Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection With Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir, With or Without Voxilaprevir  Zobair M. Younossi, Maria Stepanova, Stuart Gordon, Stefan Zeuzem, Michael P. Mann, Ira Jacobson, Marc Bourliere, Curtis Cooper, Steven Flamm, K. Rajender Reddy, Kris Kowdley, Issah Younossi, Sharon Hunt  Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology  Volume 16, Issue 4, Pages 567-574.e6 (April 2018) DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.023 Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 1 Patient-reported outcomes in POLARIS-1 and -4 (SOF/VEL: N = 151; SOF/VEL/VOX: N = 445; Placebo: N = 151). (A) Physical component summary of SF-36. (B) Mental component summary of SF-36. (C) Fatigue scale of FACIT-F. (D) Total CLDQ-HCV score. (E) Work productivity impairment of WPAI:SHP. (F) Activity impairment of WPAI:SHP. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2018 16, 567-574.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.023) Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 2 Mean treatment-emergent changes in summary PROs by (A) the end of treatment and (B) post-treatment week 4 (SOF/VEL: N = 151; SOF/VEL/VOX: N = 445; Placebo: N = 151). All PRO domains are shown in Supplementary Figure 1. All changes are shown on a 0–100 scale. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2018 16, 567-574.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.023) Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 3 Mean post-treatment changes in summary PROs by (A) post-treatment week 12 and (B) post-treatment week 24 in patients with SVR (SOF/VEL: N = 136; SOF/VEL/VOX: N = 431). All PRO domains are shown in Supplementary Figure 2. All changes are shown on a 0–100 scale. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2018 16, 567-574.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.023) Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Figure 4 Independent association of receiving active treatment (vs placebo) with summary PROs after adjustment for demographics, clinical PRO predictors, and baseline PRO levels (summarized in Supplementary Table 3) (N = 596 with active treatment vs N = 152 with placebo). (A) End of treatment. (B) Post-treatment week 4. All betas are shown on a 0–100 scale. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2018 16, 567-574.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.023) Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 1 Mean treatment-emergent changes in summary PROs by (A) the end of treatment and (B) post-treatment week 4. All changes are shown on a 0–100 scale. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2018 16, 567-574.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.023) Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 2 Mean post-treatment changes in summary PROs by (A) post-treatment week 12 and (B) post-treatment week 24. All changes are shown on a 0–100 scale. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2018 16, 567-574.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.023) Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions

Supplementary Figure 3 End of treatment mean changes in PROs in patients (A) with and without cirrhosis, (B) low baseline CLDQ-HCV (<4.5). Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2018 16, 567-574.e6DOI: (10.1016/j.cgh.2017.11.023) Copyright © 2018 AGA Institute Terms and Conditions