BACKGROUND: The cytoplasmic rods-rings (RR) pattern is found in hepatitis C (HCV) patients treated with interferon-ribavirin when studied with ANA-IIF. Ribavirin aggregates/induces antigenic changes in IMPDH-2, an enzyme necessary for ribavirin action.
METHODS: Prospective search for anti-RR autoantibodies (HEp-2, INOVA) in patients treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) from October 2015 to June 2017. HCV-negative patients from up to June 2016 acted as controls. Anti-RR was analyzed at baseline and, mainly, during treatment and follow-up. The Chi-square test, Student\'s t-test and a logistic regression analysis were performed.
RESULTS: Between October 2015 and June 2016, 1258 men and 2389 women who were HCV-negative and 137 men and 112 women who were HCV-positive patients were studied. Approximately 22.9% of HCV-negative and 13.2% of HCV-positive were ANA-IIF-positive (p<0.05). Three HCV-negative (0.08%) and 23 (9.2%) HCV-positive patients had anti-RR (p<0.001). A total of 122 patients received DAAs; 30 received DAA+RBV; 46 pre-treated with IFN-RBV received DAA; 31 pre-treated with IFN-RBV received DAA+RBV; 16 received IFNpeg-RBV; and 24 received IFN-RBV-DAA. None of the 122 DAA-treated patients showed anti-RR; anti-RR were identified in 14.8% of those treated with DAA-RBV; in 25.9% of those pre-treated with IFN-RBV receiving DAA; in 22.2% of IFN-RBV-pre-treated patients who received DAA+RBV; in 7.4% of those treated with IFNpeg-RBV and in 29.6% of those treated with IFNpeg-RBV-DAA. The multivariate analysis showed significant associations between anti-RR and \"Exposure to IFN\" and \"Time of exposure to RBV\".
CONCLUSIONS: Anti-RR autoantibodies were detected only in patients with current or past treatments with RBV, even in cases in which only DAAs were later administered.

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is one of the main causes of acute hepatitis in both developed and developing countries. This infectious disease has a high prevalence and incidence in Europe. HEV infection has a greater clinical impact in vulnerable populations, such as immunosuppressed patients, pregnant women and patients with underlying liver disease. Therefore, the Study Group for Viral Hepatitis (Grupo de Estudio de Hepatitis Víricas, GEHEP) of the Spanish Society of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology (Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica, SEIMC) believed it very important to prepare a consensus document to help in decision-making regarding diagnosis, clinical and therapeutic management, and prevention of HEV infection.

Ribavirin is a molecule with antiviral activity against different viruses. In clinical practice, it has made its niche almost exclusively for the treatment of the hepatitisC virus. However, there are other diseases in which it could be of benefit and it has the advantage of being suitable for oral, intravenous and inhaled administration. We conducted a review of the indications of the main drug agencies (Spanish, European and American) and other possible indications, mainly haemorrhagic fevers and coronavirus.

The aim of the Mexican Consensus on the Treatment of HepatitisC was to develop clinical practice guidelines applicable to Mexico. The expert opinion of specialists in the following areas was taken into account: gastroenterology, infectious diseases, and hepatology. A search of the medical literature was carried out on the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases through keywords related to hepatitisC treatment. The quality of evidence was subsequently evaluated using the GRADE system and the consensus statements were formulated. The statements were then voted upon, using the modified Delphi system, and reviewed and corrected by a panel of 34 voting participants. Finally, the level of agreement was classified for each statement. The present guidelines provide recommendations with an emphasis on the new direct-acting antivirals, to facilitate their use in clinical practice. Each case must be individualized according to the comorbidities involved and patient management must always be multidisciplinary.

Interferon-free regimens achieve sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of over 90%, have generally well-tolerated adverse effects and involve 12-week treatment durations for most patients with chronic hepatitis C, including naive or previously treated patients and patients with or without cirrhosis. However, some of the treatment options recommended by the guidelines require the addition of ribavirin (RBV) or extend the duration of treatment to increase efficacy. The use of RBV is a useful tool in those difficult-to-cure patients such as patients with decompensated or genotype-3-infected cirrhosis and those who have not achieved SVR after treatment with direct-acting antivirals (DAA). Overall, adding RBV to the different combinations causes adverse effects related to a decrease in haemoglobin and involves inconveniences such as its dosage, which requires patients to take several tablets twice daily. However, severe anaemia is rare and easily manageable with a dose reduction. In addition, RBV is teratogenic. In practice, because RBV is inexpensive and well tolerated when combined with an interferon-free regimen, it continues to be a useful tool to optimise the results of some HCV treatment regimens. RBV-free regimens eliminate RBV-related adverse effects related, resulting in better tolerability, improving patient adherence and quality of life and reducing the cost of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir has proven to be effective in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with response rates of up to 88%. However, the treatment may be associated with important adverse effects and a high economic impact.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness and safety of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.
METHODS: Retrospective observational study. We included all patients who had started treatment with protease inhibitors before July 31(st), 2013. We evaluated sustained virological response, the cost per patient achieving sustained virological response, and the cost of the supportive treatment for adverse events associated with triple therapy.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were included; 35 had been treated with telaprevir (59.3%) and 24 with boceprevir (40.7%). Sustained virological response was achieved by 38 (64.4%) patients: 24 (68.6%) patients in the telaprevir treatment arm and 14 (58.3%) patients in the boceprevir treatment arm. The cost per patient with sustained virological response was 43,555 € (95% CI 35,389-51,722 €). There were no statistically significant differences between the overall costs of therapy with telaprevir, 43,494 € (95% CI 34,795 €-55,092 €) versus boceprevir, 42,005 € (95% CI 32,122-64,243€). The mean cost of supportive care per patient was 1,500 €, while the maximum cost was 11,374 €. Due to adverse events, 8 (13.6%) patients required hospital admission, 22 (37.3%) patients attended the accident and emergency department, and 26 (44.1%) patients needed additional medical consultations.
CONCLUSIONS: The treatment of triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir resulted in high cost per patient with sustained virological response. Due to adverse events, a high number of patients required supportive care, whose costs should be added to those of triple therapy.

