# Impact of treating chronic hepatitis C with direct acting antivirals on health-related quality of life: a real-life Egyptian experience

Mohamed Elbadry, Mahmoud Badawi, Naglaa Youssef, Martin Duracinsky, Shereen A Saleh, Anna Funk, Hagar Elessawy, Eva Rumpler, Khadiga Sayed, Anca Vasiliu, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Mohamed Elbadry, Mahmoud Badawi, Naglaa Youssef, Martin Duracinsky, Shereen A Saleh, et al. "Impact of treating chronic hepatitis C with direct acting antivirals on health-related quality of life: a real-life Egyptian experience." Egyptian Liver Journal, 2024, 14, 10.1186/s43066-024-00317-8. hal-05347082

HAL Id: hal-05347082

https://hal.science/hal-05347082v1

Submitted on 4 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE**

Open Access

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Check for
updates

# Impact of treating chronic hepatitis C with direct acting antivirals on health-related quality of life: a real-life Egyptian experience

Mohamed Elbadry¹†, Mahmoud Badawi²†, Naglaa Youssef³, Martin Duracinsky⁴, Shereen A. Saleh⁵, Anna Funk⁶, Hagar Elessawy⁵, Eva Rumpler⁶, Khadiga Sayed⁷, Anca Vasiliu⁶, Yoann Madec⁶, Arnaud Fontanet⁶,⁸ and Mohamed El-Kassas¹*

**Abstract**

**Background** Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection negatively impacts health-related quality of life (HRQL). We aimed to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to evaluate the impact of treating chronic HCV with directly acting antivirals (DAAs) on HRQL.

**Methods** PROs were assessed prospectively using the PROQOL-HCV questionnaire before (week 0), at the end (week 12), and after DAA treatment at week 24. HRQL was measured in six different dimensions: physical health, emotional health, future uncertainty, intimate relationships, social health, and cognitive functions.

**Results** A total of 500 HCV patients receiving DAAs were enrolled; of them, 399 were included in the analysis (median age 57 years, 59% females). HRQL increased significantly between baseline, end of treatment, and week 24 for all dimensions (*P* < 0.001), more often for physical health in females compared to males (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.1–2.5), for future uncertainty among people with diabetes (1.75, 95% CI = 1.05–2.9), and for cognitive functions among obese patients (OR = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.1–3.3). Improvement in HRQL was less common for intimate relations among females (OR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.3–0.7) and in patients with cirrhosis (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.1–0.7). Improvement in HRQL was consistently higher in < 60 years compared to ≥ 60 years patients, with a significant difference in social health (*P* < 0.001) and future uncertainty (*P* < 0.049) HRQL domains.

**Conclusion** HRQL improved with DAA therapy, a relation consistent across all HRQL dimensions up to 12 weeks after the end of treatment.

**Keywords** Direct acting antivirals (DAAs), Health-related quality of life (HRQL), Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), Hepatitis C virus (HCV), Egypt

<footnote>†Mohamed Elbadry and Mahmoud Badawi contributed equally as the first authors of this work.</footnote>

<footnote>*Correspondence:
Mohamed El-Kassas
m_elkassas@hq.helwan.edu.eg
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article</footnote>
## Background

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection still acts as a major global health problem; it is estimated that more than 80 million are chronically infected with HCV worldwide [1]. In Egypt, more than 5 million individuals were positive for HCV antibodies (7% seroprevalence) in 2015 [2, 3]. As of 2023, Egypt has achieved remarkable progress, exceeding WHO targets for diagnosing and treating people living with HCV. The prevalence has been reduced to an estimated 0.38%, marking a significant victory in the fight against the virus [4] (WHO, 2024). Chronic HCV significantly affects the overall HCV burden as it progresses to advanced stages of liver disease, and consequently, it negatively impacts multiple aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQL) [5, 6]. HCV patients often report a broad range of physical and mental symptoms, including but not limited to fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, poor appetite, nausea, abdominal pain, cognitive impairment, depression, and anxiety [7].

Over the past few years, the treatment landscape for HCV has been changing rapidly, ending with the introduction of directly acting antiviral therapy (DAAs), in which a cure rate with more than 90% of chronically infected patients has been achieved [8]. DAAs allow less treatment duration, reduced toxicity, higher barriers to resistance, and better tolerance, especially in some groups like elder patients (adults ≥ 60) compared to previous treatments; however, some side effects such as fatigue, nausea, and headache are still reported [9, 10].

DAAs enhance HRQL due to treatment, symptom alleviation, and an increase in associated socioeconomic benefits. However, the associated toxicity negatively affects (HRQL). Our understanding of patients' experience with DAAs is limited to data derived from clinical trials. Although they provide information on DAA's effect on HRQOL, no enough evidence has been generated from the patient's perspective [11].

Several questionnaires have been developed and used to evaluate the HRQL of people with HCV, using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures [12]. Among these questionnaires are the Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (HQLQ) [13], the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) [14], the Liver Disease Quality of Life Instrument [15], Liver Disease Symptom Index-2.0 [16], and the Chronic Liver Disease Quality of Life (CLD-QOL) Questionnaire [17].

Egypt launched a comprehensive plan to eliminate HCV that was able to treat 4 million patients over the last few years with good results and acceptable safety profile in different groups of patients including elderly [18–20]. This huge campaign was conducted in correspondence to the elimination targets set by the WHO for the global elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030

[21]. While Shehata et al.'s study explored the impact of DAAs on HRQoL in Egyptian HCV patients, offering valuable insights into improvements in anxiety, depression, and cognitive function, further research is crucial to solidify these findings and elucidate broader generalizability [22]. This study aimed to assess the impact of DAA treatment on health-related quality of life (QOL) in adult Egyptian patients with chronic HCV, comparing both those aged 60 years and older and those younger than 60 years. This might involve using validated QOL questionnaires to measure changes in physical, mental, and social functioning before and after treatment, and to identify any potential age-related differences in the efficacy, tolerability, and QOL impact of DAA treatment between older and younger adult patients with chronic HCV as a primary aim, also to evaluate the real-life efficacy and tolerability of (DAA) treatment for chronic HCV infection in adults aged 60 years and older in Egypt. This includes assessing sustained virological response (SVR) rates, treatment completion rates, and adverse events associated with DAA therapy as a secondary aim.

## Patients and methods

### Study design and setting

This prospective, observational longitudinal cohort study included patients with chronic HCV being treated under the Egyptian National Guidelines. Patients were recruited from the outpatient clinic of the New Cairo Viral Hepatitis Treatment Center, affiliated to the Egyptian National Committee for Control of Viral Hepatitis (NCCVH) between August 2016 and September 2019. Among the main advantages of this site is the accessibility to a diverse population through serving a large number of patients from different socioeconomic standards [23].

