Search

Background & Aims: Coinfection with HDV causes rapid progression to liver cirrhosis and hepatic decompensation in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Factors that are associated with disease progression are poorly understood. In this study we aim to identify risk factors associated with disease progression and better characterise clinical differences and treatment response between HDV genotype 1 and 5., Methods: In this retrospective study, all patients under our care between 2005 and 2016 with HBV/HDV coinfection (HBsAg+, anti-HDV antibodies positive) were analysed. Patients were excluded if follow-up was less than 6 months, if they had HCV and/or HIV coinfection or an acute HDV infection. Demographic data, stage of liver disease, development of liver complications and treatment response were recorded., Results: One-hundred seven patients (mean age 36.0 years, 57% male) were followed for a median period of 4.4 years (range 0.6-28.1 years); 64% were of African origin and 17% were of European origin, with 28% of patients being cirrhotic at first visit; 43% patients had actively replicating HDV virus (anti-HDV-IgG+, anti-HDV-IgM+ or HDV RNA+) and 57% of patients were HDV exposed (anti-HDV-IgG+, HDV RNA-). Patients with actively replicating HDV more often developed liver complications than HDV-exposed patients (p = 0.002), but no differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Patients with HDV genotype 5 less often developed cirrhosis or hepatic decompensation compared to patients with HDV genotype 1. Twenty-four patients were treated with peg-IFN and post-treatment response was significantly better in patients infected with genotype 5 (10% GT1 vs. 64% GT5, p = 0.013)., Conclusion: Patients infected with HDV genotype 5 appear to have a better prognosis with fewer episodes of hepatic decompensation and better response to peg-IFN treatment than patients infected with HDV genotype 1., Lay Summary: Hepatitis delta is a virus that affects the liver. The virus is known to have different subtypes, called genotypes. With this research we discovered that hepatitis delta virus genotype 1 behaves differently than genotype 5 and causes faster development of liver disease. This is important for education of our patients and to determine how often we need to check our patients., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background & Aims: HCV subtypes which are unusual in Europe are more prevalent in the African region, but little is known of their response to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). These include non-1a/1b/ non-subtypeable genotype 1 (G1) or non-4a/4d (G4). In this report we aimed to describe the genotype distribution and treatment outcome in a south London cohort of African patients., Methods: We identified all patients born in Africa who attended our clinic from 2010-2018. Information on HCV genotype, treatment regimen and outcome were obtained. Non-subtypeable samples were analysed using Glasgow NimbleGen next-generation sequencing (NGS). Phylogenetic analysis was carried out by generating an uncorrected nucleotide p-distance tree from the complete coding regions of our sequences., Results: Of 91 African patients, 47 (52%) were infected with an unusual subtype. Fourteen novel, as yet undesignated subtypes (G1*), were identified by NGS. Three individuals were infected with the same subtype, now designated as subtype 1p. Baseline sequences were available for 22 patients; 18/22 (82%) had baseline NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RASs). Sustained virological response (SVR) was achieved in 56/63 (89%) overall, yet only in 21/28 (75%) of those with unusual G1 subtypes, with failure in 3/16 G1*, 1/2 G1p and 3/3 in G1l. Six treatment failures occurred with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir compared to 1 failure on a PI-based regimen. The SVR rate for all other genotypes and subtypes was 35/35 (100%)., Conclusions: Most individuals in an unselected cohort of African patients were infected with an unusual genotype, including novel subtype 1p. The SVR rate of those with unusual G1 subtypes was 75%, raising concern about expansion of DAAs across Africa. Depending on the regimen used, higher failure rates in African cohorts could jeopardise HCV elimination., Lay Summary: Direct-acting antiviral medications are able to cure hepatitis C in the majority of patients. The most common genotype of hepatitis C in Europe and the United States is genotype 1a or 1b and most clinical trials focused on these genotypes. We report that in a group of African patients, most of them had unusual (non-1a/1b) genotype 1 subtypes, and that the cure rate in these unusual genotypes was lower than in genotypes 1a and 1b., (Copyright © 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Seven drugs are licensed for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in the United Kingdom. Which initial treatment, secondary