BACKGROUND: Most discontinuations due to lack of virological response occur during the first few weeks of hepatitis C virus (HCV) triple therapy. Improved knowledge of baseline factors and their correlation with boceprevir decision points may predict treatment success.
METHODS: An observational, retrospective study was conducted to describe the lead-in period as a clinical decision tool in HCV genotype 1 patients treated with boceprevir. Data were collected from the medical records of 186 consecutive patients distributed across 20 Spanish general hospitals.
RESULTS: This study included 171 patients. A total of 80% had fibrosis F3/F4, 74% were previously treated, and 26% were treatment-naïve. After the lead-in period, 54.5% of the patients had a reduction of ≥1 log10; this reduction occurred in 52.5% of those with advanced fibrosis. Boceprevir therapy was started in 94% of the patients. Discontinuations at week 4 were limited to null responders with cirrhosis. The baseline factors associated with virological response at week 4 were IL28B, previous response, and fibrosis score. At week 8, HCV-RNA was undetectable in 48.8% of the patients. The correlation between responses at weeks 8 and 12 was 88%.
CONCLUSIONS: In the Spanish clinical setting, lead-in was mainly used as a clinical decision point for non-responders with cirrhosis. The good correlation between stopping rules at weeks 8 and 12 could be used to anticipate discontinuation, thus saving adverse events and costs.

The treatment plan for chronic hepatitis C in special populations varies according to comorbidity and the current evidence on treatment. In patients with hepatitis C virus and HIV coinfection, the results of dual therapy (pegylated interferon plus ribavirin) are poor. In patients with genotype 1 infection, triple therapy (dual therapy plus boceprevir or telaprevir) has doubled the response rate, but protease inhibitors can interact with some antiretroviral drugs and provoke more adverse effects. These disadvantages are avoided by the new, second-generation, direct-acting antiviral agents. In patients who are candidates for liver transplantation or are already liver transplant recipients, the optimal therapeutic option at present is to combine the new antiviral agents, with or without ribavirin and without interferon. The treatment of patients under hemodialysis due to chronic renal disease continues to be dual therapy (often with reduced doses of pegylated interferon and ribavirin), since there is still insufficient information on triple therapy and the new antiviral agents. In mixed cryoglobulinemia, despite the scarcity of experience, triple therapy seems to be superior to dual therapy and may be used as rescue therapy in non-responders to dual therapy. However, a decision must always be made on whether antiviral treatment should be used concomitantly or after immunosuppressive therapy.

The first-line option in the treatment of patients with advanced fibrosis and cirrhosis due to genotype 1 hepatitis C virus is currently triple therapy with boceprevir/telaprevir and pegylated interferon-ribavirin. However, certain limitations could constitute a barrier to starting treatment or achieving sustained viral response in these patients. These limitations include the patient\'s or physician\'s perception of treatment effectiveness in routine clinical practice-which can weight against the decision to start treatment-, the advanced stage of the disease with portal hypertension and comorbidity, treatment interruption due to poor adherence, and adverse effects, mainly anemia. In addition, it is now possible to identify patients who could benefit from a shorter therapeutic regimen with a similar cure rate. This review discusses these issues and their possible effect on the use of triple therapy.

Chronic hepatitis C virus infection is usually asymptomatic. The severity of the hepatic lesion in these patients at diagnosis varies and, from the histopathologic point of view, most have mild disease. A series of factors have been described that correlate with the progression of fibrosis in patients with mild fibrosis: age at diagnosis, the duration of the infection, male sex, HIV coinfection, transaminase levels during follow-up, alcohol consumption, metabolic factors such as diabetes and overweight, necroinflammatory activity in the initial biopsy, and the degree of steatosis. In patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C infection, the standard treatment has been pegylated interferon and ribavirin. However, response rates are markedly increased by concomitant use of first-generation protease inhibitors, boceprevir or telaprevir. In patients with moderate fibrosis, these drugs are well tolerated, in addition to being effective. Currently, dual therapy should be reserved for patients with good baseline predictive factors of response and/or contraindications for treatment with telaprevir or boceprevir. In patients with genotypes other than genotype 1, the standard treatment continues to be the combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin, although the development of new direct-acting antiviral agents such as sofosbuvir and simeprevir will change the strategies used in these patients. The decision to wait for the new treatments is complex because their release date is unknown; likewise, their high cost will limit the possibilities for their use.