Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;44(4):400-410.
Abstract and Introduction
Background Real-world data are needed to inform hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment decisions.
Aim To assess the comparative effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin (LDV/SOF ± RBV) vs. ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir (OPrD) ± RBV in genotype 1 HCV patients treated in routine medical practice.
Methods Observational intent-to-treat cohort of genotype 1 patients initiating 8 or 12 weeks of LDV/SOF ± RBV or 12 weeks of OPrD ± RBV. Sustained virological response (SVR) required RNA below the limit of quantification at least 10 weeks after end of treatment.
Results 6961 patients initiated LDV/SOF (N = 4478), LDV/SOF + RBV (N = 1269), OPrD (N = 297), and OPrD + RBV (N = 917) at 126 facilities. Intention-to-treat SVR rates were 91.4% (3813/4170) for LDV/SOF, 90.0% (1098/1220) for LDV/SOF + RBV, 95.1% (269/283) for OPrD and 85.8% (746/869) for OPrD + RBV. SVR rates in those completing 8 weeks of LDV/SOF were 91.7% (1223/1333) and 12 weeks of LDV/SOF 94.6% (2475/2615), LDV/SOF + RBV 92.2% (1033/1120), OPrD 98.0% (248/253) and OPrD + RBV 95.5% (705/738). Significant predictors of SVR were African American race (OR 0.71, 95%CI 0.59–0.86, P < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2 (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60–0.89, P = 0.002), FIB4 > 3.25 (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.49–0.72, P < 0.001), OPrD + RBV compared to LDV/SOF (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48–0.76, P < 0.001) and subtype 1b (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11–1.71, P = 0.003). For those completing 12 weeks, FIB-4 > 3.25 and high BMI remained significant predictors.
Conclusions In this robust real-world cohort, SVR rates were similar to clinical trials. FIB-4 > 3.25 and high BMI were significant negative predictors of SVR. Reduced odds of SVR in African Americans and with OPrD + RBV likely arose from excess early discontinuation as these factors were no longer significant, when limited to patients completing a 12-week course.
The landscape of antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection continues to advance as all-oral options expand. Sustained virological response (SVR) rates reported in clinical trials with all-oral regimens are consistently above 90% for most HCV-infected patient populations and have become the expected norm. Because of the rapidity with which HCV therapies are progressing and the absence of comparative clinical trials, providers are left to extrapolate information to make clinical decisions about medication selection. Emerging real-world data of individual therapies have demonstrated results comparable to registration trials, however, comparative effectiveness evaluations are needed to determine whether clinical differences exist between regimens.[1–6] Comparative effectiveness analyses will become increasingly important as patients, providers, healthcare systems and managed care organisations consider additional nuances of convenience, drug interactions, treatment duration and ultimately cost effectiveness.
Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) and ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir plus dasabuvir (OPrD) have been extensively evaluated individually in clinical trials of HCV-infected adults. The SVR rates in LDV/SOF trials of genotype 1 patients with and without cirrhosis ranged from 94% to 99% and in OPrD trials SVR rates ranged from 89% to 99%.[7–14] While these outcomes appear similar, differences in study design and patient populations prevent direct cross-study comparison of results.
Hepatitis C virus disproportionally affects the veteran population and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the largest US provider of healthcare to HCV-infected individuals caring for nearly 5% of all individuals in the US with HCV infection.[15,16] Thus, ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of HCV antiviral regimens remains a priority for VA. With the rapid uptake of all-oral HCV regimens across the VA system and the diverse HCV-infected veteran population receiving these regimens, we examined SVR rates and comparative effectiveness of LDV/SOF ± ribavirin (RBV) vs. OPrD ± RBV in genotype 1 HCV-infected veterans treated in routine medical practice