Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Bulevirtide (BLV) is the only approved therapy for chronic hepatitis D (CHD) and compensated liver disease. Daily subcutaneous injection and the need for refrigeration may pose challenges, especially in patients with limited language proficiency. AIMS: Assessment of patient-reported BLV handling and satisfaction and association with virologic response. METHODS: Patients receiving BLV were assessed using a structured questionnaire on injection preparation, administration, refrigeration, adverse effects, and language proficiency. Virologic response was defined as complete (≥ 2 log10 reduction from baseline or HDV RNA undetectable), intermediate (≥ 1 log10 but < 2 log10 reduction), non-response (< 1 log10 reduction or increase), or breakthrough (> 1 log10 increase after ≥ 2 log10 reduction). RESULTS: A total of 115 patients from 30 countries were recruited at 12 German centres. German language skills were rated as good, sufficient, poor or absent in 58%, 25% and 17% of cases. Reported difficulties included injection preparation (17%), administration (25%) and refrigeration (27%). Patients without virologic response or with viral breakthrough reported difficulties with injection administration in 56% compared to 17% with intermediate or complete response (p = 0.0002), while no differences were observed regarding preparation or refrigeration. Injection site reactions occurred in 57% of patients. Overall, 82% were satisfied with the practical handling and 94% with the tolerability of BLV. Good language proficiency was associated with greater satisfaction with the practical handling (p = 0.0067), which in turn correlated with virologic response (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: BLV administration is generally well manageable. Limited language proficiency and injection difficulties may negatively affect patient satisfaction and potentially influence treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS 00033153).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Herta et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: