Hepatitis C virus treatment with glecaprevir and pibrentasvir in patients co-prescribed carbamazepine:Three case reports

BACKGROUND Highly effective and well-tolerated direct-acting antiviral(DAA)therapies have revolutionised the management of hepatitis C virus(HCV);however,niche populations face treatment barriers.DAAs co-prescribed with several firstgeneration anti-epileptic drugs(AEDs)are contraindicated due to drug-drug interactions.A common example is carbamazepine whereby steady-state carbamazepine reduces the maximum concentration and area under the curve of velpatasvir,glecaprevir and pibrentasvir due to potent cytochrome P450(CYP)3A4 induction.Carbamazepine also induces P-glycoprotein which reduces glecaprevir and pibrentasvir’s area under curve to infinite time.Sofosbuvirvelpatasvir and glecaprevir-pibrentasvir are contraindicated in patients who are co-prescribed carbamazepine due to the risk of reduced DAA therapeutic effect and consequently,virological treatment failure.This presents a challenge for patients in whom carbamazepine substitution is medically unfeasible,impractical or unacceptable.However,the properties of current generation DAA therapies,including high-potency non-structural protein 5A inhibitory effect,may be sufficient to overcome reduced bioavailability arising from carbamazepine related CYP 3A4 and P-glycoprotein induction.CASE SUMMARY We present a case series of three patients with non-cirrhotic,treatment-naïve,genotype 1a,1b,and 3a HCV who were treated with a 12 wk course of glecaprevir-pibrentasvir,while co-prescribed carbamazepine for seizure disorders.Glecaprevir-pibrentasvir combination therapy was chosen due to its potent in vitro activity and low barrier to pan-genotypic resistance associated variants.DAA therapy was dose-separated from carbamazepine to maximise time to peak concentration,and taken with meals to improve absorption.Sustained virological response at 12 wk was achieved in each patient with no adverse outcomes.CONCLUSION DAA therapies,including glecaprevir-pibrentasvir,warrant consideration as a therapeutic agent in people with HCV who are co-prescribed carbamazepine,particularly if AED substitution is not feasible.

Clinical outcomes of patients with two small hepatocellular carcinomas

BACKGROUND Management of single small hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC)is straightforward with curative outcomes achieved by locoregional therapy or resection.Liver transplantation is often considered for multiple small or single large HCC.Management of two small HCC whether presenting synchronously or sequentially is less clear.AIM To define the outcomes of patients presenting with two small HCC.METHODS Retrospective review of HCC databases from multiple institutions of patients with either two synchronous or sequential HCC≤3 cm between January 2000 and March 2018.Primary outcomes were overall survival(OS)and transplant-free survival(TFS).RESULTS 104 patients were identified(male n=89).Median age was 63 years(interquartile range 58-67.75)and the most common aetiology of liver disease was hepatitis C(40.4%).59(56.7%)had synchronous HCC and 45(43.3%)had sequential.36 patients died(34.6%)and 25 were transplanted(24.0%).1,3 and 5-year OS was 93.0%,66.1% and 62.3% and 5-year post-transplant survival was 95.8%.1,3 and 5-year TFS was 82.1%,45.85% and 37.8%.When synchronous and sequential groups were compared,OS(1,3 and 5 year synchronous 91.3%,63.8%,61.1%,sequential 95.3%,69.5%,64.6%,P=0.41)was similar but TFS was higher in the sequential group(1,3 and 5 year synchronous 68.5%,37.3% and 29.7%,sequential 93.2%,56.6%,48.5%,P=0.02)though this difference did not remain during multivariate analysis.CONCLUSION TFS in patients presenting with two HCC≤3 cm is poor regardless of the timing of the second tumor.All patients presenting with two small HCC should be considered for transplantation.