The cohort was further divided into two groups, one with the exposure of interest (adults ≥ 60 years old patients) and another internal comparison group (adults aged 18–59 years). Inclusion/exclusion criteria for this study followed HCV treatment national guideline issued by NCCVH. Study inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients aged 18 years; (2) being treated with all-oral interferon-free, DAAs containing regimen; and (3) agreeing to participate in the study and signing the informed consent form. Exclusion criteria included any neurocognitive disorder/mental impairment, which could prevent patients from partaking in the QOL questionnaires, in addition to the presence of a chronic debilitating disease, malignancy (including HCC), or liver decompensation (as evidenced by the presence of ascites, encephalopathy, or bleeding esophageal varices).
## Received treatment regimens and follow-up visits

Antiviral therapy was given according to the Egyptian NCCVH guidelines. The used treatment regimen was sofosbuvir (SOF)/daclatasvir (DCV) combination. This regimen is the mainstay of the large treatment project in Egypt, and the currently approved one until now. According to the applied guidelines, patients with more advanced forms of disease received, in addition, weight-based RBV (1000 [<75 kg] to 1200 mg [>75 kg]).

All patients in the cohort attended follow-up visits every 4 weeks as per national treatment guidelines, where they were interviewed for collecting data related to treatment efficacy and safety. Medications were to be dispensed during the scheduled monthly follow-up visits. All stated treatment and follow-up procedures were already taking place as per the national treatment program. No extra follow-up visits or treatments were added to the patient schedule during this study.

## Measurements

### Standard data collected (national treatment program)

For clinical information relating to the efficacy and safety of the treatments in the cohort participants, data collection was done using the standardized case report forms (CRF), routinely used by the national treatment program. There are existing CRF for both baseline and follow-up visits which include the following variables.

### Baseline visit
Sex, age, treatment status (with details of previous treatment if any), weight, height, BMI, alcohol and tobacco intake, IV drug use, hypertension, diabetes (and treatment of), hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, special situations (ex., dialysis, post-transplant), HCV RNA (with quantification), liver function tests (i.e., ALT, AST, AFP, albumin, total bilirubin, indirect bilirubin, TSH, creatinine), blood tests (i.e., WBC, ANC, Hb, platelets, PC/INR), ANA, glucose, HbA1c, triglycerides, HDL, LDL, HB antigen, ECG, HIV, abdominal ultrasound details (including date, the status of liver and PV, presence of ascites or focal lesions), fib-4 calculation, child-pugh score calculation, contract type for treatment payment, and treatment decisions.

### Follow-up visits
HCV RNA (with quantification), to evaluate virological response, liver function tests (i.e., ALT, AST, albumin, total bilirubin), blood tests (i.e., WBC, ANC, Hb, platelets, PC or INR), whether or not there has been blood sample storage, side effects experienced, treatment decision (continue, stop, dose changes, etc.).

### Additional data that was collected in the course of the study

During the baseline visit, some extra data was collected regarding the medical history of all patients involved in this cohort study using a short questionnaire. Furthermore, during scheduled follow-up visits, an extra emphasis was placed on collecting data regarding side effects being experienced and concomitant treatments using a short questionnaire.

The patient-reported outcome quality of life survey for HCV (PROQOL-HCV) was developed and psychometrically tested through a condensate review of literature and interview with treatment specialists and patients [24]. PROQOL-HCV has six dimensions: physical health, emotional health, future uncertainty, intimate relationships, social health, and cognitive functions. For each dimension, a set of questions was asked to participants who provided answers in five categories from “never” to “always.” The answers were translated into scores ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores reflecting higher HRQL. PROQOL-HCV has been validated among patients with HCV in France, Brazil, and Australia [25, 26]. The questionnaire was translated into Arabic and its convergent validity and internal reliability were tested. The Arabic version of the PROQOL-HCV has satisfactory validity and reliability among Egyptian HCV patients. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the Arabic PROQOL-HCV's multi-item scales ranged from 0.85 to 0.96. A confirmatory analysis gives an RMSEA of 0.105 and a CFI of 0.825, which is acceptable [27].

## Specific study procedures

Patients were then interviewed face-to-face to complete the questionnaire in the outpatient clinic during the visit. Three trained interviewers were responsible for conducting the face-to-face patient interviews in order to complete the PROQOL questionnaire at each visit. The questionnaires were paper-based.

Data were collected at three-time points: (1) baseline (week 0 prior to initiating therapy); (2) end of treatment (EoT) (week 12 after initiating therapy); (3) at time of assessing SVR12 (week 12 after EoT). At pretreatment visits, patients were assessed to confirm their eligibility to start the HCV therapy.

Study activities and procedures are detailed in Table 1.

## Statistical methods

Descriptive statistics were provided for outcomes (HRQL) and explanatory factors (demographic and biomedical data), including age, sex, comorbidities, HCV disease-related factors and test results, and patient's status regarding HCV treatment and concomitant medications. Descriptive statistics were computed to
<table><caption>**Table 1** Study schedule: treatment and data collection</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="3">Treatments Given</th><th colspan="4">Data Collection</th><th colspan="2">Detailed side effects, concomitant medications</th><th rowspan="3">Quality of Life Questionnaire</th></tr><tr><th rowspan="2">12 Wk Dual Therapy</th><th rowspan="2">24 Wk Dual Therapy</th><th rowspan="2">PCR</th><th rowspan="2">Baseline form</th><th rowspan="2">Medical History</th><th colspan="2">Standard follow-ups visit form</th><th rowspan="2">12 Wk Dual Therapy</th><th rowspan="2">24 Wk Dual Therapy</th></tr><tr><th>12 Wk Dual</th><th>24 Wk Dual</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Enrolment</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>W0</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>W4</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>W8</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>W12<sup>a</sup></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X (12 Wk only)</td></tr><tr><td>W16</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>W20</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td><td>X</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>W24<sup>b</sup></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td><td></td><td>X (SVR)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X (12 &amp;24 Wk)</td></tr><tr><td>W36<sup>c</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td>X (24 Wk only)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X (SVR)</td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X (24 Wk only)</td></tr><tr><td>Unscheduled</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

BLUE highlighted sections are new as per this study; in GREY follows NTP standard procedure

summarize data and represent participants' baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. Continuous variables were summarized using the median and interquartile range, while categorical variables were summarized as counts and proportions. Pearson Chi-squared and Student t-test were used for two-group comparisons. Paired t-test was used to analyze the association between HRQL at baseline, EOT, and SVR12. The score for each dimension at baseline was compared between categories of patient's characteristics (e.g., age, sex, comorbidities) using a t-test. Then, the score for each dimension was compared between baseline, EOT, and SVR12 using a paired t-test. Since the difference between HRQL at baseline, EOT, and SVR12 did not follow a normal distribution, we chose a binary outcome (improvement/no improvement) and a logistic regression model to study the characteristics (age, sex,

comorbidities) associated with HRQL improvement (difference in SVR12, EOT, and baseline scores > 0). Variables associated with improvement in univariable analysis with *P* values > 0.2 were introduced in multivariable models. *P* values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Radar plots incorporating the six dimensions were computed in order to assess overall HRQL. The surface area delimited by the radar plots was compared across baseline characteristics, and between baseline, EOT, and SVR12, by Student t-test and paired t-test, respectively. Finally, the mean change in surface area between baseline, EOT, and SVR 12 was compared across the characteristics of patients by Student t-test. Data Analysis and Statistical Software for Professionals (STATA-14) were used to generate the results.