therapy, and whether antivirals should be given alone or in combination are questions of considerable uncertainty., Objective: The aim of this model was to undertake a comprehensive economic evaluation of all antiviral treatments for CHB to recommend the most cost-effective therapeutic sequence., Methods: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare the cost-effectiveness of all clinically relevant antiviral treatment sequences for nucleos(t)ide-naive adults with hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative CHB. Relative rates of HBeAg seroconversion and viral suppression were obtained from a network meta-analysis. Data on mortality, antiviral drug resistance, durability of response, adverse events, and costs were obtained from published literature. Results are reported in terms of lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and expected net benefit., Results: In the base-case analysis, pegylated interferon alpha-2a (peg-IFN α-2a) followed by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was most effective and cost-effective in HBeAg-positive patients, with a cost of £7488 per QALY gained compared with no treatment. In HBeAg-negative patients, peg-IFN α-2a followed by entecavir was most effective and cost-effective, with a cost of £6981 per QALY gained. The model was robust to a wide range of sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: Peg-IFN α-2a followed by tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir is the most effective antiviral treatment strategy for people with both variants of CHB. At a cost of less than £10,000 per QALY gained, these sequences are considered cost-effective in England and Wales. The results of this analysis were used to inform 2013 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline recommendations., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The use of triple-therapy, pegylated-interferon, ribavirin and either of the first generation hepatitis C virus (HCV) protease inhibitors telaprevir or boceprevir, is the new standard of care for treating genotype 1 chronic HCV. Clinical trials have shown response rates of around 70-80%, but there is limited data from the use of this combination outside this setting. Through an expanded access programme, we treated 59 patients, treatment naïve and experienced, with triple therapy. Baseline factors predicting treatment response or failure during triple therapy phase were identified in 58 patients. Thirty seven (63.8%) of 58 patients had undetectable HCV RNA 12weeks after the end of treatment. Genotype 1a (p=0.053), null-response to previous treatment (p=0.034), the rate of viral load decline after 12weeks of previous interferon-based treatment (p=0.033) were all associated with triple-therapy failure. The most common cause of on-treatment failure for telaprevir-based regimens was the development of resistance-associated variants (RAVs) at amino acids 36 and/or 155 of HCV protease (p=0.027) whereas in boceprevir-based regimens mutations at amino acid 54 were significant (p=0.015). SVR12 rates approaching 64% were achieved using triple therapy outside the clinical trial setting, in a patient cohort that included cirrhotics., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) versus alternative nucleos(t)ides from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective., Methods: A Markov model was used to calculate costs and benefits of nucleos(t)ide strategies in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and HBeAg-negative patients with hepatitis B virus mono-infection and compensated liver disease. The model included 18 disease states representing CHB progression. Quality-of-life data and costs for severe disease states were based on published studies, while monitoring costs for other disease states were based on expert opinion. Transition probabilities for movements between states were based on a meta-analysis, clinical trials, and natural history studies., Results: First-line TDF generated the highest net benefits of all 211 nucleos(t)ide strategies evaluated at a threshold of £ 20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. First-line TDF cost £ 19,084/QALY gained compared with giving lamivudine (LAM) first-line and switching to TDF when LAM resistance occurs. First-line TDF was also more effective and less costly than first-line entecavir (ETV), and showed extended dominance over first-line adefovir and strategies reserving adefovir, ETV, or combination therapy until after LAM resistance develops. For patients who have developed LAM resistance, TDF was also the most cost-effective treatment, generating greater net benefits than any other second-line strategy., Conclusions: First-line TDF is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with CHB at a £ 20,000 to £ 30,000/QALY ceiling ratio, costing £ 19,084/QALY gained compared with the next best alternative., (© 2010, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).)