Consensus recommendations for treatment of decompensated liver disease

All individuals with decompensated liver disease must be assessed and managed in specialist centres. Typical clinical presentations of liver decompensation include variceal haemorrhage, ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatopulmonary syndrome and jaundice. All predict a poor prognosis. Multiple scoring systems have been proposed to predict prognosis for people with chronic liver disease, the most well known being the Child–Pugh score (based on degree of ascites, encephalopathy, serum bilirubin level, albumin level and INR) and the MELD score (based on serum bilirubin level, creatinine level and INR) (Supplementary Table 2). These scoring systems have clinical utility for predicting short-term mortality and for prioritising individuals on liver transplant waiting lists. 

Liver transplantation provides excellent outcomes for patients with decompensated cirrhosis or early-stage HCC. People who are not referred until they have severe liver failure may not be suitable for transplantation, so early referral is advisable. Consider referring people to a transplant team if they have refractory ascites, an episode of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis or hepatorenal syndrome, recurrent or chronic hepatic encephalopathy, small HCCs or significant malnutrition. Additionally, people should be referred to a transplant team if they are eligible for liver transplantation and have a Child–Pugh score ³ B7 or MELD score ³ 13.

Contraindications to liver transplantation may include advanced HCC, extrahepatic malignancy, uncontrolled extrahepatic infection, active alcohol or substance misuse, significant coronary or cerebrovascular disease or inadequate social support. For more information about liver transplantation, see the DonateLife website.66

In people with decompensated liver disease, the goal of therapy is SVR, with the aim of improving liver function. The first regimen to be specifically listed on the PBS for treatment of decompensated liver disease is sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir plus ribavirin. The eligibility criteria for other DAA regimens that are PBS-listed for the treatment of HCV do not distinguish between people with compensated versus decompensated liver disease, with the exception of regimens that include a protease inhibitor (PrOD or elbasvir plus grazoprevir), which are contraindicated in the setting of hepatic decompensation (Child–Pugh score B or C). Therefore, people with decompensated liver disease are eligible to have the same treatment regimens prescribed under the PBS, according to HCV genotype and treatment history (Table 7). 

The efficacy of a number of DAA regimens in people with decompensated liver disease has been formally evaluated in recent clinical trials.67-73 Current data support the combination of sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks as a first-line treatment for patients with HCV and decompensated liver disease.74 

In the ASTRAL-4 study, 267 patients with Gt 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 HCV and decompensated cirrhosis (90% Child–Pugh class B or C) were randomly assigned to treatment with sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir for 12 weeks, or sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir plus ribavirin (daily, according to body weight: < 75 kg, 1000 mg; ³ 75 kg, 1200 mg) for 12 weeks, or sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir for 24 weeks.74 SVR was 94% in people treated with sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks, versus 83% with sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir for 12 weeks, versus 86% with sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir for 24 weeks. Post-treatment virological relapse was observed in 2% of the 12-week group receiving sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir plus ribavirin, compared with 12% and 9%, respectively, in the groups that did not receive ribavirin. Although the ASTRAL-4 study was not powered to generate statistical significance, the data suggest that sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks is the optimal regimen for patients who will tolerate ribavirin. For patients in whom there is a concern about ribavirin intolerance, we recommend a starting dose of 600 mg daily, or treatment for 24 weeks without ribavirin. Note that important exclusion criteria for the ASTRAL-4 study included Child–Pugh score > C9, haemoglobin level < 100 g/L, platelet count £ 30 000/mm3, bilirubin level > 85.5 mmol/L and creatinine clearance < 50 mL/min. 

The combination of sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks is another first-line regimen for Gt 1 HCV.67,68 However, the combination of sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir plus ribavirin cannot currently be prescribed under the PBS. Early access programs suggest that treatment with sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir (no ribavirin) for 24 weeks has similar efficacy; this regimen is currently available under the PBS and can be recommended as a reasonable alternative (Table 7). 

Alternative regimens that have demonstrated efficacy for the treatment of Gt 1 HCV include the combination of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks, or sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir (no ribavirin) for 24 weeks, both of which can also be prescribed under the PBS (Table 7). The rates of SVR observed using these regimens for Gt 1 HCV in the setting of Child–Pugh B cirrhosis were 85%–95%.68,71,75,76 Only small numbers of patients with Child–Pugh C scores have been included in studies to date; data suggest SVR may be lower (observed SVR, 56%–87%68,71,75,76) than in those with Child–Pugh B scores. Note that important exclusion criteria for the Phase II SOLAR-1/2 studies that evaluated ribavirin-containing regimens included a haemoglobin level < 100 g/L, platelet count < 20 m 109/L, bilirubin level > 170 mmol/L (with the exception of those with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis [FCH]; see Section on Treatment of fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis C) and serum creatinine level > 2.5 x ULN. 

