF + DCV
± RBV
SOF + DCV for 12 weeks
o In decompensated cirrhosis: SOF + DCV + RBV
for 12 weeks
2. SOF + VEL
± RBV
SOF + VEL for 12 weeks (addition of weight-based
RBV may be considered for decompensated cirrhosis)
3. SOF + RBV SOF + RBV for 12 weeks (data are not available for
patients with decompensated cirrhosis)
DCV, daclatasvir; HCV, hepatitis C virus; GT, genotype; RBV, ribavirin; SOF, sofosbuvir; VEL, velpatasvir.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
51
Table 5. Recommended treatment regimens for HCV GT3 infection (ordered
alphabetically within categories, not by preference)
Recommendation
category
Treatment
option(s)
Treatment regimen
Preferred 1. SOF + DCV
± RBV
SOF + DCV for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered if cirrhosis has not been conclusively ruled out)
In patients with compensated cirrhosis
o Treatment-naïve patients: SOF + DCV + RBV for
12 weeks
o Treatment-experienced patients: SOF + DCV +
RBV for 24 weeks
In patients with decompensated cirrhosis
o SOF + DCV + RBV for 12 weeks
o If RBV ineligible: SOF + DCV for 24 weeks
2. SOF + VEL
± RBV
SOF + VEL for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in
treating difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced
patients, patients with cirrhosis])
o In patients with decompensated cirrhosis: SOF +
VEL + weight-based RBV for 12 weeks
Alternative 1. LDV + SOF
+ RBV
LDV + SOF + RBV for 12 weeks (should be considered
only when preferred regimens are not available)
DCV, daclatasvir; GT, genotype; HCV, hepatitis C virus; LDV, ledipasvir; RBV, ribavirin; SOF, sofosbuvir; VEL, velpatasvir
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
52
Table 6. Recommended treatment regimens for HCV GT4 infection (ordered
alphabetically within categories, not by preference)
Recommendation
category
Treatment
option(s)
Treatment regimen
Preferred 1. LDV + SOF
± RBV
LDV + SOF for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in treating
difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced patients,
patients with cirrhosis])
o In case of previous SOF treatment failure: LDV +
SOF + RBV for 12 weeks
2. SOF + VEL
± RBV
SOF + VEL for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in treating
difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced patients,
patients with cirrhosis])
o In patients with decompensated cirrhosis: SOF +
VEL + weight-based RBV for 12 weeks
Alternative 1. SOF + DCV
± RBV
SOF + DCV for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered if cirrhosis has not been conclusively ruled out)
o Cirrhosis of any class: SOF + DCV + RBV for 12
weeks
o If RBV is ineligible, SOF + DCV for 24 weeks
2. GZV + EBV GZV + EBV for 12 weeks
o Not recommended in patients with decompensated
cirrhosis or liver transplant recipients
Other
alternatives
1. OMV +
PAR + RTV +
RBV
OMV + PAR + RTV + RBV for 12 weeks
o Recommended in noncirrhotic patients only
2. SOF + SIM SOF + SIM for 12 weeks
o In treatment-naïve patients with or without
cirrhosis
o As rescue therapy (without RBV) in patients who
failed on daclatasvir-containing (sofosbuvir-free)
regimen DCV, daclatasvir; EBV, elbasvir; GT, genotype; GZV, grazoprevir; HCV, hepatitis C virus; LDV, ledipasvir; OMV, ombitasvir; PAR,
paritaprevir; RBV, ribavirin; RTV, ritonavir; SOF, sofosbuvir; VEL, velpatasvir; SIM: Simeprevir.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
53
Table 7. Recommended treatment regimens for HCV GT5 or GT6 infections (ordered
alphabetically within categories, not by preference)
Recommendation
category
Treatment
option(s)
Treatment regimen
Preferred 1. LDV + SOF
± RBV
LDV + SOF for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in treating
difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced patients,
patients with cirrhosis])
o In case of previous SOF treatment failure: LDV +
SOF + RBV for 12 weeks
2. SOF + VEL
± RBV
SOF + VEL for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in treating
difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced patients,
patients with cirrhosis])
o In patients with decompensated cirrhosis: SOF +
VEL + weight-based RBV for 12 weeks
Alternative 1. SOF + DCV
± RBV
SOF + DCV for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered if cirrhosis has not been conclusively ruled out)
o Cirrhosis of any class: SOF + DCV + RBV for 12
weeks
o If RBV is ineligible, SOF + DCV for 24 weeks DCV, daclatasvir; HCV, hepatitis C virus; GT, genotype; LDV, ledipasvir; RBV, ribavirin; SOF, sofosbuvir; VEL, velpatasvir.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
54
Table 8. On- and posttreatment assessments during the management of HCV infection
Assessments Expert recommendations
On-treatment In patients with cirrhosis: CBC, creatinine level, calculated
GFR, and hepatic function panel may be repeated after 4
weeks.
