Jessie Torgersen1, Craig W Newcomb2, Dena M Carbonari2, Christopher T Rentsch3, Lesley S Park4, Alyssa Mezochow5, Rajni L Mehta6, Lynn Buchwalder6, Janet P Tate6, Norbert Bräu7, Debika Bhattacharya8, Joseph K Lim6, Tamar H Taddei6, Amy C Justice9, Vincent Lo Re10. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: jessie.torgersen@pennmedicine.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Non-communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK; VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA. 4. Stanford Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 5. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA; Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 7. James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, NY, USA; Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 8. VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System and David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 9. VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA; Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA; Division of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA. 10. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cases of acute liver injury (ALI) have been reported among chronic HCV-infected patients receiving protease inhibitor (PI)-based direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens, but no analyses have compared the risk of ALI in patients receiving PI- vs. non-PI-based DAAs. Thus, we compared the risk of 3 ALI outcomes between patients (by baseline Fibrosis-4 [FIB-4] group) receiving PI-based or non-PI-based DAAs. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of 18,498 patients receiving PI-based DAA therapy (paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir±dasabuvir, elbasvir/grazoprevir, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir) matched 1:1 on propensity score to those receiving non-PI-based DAAs (sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir) in the 1945-1965 Veterans Birth Cohort (2014-2019). During exposure to DAA therapy, we determined development of: i) alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >200 U/L, ii) severe hepatic dysfunction (coagulopathy with hyperbilirubinemia), and iii) hepatic decompensation. We used Cox regression to determine hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for each ALI outcome within groups defined by baseline FIB-4 (≤3.25; >3.25). RESULTS: Among patients with baseline FIB-4 ≤3.25, those receiving PIs had a higher risk of ALT >200 U/L (HR 3.98; 95% CI 2.37-6.68), but not severe hepatic dysfunction (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.19-2.39) or hepatic decompensation (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.29-3.49), compared to those receiving non-PI-based regimens. For those with baseline FIB-4 >3.25, those receiving PIs had a higher risk of ALT >200 U/L (HR, 2.15; 95% CI 1.09-4.26), but not severe hepatic dysfunction (HR, 1.23 [0.64-2.38]) or hepatic decompensation (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.41-1.87), compared to those receiving non-PI-based regimens CONCLUSION: While risk of incident ALT elevations was increased in those receiving PI-based DAAs in both FIB-4 groups, the risk of severe hepatic dysfunction and hepatic decompensation did not differ between patients receiving PI- or non-PI-based DAAs in either FIB-4 group. LAY SUMMARY: Cases of liver injury have been reported among patients treated with protease inhibitor-based direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C infection, but it is not clear if the risk of liver injury among people starting these drugs is increased compared to those starting non-protease inhibitor-based therapy. In this study, patients receiving protease inhibitor-based treatment had a higher risk of liver inflammation than those receiving a non-protease inhibitor-based treatment, regardless of the presence of pre-treatment advanced liver fibrosis/cirrhosis. However, the risk of severe liver dysfunction and decompensation were not higher for patients treated with protease inhibitor-based regimens. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cases of acute liver injury (ALI) have been reported among chronic HCV-infected patients receiving protease inhibitor (PI)-based direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens, but no analyses have compared the risk of ALI in patients receiving PI- vs. non-PI-based DAAs. Thus, we compared the risk of 3 ALI outcomes between patients (by baseline Fibrosis-4 [FIB-4] group) receiving PI-based or non-PI-based DAAs. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of 18,498 patients receiving PI-based DAA therapy (paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir±dasabuvir, elbasvir/grazoprevir, glecaprevir/pibrentasvir) matched 1:1 on propensity score to those receiving non-PI-based DAAs (sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir) in the 1945-1965 Veterans Birth Cohort (2014-2019). During exposure to DAA therapy, we determined development of: i) alanine aminotransferase (ALT) >200 U/L, ii) severe hepatic dysfunction (coagulopathy with hyperbilirubinemia), and iii) hepatic decompensation. We used Cox regression to determine hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for each ALI outcome within groups defined by baseline FIB-4 (≤3.25; >3.25). RESULTS: Among patients with baseline FIB-4 ≤3.25, those receiving PIs had a higher risk of ALT >200 U/L (HR 3.98; 95% CI 2.37-6.68), but not severe hepatic dysfunction (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.19-2.39) or hepatic decompensation (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.29-3.49), compared to those receiving non-PI-based regimens. For those with baseline FIB-4 >3.25, those receiving PIs had a higher risk of ALT >200 U/L (HR, 2.15; 95% CI 1.09-4.26), but not severe hepatic dysfunction (HR, 1.23 [0.64-2.38]) or hepatic decompensation (HR, 0.87; 95% CI 0.41-1.87), compared to those receiving non-PI-based regimens CONCLUSION: While risk of incident ALT elevations was increased in those receiving PI-based DAAs in both FIB-4 groups, the risk of severe hepatic dysfunction and hepatic decompensation did not differ between patients receiving PI- or non-PI-based DAAs in either FIB-4 group. LAY SUMMARY: Cases of liver injury have been reported among patients treated with protease inhibitor-based direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C infection, but it is not clear if the risk of liver injury among people starting these drugs is increased compared to those starting non-protease inhibitor-based therapy. In this study, patients receiving protease inhibitor-based treatment had a higher risk of liver inflammation than those receiving a non-protease inhibitor-based treatment, regardless of the presence of pre-treatment advanced liver fibrosis/cirrhosis. However, the risk of severe liver dysfunction and decompensation were not higher for patients treated with protease inhibitor-based regimens. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Basile Njei; Denise Esserman; Supriya Krishnan; Michael Ohl; Janet P Tate; Ronald G Hauser; Tamar Taddei; Joseph Lim; Amy C Justice Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Vincent Lo Re; Joseph K Lim; Matthew Bidwell Goetz; Janet Tate; Harini Bathulapalli; Marina B Klein; David Rimland; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Adeel A Butt; Cynthia L Gibert; Sheldon T Brown; Farah Kidwai; Cynthia Brandt; Zachariah Dorey-Stein; K Rajender Reddy; Amy C Justice Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: P S Kamath; R H Wiesner; M Malinchoc; W Kremers; T M Therneau; C L Kosberg; G D'Amico; E R Dickson; W R Kim Journal: Hepatology Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Adeel A Butt; Kathleen McGinnis; Maria C Rodriguez-Barradas; Stephen Crystal; Michael Simberkoff; Matthew Bidwell Goetz; David Leaf; Amy C Justice Journal: AIDS Date: 2009-06-19 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Charitha Gowda; Craig W Newcomb; Qing Liu; Dena M Carbonari; James D Lewis; Kimberly A Forde; David S Goldberg; K Rajender Reddy; Jason A Roy; Amy R Marks; Jennifer L Schneider; Jay R Kostman; Janet P Tate; Joseph K Lim; Amy C Justice; Matthew Bidwell Goetz; Douglas A Corley; Vincent Lo Re Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2017-01-28 Impact factor: 3.835
Authors: Ira M Jacobson; Eric Lawitz; Paul Y Kwo; Christophe Hézode; Cheng-Yuan Peng; Anita Y M Howe; Peggy Hwang; Janice Wahl; Michael Robertson; Eliav Barr; Barbara A Haber Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-02-11 Impact factor: 33.883