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Week 12 corresponding EOT</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Week 24 corresponding to SVR12</footnote>

<footnote><sup>c</sup> Week 36 corresponding to SVR12 after the end of treatment for those patients whose treatment course was 24 wks</footnote>
## Results

A total of 500 subjects were enrolled over the study period, and 101 subjects were excluded from the final analysis due to missing follow-up at one or more visits (45 patients), missing data at one or more visits (53 patients), while more three patients were excluded because of the missed SVR 12 data. The majority of the study patients (98.99%) achieved SVR 12. Figure 1 shows the patients' recruitment flowchart.

### Participants' demographic and medical characteristics

The median age of the study participants was 57 years, and 59% were females. Nineteen percent, 23%, and 71% of the participants suffered from hypertension, diabetes, and obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m²) as comorbidities, respectively, while 17% were smokers. Cirrhosis was detected in 15% of the participants, 58% had abnormal liver functions, and thrombocytopenia (platelet count × 1000/L < 150) was found in 21% of the cases. FIB-4 score was more than 3.25 (indicating advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis) in 21% of the participants. Alpha-fetoprotein value (< 10 ng/mL), AST (≥ 40 IU/L), and ALT (≥ 56 IU/L) were found in 79%, 49%, and 29% of the cases, respectively. RBV was added to treatment regimens in 19% of the participants. Regarding previous exposure to antiviral therapy, 94% of the participants were HCV treatment-naïve, while the remaining 6% were interferon experienced. Table 2 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants.

### Characteristics of adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years old patients

Regarding the age of participants, 54% of patients were < 60 years old. Comparison between the characteristics of adults < 60 years and adults ≥ 60 years old patients at baseline shows a significant difference in

several characteristics, including sex (P < 0.001, OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.6–3.7), hypertension (P < 0.001, OR = 7.1, 95% CI = 3.8–13.3), liver condition (normal, abnormal, or cirrhotic, P < 0.001, OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.8–6.0), liver enzymes including normal or abnormal AST levels (P < 0.01, OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.1–2.4), presence of thrombocytopenia (P < 0.001, OR = 2.9, 95% CI = 1.7–4.8), and AFP level (P < 0.01, OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 1.1–3.1). Table 3 shows the comparison of the demographic and clinical characteristics between the adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years old patients.

### Comparison of QOL between adults ≥ 60 and adults < 60 years patients

Change in QOL among the adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years old patients were assessed at the three time points of data collection (baseline, EOT, and SVR 12 weeks) and presented in Table 4. HRQL increased significantly between baseline and week 24 for all dimensions (P < 0.001), more often for physical health in females compared to males (OR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.1–2.5), for future uncertainty among people with diabetes (1.75, 95% CI = 1.05–2.9), and for cognitive functions among obese patients (OR = 1.98; 95% CI = 1.1–3.3). Improvement in HRQL was consistently higher in adults < 60 years compared to adults ≥ 60 years patients, with a significant difference in social health (P < 0.001) and future uncertainty (P < 0.049) HRQL domains (Table 5).

### Overall, HRQL incorporating the six dimensions

All six HQRL dimensions are incorporated in one measure using radar plots. The surface area of each radar plot corresponds to the HRQL score. The radar plots in Fig. 2 show the difference in QoL scores at baseline and their association with the characteristics of the study patients. Additionally, Table 1 of the annex shows the results of a

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Patient recruitment flowchart</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2** Baseline demographic, clinical characteristics, and laboratory data of the enrolled patients</caption><thead><tr><th>Baseline characteristics n = 399</th><th>n, % for categorical values</th><th>Mean, SD for continuous variables</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Age (years)</strong></td><td></td><td>52 (14.5)</td></tr><tr><td>Adults &lt; 60</td><td>214 (54)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60</td><td>185 (46)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>163 (41)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>236 (59)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity: hypertension</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>223 (82)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>73 (18)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity: diabetes</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>307 (77)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>91 (23)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>BMI (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</strong></td><td></td><td>29.8 (6.1)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td></td><td>204</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity: obesity (BMI ≥ 30)</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>115 (29)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>287 (71)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Smoking status</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Smokers</td><td>50 (17)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-smokers</td><td>242 (83)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>105</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hepatic condition (based on clinician's decision)</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Normal</td><td>107 (27)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal</td><td>230 (598)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cirrhotic</td><td>61 (15)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>FIB-4 (indicator of cirrhosis)</strong></td><td></td><td>2.3 (1.9)</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 3.25 (IU)</td><td>316 (79)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 3.25 (IU)</td><td>85 (21)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Thrombocytopenia</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No (platelet count × 1000/L ≥ 150)</td><td>317 (79)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes (platelet count × 1000/L &lt; 150)</td><td>85 (21)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>HCV serum concentration (IU/mL × 10<sup>6</sup> + 06)</strong></td><td></td><td>6.3 [1.6, 20]</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Platelet count (× 10<sup>9</sup>/L)</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td></td><td>200.8 (69.3)</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Alfa Feto-protein</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 10 ng/mL</td><td>311 (79)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 10 ng/mL</td><td>87 (21)</td><td>7.9 (12.6)</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Liver enzymes: AST</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Normal level (&lt; 40 IU/L)</td><td>204 (51)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal level (≥ 40 IU/L)</td><td>195 (49)</td><td>48.4 (31.7)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Liver enzymes: ALT</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Normal level (&lt; 56 IU/L)</td><td>281 (71)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th>Baseline characteristics n = 399</th><th>n, % for categorical values</th><th>Mean, SD for continuous variables</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Abnormal level (≥ 56 IU/L)</td><td>116 (29)</td><td>49.7 (35.5)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Treatment status</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Naïve</td><td>374 (94)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Experienced</td><td>23 (6)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Ribavirin in treatment combination</strong></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>322 (81)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>75 (19)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

multivariable analysis of the association between QOL improvement across the visits and patient characteristics. In the physical health dimension, the difference was significant in gender, where the OR among females was 1.8 compared to males, 95% CI (1.1–2.8), *P* 0.009. Tables 2 and 3 of the annex show the changes in QOL score in each domain at the three times of data collection (baseline, EOT, SVR12) between adults < 60 years and adults ≥ 60 years patients. The change was found to be significant in the social health domain, where the OR among adults ≥ 60 years was 0.3 compared to adults < 60 years, 95% CI (0.1–0.4), *P* < 0.001.

## Discussion

This cohort evaluates HRQL among HCV patients undertaking DAA treatment in real-life settings in Egypt. PROQOL-HCV was used as an HCV-specific and HRQL-validated tool to evaluate comprehensive PROs incorporating multiple dimensions while considering the shift in the standard of care treatment to include DAAs, disease stage, and population-specific characteristics.

QOL at baseline varied according to specific characteristics: Based on the analysis of the PROs provided by the 399 subjects included in the analysis, the results of the evaluation of HRQL show that baseline values of certain patient characteristics varied, including the following demographic and clinical characteristics: age, gender, comorbidities; hypertension, diabetes, obesity, thrombocytopenia, cirrhosis, smoking status, tumor markers including AFP, liver enzymes; AST and ALT, and variables related to treatment such as treatment status (DAAs naïve or not), and if RBV is included in treatment combination. Differences regarding overall HRQL at baseline were significant in the following characteristics: gender, hypertension, obesity, and RBV treatment. Individual assessment of each HRQL dimension showed that the differences varied across the six dimensions; however,

they remained relatively consistent. Also, these differences were significant for liver enzymes.