Patients with Gt 3 HCV and decompensated liver disease are harder to cure.72 The combination of sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir plus ribavirin is the only regimen to be prospectively evaluated in a Phase III study of patients with decompensated liver disease and should be first-line treatment. Again, we recommend that ribavirin dosing be started at 600 mg daily in this population, and incremented as tolerated. An alternative treatment regimen is sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir plus ribavirin for 24 weeks’ duration in this group (Table 7). If ribavirin is not tolerated, patients should be treated with sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir for 24 weeks. There are very limited clinical data available to support treatment recommendations for patients with Gt 2, 4–6 HCV infection and decompensated liver disease; recommendations in Table 7 represent expert opinion.

People with decompensated liver disease should not be treated with PrOD, elbasvir plus grazoprevir or pegIFN. These agents are contraindicated in people with decompensated liver disease, as there is a risk of causing further deterioration in liver function.

Early data based on short-term follow-up indicate that SVR may lead to improvement of liver function in some, but not all, people. The severity of baseline liver disease appears to determine the likelihood of clinical improvement. Three distinct groups are emerging: i) people with a MELD score < 15 and Child–Pugh score B; ii) those with a MELD score of 15–20 or Child–Pugh C cirrhosis; and iii) those with a MELD score > 20. 

People with a MELD score < 15 and Child–Pugh B cirrhosis are most likely to benefit from eradication of HCV and should start treatment immediately. In people with a MELD score of 15–20, or Child–Pugh C cirrhosis, liver function may improve with achievement of SVR, and some people may even be delisted for liver transplantation. However, predictive factors are yet to be determined and it must be noted that improvement in MELD score may result in prolonging the waiting time for transplantation in those who do not improve sufficiently to be delisted. Until predictive factors can be identified, it appears reasonable to treat and closely monitor the progress of patients on the liver transplant waiting list with MELD scores of 15–20. Longer term assessment of clinical outcomes after SVR in this population are needed to determine the impact on liver synthetic function, portal hypertension and HCC risk. People with a MELD score > 20 are unlikely to benefit sufficiently from SVR to be delisted.72,76 Antiviral therapy may be started with the intent of suppression and prevention of post-transplant HCV recurrence (see Section Preventing recurrent HCV after transplantation: treatment of people on the Transplant List). Alternatively, these individuals may be best served with HCV treatment after transplantation. DAA therapy after liver transplantation results in higher SVR rates than in the pre-transplant population with decompensated liver disease (see Section on Treatment of HCV and decompensated liver disease after transplantation), which minimises the risk of selecting for drug-resistant variants. Finally, among people who are not candidates for liver transplantation, it is reasonable to consider DAA therapy regardless of MELD score.

Consensus recommendationsGrade
Indications for assessment by a liver transplant centre include a Child–Pugh score ≥ B7, MELD score ≥ 13 or one of the following clinical events: refractory ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, hepatorenal syndrome, recurrent or chronic hepatic encephalopathy, small HCC or severe malnutrition.A1
People with decompensated HCV cirrhosis, Child–Pugh score B and MELD score < 15 should be assessed by an expert hepatologist for consideration of treatment as soon as possible, as they are at risk of further decompensation and liver-related complications and death, which may be prevented by eradicating HCV.B2
People with decompensated HCV cirrhosis, Child–Pugh score B or C and MELD score > 15 (who are NOT liver transplant candidates) should be assessed by an expert hepatologist for consideration of treatment where there is an anticipated benefit from such treatment.B1
People with decompensated HCV cirrhosis, Child–Pugh score B or C and MELD score > 15 (who ARE liver transplant candidates) should be assessed by a liver transplant physician to consider the individual benefit and risks of treatment before transplantation.B2
When making treatment decisions, decompensated liver disease should be defined by a Child–Pugh score ≥ B7.A1
First-line treatment regimens for chronic Gt 1 HCV infection and decompensated liver disease include (see Table 7):
• sofosbuvir + velpatasvir + ribavirin for 12 weeks
• sofosbuvir + ledipasvir ± ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks
• sofosbuvir + daclatasvir ± ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks
A1
A1
B1
First-line treatment regimen for chronic Gt 3 HCV infection and decompensated liver disease are (see Table 7):
• sofosbuvir + velpatasvir + ribavirin for 12 weeks
• sofosbuvir + daclatasvir ± ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks
A1
B1
First-line treatment regimens for chronic Gt 2, 4–6 HCV infection in the setting of decompensated liver disease are (see Table 7):
• sofosbuvir + velpatasvir + ribavirin for 12 weeks
• sofosbuvir + daclatasvir ± ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks
A1
C2
The following treatments should NOT BE USED in people with decompensated liver disease:
• paritaprevir–ritonavir, ombitasvir and dasabuvir
• elbasvir + grazoprevir
• pegIFN
A1

 

Tags: CCK

PrintEmail