4.7 Review

Management of acute HCV infection in the era of direct-acting antiviral therapy

Journal

NATURE REVIEWS GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 7, Pages 412-424

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41575-018-0026-5

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing
  2. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The management of acute HCV infection has not been standardized following the availability of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for chronic HCV infection, and substantial uncertainty exists regarding the optimal treatment regimen and duration. Despite the lack of direct evidence, the 2016 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD)Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines supported the same regimens for acute HCV as recommended for chronic HCV infection. owing to high efficacy and safety, whereas the 2016 European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines recommended sofosbuvir-ledipasvir, sofosbuvir-velpatasvir or sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir for 8 weeks in acute HCV infection, with a longer duration of 12 weeks recommended for those infected with HIV and/or baseline HCV RNA levels > 1,000,000 IU/ml. This Review outlines the epidemiology, natural history and diagnosis of acute HCV infection and provides contemporary information on DAAs for acute and recent HCV infection. The Review also discusses the 2016 AASLD-IDSA and EASL recommendations for acute HCV infection management in light of available evidence and highlights key differences in study populations and design that influence interpretation. We focus on populations at high risk of HCV transmission and acquisition, including people who inject drugs and HIV-positive men who have sex with men, and highlight the potential effects of diagnosis and treatment of acute HCV infection in contributing to HCV elimination.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available