QOL at baseline varied between the population of adult patients aged 60 years or older and that aged less than 60 years. Recognizing the significant heterogeneity within the older adult population is essential. Chronological age alone does not capture individual differences in functional status, cognitive abilities, and personal preferences. A comprehensive geriatric assessment that evaluates physical, cognitive, functional, psychological, and social domains is crucial for understanding individual needs and tailoring interventions to optimize QOL [28]. Finally, understanding the multifaceted impact of age on QOL is vital for making informed clinical decisions that prioritize not only clinical outcomes but also the well-being and satisfaction of older adults. By incorporating age-specific considerations, employing appropriate QOL measures, and engaging in shared decision-making, clinicians can ensure treatment plans effectively address the unique needs and priorities of each individual [29]. Evaluation of HRQL showed that certain characteristics varied between both populations at baseline, including the following demographic and clinical characteristics: gender, hypertension, liver condition, thrombocytopenia, AFP, and AST levels.

## Improvement in QOL with DAA therapy

Recording of PROs during treatment with DAAs demonstrates their effect on HRQL by comparing the improvement in HRQL between baseline, EOT, and SVR12. Results of this study show evidence of an association between undertaking DAA therapy and improvement in HRQL. Upon evaluation of the association between DAA therapy and HRQL, significant improvement in HRQL was found. Improvement in HRQL varied in each HRQL dimension; however, the correlation remained consistent with the overall HRQL improvement, which was highly significant across the six dimensions. Improvement in
<table><caption>**Table 3** Comparison between demographic, clinical characteristics, and laboratory data of adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years old patients</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Baseline characteristics<br>n = 399</th><th colspan="2">n (%) for categorical values</th><th rowspan="2">OR for<br>categorical<br>values<br>(95% CI)</th><th rowspan="2">P value</th><th colspan="2">Mean (SD) for continuous variables</th><th rowspan="2">RR for continuous<br>values (95% CI)</th><th rowspan="2">P value</th></tr><tr><th>Adults &lt; 60 years<br>(n = 211)</th><th>Adults ≥ 60 years<br>(n = 188)</th><th>Adults &lt; 60 years<br>(n = 211)</th><th>Adults ≥ 60 years<br>(n = 188)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Age (years)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>41 (10.8)</td><td>65 (3.6)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age (years) n = 399</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults &lt; 60</td><td>211 (53)</td><td>188 (47)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>107 (51)</td><td>55 (29)</td><td>2.5 (1.6-3.7)</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>104 (49)</td><td>133 (71)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity: hyper-<br>tension</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>197 (93)</td><td>124 (66)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>14 (7)</td><td>63 (34)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity:<br>diabetes</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>163 (77)</td><td>142 (76)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>48 (23)</td><td>45 (24)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>BMI (kg/m<sup>2</sup>)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>29.8 (6.1)<br>109</td><td>31.4 (6.5)<br>95</td><td>1.4 (1.1-1.9)</td><td>&lt;0.01</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity: obesity (BMI ≥ 30)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>76 (75)</td><td>46 (50)</td><td>2.3 (1.6-5.5)</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>26 (25)</td><td>47 (51)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>109</td><td>95</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Smoking status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Smokers</td><td>176 (83)</td><td>63 (81)</td><td>1.1 (0.6-2.2)</td><td>0.75</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Non-smokers</td><td>35 (17)</td><td>15 (19)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>0</td><td>110</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hepatic condition (based on clinician's decision)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Normal</td><td>80 (38)</td><td>27 (26)</td><td>3.3 (1.8-6.0)</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal</td><td>114 (54)</td><td>119 (59)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cirrhotic</td><td>17 (8)</td><td>42 (15)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>FIB-4</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2.31 (1.9)<br>1</td><td></td><td>2.1 (1.7, 2.5)</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>FIB-4 (Indicator of cirrhosis)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 3.25 (IU)</td><td>193 (92)</td><td>121 (64)</td><td>6.2 (3.5-11.2)</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 3.25 (IU)</td><td>17 (8)</td><td>67 (36)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Platelet count<br>(× 10<sup>9</sup>/L)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>216.4 (68.6)</td><td>182.9 (65.9)</td><td>1.6 (1.4, 2.0)</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Thrombocytopenia</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No (platelet<br>count × 1000/L ≥ 150)</td><td>184 (87)</td><td>132 (70)</td><td>2.9 (1.7-4.8)</td><td>&lt;0.001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes (platelet<br>count × 1000/L &lt; 150)</td><td>27 (13)</td><td>56 (30)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>HCV serum concentration</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(IU/mL × 10<sup>6</sup> + 06)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>2.1 (5.4)</td><td>2.0 (6.1)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Alfa Feto-protein</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(10 ng/mL)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10.2 (15.7)<br>3</td><td>5.9 (8.4)<br>2</td><td>1.4 (1.1, 1.7)</td><td>0.005</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3** (continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Baseline characteristics<br>n = 399</th><th colspan="2">n (%) for categorical values</th><th rowspan="2">OR for<br>categorical<br>values<br>(95% CI)</th><th rowspan="2">P value</th><th colspan="2">Mean (SD) for continuous variables</th><th rowspan="2">RR for continuous<br>values (95% CI)</th><th rowspan="2">P value</th></tr><tr><th>Adults &lt; 60 years<br>(n = 211)</th><th>Adults ≥ 60 years<br>(n = 188)</th><th>Adults &lt; 60 years<br>(n = 211)</th><th>Adults ≥ 60 years<br>(n = 188)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Alfa Feto-protein</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 10 ng/mL</td><td>176 (85)</td><td>138 (74)</td><td>1.9 (1.2-3.2)</td><td>&lt; 0.01</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 10 ng/mL</td><td>32 (15)</td><td>48 (26)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Liver enzymes: AST</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(IU/L)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>44.2 (27.3)</td><td>53.2 (35.5)</td><td>1.3 (1.0, 1.6)</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Liver enzymes: AST</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Normal level<br>(&lt; 40 IU/L)</td><td>121 (57)</td><td>85 (45)</td><td>1.6 (1.1-2.4)</td><td>&lt; 0.01</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal level<br>(≥ 40 IU/L)</td><td>90 (43)</td><td>103 (55)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Liver enzymes: ALT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(IU/L)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>49.5 (35.4)</td><td>49.8 (35.7)</td><td>0.9 (0.8, 1.2)</td><td>0.66</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Liver enzymes: ALT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Normal level<br>(&lt; 56 IU/L)</td><td>148 (70)</td><td>135 (72)</td><td>0.9 (0.6-1.4)</td><td>0.71</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal level<br>(≥ 56 IU/L)</td><td>63 (30)</td><td>53 (28)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Treatment status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Naïve</td><td>194 (92)</td><td>182 (97)</td><td>3.3 (1.9-5.9)</td><td>&lt; 0.001</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Experienced</td><td>17 (8)</td><td>6 (3)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ribavirin in treatment combination</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td><strong>151 (72)</strong></td><td><strong>175 (93)</strong></td><td><strong>0.2 (0.1-0.4)</strong></td><td><strong>&lt; 0.001</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>60 (28)</td><td>13 (7)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

To evaluate the effect of the various demographic and clinical characteristics among adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years, Z-test for odds ratio (OR, 95% CI) was used for the categorical variables to compare demographic and clinical characteristics among adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years old patients, while Z-test for risk ratio (RR, 95% CI) was used for the categorical variables. A value of P < 0.05 was considered to be significant

physical health may be partially related to viral suppression and/or HCV eradication after treatment with DAA's, which was achieved in all subjects. However, it was also attributed to improvement in liver function, which would primarily manifest in patients with cirrhosis and other extra-hepatic manifestations of HCV infection. Improvement was also significantly better among subjects with no comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes, and obesity (given that 71% were obese, which is significant compared to the adult prevalence rate in Egypt of < 33% [30].

