Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can now be cured with well-tolerated direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy. However, a potential barrier to HCV elimination is the emergence of resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) that reduce the efficacy of antiviral drugs, but real-world studies assessing the clinical impact of RASs are limited. Here, an analysis of the impact of RASs on retreatment outcomes for different salvage regimens in patients nationally who failed first-line DAA therapy is reported.We collected data from 363 Australian patients who failed first-line DAA therapy, including: age, sex, fibrosis stage, HCV genotype, NS3/NS5A/NS5B RASs, details of failed first-line regimen, subsequent salvage regimens, and treatment outcome.Of 240 patients who were initially retreated as per protocol, 210 (87.5%) achieved sustained virologic response (SVR) and 30 (12.5%) relapsed or did not respond. The SVR rate for salvage regimens that included sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir was 94.3% (n = 140), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir 75.0% (n = 52), elbasvir/grazoprevir 81.6% (n = 38), and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir 84.6% (n = 13). NS5A RASs were present in 71.0% (n = 210) of patients who achieved SVR and in 66.7% (n = 30) of patients who subsequently relapsed. NS3 RASs were detected in 20 patients (20%) in the SVR group and 1 patient in the relapse group. NS5B RASs were observed in only 3 patients. Cirrhosis was a predictor of relapse after retreatment, as was previous treatment with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir.In our cohort, the SVR rate for sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir was higher than with other salvage regimens. The presence of NS5A, NS5B, or NS3 RASs did not appear to negatively influence retreatment outcomes.

The classification of myeloid neoplasms continues to evolve along with advances in molecular diagnosis, risk stratification and treatment of disease. An approach for disease classification has been grounded in international consensus that has facilitated understanding, identification and management of molecularly heterogeneous entities, as well as enabled consistent patient stratification into clinical trials and clinical registries over time. The new World Health Organization (WHO) and International Consensus Classification (ICC) Clinical Advisory Committee releasing separate classification systems for myeloid neoplasms in 2022 precipitated some concern amongst haematopathology colleagues both locally and internationally. While both classifications emphasise molecular disease classification over the historical use of morphology, flow cytometry and cytogenetic based diagnostic methods, notable differences exist in how morphological, molecular and cytogenetic criteria are applied for defining myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) and acute myeloid leukaemias (AML). Here we review the conceptual advances, diagnostic nuances, and molecular platforms required for the diagnosis of MDS and AML using the new WHO and ICC 2022 classifications. We provide consensus recommendations for reporting bone marrow biopsies. Additionally, we address the logistical challenges encountered implementing these changes into routine laboratory practice in alignment with the National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council reporting requirements for Australia and New Zealand.

PS5 Standard for Pharmacy Based Immunisation Programs

Application for registering a radiation apparatus