Abstract
Background
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) direct-acting antiviral therapy is effective among people receiving opioid substitution therapy (OST), but studies are limited by small numbers of nongenotype 1 (GT1) patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment completion, adherence, SVR12, and safety of sofosbuvir-based therapies in HCV patients receiving and not receiving OST.
Methods
Ten phase 3 studies of sofosbuvir-based regimens included ION (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin for 8, 12, or 24 weeks in GT1), ASTRAL (sofosbuvir/velpatasvir for 12 weeks in GT1-6), and POLARIS (sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in GT1-6). Patients with clinically significant drug use (last 12 months) or noncannabinoids detected at screening were ineligible.
Results
Among 4743 patients, 4% (n = 194) were receiving OST (methadone; n = 113; buprenorphine, n = 75; other, n = 6). Compared with those not receiving OST (n = 4549), those receiving OST (n = 194) were younger (mean age, 48 vs 54), more often male (73% vs 61%), GT3 (38% vs 17%), treatment-naïve (78% vs 65%), and cirrhotic (36% vs 23%). Among those receiving and not receiving OST, there was no significant difference in treatment completion (97% vs 99%, P = .06), SVR12 (94% vs 97%, P = .06), relapse (0.5% vs 2.1%, P = .19), adverse events (78% vs 77%, P = .79), or serious adverse events (3.6% vs 2.4%, P = .24). There was no difference in SVR12 in patients with cirrhosis (99% vs 95%, P = .25) or those with G3 (95% vs 95%, P = .77) in those receiving OST. Among patients receiving OST, SVR12 was high among those receiving methadone (95%) and buprenorphine (96%).
Conclusion
Sofosbuvir-based therapies are effective and safe in patients receiving OST.
Keywords: DAA, drug use, hepatitis C virus, interferon-free, ledipasvir, PWID, sofosbuvir, velpatasvir, voxilaprevir
People who inject drugs (PWID) are disproportionately affected by hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection [1, 2]. Despite increasing liver-related morbidity and mortality among PWID [2, 3], some clinicians are reluctant to prescribe direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for PWID or people receiving opioid substitution therapy (OST) based on concerns of poor adherence, lower response to therapy, and high rates of reinfection [4]. This is inconsistent with international guidelines recommending that all people should receive HCV treatment and that PWID should be prioritized, given the potential to reduce transmission to others [5–8]. Further data on treatment outcomes among populations of PWID receiving DAA therapy, including those receiving OST, are needed to change HCV health policy and clinical practice.
People with a history of injecting drug use include former injectors who have ceased injecting and recent PWID [9]. Some people with a history of injecting drug use may also be receiving OST (eg, methadone, buprenorphine) for the management of opioid dependence. Interferon-based therapy is effective in people with a history of injecting drug use, including those with recent injecting drug use and those receiving OST, with responses similar to that observed in large clinical studies [10–12]. Although data are emerging on outcomes to DAA-based HCV therapy among PWID receiving OST [13–23], most studies are limited by small numbers of HCV nongenotype 1 patients. There are also no published studies on the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in people receiving OST.
Phase 3 studies of sofosbuvir-based therapy (the ION, ASTRAL, and POLARIS studies) included the evaluation of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1–6 [24–30]. People receiving stable OST were eligible for inclusion, but people with clinically relevant illicit drug use within 12 months of screening or illicit drugs (excluding cannabinoids) detected by a urine drug test at screening were excluded from study participation. These clinical trial populations are highly selected and may not be representative of recent PWID populations. However, studies in these populations contribute to the growing body of evidence on interferon-free DAA therapy among people receiving OST, particularly people with HCV nongenotype 1 infection.
The aim of this post hoc analysis of the phase 3 studies of sofosbuvir-based therapy was to evaluate the treatment completion, adherence, SVR12, and safety of sofosbuvir-based therapy in patients receiving OST and not receiving OST.
METHODS
Study Participants and Design
From October 2012 to May 2016, participants were enrolled in 10 multicenter, randomized clinical studies, including ION-1–3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01701401, NCT01768286, and NCT01851330, respectively [24–26]), ASTRAL-1–3 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02201940, NCT02220998, and NCT02201953, respectively [27, 28]), and POLARIS-1–4 (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02607735, NCT02607800, NCT02639338, and NCT02639247 [29, 30]).
In the ION-1–3 studies, a fixed-dose combination tablet of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir 90 mg/400 mg was administered for 8, 12, or 24 weeks with or without ribavirin in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection [24–26]. Twice-daily ribavirin dose was given according to body weight (1000 mg daily < 75 kg or 1200 mg daily ≥ 75 kg). In the ASTRAL-1–3 studies, a fixed-dose combination tablet of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir 400 mg/100 mg was administered for 12 weeks in patients with chronic HCV genotypes 1–6 [27, 28]. In the POLARIS studies, a fixed-dose combination tablet of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir 400 mg/100 mg was administered for 12 weeks or a fixed-dose combination tablet of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir 400 mg/100 mg/100 mg was administered for 8 or 12 weeks in patients with chronic HCV genotypes 1–6 [29, 30].
Participants receiving OST (eg, methadone or buprenorphine with and without naloxone) were eligible for inclusion (OST determined based on reported concomitant medications). Patients were excluded from enrollment in these studies if they had clinically significant drug use within 12 months of screening (as assessed by the investigator based on participant self-report or medical chart review) or illicit drug use (excluding cannabinoids) detected by a urine drug test during the screening phase that was not explained by a prescription medication. The designs and results of these studies have been described previously [24–30].
Study End Points
In this analysis, the end points included treatment completion, adherence (≥90% of doses), SVR12, safety (adverse events [AEs], serious AEs, and hemoglobin level <10 g/dL), and reinfection. The analyzed population included all randomized patients who received ≥1 dose of study medication. Adherence was measured by counting the number of unused tablets in the returned bottles to derive the number of administrated tablets. In situations where a bottle was not returned, the number of tablets administered from that bottle will be assumed to be 0. Adherence was calculated by dividing the number of total doses administered during therapy (determined by pill counts at week 4, 8, 12, 16, and 24 [where applicable] study visits) by the total expected number of prescribed doses. SVR12 was defined as the absence of quantifiable HCV RNA in serum (<25 IU/mL or <15 IU/mL), measured by COBAS TaqMan HCV Test, v2.0 (Roche Molecular Systems), at 12 weeks after the end of study treatment. Participants were monitored for recurrence (viral relapse or reinfection) at 4 weeks, 12 weeks (SVR12), and 24 weeks (SVR24) following the completion of treatment. Deep sequencing of the HCV NS5A and NS5B genes was performed for all patients at baseline and again for all patients with virologic failure in samples obtained at the first time point of failure with an HCV RNA >1000 IU/mL [24–30]. Phylogenetic analyses were used to distinguish viral relapse from reinfection.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics, including means, frequencies, and percentages (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs] for SVR12) were used to summarize the data. The proportion of participants with treatment completion, ≥90% adherence, SVR12, and AEs was compared among people receiving and not receiving OST. Comparisons were made using a 2-sided Fisher exact test. All P values are 2-sided; a level of .05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.4 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
RESULTS
Participant Characteristics
Overall, 4743 patients were enrolled and treated in the ION (n = 1952; ION-1, n = 865; ION-2, n = 440; ION-3, n = 647), ASTRAL (n = 1035; ASTRAL-1, n = 624; ASTRAL-2, n = 134; ASTRAL-3, n = 277), and POLARIS studies (n = 1756; POLARIS-1, n = 263; POLARIS-2, n = 941; POLARIS-3, n = 333; POLARIS-4, n = 219). Among individuals in all these studies, 4% (n = 194) were receiving OST at enrollment.
