Janjua N Z, Islam N, Wong J, Yoshida E M, Ramji A, Samji H, Butt Z A, Chong M, Cook D, Alvarez M, Darvishian M, Tyndall M, Krajden M
British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
J Viral Hepat. 2017 Aug;24(8):624-630. doi: 10.1111/jvh.12684. Epub 2017 Feb 20.
We evaluated the shift in the characteristics of people who received interferon-based hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments and those who received recently introduced direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in British Columbia (BC), Canada. The BC Hepatitis Testers Cohort includes 1.5 million individuals tested for HCV or HIV, or reported cases of hepatitis B and active tuberculosis in BC from 1990 to 2013 linked to medical visits, hospitalization, cancer, prescription drugs and mortality data. This analysis included all patients who filled at least one prescription for HCV treatment until 31 July 2015. HCV treatments were classified as older interferon-based treatments including pegylated interferon/ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) with/without boceprevir or telaprevir, DAAs with RBV or PegIFN/RBV, and newer interferon-free DAAs. Of 11 886 people treated for HCV between 2000 and 2015, 1164 (9.8%) received interferon-free DAAs (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir: n=1075; 92.4%), while 452 (3.8%) received a combination of DAAs and RBV or PegIFN/RBV. Compared to those receiving interferon-based treatment, people with HIV co-infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.96, 95% CI: 2.31-3.81), cirrhosis (aOR: 1.77, 95% CI: 1.45-2.15), decompensated cirrhosis (aOR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.31-2.28), diabetes (aOR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.10-1.54), a history of injection drug use (aOR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.09-1.65) and opioid substitution therapy (aOR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.01-1.67) were more likely to receive interferon-free DAAs. Socio-economically marginalized individuals were significantly less likely (most deprived vs most privileged: aOR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58-0.87) to receive DAAs. In conclusion, there is a shift in prescription of new HCV treatments to previously excluded groups (eg HIV-co-infected), although gaps remain for the socio-economically marginalized populations.
我们评估了在加拿大不列颠哥伦比亚省(BC)接受基于干扰素的丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)治疗的人群与接受近期引入的直接抗病毒药物(DAA)治疗的人群在特征上的变化。BC肝炎检测队列包括150万接受HCV或HIV检测的个体,或1990年至2013年在BC省报告的与就诊、住院、癌症、处方药和死亡率数据相关的乙型肝炎和活动性肺结核病例。该分析纳入了截至2015年7月31日至少开具过一张HCV治疗处方的所有患者。HCV治疗被分类为较旧的基于干扰素的治疗,包括聚乙二醇干扰素/利巴韦林(PegIFN/RBV)联合/不联合博赛匹韦或特拉匹韦、DAA联合RBV或PegIFN/RBV,以及更新的无干扰素DAA。在2000年至2015年期间接受HCV治疗的11886人中,1164人(9.8%)接受了无干扰素DAA(来迪派韦/索磷布韦:n = 1075;92.4%),而452人(3.8%)接受了DAA与RBV或PegIFN/RBV的联合治疗。与接受基于干扰素治疗的人群相比,合并感染HIV的患者(调整优势比[aOR]:2.96,95%置信区间[CI]:2.31 - 3.81)、肝硬化患者(aOR:1.77,95% CI:1.45 - 2.15)、失代偿期肝硬化患者(aOR:1.72,95% CI:1.31 - 2.28)、糖尿病患者(aOR:1.30,95% CI:1.10 - 1.54)、有注射吸毒史的患者(aOR:1.34,95% CI:1.09 - 1.65)和接受阿片类药物替代治疗的患者(aOR:1.30,95% CI:1.01 - 1.67)更有可能接受无干扰素DAA。社会经济边缘化个体接受DAA的可能性显著较低(最贫困者与最富裕者相比:aOR:0.71,95% CI:0.58 - 0.87)。总之,新的HCV治疗处方正转向以前被排除的群体(如合并感染HIV者),尽管社会经济边缘化人群仍然存在差距。