Comparison of the same association between DAA therapy and HRQL among adults aged 60 years and older and adults less than 60 years showed significant improvement in HRQL. This improvement varied according to the clinical and demographic and clinical characteristics throughout baseline, EOT, and SVR12 visits between the population of adults aged 60 years or older and that aged less than 60 years. This comparison showed that the improvement in HRQL was higher in patients less than 60 years compared to those aged 60 years or older in the following characteristics: gender, where females showed

better improvement compared to males aged 60 years or older, and in hypertensive patients less than 60 years compared to non-hypertensive patients aged 60 years or older, and in obese patients.

Overall improvement in HRQL varied between both populations of adults less than 60 years and that aged 60 years or older, where better improvement in 4 HRQL dimensions was found among patients less than 60 years compared to those aged 60 years or older. This variation in the improvement of HRQL between adults aged 60 years and older and adults less than 60 years was found to be most significant in the intimate relation dimension, as improvement in intimate relation among the population aged less than 60 years was found to be significant compared to that among adults aged 60 years or older. Such association may be attributed to a negative effect of aging on the perception of patients of certain relevant HRQL aspects; an influence by cultural and religious beliefs was inferred from responses to future uncertainty-related items, and the relation with social health may be attributed to a higher level of professional engagement associated with fear of discrimination, and
<table><caption>**Table 4** QOL (overall and each domain); comparison between adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years old participants</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="6">Each domain of QOL; comparison between adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years</th></tr><tr><th>QOL (adults < 60 years and adults ≥ 60)</th><th>N (%)</th><th>Mean QOL score (0-100), SD</th><th>Mean difference</th><th>P value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Physical health</strong> (N = 399)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults < 60 years</td><td>211 (53)</td><td>76.9, 22.1</td><td>3.4</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60 years</td><td>188 (47)</td><td>73.4, 24.5</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Emotional health</strong> (N = 399)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults < 60 years</td><td>211 (53)</td><td>85.5, 18.9</td><td>2.2</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60 years</td><td>188 (47)</td><td>83.3, 21.3</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Future uncertainty</strong> (N = 399)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults < 60 years</td><td>211 (53)</td><td>76.4, 21.4</td><td>-2.1</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60 years</td><td>188 (47)</td><td>78.5, 22.3</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Intimate relation</strong> (N = 395)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults < 60 years</td><td>211 (53)</td><td>85.4, 24.5</td><td>-6.5</td><td><strong>0.003</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60 years</td><td>184 (47)</td><td>92, 18.02</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Social health</strong> (N = 390)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults < 60 years</td><td>204 (52)</td><td>68.1, 13.6</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60 years</td><td>186 (48)</td><td>68.1, 18.3</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cognitive function</strong> (N = 394)</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults < 60 years</td><td>209 (52)</td><td>86.8, 17.6</td><td>-2.2</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60 years</td><td>185 (48)</td><td>89, 22.4</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Overall QOL; comparison between adults ≥ 60 years and adults < 60 years</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Patient characteristics (N = 381)</td><td>N (%)</td><td>Mean QOL score (mean = 80.6)</td><td>Mean difference</td><td>P value</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Adults < 60 years</td><td>201 (52)</td><td>80.4</td><td>-0.5</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>Adults ≥ 60 years</td><td>180 (48)</td><td>80.9</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>156 (41)</td><td>82.7</td><td>3.5</td><td><strong>0.01</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>225 (59)</td><td>79.2, 16.1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity: hypertension</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>306 (80)</td><td>81.3</td><td>3.7</td><td><strong>0.04</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>74 (20)</td><td>77.6</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity: diabetes</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>292 (76)</td><td>80.6</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.9</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>88 (24)</td><td>80.5</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Comorbidity: obesity</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No (BMI > 30)</td><td>110 (29)</td><td>83.1</td><td>3.6</td><td><strong>0.02</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Yes (BMI < 30)</td><td>271 (71)</td><td>79.5</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cirrhosis</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No (normal + abnormal)</td><td>328 (86)</td><td>80.4</td><td>-1</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>53 (14)</td><td>81.4</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Thrombocytopenia</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No (platelet count > 150)</td><td>302 (79)</td><td>80.7</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>Yes (platelet count > 150)</td><td>79 (21)</td><td>80</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Alfa Feto-protein</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 10 ng/mL</td><td>302 (80)</td><td>80.6</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.7</td></tr><tr><td>≥ 10 ng/mL</td><td>74 (20)</td><td>80.1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 4 (continued)**</caption><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Liver enzymes: AST</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Normal level (&lt; 40 IU/L)</td><td>193 (51)</td><td>80.1</td><td>-1</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal level (≥ 40 IU/L)</td><td>188 (49)</td><td>81.1</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Liver enzymes: ALT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Normal level (&lt; 56 IU/L)</td><td>272 (71)</td><td>79.8</td><td>-2.8</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Abnormal level (≥ 56 IU/L)</td><td>109 (29)</td><td>82.5</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>RBV treatment included</strong></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>315 (82)</td><td>81.3</td><td>4</td><td><strong>0.03</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>66 (18)</td><td>77.3</td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>**Table 5 Improvement in QOL scores between baseline, EOT, and SVR12**</caption><thead><tr><th>QoL dimension<br>(n=399)</th><th>% with better QoL at EoT, at<br>SVR12 (n)</th><th>Mean QoL score<br>(0-100)</th><th>Mean difference</th><th>95% CI</th><th>P value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Physical health</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td></td><td>75.2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EoT</td><td>45 (179)</td><td>79.5</td><td>9.5</td><td>7.2, 11.7</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>SVR-12</td><td>62 (248)</td><td>89</td><td>13.8</td><td>11.3, 16.2</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Emotional health</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td></td><td>84.3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EoT</td><td>48 (190)</td><td>90.4</td><td>6.1</td><td>3.8, 8.4</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>SVR-12</td><td>54 (218)</td><td>96.2</td><td>11.8</td><td>9.7, 13.9</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Future uncertainty</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td></td><td>77.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EoT</td><td>54 (216)</td><td>85.3</td><td>7.8</td><td>5.4, 10.2</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>SVR-12</td><td>64 (255)</td><td>91.4</td><td>13.9</td><td>11.6, 16.2</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Intimate relation</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td></td><td>88.5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EoT</td><td>25 (97)</td><td>93.5</td><td>5.1</td><td>2.8, 7.3</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>SVR-12</td><td>28 (112)</td><td>97.1</td><td>8.6</td><td>6.4, 10.9</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>12</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Social health</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td></td><td>68.2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EoT</td><td>31 (117)</td><td>70.1</td><td>2.6</td><td>0.7, 4.5</td><td>&lt;0.01</td></tr><tr><td>SVR-12</td><td>32 (126)</td><td>71.7</td><td>3.6</td><td>1.6, 5.5</td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>12</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cognitive function</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Baseline</td><td></td><td>87.9</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>EoT</td><td>26 (98)</td><td>90.4</td><td>2.4</td><td>0.2, 4.7</td><td>&lt;0.05</td></tr><tr><td>SVR-12</td><td>29 (114)</td><td>92.6</td><td>4.7</td><td>2.5, 6.9</td><td>&lt;0.0001</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td>19</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

