354. Efficacy of Second-Generation Direct Acting Antivirals in the Setting of HCV/HIV Co-infection and Cirrhosis: A Review of Real-World Treatment Experiences

BACKGROUND: Patients co-infected with HIV and HCV represent a unique subpopulation with specific high-risk characteristics including increased transmission efficiency of HCV, higher HCV viral load and more rapid progression of liver disease when compared with mono-infected patients. Although virologic failure is rare in the direct acting antiviral (DAA) era, we have anecdotally observed a high rate of failure in our patients who are co-infected and have cirrhosis. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of cirrhosis on co-infected patients compared with co-infection without cirrhosis and mono-infected patients with cirrhosis as it relates to cure of HCV treated with DAAs. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed. Patients from UConn Health Infectious Diseases and Gastroenterology clinics and Hartford Hospital Comprehensive Liver Center treated January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017 were included. Patients were grouped as follows: (1) HCV/HIV coinfected without cirrhosis, (2) HCV/HIV coinfected with cirrhosis, (3) HCV infected with cirrhosis. Data were analyzed in SAS, variables were compared by chi square analysis and Fishers Exact test to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: No differences in baseline characteristics were noted (Table 1). Cirrhotic patients were 63% of the total cohort. There was no statistical difference in the rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) among the 3 groups. The overall rate of SVR was 95%. SVR for patients with cirrhosis (co- and mono-infected) was 92%. All treatment failures (n = 3) in this cohort had cirrhosis. Among the 38 cirrhotic patients, 3 (8%) had treatment experience with DAAs. In contrast, none of the non-cirrhotic patients had prior DAAs. The use of protease inhibitors or ribavirin had no impact on cure; ribavirin was evenly distributed between the two groups with cirrhosis. SVR rates were lower with genotypes 2–4 as compared with genotype 1. No immunologic or virologic factors were correlated with SVR. CONCLUSION: We found no differences in rates of SVR in coinfected patients with or without cirrhosis. However, all treatment failures were noted in patients with cirrhosis, and cirrhotic patients tended to have treatment experience with DAAs. Whether coinfected patients with cirrhosis should be managed differently will require additional study. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] DISCLOSURES: All authors: No reported disclosures.