4.6 Article

Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir plus ribavirin in Japanese patients with genotype 1 or 2 hepatitis C who failed direct-acting antivirals

期刊

HEPATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 356-367

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12072-018-9878-6

关键词

DAA-experienced; NS5B polymerase inhibitor; NS5A inhibitor; Antiviral resistance; Salvage therapy

资金

  1. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Japan, there is a growing population of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who failed a direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-based regimen. In this Phase 3 study, we evaluated sofosbuvir-velpatasvir plus ribavirin in Japanese patients with genotype 1 or 2 HCV infection who previously received DAAs. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive sofosbuvir-velpatasvir plus ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks. Randomization was stratified by HCV genotype and presence of cirrhosis. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12-week post-treatment (SVR12). Of 117 participants, 81% had HCV genotype 1 infection, 33% had cirrhosis, and 95% had NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RAS) at baseline. Overall, SVR12 rates were 97% (58/60; 95% CI 88-100%) with 24 weeks of treatment and 82% (47/57; 95% CI 70-91%) with 12 weeks. For HCV genotype 1 and 2 infected patients, the SVR12 rates with 24 weeks of treatment were 98% and 92%, respectively. In both treatment groups, SVR12 rates in HCV genotype 1 patients were statistically superior to a historical control rate of 50% (p < 0.001). For patients with NS5A RASs at baseline, 85% (46/54) in the 12-week group and 96% (54/56) in the 24-week group achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events were upper respiratory tract viral infection, anemia, and headache. Three (2.6%) patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir plus ribavirin was highly effective and well tolerated in Japanese patients who previously failed a DAA-based regimen. Baseline NS5A RASs did not affect treatment outcomes.

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

4.6
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