negative perception of self-image in society across the younger population. In the social health dimension, the responses of the study patients to the questionnaire during the study showed that the improvement in HRQL was associated with certain cultural traits such as strong

family bonding and support during treatment. Although the improvement in HRQL after DAA therapy varied among study participants, no difference was found in overall HRQL improvement with regard to patient characteristics. Moreover, in some dimensions, HRQL
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** QOL scores at baseline based on patient characteristics</figcaption></figure>
improvement was significantly better for some charac-
teristics; however, such relation was inconsistent among
the six dimensions between adults aged 60 and older and
adults less than 60. Results of previous studies similarly
show that HRQL improvement is associated with age and
that patients aged ≥ 65 should be carefully monitored
compared to younger patients [31].

The fluctuation in overall HRQL improvement across
the 6 HRQL dimensions and between adults aged
60 years and older and adults less than 60 years across
baseline, EOT, and SVR12 may be associated with health-
care provision-related factors; these mainly involve
follow-up during and after treatment. The study results
and findings suggest that improving the patient follow-
up process is needed as it impacts the patient's well-
being. Comparison with the results from previous studies
showed a consistent positive association between fibrosis
stage and HRQL impairment in the physical domain at
baseline, while significant improvements in most HRQL
domains were observed at EOT and SVR12, regardless of
fibrosis stage [32]. The impact of DAAs-based HCV treat-
ment on PROs and liver-related outcomes in real-world
settings was described in some reports. In a real-life pro-
spective cohort from the USA, the investigators used the
Short Form (SF)-36 as well as 3 other approved instru-
ments. The authors found a 30% increase in SF-36 vital-
ity score from baseline to SVR12: 63 versus 82 (P=0.001,
N=111). At SVR12, scores improved in 24 of the 25
PRO domains (P=0.05). Almost all of the increases were
greater than 5%, indicating clinical significance. Patients
with no or early fibrosis before therapy improved in 22
domains compared to those with advanced fibrosis [33].

Additionally, a real-life prospective cohort from
Italy that used the HQLQv2 questionnaire, which also
assessed hepatitis-specific functional limitations and dis-
tress, showed that DAAs improves HCV patients' gen-
eral quality and psychological state [34]. Comparison of
the results of this study to those of studies that aimed
to evaluate the impact of DAAs on HRQL and in HIV/
HCV co-infected patients showed that HCV treatment
led to substantial improvements in physical health in
45% and cognitive function [35, 36]. Furthermore, HRQL
improvements were similar to those of patients with HCV
mono-infection despite having lower HRQL at baseline
[37]. Improvement in HRQL is not conclusive in studies
measuring its change following DAAs. A large German
study that included 1180 HCV patients measured HRQL
using Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires. Researchers
investigated potential predictors of HRQL changes. Only
half of the patients in the study saw a clinically significant
improvement in their mental and physical component
summary ratings. They discovered that fatigue (P=0.023,
OR=1.518), elevated GPT levels (P=0.005, OR=0.626),

and RBV-containing therapy regimens (P=0.001,
OR=1.692) were all linked to clinically significant dete-
rioration in HRQL following DAA therapy [38]. The
research on the relationship between post DAA treat-
ment of HCV (SVR) and HRQOL has yielded valuable
insights, but there are still areas that need further explo-
ration. These are some potential directions for future
research: (1) long-term effects: most studies have fol-
lowed patients for a limited period after achieving SVR.
More research is needed to understand the long-term
impact of SVR on HRQOL, particularly beyond 5 years.
Also, investigate the potential delayed benefits or detri-
ments to HRQOL as patients age and other health con-
ditions emerge. (2) Subgroup analysis: current research
often combines diverse patient populations. Future stud-
ies could delve deeper into specific subgroups, such as
patients with co-morbidities, specific HCV genotypes, or
different treatment regimens, to identify nuanced rela-
tionships between SVR and HRQOL. Also, explore the
impact of socio-economic factors, cultural aspects, and
access to healthcare on HRQOL outcomes for different
patient groups. (3) Specific HRQOL domains: while most
studies use general HRQOL measures, future research
could explore the impact of SVR on specific domains
like fatigue, sleep quality, cognitive function, or mental
health using targeted assessments. Also, investigate the
potential mechanisms underlying these specific HRQOL
improvements or lingering issues post-SVR.

While some research has explored the link between
HCV treatment and HRQOL, further investigation is
needed to understand the nuanced impact of different
treatment regimens on patients’ quality of life. These are
some potential directions for future research: (1) direct
comparisons of regimens: conduct head-to-head studies
comparing HRQOL outcomes in patients receiving dif-
ferent treatment regimens, considering factors like dura-
tion, side effects, and patient preferences. Also, include
newer, interferon-free regimens alongside traditional
options to provide a comprehensive picture of current
treatment landscape. (2) Subgroup analysis based on
patient characteristics: analyze HRQOL data within sub-
groups defined by relevant factors like treatment history,
comorbidities, age, or genotype. This can reveal how spe-
cific patient profiles respond differently to different regi-
mens. Also, investigate potential interactions between
treatment type and individual characteristics that influ-
ence HRQOL outcomes.

Limitations

Need for a standardized methodology for analysis

Following the literature review and the implementation
of the analysis plan adapted in this study, it is evident
that the development of a standardized methodology
and tools for the evaluation and analysis of HRQL in HCV patients is required in order to improve the evaluation process, provide a standardized tool that maximizes research outcomes, establish generalizability, ensure validity, and reduce risk of bias that may arise due to various factors related to the population, treatment, and/or study context.

### Potential limitations

Limitations and potential risks of bias regarding the assessment of the variables related to treatment include lack of comparable intervention, reported side effects, and the amount of missing data and loss of follow-up that might have increased the risk of information bias. Also, the large number of comparisons may increase the risk of error in estimate evaluation due to variations in the data and the generated results.

### Conclusion

This study results provide evidence that HRQL varied according to the characteristics of HCV patients as shown at baseline, and this variation was also found between patients aged 60 years and older and patients less than 60 years. The study results show that PROs significantly improved with DAA therapy, a relation that was consistent across the 6 HRQL dimensions. Accordingly, DAAs result in short and long-term improvement of HRQL. Clinical outcomes at EOT and SVR12 were considered the primary endpoints of clinical trials; however, PROs have demonstrated their importance as endpoints that must be considered with clinical outcomes. The study findings provide an insight into the significance of HRQL assessment as an essential aspect of the treatment process due to its critical role in affecting well-being and clinical outcomes during and after HCV treatment. Moreover, PROs reflect the perspective of the patient in terms of HRQL, which should be accounted for by healthcare providers in order to optimize HCV treatment outcomes.