HCV RNA testing (qualitative/quantitative) may not be
required, as there are no current recommendations for
response-guided therapy. Testing may be done at the end of
treatment, but it is not mandatory.
Assessment for potential drug-drug interactions with
concomitant medications is recommended.
Periodic review on therapy compliance and general condition
of the patient is recommended.
Posttreatment Assessment for SVR should be done at 12 or 24 weeks after
the end of the treatment.
In patients who have failed therapy:
o Disease progression assessment (hepatic function panel,
CBC, and INR) should be done once in 6 to 12 months.
o In patients with advanced fibrosis (METAVIR stages F3 or
F4), screening for hepatocellular carcinoma with ultrasound
examination is recommended every 6 months.
o Endoscopic screening for esophageal varices is
recommended in cirrhotic patients.
In patients who achieve SVR:
o In patients with advanced fibrosis (Metavir stage F3 or F4),
screening for hepatocellular carcinoma with ultrasound
examination is recommended every 6 months.
o Endoscopic screening for esophageal varices is
recommended in cirrhotic patients.
o AFP and PIVKA II as a screening test for HCC CBC, complete blood count; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; HCV, hepatitis C virus; INR, International normalized ratio; RNA, ribonucleic
acid; SVR, sustained virologic response; AFP, alpha fetoprotein; PIVKA II, prothrombin induced by vitamin K absence-II; HCC,
hepatocellular carcinoma.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
55
Table 9. Recommended treatment regimens for Decompensated Cirrhosis (ordered
alphabetically within categories, not by preference)
Recommendation
category
Treatment
option(s)
Treatment regimen
Preferred 1. LDV + SOF
± RBV
LDV + SOF for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in treating
difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced patients,
patients with cirrhosis])
o In case of previous SOF treatment failure: LDV +
SOF + RBV for 12 weeks
2. SOF + VEL
± RBV
SOF + VEL for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in treating
difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced patients,
patients with cirrhosis])
o In patients with decompensated cirrhosis: SOF +
VEL + weight-based RBV for 12 weeks
Alternative 1. SOF + DCV
± RBV
SOF + DCV for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered if cirrhosis has not been conclusively ruled out)
o Cirrhosis of any class: SOF + DCV + RBV for 12
weeks
o If RBV is ineligible, SOF + DCV for 24 weeks DCV, daclatasvir; HCV, hepatitis C virus; GT, genotype; LDV, ledipasvir; RBV, ribavirin; SOF, sofosbuvir; VEL, velpatasvir.
http://guide.medlive.cn/
Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
56
Table 10. Recommended treatment regimens for Liver Transplant Recipients (ordered
alphabetically within categories, not by preference)
Recommendation
category
Treatment
option(s)
Treatment regimen
Preferred 1. LDV + SOF
± RBV
LDV + SOF for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in treating
difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced patients,
patients with cirrhosis])
o In case of previous SOF treatment failure: LDV +
SOF + RBV for 24 weeks
2. SOF + VEL
± RBV
SOF + VEL for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered based on the physician’s discretion in treating
difficult-to-treat patients [treatment-experienced patients,
patients with cirrhosis])
o In patients with decompensated cirrhosis: SOF +
VEL + weight-based RBV for 24 weeks
Alternative 1. SOF + DCV
± RBV
SOF + DCV for 12 weeks (addition of RBV may be
considered if cirrhosis has not been conclusively ruled out)
o Cirrhosis of any class: SOF + DCV + RBV for 12
weeks
o If RBV is ineligible, SOF + DCV for 24 weeks DCV, daclatasvir; HCV, hepatitis C virus; GT, genotype; LDV, ledipasvir; RBV, ribavirin; SOF, sofosbuvir; VEL, velpatasvir.
http://guide.medlive.cn/