No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the studyWas to assess current prevalence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes in Poland, including their geographic distribution and changes in a given period of time.Material and methodsData were collected with questionnaires from 29 Polish centers and included data of patients diagnosed with HCV infection between 1 January 2013 and 31 March 2016.ResultsIn total, data of 9800 patients were reported. The highest prevalence was estimated for genotype 1b (81.7%), followed by 3 (11.3%), 4 (3.5%), 1a (3.2%) and 2 (0.2%). Genotype 5 or 6 was reported in 6 patients only (0.1%). The highest prevalence of genotype 1 was observed in central (łódzkie, mazowieckie, świętokrzyskie), eastern (lubelskie) and southern (małopolskie, śląskie) Poland. The highest rate for genotype 3 was observed in south-western (dolnośląskie, lubuskie) and eastern (podlaskie, warmińsko-mazurskie and podkarpackie) Poland. Compared to historical data, we observed an increasing tendency of G1 prevalence from 72.0% in 2003 to 87.5% in 2016, which was accompanied by a decrease of G3 (17.9% vs. 9.1%) and G4 (9.0% vs. 3.1%).ConclusionsAlmost 85% of patients with HCV in Poland are infected with genotype 1 (almost exclusively subgenotype 1b), and its prevalence shows an increasing tendency, accompanied by a decrease of genotypes 3 and 4.

The aim of the studyWas to analyze the efficacy achieved with regimens available for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) in Poland between 2013 and 2016.Material and methodsData were collected from 29 centers and included 6786 patients with available sustained virologic response (SVR) data between 1 January 2013 and 31 March 2016.ResultsThe sustained virologic response rate for genotypes (G) 1a, 1b, 2, 3 and 4 was 62%, 56%, 92%, 67% and 56% respectively; 71% patients (n = 4832) were treated with pegylated interferon α (Peg-IFNα) and ribavirin (RBV), with SVR rates of 58%, 49%, 92%, 67% and 55% respectively. The sustained virologic response among 5646 G1 infected patients was the lowest with natural interferon α (7%, n = 70) or PegIFN (50%, n = 3779) with RBV, and improved in those receiving triple regimens of Peg-IFN + RBV combined with boceprevir (47%, n = 485), telaprevir (64%, n = 805), simeprevir (73%, n = 132) or sofosbuvir (70%, n = 23). The sustained virologic response with interferon-free regimens of sofosbuvir and RBV (n = 7), sofosbuvir and simeprevir (n = 53), and ledipasvir and sofosbuvir (n = 64) achieved 86%, 89% and 94% respectively. The highest SVR of 98% was observed with ombitasvir/paritaprevir combined with dasabuvir (n = 227). Patients infected with G3 (n = 896) and G4 (n = 220) received mostly Peg-IFN + RBV with SVR of 67% and 56% respectively. Interferon-free regimens were administered in 18 G3/G4 patients and all achieved an SVR. Sofosbuvir combined with Peg-IFN and RBV was administered to 33 patients with an SVR rate of 94%, and a similar rate was achieved among 13 G2 patients treated with interferon and RBV.ConclusionsWe observed significant differences in efficacy of HCV regimens available in Poland at the turn of the interferon era. The data will be useful as a comparison for therapeutic options expected in the next few years.