### Abbreviations

<table><tr><td>AFP</td><td>Alpha-fetoprotein</td></tr><tr><td>ALT</td><td>Alanine transaminase</td></tr><tr><td>AST</td><td>Aspartate transaminase</td></tr><tr><td>BMI</td><td>Body mass index</td></tr><tr><td>CLDQ</td><td>Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire</td></tr><tr><td>CLD-QOL</td><td>Chronic liver disease quality of life</td></tr><tr><td>DAAs</td><td>Direct acting antiviral therapy</td></tr><tr><td>EOT</td><td>End of treatment</td></tr><tr><td>HCV</td><td>Hepatitis C virus</td></tr><tr><td>HRQL</td><td>Health-related quality of life</td></tr><tr><td>ICH-GCP</td><td>The International Council for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for; Pharmaceuticals for Human Use—Good Clinical Practice</td></tr><tr><td>IRB</td><td>Institutional Review Board</td></tr><tr><td>NTP</td><td>National treatment program</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>PROQOL-HCV</td><td>Patient-reported outcome quality of life survey for HCV</td></tr><tr><td>PROs</td><td>Patient-reported outcomes</td></tr><tr><td>RBV</td><td>Ribavirin</td></tr><tr><td>SVR</td><td>Sustained virological response</td></tr><tr><td>TCP</td><td>Thrombocytopenia</td></tr></table>

### Acknowledgements

None.

### Authors' contributions

MEK, ME, and AF designed the study. MD created the original tool. NY translated and validated the tool. SAS, HE, and KS collected the data. MB, AF, ER, AV, and YM analyzed the data. ME, MB, NY, and MEK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript.

### Funding

This is a non-funded work.

### Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

### Declarations

#### Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was performed according to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki after approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human subject research at the National Hepatology and Tropical Medicine Research Institute (Serial: 28-2015) and Egyptian Ministry of Health. Written informed consent was obtained from the subjects after explaining the study's aim and completing the consenting process.

#### Consent for publication

All authors agree to the journal rules for publications

#### Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

#### Author details

¹Endemic Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Helwan University, Ain Helwan, Cairo 11795, Egypt. ²Médecins Sans Frontières, Paris, France.

³Medical-Surgical Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt. ⁴Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, AP-HP, Health Economics Clinical Trial Unit, Hospital Hotel-Dieu, University de Paris, Paris, France.

⁵Internal Medicine Department, Gastroenterology and Hepatology Unit, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. ⁶Emerging Diseases Epidemiology Unit, Institut Pasteur, 75015 Paris, France. ⁷Hepatology Department, Abbasia Fever Hospital, Cairo, Egypt. ⁸Conservatoire National Des Arts Et Métiers, Paris, France.

Received: 29 November 2023 Accepted: 14 February 2024

Published online: 27 February 2024

### References

1. World Health Organization (2018) Guidelines for the care and treatment of persons diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/273174. ISBN 978-92-4-155034-5

2. El Kassas M, Elbaz T, Elsharkawy A et al (2018) HCV in Egypt, prevention, treatment and key barriers to elimination. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 16(4):345-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2018.1448709. Epub 2018 Mar 11 PMID: 29506418

3. El-Akel W, El-Sayed MH, El Kassas M, El-Serafy M, Khairy M, Elsaeed K, Kabil K, Hassany M, Shawky A, Yosry A, Shaker MK, ElShazly Y, Waked I, Esmat G, Doss W (2017) National treatment programme of hepatitis C in Egypt: hepatitis C virus model of care. J Viral Hepatitis 24(4):262-267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvh.12668
4. World Health Organization (2023) https://www.who.int/director-general/ speeches/detail/statement-to-the-media-on-certification-of-egypt-reach- ing-the-gold-tier-on-the-path-to-elimination-for-hcv-cairo-egypt---9- october-2023. Accessed 1/2/2024

5. Kamal NN, Mahfouz EM, Ewis AA, Refaei SA, Soliman WA (2018) Quality of life among hepatitis C patients on treatment, Minia, Egypt. JCMPH. 5(5):1707-12. https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20181674

6. Gomaa A, Allam N, Elsharkway A, El KM, Waked I (2021) Hepatitis C infec- tion in Egypt: prevalence, impact and management strategies. Hepatic Med Evid Res 2017:9-17. https://doi.org/10.2147/HMER.S113681

7. Rei A, Rocha M, Pedroto I (2017) Health-related quality of life in Por- tuguese patients with chronic hepatitis C. GE-Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology 24(2):68-78. https://doi.org/10.1159/000450875

8. Lawitz E, Gane E, Feld JJ, Buti M, Foster GR, Rabinovitz M, Burnevich E, Katchman H, Tomasiewicz K, Lahser F, Jackson B, Shaughnessy M, Klopfer S, Yeh WW, Robertson MN, Hanna GJ, Barr E, Platt HL; C-BREEZE-2 Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of a two-drug direct-acting antiviral agent regimen ruzasvir 180 mg and uprifosbuvir 450 mg for 12 weeks in adults with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6. J Viral Hepat.2019;26(9):1127-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvh.13132. Epub 2019 Jul 11.

9. Elbaz T, El-Kassas M, Esmat G (2015) New era for management of chronic hepatitis C virus using direct antiviral agents: a review. J Adv Res. 6(3):301-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2014.11.004. Epub 2014 Nov 27. PMID: 26257927; PMCID: PMC4522579

10. El Kassas M, Elbaz T, Hafez E et al (2016) safety of direct antiviral agents in the management of hepatitis C. Expert Opin Drug Saf 15(12):1643-1652. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2017.1240781. Epub 2016 Oct 6 PMID: 27661100

11. Younossi ZM, Chan HLY, Dan YY, Lee MH, Lim YS, Kruger E, Tan SC (2018) Impact of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir on the work productivity of genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C patients in Asia. J Viral Hepat 25(3):228-235. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jvh.12808. Epub 2017 Nov 29 PMID: 29053909

12. Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Esteban R, Jacobson I, Zeuzem S, Sulkowski M, Henry L, Nader F, Cable R, Afendy M, Hunt S (2017) Superiority of inter- feron-free regimens for chronic hepatitis C: the effect on health-related quality of life and work productivity. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(7):e5914. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005914. PMID: 28207507;PMCID: PMC5319496

13. Bayliss MS, Gandek B, Bungay KM, Sugano D, Hsu MA, Ware JE Jr (1998) A questionnaire to assess the generic and disease-specific health outcomes of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Qual Life Res 7(1):39-55. https://doi. org/10.1023/a:1008884805251. PMID: 9481150

14. Younossi ZM, Guyatt G, Kiwi R, Boparai N, King D (1999) Development of a disease specific questionnaire to measure health related quality of life in patients with chronic liver disease. Gut 45(2):295-300. https://doi.org/ 10.1136/gut.45.2.295

15. Gralnek IM, Hays RD, Kilbourne A, Rosen HR, Keeffe EB, Artinian L, Kim S, Lazarovici D, Jensen DM, Busuttil RW, Martin P (2000) Development and evaluation of the Liver Disease Quality of Life instrument in persons with advanced, chronic liver disease—the LDQOL 1.0. Am J Gastroenterol 95(12):3552-65 (PubMed PMID:11151892)