The clinical characteristics of the study participants are shown in Table 1. Among patients receiving OST (n = 194), 27% (n = 53) received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin (for 8, 12, or 24 weeks), 47% (n = 92) received sofosbuvir/velpatasvir for 12 weeks, and 25% (n = 49) received sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (for 8 or 12 weeks). Among patients not receiving OST (n = 4549), 42% (n = 1899) received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin (for 8, 12, or 24 weeks), 36% (n = 1643) received sofosbuvir/velpatasvir for 12 weeks, and 22% (n = 1007) received sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (for 8 or 12 weeks).
Table 1.
Baseline Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Patients With Chronic HCV Infection Receiving Sofosbuvir-Based Therapies in the ION, ASTRAL, and POLARIS Phase 3 Clinical Trials, by Receipt of Opioid Substitution Therapy
| Characteristic | OST at Enrollment (n = 194), n (%) |
No OST at Enrollment (n = 4549), n (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) age, y | 48 (10.7) | 54 (10.4) |
| Male sex, n (%) | 141 (73) | 2770 (61) |
| HCV genotype, n (%)a | ||
| 1a | 84 (43) | 2109 (46) |
| 1b | 12 (6) | 816 (18) |
| 2 | 14 (7) | 409 (9) |
| 3 | 74 (38) | 787 (17) |
| 4 | 10 (5) | 269 (6) |
| 5 | 0 | 54 (1) |
| 6 | 0 | 86 (2) |
| HCV RNA log10 IU/mL, mean (SD) | 6.3 (0.7) | 6.3 (0.7) |
| HCV RNA ≥ 800000 IU/mL, n (%) | 142 (73) | 3456 (76) |
| Fibrosis stage | ||
| F0 | 42 (22) | 826 (18) |
| F1 | 23 (12) | 410 (9) |
| F2 | 45 (24) | 1141 (25) |
| F3 | 30 (16) | 721 (16) |
| F4 | 51 (27) | 1410 (31) |
| Treatment-experienced, n (%) | 42 (22) | 1568 (34) |
| Therapy | ||
| Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin (8 wk) | 8 (4) | 423 (9) |
| Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin (12 wk) | 32 (16) | 835 (18) |
| Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin (24 wk) | 13 (7) | 641 (14) |
| Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (12 wk) | 92 (47) | 1643 (36) |
| Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (8 wk) | 41 (21) | 570 (13) |
| Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (12 wk) | 8 (4) | 437 (10) |
| OST, n (%) | ||
| Methadone | 113 (58) | - |
| Buprenorphine | 35 (18) | - |
| Buprenorphine/naloxone | 40 (21) | - |
| Other | 6 (3) | - |
Abbreviations: HCV, hepatitis C virus; OST, opioid substitution therapy.
aNineteen patients were classified as other, unknown, or missing, and all were not receiving OST at enrollment.
Among patients receiving OST (n = 194), 36% (n = 70) had cirrhosis, 22% (n = 42) were treatment-experienced, and 38% (n = 74) were infected with HCV genotype 3. Among patients not receiving OST (n = 4549), 23% (n = 1041) had cirrhosis, 34% (n = 1568) were treatment-experienced, and 17% (n = 787) were infected with HCV genotype 3.
HCV Treatment Completion and Adherence
The proportion of participants completing HCV therapy was 97.4% (189/194; 95% CI, 94.1%–99.2%) among participants receiving OST, compared with 98.9% (4501/4549; 95% CI, 98.6%–99.2%) among those not receiving OST (P = .064) (Table 2). The reasons for treatment discontinuation among patients receiving OST (n = 5) included AEs (n = 1), loss to follow-up (n = 1), consent withdrawal (n = 1), lack of efficacy (n = 1), and noncompliance (n = 1). The reasons for treatment discontinuation among patients not receiving OST (n = 48) included AEs (n = 19), loss to follow-up (n = 10), consent withdrawal (n = 6), protocol violation (n = 6), lack of efficacy (n = 4), noncompliance (n = 1), and pregnancy (n = 2). Among patients receiving OST, the proportion of participants completing therapy with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin was 96.2% (51/53), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir was 96.7% (89/92), and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir was 100% (49/49).
Table 2.
Treatment and Safety Outcomes Among Patients With Chronic HCV Infection Receiving Sofosbuvir-Based Therapies in the ION, ASTRAL, and POLARIS Phase 3 Clinical Trials, by Receipt of Opioid Substitution Therapy
| Characteristic | OST at Enrollment | No OST at Enrollment | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall, n/N (%) | |||
| Treatment completion | 189/194 (97.4) | 4501/4549 (98.9) | .064 |
| ≥90% adherence | 175/194 (90.2) | 4291/4549 (94.3) | .027 |
| SVR12 | 183/194 (94.3) | 4405/4549 (96.8) | .062 |
| Adverse events | 152/194 (78.4) | 3517/4549 (77.3) | .79 |
| Severe adverse events | 7/194 (3.6) | 108/4549 (2.4) | .24 |
| Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin | |||
| Treatment completion | 51/53 (96.2) | 1863/1899 (98.1) | .28 |
| ≥90% adherence | 47/53 (88.7) | 1791/1899 (94.3) | .12 |
| SVR12 | 49/53 (92.5) | 1839/1899 (96.8) | .093 |
| Adverse events | 47/53 (88.7) | 1513/1899 (79.7) | .12 |
| Severe adverse events | 2/53 (3.8) | 50/1899 (2.6) | .65 |
| Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir | |||
| Treatment completion | 89/92 (96.7) | 1634/1643 (99.5) | .022 |
| ≥90% adherence | 82/92 (89.1) | 1559/1643 (94.9) | .029 |
| SVR12 | 87/92 (94.6) | 1601/1643 (97.4) | .099 |
| Adverse events | 68/92 (73.9) | 1251/1643 (76.1) | .62 |
| Severe adverse events | 4/92 (4.3) | 33/1643 (2.0) | .13 |
| Sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir | |||
| Treatment completion, n (%) | 49/49 (100.0) | 1004/1007 (99.7) | 1.00 |
| ≥90% adherence | 46/49 (93.9) | 941/1007 (93.4) | 1.00 |
| SVR12 | 47/49 (95.9) | 965/1007 (95.8) | 1.00 |
| Adverse events | 37/49 (75.5) | 753/1007 (74.8) | 1.00 |
| Severe adverse events | 1/49 (2.0) | 25/1007 (2.5) | 1.00 |
Abbreviations: HCV, hepatitis C virus; OST, opioid substitution therapy.
The proportion of participants with ≥90% adherence to therapy was 90.2% (175/194; 95% CI, 85.1%–94.0%) among participants receiving OST, compared with 94.3% (4291/4549; 95% CI, 93.6%–95.0%) among those not receiving OST (P = .027) (Table 2). Of the 19 patients receiving OST who had ˂90% calculated adherence, 12 patients achieved SVR12 and 7 patients failed to achieve SVR12 (3 were lost to follow-up, 1 withdrew consent on day 29, 1 had virologic breakthrough and drug levels consistent with nonadherence, 1 discontinued on day 1 due to AE, 1 was discontinued by the investigator on day 5 due to nonadherence). Among patients receiving OST, the proportion of participants with ≥90% adherence with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin was 88.7% (47/53), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir was 89.1% (82/92), and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir was 93.9% (46/49).
HCV Treatment Outcomes
The proportion with SVR12 among those receiving OST was 94.3% (183/194; 95% CI, 90.1%–97.1%) compared with 96.8% for those not receiving OST (4405/4549; 95% CI, 96.3%–97.3%; P = .062) (Table 2). SVR12 by treatment type and duration for participants receiving and not receiving OST is shown in Table 2.
Among patients receiving OST, the proportion of participants with SVR12 with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin was 92.5% (49/53), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir was 94.6% (87/92), and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir was 95.9% (47/49). Further, among patients with HCV genotype 3, the response to therapy among patients receiving sofosbuvir/velpatasvir was 95.8% (46/48) and receiving sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir was 92.3% (24/26).
Among patients receiving OST, the proportion of participants with SVR12 among people with F0 was 88.1% (37/42), with F1 was 91.3% (21/23), with F2 was 97.8% (44/45), with F3 was 93.3% (28/30), and with F4 was 98.0% (50/51).
Among patients receiving OST across treatment regimens, there was no difference in SVR12 in those receiving methadone and buprenorphine (94.7% vs 96.0%, P = 1.0), patients with and without cirrhosis (98.6% vs 91.9%, P = .089), and patients with genotype 3 as compared with genotype 1a (94.6% vs 95.2%, P = .850).
Safety
The proportions with AEs (78.4%; 95% CI, 71.9%–83.9%; vs 77.3%; 95% CI, 76.1%–78.5%; P = .790) (Tables 2 and 3) and serious AEs (3.6%; 95% CI, 1.5%–7.3%; vs 2.4%; 95% CI, 2.0%–2.9%; P = .200) (Table 2) were similar among participants receiving and not receiving OST. AEs were mostly mild or moderate in severity.
Table 3.
Adverse Events Among Patients With Chronic HCV Infection Receiving Sofosbuvir-Based Therapies in the ION, ASTRAL, and POLARIS Phase 3 Clinical Studies, by Receipt of Opioid Substitution Therapy
| OST at Enrollment | No OST at Enrollment | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse Event, n (%) | Ledipasvir/ Sofosbuvir ± Ribavirin (n = 53) |
Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir (n = 92) |
Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/ Voxilaprevir (n = 49) |
Ledipasvir/ Sofosbuvir ± Ribavirin (n = 1899) |
Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir (n = 1643) |
Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/ Voxilaprevir (n = 1007) |
| Adverse events in >10% | ||||||
| Headache | 12 (22.6) | 20 (21.7) | 8 (16.3) | 443 (23.3) | 450 (27.4) | 269 (26.7) |
| Fatigue | 19 (35.8) | 18 (19.6) | 11 (22.4) | 556 (29.3) | 364 (22.2) | 222 (22.0) |
| Nausea | 12 (22.6) | 14 (15.2) | 12 (24.5) | 253 (13.3) | 184 (11.2) | 150 (14.9) |
| Diarrhea | 4 (7.5) | 7 (7.6) | 5 (10.2) | 151 (8.0) | 110 (6.7) | 183 (18.2) |
| Insomnia | 5 (9.4) | 5 (5.4) | 3 (6.1) | 232 (12.2) | 112 (6.8) | 59 (5.9) |
| Vomiting | 4 (7.5) | 6 (6.5) | 6 (12.2) | 60 (3.2) | 42 (2.6) | 24 (2.4) |
Abbreviations: HCV, hepatitis C virus; OST, opioid substitution therapy.
HCV Reinfection
Two patients were found to have reinfection with a different genotype than at baseline. Neither subject was receiving OST at baseline. One patient enrolled in ASTRAL-3 had genotype 3a at baseline and received SOF/VEL for 12 weeks. The patient achieved SVR4 and was found to have genotype 1a 12 weeks after the completion of therapy. Another patient enrolled in POLARIS-2 had genotype 1a and received SOF/VEL for 12 weeks. The patient achieved SVR12 but was found to have genotype 3a 24 weeks after therapy.
DISCUSSION
This post hoc analysis of sofosbuvir-based therapies from the ION, ASTRAL, and POLARIS studies demonstrated high SVR12 rates among patients receiving OST, including those with HCV genotype 3 receiving sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir. Similar treatment completion, SVR12, and AE rates were observed among patients with chronic HCV genotypes 1–6 receiving and not receiving OST, although patients not receiving OST had a significantly higher proportion with ≥90% adherence. Collectively, these data add to the body of evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of DAA treatment for HCV among people receiving stable OST, consistent with international recommendations [5–8].
Overall, the SVR was 94% among patients receiving OST and sofosbuvir-based therapy, with no observed difference in response compared with those not receiving OST, which is consistent with previous post hoc analyses of the ION and ASTRAL studies [21, 22] and other studies in this population [23]. These results are also comparable with a large phase 3 study of people receiving stable OST (recent injecting drug use at screening was permitted) and HCV genotype 1, 4, and 6 infection receiving elbasvir/grazoprevir for 12 weeks, where an SVR of 91% was observed [20]. This study adds to the literature by providing further data among patients with cirrhosis and genotype 3 infection in people receiving OST, enabling a more precise estimate of outcomes in this population. Also, this is the first study to report outcomes with the combination of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in patients stable on OST. These data are consistent with previous data demonstrating that interferon-based HCV therapy is safe and effective among people receiving OST [10–12, 31–33]. Collectively, these data support DAA therapy for patients stable on OST.
Treatment completion was high among people receiving OST (97%), with no difference between those not receiving OST, consistent with other studies of interferon-free [21, 22] and interferon-based therapy [10–12, 31, 32]. Adherence to therapy was significantly lower in people receiving OST as compared with those not receiving OST (90% vs 94%), although it is uncertain whether this would be clinically significant. In a meta-analysis of interferon-based studies among PWID, engagement in addiction treatment was associated with higher treatment completion [12]. Previous studies have demonstrated that the colocation of HCV services and drug treatment can be successfully integrated [34], with the colocation of HCV care in OST clinics welcomed by the large majority of participants and providers [35]. Further efforts are needed to expand the integration of HCV DAA therapy in drug and alcohol clinics and community health clinics that also provide OST. Also, improved education and training of practitioners working in drug treatment clinics about HCV testing, liver disease assessment, and HCV treatment are required to further develop competency and expand HCV treatment access for people receiving OST.
It is notable that there were no cases of HCV reinfection following DAA therapy among people receiving OST in the ION, ASTRAL, and POLARIS studies. Previous studies have demonstrated reinfection rates ranging from 1% to 5% per 100 person-years following successful interferon-based [10, 36–38] and DAA therapy [20] among people with a history of injecting drug use or those receiving OST. However, the sample size and duration of follow-up in this study are limited, and the included population is likely at lower risk of reinfection, given that they were not using illicit drugs at the time of treatment initiation. Further long-term studies of HCV reinfection among people receiving OST and recent PWID are required to more fully characterize the risk of HCV reinfection and associated risk factors.
This study has a number of limitations. People with active drug use at baseline were excluded from participating in the ION, ASTRAL, and POLARIS studies, and as such, enrolled participants represented a selected population likely to be engaged in care. Therefore, these findings may not be generalizable to other PWID populations (particularly those not receiving stable OST or recent PWID). Further, this was also a post hoc analysis, which was not defined prior to the initiation of these studies. Also, the data with respect to adherence must be interpreted with caution. Adherence in these studies was measured by counting the number of pills in returned pill bottles. In instances where participants did not return their pill bottles, a conservative measure of adherence was used and adherence for that period was assumed to be 0%. Given limited data on interferon-free treatment outcomes among people receiving OST (particularly people with cirrhosis and HCV genotype 3), these data still provide important guidance for HCV management in these populations.
In conclusion, these data demonstrate that sofosbuvir-based therapy is effective and well tolerated among patients receiving OST. Although this study provides important data to add to the literature on HCV therapy in people receiving OST, further data are still needed on DAA therapy among people with recent or ongoing injecting drug use. Ongoing clinical trials evaluating interferon-free therapy among PWID with recent drug use (SIMPLIFY, NCT02336139; HERO, NCT02824640) and PWID with recent drug use and/or those receiving OST (D3FEAT, NCT02498015) will hopefully provide further data in this regard. Global HCV elimination efforts will require the inclusion of PWID as a key priority population, and strategies are needed to enhance HCV care in this important group.
Acknowledgments
Disclaimers. The Kirby Institute is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Australian Government. Jason Grebely is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Career Development Fellowship. Gregory Dore is supported through National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia Practitioner Fellowship.
Financial support. This work was supported by Gilead Sciences.
Potential conflicts of interest. Jason Grebely is a consultant/advisor and has received research grants from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cepheid, Gilead Sciences, Merck, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Stefan Zeuzem is a consultant for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Intercept, Janssen, Merck, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Gregory Dore is a consultant/advisor to and has received research grants from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and Abbott Diagnostics. Liyun Ni, Joe Llewellyn, Heshaam M. Mir, Nika Sajed, Luisa M. Stamm, Robert H. Hyland, John McNally, and Diana M. Brainard are employees of Gilead Sciences. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
References
- 1. Degenhardt L, Peacock A, Colledge S et al. . Global prevalence of injecting drug use and sociodemographic characteristics and prevalence of HIV, HBV, and HCV in people who inject drugs: a multistage systematic review. Lancet Glob Health 2017; 5:e1192–207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Hajarizadeh B, Grebely J, Dore GJ. Epidemiology and natural history of HCV infection. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 10:553–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Grebely J, Dore GJ. What is killing people with hepatitis C virus infection?Semin Liver Dis 2011; 31:331–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Asher AK, Portillo CJ, Cooper BA et al. . Clinicians’ views of hepatitis C virus treatment candidacy with direct-acting antiviral regimens for people who inject drugs. Subst Use Misuse 2016; 51:1218–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. EASL. EASL recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C 2016. J Hepatol 2017; 66:153–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. AASLD/IDSA. HCV Guidance: Recommendations for Testing, Managing, and Treating Hepatitis C. Available at: https://www.hcvguidelines.org/. Accessed 18 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
- 7. Grebely J, Robaeys G, Bruggmann P et al. ; International Network for Hepatitis in Substance Users Recommendations for the management of hepatitis C virus infection among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy 2015; 26:1028–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. WHO. Guidelines for the Screening Care and Treatment of Persons With Chronic Hepatitis C Infection. 2016. WHO. http://www.who.int/hepatitis/publications/hepatitis-c-guidelines-2016/en/. Accessed 13 January 2018. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Larney S, Grebely J, Hickman M et al. . Defining populations and injecting parameters among people who inject drugs: implications for the assessment of hepatitis C treatment programs. Int J Drug Policy 2015; 26:950–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Aspinall EJ, Corson S, Doyle JS et al. . Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection among people who are actively injecting drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57(Suppl 2):S80–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Hellard M, Sacks-Davis R, Gold J. Hepatitis C treatment for injection drug users: a review of the available evidence. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 49:561–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Dimova RB, Zeremski M, Jacobson IM et al. . Determinants of hepatitis C virus treatment completion and efficacy in drug users assessed by meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 56:806–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Grebely J, Puoti M, Wedemeyer H et al. . Safety and efficacy of ombitasvir, paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C patients receiving opioid substitution therapy: a pooled analysis across 12 clinical trials. J Hepatol 2017; 66:S514. [Google Scholar]
- 14. Grebely J, Jacobson IM, Kayali Z et al. . SOF/VEL/VOX for 8 or 12 weeks is well tolerated and results in high SVR12 rates in patients receiving opioid substitution therapy. J Hepatol 2017; 66:S513. [Google Scholar]
- 15. Christensen S, Schober A, Mauss S et al. . DAA-treatment of HCV-infected patients on opioid substitution therapy (OST): does the clinical setting matter? Data from the German Hepatitis C-Registry (DHC-R). Hepatology 2016; 64(S1):982A–3A. [Google Scholar]
- 16. Schìtz A, Moser S, Marchart K et al. . Direct observed therapy of chronic hepatitis C with interferon-free all-oral regimens at a low-threshold drug treatment facility-a new concept for treatment of patients with borderline compliance receiving opioid substitution therapy. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111:903–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Scherz N, Brunner N, Bruggmann P. Direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C in patient in opioid substitution treatment and heroin assisted treatment: real-life data. J Hepatol 2017; 66:S726. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Dillon J, Mauss S, Nalpas C et al. . Efficacyand safety of Simeprevir-containing hepatitis C therapy in patients on opiate substitution therapy. J Hepatol 2017; 66:S520. [Google Scholar]
