HCV infection represents a major clinical issue in patients with transfusion-dependent thalassemia. The prevalence of anti-HCV antibody in this population ranges from 4.4% to 85.2% according to different studies, with the highest rates reported in Italy (
3). About 70% - 80% of infected patients develop chronic hepatitis, and up to 20% progress to cirrhosis (
20). Moreover, HCV infection is a well-known risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma, which has become the second most common cause of mortality in this population (
6).
Until recently, the combination of PEG-IFN-α and RBV was the only available treatment for HCV infection, with variable SVR rates of 25% - 72% (
7-
11). However, its application was limited by poor tolerance, several contraindications, and concerns about RBV-induced haemolysis and the subsequent increase in transfusion needs and iron overload (
12). Recently, introduction of DAAs has dramatically changed HCV treatment due to its high efficacy (SVR > 90%) and superior safety profile, compared to IFN-based therapy. Although limited data exist on the use of DAAs in this population, thalassemic patients should receive these new regimens according to the current guidelines (
13).
Hezode et al. published the only clinical trial on thalassemic patients (
14). They evaluated the safety and efficacy of a fixed combination of elbasvir and grazoprevir in patients with chronic HCV and congenital blood disorders, including BTM. Forty-one thalassemic patients were treated for 12 weeks, and SVR was achieved in 97.6% of cases. In this study, treatment was well-tolerated by the patients, and haemoglobin levels did not change during treatment. Interestingly, the most frequent side effects (e.g., headache, fatigue, nausea, and asthenia) were similar to those observed in our population, although none of our patients received the coformulation of elbasvir and grazoprevir, as it was not available during the study.
A case-series of 4 thalassemic patients with HCV infection and advanced liver fibrosis, treated with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 12 weeks, has been also reported (
15). All patients achieved SVR and tolerated therapy. Mild asthenia and headache were again the only reported adverse events. No changes in chelation therapy or transfusion requirements were necessary during treatment. Similar results have been presented by Mangia et al. in a report from an Italian multicenter study (
16).
The safety and efficacy of DAAs were also assessed in a prospective Indian study, including 29 thalassemic patients treated with 2 generic sofosbuvir-based regimens. SVR was reported in all patients, with no treatment discontinuation due to side effects (
17). Finally, a recent study by Sinakos et al. reported the outcomes of a larger cohort of 61 thalassemic patients with chronic HCV infection and advanced liver fibrosis, receiving different IFN-free regimens in Greece (
18). Overall, the SVR rate was 90%, and no major adverse events or drug-drug interactions were observed. Six patients relapsed, and no specific factors associated with treatment failure could be identified.
The present study provides further evidence that all-oral anti-HCV regimens are highly effective and well-tolerated by transfusion-dependent thalassemic patients with advanced liver fibrosis. Compared to the Greek cohort, SVR was achieved in a greater number of patients (98% vs. 90%), with only 1 case of relapse after treatment discontinuation. This could be due to the lower number of patients with unfavourable profiles in our population compared to the Greek cohort such as cirrhotic individuals (57.1% vs. 78.7%) and previously treated patients (42.9% vs. 75%).
Moreover, use of suboptimal treatments, such as sofosbuvir plus simeprevir for genotype 1 - 4 patients and sofosbuvir plus RBV for genotype 1 - 3 patients, was limited to 8 out of 49 (16%) patients, compared to 21 out of 61 (34%) patients in the Greek cohort. In our population, the proportion of patients receiving RBV was almost twice as high as that reported by Sinakos et al. (53% vs. 26%). This could be explained by the higher frequency of patients with HCV genotype 2, whose only therapeutic option has been sofosbuvir + RBV for a long time (16.3% vs. 3%). Moreover, the extensive use of triple DAA combination plus RBV for genotype 1b patients and ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir plus RBV for genotype 4 patients, which was less frequent in the Greek study, might be effective.
Anaemia occurred in about 77% of patients receiving RBV, with doubled transfusion requirements during treatment and no changes in chelation therapy. Two more patients, who did not receive RBV, reported an increase in blood transfusion, which could be related to the intensive monitoring protocol during antiviral treatment. Treatment was well-tolerated by all the patients, and no discontinuation occurred due to the adverse events.
Side effects, such as fatigue and headache, were reported in line with the published data from clinical trials (
13). This favourable safety profile in the thalassemic population is very important, as these patients have been traditionally considered as difficult-to-treat due to several comorbidities. Moreover, as previously reported by Sinakos et al., no significant drug-drug interactions were observed with iron chelating agents.
The present study had some limitations. First, data on liver iron concentration were limited and mainly based on serum ferritin levels and noninvasive techniques instead of liver histology. Second, no data regarding the posttreatment evaluation of iron overload were available during the study. Third, liver stiffness measurements via transient elastography were only performed at baseline, and no information was collected about changes after HCV eradication.
In conclusion, DAA-based regimens seem to be highly effective and well-tolerated in patients with BTM and advanced liver fibrosis. The present findings support the use of these agents in thalassemic populations, although further studies with larger cohorts and newer DAA combinations are needed.