Retreatment for hepatitis C virus direct-acting antiviral therapy virological failure in primary and tertiary settings: The REACH-C cohort

Virological failure occurs in a small proportion of people treated for hepatitis C virus (HCV) with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies. This study assessed retreatment for virological failure in a large real-world cohort. REACH-C is an Australian observational study (n = 10,843) evaluating treatment outcomes of sequential DAA initiations across 33 health services between March 2016 to June 2019. Virological failure retreatment data were collected until October 2020. Of 408 people with virological failure (81% male; median age 53; 38% cirrhosis; 56% genotype 3), 213 (54%) were retreated once; 15 were retreated twice. A range of genotype specific and pangenotypic DAAs were used to retreat virological failure in primary (n = 56) and tertiary (n = 157) settings. Following sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir availability in 2019, the proportion retreated in primary care increased from 21% to 40% and median time to retreatment initiation declined from 294 to 152 days. Per protocol (PP) sustained virological response (SVR12) was similar for people retreated in primary and tertiary settings (80% vs 81%; p = 1.000). In regression analysis, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir (vs. other regimens) significantly decreased likelihood of second virological failure (PP SVR12 88% vs. 77%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0.29; 95%CI 0.11–0.81); cirrhosis increased likelihood (PP SVR12 69% vs. 91%; AOR 4.26; 95%CI 1.64–11.09). Indigenous Australians had lower likelihood of retreatment initiation (AOR 0.36; 95%CI 0.15–0.81). Treatment setting and prescriber type were not associated with retreatment initiation or outcome. Virological failure can be effectively retreated in primary care. Expanded access to simplified retreatment regimens through decentralized models may increase retreatment uptake and reduce HCV-related mortality

Do team care arrangements address the real issues in the management of chronic disease?

• Care plans are a decade-old program for coordinating care of patients with chronic illness. • The program currently involves Team Care Arrangements (TCAs), which require all providers to agree on all management decisions contained in the plan. By c

Using clinical research networks to assess severity of an emerging influenza pandemic

BACKGROUND: Early clinical severity assessments during the 2009 influenza A H1N1 pandemic (pH1N1) overestimated clinical severity due to selection bias and other factors. We retrospectively investigated how to use data from the International Network for Strategic Initiatives in Global HIV Trials, a global clinical influenza research network, to make more accurate case fatality ratio (CFR) estimates early in a future pandemic, an essential part of pandemic response. METHODS: We estimated the CFR of medically attended influenza (CFRMA) as the product of probability of hospitalization given confirmed outpatient influenza and the probability of death given hospitalization with confirmed influenza for the pandemic (2009-2011) and post-pandemic (2012-2015) periods. We used literature survey results on health-seeking behavior to convert that estimate to CFR among all infected persons (CFRAR). RESULTS: During the pandemic period, 5.0% (3.1%-6.9%) of 561 pH1N1-positive outpatients were hospitalized. Of 282 pH1N1-positive inpatients, 8.5% (5.7%-12.6%) died. CFRMA for pH1N1 was 0.4% (0.2%-0.6%) in the pandemic period 2009-2011 but declined 5-fold in young adults during the post-pandemic period compared to the level of seasonal influenza in the post-pandemic period 2012-2015. CFR for influenza-negative patients did not change over time. We estimated the 2009 pandemic CFRAR to be 0.025%, 16-fold lower than CFRMA. CONCLUSIONS: Data from a clinical research network yielded accurate pandemic severity estimates, including increased severity among younger people. Going forward, clinical research networks with a global presence and standardized protocols would substantially aid rapid assessment of clinical severity

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present