4.5 Article

Glecaprevir and pibrentasvir for Japanese patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 or 2 infection: Results from a multicenter, real-world cohort study

期刊

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 49, 期 6, 页码 617-626

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hepr.13328

关键词

direct-acting antiviral; glecaprevir; hepatitis C virus; pibrentasvir; real-world cohort

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Glecaprevir (GLE) and pibrentasvir (PIB) are new direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) with pangenotypic inhibitors that respectively target the hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4 protease and NS5A. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combining GLE and PIB for patients with HCV genotype (GT) 1 or 2 infection in the clinical setting, including patients DAA-experienced or on hemodialysis. Methods This multicenter, real-world, retrospective, cohort study consisted of 314 Japanese patients who were treated with GLE (300 mg) and PIB (120 mg) for a fixed 8- or 12-week duration. We evaluated the sustained virologic response rate 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12) and adverse events. Results Among the treated patients, 122 had GT1 and 192 GT2 infection. The overall SVR12 rates in the per-protocol populations were 99.2% (119/120) for GT1 and 98.9% (183/185) for GT2. High SVR12 rates were observed in almost all subgroups, including cirrhosis, receiving hemodialysis, or previous all-oral DAA groups treated with asunaprevir and daclatasvir (GT1b), ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (GT1), or sofosbuvir and ribavirin (GT2). Virological relapse occurred in only 1.0% (3/305) of the patients who completed treatment. The most common adverse events were pruritus and fatigue (>5% of patients). Serious adverse events were rare and discontinuation due to an adverse event was required for 1.6% of the patients. Conclusions In this real-world cohort study, treatment with GLE/PIB achieved high SVR12 rates with a low rate of serious adverse events among patients with HCV GT1 or 2 infection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据