16. van der Plas SM, Hansen BE, de Boer JB, Stijnen T, Passchier J, de Man RA, Schalm SW (2004) The Liver Disease Symptom Index 2.0: validation of a disease-specific questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 13(8):1469-81. PubMed PMID: 15503842

17. Lee EH, Cheong JY, Cho SW, Hahm KB, Kim HY, Park JJ, Lee DH, Kim SK, Choi SR, Lee ST, Moon SM (2008) Development and psychometric evalu- ation of a chronic liver disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 23:231-238

18. El Kassas M, El Sheamy R, Alboraei M et al (2019) Real-world results of direct-acting antivirals use for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in old patients. Eur Geriatr Med 10:295. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s41999-019-00167-3

19. Abozeid M, Alsebaey A, Abdelsameea E, Othman W, Elhelbawy M, Rgab A, et al (2018)High efficacy of generic and brand direct acting antivirals in treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Int J Infect Dis. 75:109-14. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijid.2018.07.025. pmid:30077791

20. Waked I, Doss W, El-Sayed MH, Estes C, Razavi H, Shiha G et al (2014) The current and future disease burden of chronic hepatitis C virus infection in Egypt. Arab J Gastroenterol 15:45-52

21. Wedemeyer H, Duberg AS, Buti M, Rosenberg WM, Frankova S, Esmat G et al (2014) Strategies to manage hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease burden. J Viral Hepat 21(Suppl 1):60-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvh.12249. PMID: 24713006

22. Shehata GA, Ahmed GK, Hassan EA et al (2022) Impact of direct-acting antivirals on neuropsychiatric and neurocognitive dysfunction in chronic hepatitis C patients. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg 58:143. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s41983-022-00568-5

23. El Kassas M, Alboraei M, Omran D, Salaheldin M, Wifi MN, ElBadry M, El Tahan A, Ezzat S, Moaz E, Farid AM, Omar H, Abouelkhair M, Afify S, Elsaed K, Shazly Y, Doss W, Esmat G (2018) An account of the real-life hepatitis C management in a single specialized viral hepatitis treatment centre in Egypt: results of treating 7042 patients with 7 different direct acting antiviral regimens. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 12(12):1265- 1272. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2018.1476137. Epub 2018 May 24 PMID: 29757684

24. Evon DM, Amador J, Stewart P, Reeve BB, Lok AS, Sterling RK, Di Bisceglie AM, Reau N, Serper M, Sarkar S, Lim JK (2018) Psychometric properties of the PROMIS short form measures in a US cohort of 961 patients with chronic hepatitis C prescribed direct acting antiviral therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 47(7):1001-1011

25. Duracinsky M, Herrmann S, Berzins B, Armstrong AR, Kohli R, Le Coeur S, Diouf A, Fournier I, Schechter M, Chassany O (2012) The development of PROQOL-HIV: an international instrument to assess the health-related quality of life of persons living with HIV/AIDS. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 59(5):498-505

26. Armstrong AR, Herrmann SE, Chassany O, Lalanne C, Da Silva MH, Galano E, ... Duracinsky (2016) The International development of PROQOL- HCV: an instrument to assess the health-related quality of life of patients treated for Hepatitis C virus. BMC infectious diseases, 16(1):443. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12879-016-1771-0

27. Anderson RT, Baran RW, Erickson P, Revicki DA, Dietz B, Gooch K (2014) Psychometric evaluation of the hepatitis C virus patient-reported out- comes (HCV-PRO) instrument: validity, responsiveness, and identification of the minimally important difference in a phase 2 clinical trial. Qual Life Res 23(3):877-886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0519-1. Epub 2013 Sep 14 PMID: 24036634

28. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA (2006) Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 54(5):743-749. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1532-5415.2006.00701.x

29. Chaudhry SI, McAvay G, Ning Y, Allore HG, Newman AB, Gill TM (2010) Geriatric impairments and disability: the cardiovascular health study. J Am Geriatr Soc 58(9):1686-1692. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415. 2010.03022.x

30. Aboulghate M, Elaghoury A, Elebrashy I, Elkafrawy N, Elshishiney G, Abul- Magd E, Bassiouny E, Toaima D, Elezbawy B, Fasseeh A, Abaza S, Vokó Z. The Burden of Obesity in Egypt. Front Public Health. 2021;9:718978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.718978.

31. Miyasaka A, Yoshida Y, Suzuki A, Takikawa Y (2021) Health-related quality of life in patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with sofosbuvir-based treatment at 1-year post-sustained virological response. Qual Life Res. 30(12):3501-3509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02874-6. Epub 2021 May 19. PMID: 34013404; PMCID: PMC8602143

32. Scheiner B, Schwabl P, Steiner S, Bucics T, Chromy D, Aichelburg MC, ... Mandorfer M (2016) Interferon-free regimens improve health-related quality of life and fatigue in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients with advanced liver disease: a retrospective study. Medicine. 95(27):e4061. https://doi. org/10.1097/MD.0000000000004061

33. Sung JC, Wyatt BE, Perumalswami PV et al (2020) Response to 'hepatitis C cure improved patient-reported outcomes in patients with and without liver fibrosis in a prospective study at a large urban medical center.' J Viral Hepat 27(12):1502-1503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvh.13381. Epub 2020 Sep 22 PMID: 32841428

34. Bertino G, Ragusa R, et al (2020) Improvement of health-related quality of life and psychological well-being after HCV eradication with direct- acting antiviral agents. Real life setting data of an Italian cohort valued by Hepatitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (HQLQv2). Health Psychol Res. 8(3):9450. https://doi.org/10.4081/hpr.2020.9450. PMID: 33553794; PMCID: PMC7859961
35. Yunihastuti E, Amelia F, Hapsari Al et al (2021) impact of sofosbuvir and daclastavir on health-related quality of life in patients co-infected with hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus. Health Qual Life Outcomes 19(1):154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01777-x. PMID:34039353;PMCID:PMC8152304

36. Saeed S, Moodie EEM, Strumpf E, Gill J, Wong A, Cooper C, Walmsley S, Hull M, Martel-Laferriere V, Klein MB; Canadian Co-Infection Cohort Study Investigators (2018) Real-world impact of direct acting antiviral therapy on health-related quality of life in HIV/Hepatitis C co-infected individuals. J Viral Hepat. 25(12):1507-1514. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvh.12985. Epub 2018 Sep 27. PMID: 30141236

37. Younossi ZM, Stepanova M, Afdhal N, Kowdley KV, Zeuzem S, Henry L, Hunt SL, Marcellin P (2015) Improvement of health-related quality of life and work productivity in chronic hepatitis C patients with early and advanced fibrosis treated with ledipasvir and sofosbuvir. J Hepatol 63(2):337-345

38. Ohlendorf V, Schäfer A, Christensen S et al (2021) Only partial improvement in health-related quality of life after treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection with direct acting antivirals in a real-world setting-results from the German Hepatitis C-Registry (DHC-R). J Viral Hepat 28(8):1206-1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvh.13546. Epub 2021 Jun 8 PMID: 34003549

**Publisher's Note**

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.