Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Hepatol. Jul 18, 2015; 7(14): 1843-1855
Published online Jul 18, 2015. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i14.1843
Published online Jul 18, 2015. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i14.1843
Table 1 Centers of disease control recommendations on hepatitis C virus infection screening in the general population[17]
Birth between 1945-1965 without identifiable risk factors |
History of illegal drug use |
Receipient for clotting factors before 1987 |
Receipients for blood transfusion or solid organ transplantation before 1992 |
Received hemodialysis |
Health-care workers after needle sticks |
All HIV-positive individuals |
Signs and symptoms of liver disease |
Children born to HCV positive mothers |
Elevated liver function tests |
Table 2 Various scoring system for the histological staging for liver fibrosis
Stage | IASL score | Bats-Ludwig score | Metavir | Ishak score |
0 | No fibrosis | No fibrosis | No fibrosis | No fibrosis |
1 | Mild fibrosis | Fibrous portal expansion | Presence of periportal fibrotic expansion | Fibrous expansion of some portal areas with or without short fibrous septae |
2 | Moderate fibrosis | Rare bridges or septae | Periportal septae 1 (septum) | Fibrous expansion of most portal areas with or without short fibrous septae |
3 | Severe fibrosis | Numerous bridges or septae | Porto-central septae | Fibrous expansion of most portal areas with occasional portal to portal bridging |
4 | Cirrhosis | Cirrhosis | Cirrhosis | Fibrous expansion of most portal areas with marked bridging (portal to portal and portal to central) |
5 | Marked bridging (portal to portal and portal to central) with occasional nodules (incomplete cirrhosis) | |||
6 | Cirrhosis |
Table 3 The recommended for treatment of hepatitis C virus infection by genotype in treatment-naïve patients and in treatment naïve patients with compensated cirrhosis[22]
Genotype | Recommended regimen and duration | Recommended regimen for compensated cirrhosis (CP-A) and duration |
1a | Three options with similar efficacy: | Three options with similar efficacy: |
(1) Daily fixed dose LDP (90 mg)/SOF (400 mg) for 12 wk | (1) Daily fixed dose LDP (90 mg)/SOF (400 mg) for 12 wk | |
(2) Daily fixed-dose combination of paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg)/ombitasvir (25 mg) plus twice-daily dosed dasabuvir (250 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 12 wk | (2) Daily fixed-dose combination of paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg)/ombitasvir (25 mg) plus twice-daily dosed dasabuvir (250 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 12 wk | |
(3) Daily SOF (400 mg) plus SMV (150 mg) with or without weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 12 wk | (3) Daily SOF (400 mg) plus sMV (150 mg) with or without weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 24 wk | |
1b | Three options with similar efficacy: | Three options with similar efficacy: |
(1) Daily fixed dose LDP (90 mg)/SOF (400 mg) for 12 wk | (1) Daily fixed dose LDP (90 mg)/SOF (400 mg) for 12 wk | |
(2) Daily fixed-dose combination of paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg)/ombitasvir (25 mg) plus twice-daily dosed dasabuvir (250 mg) for 12 wk | (2) Daily fixed-dose combination of paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg)/ombitasvir (25 mg) plus twice-daily dosed dasabuvir (250 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 12 wk | |
(3) Daily SOF (400 mg) plus SMV (150 mg) with or without weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for12 wk | (3) Daily SOF (400 mg) plus SMV (150 mg) with or without weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 24 wk | |
2 | SOF (400 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 12 wk | SOF (400 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 16 wk |
3 | (1) SOF (400 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 24 wk | |
(2) Alternative for IFN eligible: SOF (400 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] plus weekly peg IFN for 12 wk | ||
4 | Three options with similar efficacy and 2 alternatives available: | |
(1) Daily fixed dose LDP (90 mg)/SOF (400 mg) for 12 wk | ||
(2) Daily fixed-dose combination of paritaprevir (150 mg)/ritonavir (100 mg)/ombitasvir (25 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 12 wk | ||
(3) Daily SOF (400 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 24 wk | ||
(4) Alternative 1 for IFN eligible: Daily SOF (400 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] plus weekly peg IFN for 12 wk | ||
(5) Alternative 2 for IFN eligible: Daily SOF (400 mg) plus SMV (150 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] for 12 wk | ||
5 | (1) Daily SOF (400 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] plus weekly peg IFN for 12 wk | |
(2) Alternative 1 for IFN eligible: Weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] plus weekly peg IFN for 48 wk | ||
6 | (1) Daily fixed dose LDP (90 mg)/SOF (400 mg) for 12 wk | |
(2) Alternative 1 for IFN eligible: Daily SOF (400 mg) and weight-based RBV [1000 mg (< 75 kg) to 1200 mg (≥ 75 kg)] plus weekly peg IFN for 12 wk |
Table 4 Factors that determine ineligibility to interferon based regimens for treatment[22]
Intolerance to IFN in the past |
Autoimmune hepatitis or other autoimmune disorders |
Hypersensitivity to PEG or any of its components |
Decompensated hepatic disease |
Major uncontrolled depression |
A baseline neutrophil count below 1500/μL, a baseline platelet count below 90000/μL or baseline hemoglobin below 10 g/dL |
A history of pre-existing heart disease |
Table 5 Summary of sofosbuvir trials and enrollment of cirrhotic patients
Trial | Regimen | Duration (wk) | Patient population (patients withcirrhosis in treatment group) | SVR and additionalfindings | SVR for cirrhoticpatients |
NEUTRINO[36] | SOF + peg IFN + RBV | 12 | 327 treatment naïve (54) with G1, 4-6 | 90% overall | 80% |
G1: 292 | 89% | ||||
G4: 28 | 96% | ||||
G5-6: 7 | 100% | ||||
FISSION[36] | SOF + RBV | 12 | 253/499 treatment naïve with G2, G3 (49 cirrhotic) assigned to treatment arm | 67% | 47% |
G2: 70/253 | 97% | 91% | |||
G3: 183/253 | 56% | 34% | |||
POSITRON[37] | SOF + RBV | 12 | 207/278 IFN intolerant or ineligible with G2, G3 (31 cirrhotic) assigned to treatment group | 78% | 61% |
G2: 109 | 93% | 94% | |||
FUSION[37] | SOF + RBV | 12 | G3: 98 | 61% | 21% |
100 treatment experienced with G2, G3 (26) | 50% | 42% | |||
G2: 36 | 86% | 60% | |||
SOF + RBV | 16 | G3: 64 | 30% | 19% | |
95 treatment experienced with G2, G3 (32) | 73% | 66% | |||
G2: 32 | 94% | 78% | |||
VALENCE[38] | SOF + RBV | 12 | G3: 63 | 62% | 61% |
73 patients with G2 (10) | 93% | 90% | |||
Treatment naïve G2: 32 | 97% | 100% | |||
SOF + RBV | 24 | Treatment experienced G2: 41 | 90% | 88% | |
250 patients with G3: (58) | 85% | 67% | |||
Treatment naïve G3: 105 | 93% | 92% | |||
Treatment experienced G3: 145 | 79% | 60% |
Table 6 Sustained virologic response achieved in the COSMOS study[43]
Cohort | Regimen | Duration (wk) | SVR12 |
Cohort 1: Prior non-responder HCV | SMV/SOF + RBV | 24 | 79% |
patients with METAVIR scores (F0-F2) | SMV/SOF | 24 | 93% |
SMV/SOF + RBV | 12 | 96% | |
SMV/SOF | 12 | 93% | |
Cohort 2: Prior non-responder and | SMV/SOF + RBV | 24 | 93% |
treatment naïve HCV patients with | SMV/SOF | 24 | 100% |
METAVIR scores (F3-F4) | SMV/SOF + RBV | 12 | 93% |
SMV/SOF | 12 | 93% |
Table 7 Summary of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir trials and enrollment of cirrhotic patients
Trial | Regimen | Patient population (% with cirrhosis) | Duration (wk) | SVR12 |
ION-1[45] | SOF + LDP | 212 naïve (16%) | 12 | 99% |
SOF + LDP + RBV | 211 naïve (15%) | 12 | 97% | |
SOF + LDP | 214 naïve (15%) | 24 | 98% | |
SOF + LDP + RBV | 215 naïve (17%) | 24 | 99% | |
ION-2[46] | SOF + LDP | 109 treatment experienced (20%) | 12 | 94% |
SOF + LDP + RBV | 111 treatment experienced (20%) | 12 | 96% | |
SOF + LDP | 109 treatment experienced (20%) | 24 | 99% | |
SOF + LDP + RBV | 111 treatment experienced (20%) | 24 | 99% | |
ION-3[47] | SOF + LDP | 215 naïve (0%) | 8 | 94% |
SOF + LDP + RBV | 216 naïve (0%) | 8 | 93% | |
SOF + LDP | 216 naïve (0%) | 12 | 95% |
- Citation: Khullar V, Firpi RJ. Hepatitis C cirrhosis: New perspectives for diagnosis and treatment. World J Hepatol 2015; 7(14): 1843-1855
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v7/i14/1843.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v7.i14.1843