- 19. Boyle A, Marra F, Fox R et al. . Partial directly observed therapy with ombitasvir/paritaprevir based regimens allows for successful treatment of patients on daily supervised methadone. J Hepatol 2017; 66(1):S282. [Google Scholar]
- 20. Dore GJ, Altice F, Litwin AH et al. ; C-EDGE CO-STAR Study Group Elbasvir-grazoprevir to treat hepatitis C virus infection in persons receiving opioid agonist therapy: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2016; 165:625–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Grebely J, Mauss S, Brown A et al. . Efficacy and safety of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with and without ribavirin in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection receiving opioid substitution therapy: analysis of phase 3 ION trials. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63:1405–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Grebely J, Dore GJ, Zeuzem S et al. . Efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection receiving opioid substitution therapy: analysis of phase 3 ASTRAL trials. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63:1479–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Lalezari J, Sullivan JG, Varunok P et al. . Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/r and dasabuvir plus ribavirin in HCV genotype 1-infected patients on methadone or buprenorphine. J Hepatol 2015; 63:364–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Afdhal N, Zeuzem S, Kwo P et al. ; ION-1 Investigators Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for untreated HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1889–98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Afdhal N, Reddy KR, Nelson DR et al. ; ION-2 Investigators Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for previously treated HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1483–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Kowdley KV, Gordon SC, Reddy KR et al. ; ION-3 Investigators Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 8 or 12 weeks for chronic HCV without cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1879–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Feld JJ, Jacobson IM, Hézode C et al. ; ASTRAL-1 Investigators Sofosbuvir and velpatasvir for HCV genotype 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 infection. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2599–607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Foster GR, Afdhal N, Roberts SK et al. ; ASTRAL-2 Investigators; ASTRAL-3 Investigators Sofosbuvir and velpatasvir for HCV genotype 2 and 3 infection. N Engl J Med 2015; 373:2608–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Jacobson IM, Lawitz E, Gane EJ et al. . Efficacy of 8 weeks of sofosbuvir, velpatasvir, and voxilaprevir in patients with chronic HCV infection: 2 phase 3 randomized trials. Gastroenterology 2017; 153:113–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Bourlière M, Gordon SC, Flamm SL et al. ; POLARIS-1 and POLARIS-4 Investigators Sofosbuvir, velpatasvir, and voxilaprevir for previously treated HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:2134–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Grebely J, Matthews GV, Hellard M et al. ; ATAHC Study Group Adherence to treatment for recently acquired hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among injecting drug users. J Hepatol 2011; 55:76–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Grebely J, Dalgard O, Cunningham EB et al. . Efficacy of response-guided directly observed pegylated interferon and self-administered ribavirin for people who inject drugs with hepatitis C virus genotype 2/3 infection: the ACTIVATE study. Int J Drug Policy. 2017; 47:177–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Grebely J, Alavi M, Micallef M et al. ; ETHOS Study Group Treatment for hepatitis C virus infection among people who inject drugs attending opioid substitution treatment and community health clinics: the ETHOS study. Addiction 2016; 111:311–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Alavi M, Grebely J, Micallef M et al. ; Enhancing Treatment for Hepatitis C in Opioid Substitution Settings (ETHOS) Study Group Assessment and treatment of hepatitis C virus infection among people who inject drugs in the opioid substitution setting: ETHOS study. Clin Infect Dis 2013; 57(Suppl 2):S62–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Treloar C, Rance J, Grebely J, Dore GJ. Client and staff experiences of a co-located service for hepatitis C care in opioid substitution treatment settings in New South Wales, Australia. Drug Alcohol Depend 2013; 133:529–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Simmons B, Saleem J, Hill A et al. . Risk of late relapse or reinfection with hepatitis C virus after achieving a sustained virological response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62:683–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Cunningham EB, Applegate TL, Lloyd AR et al. . Mixed HCV infection and reinfection in people who inject drugs–impact on therapy. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 12:218–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Midgard H, Bjøro B, Mæland A et al. . Hepatitis C reinfection after sustained virological response. J Hepatol 2016; 64:1020–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]