BackgroundThe clinical experience with protease-inhibitor (PI) triple regimen appears disappointing regarding effect, side effects, high work load, and costs. This real-world study evaluates baseline and emerging resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) and their significance for treatment outcome.MethodThirty-six genotype 1a/b patients treated according to Swedish recommendations during 2011–2013 with triple therapy including pegylated interferon and ribavirin in combination with a protease-inhibitor, either boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR), were retrospectively evaluated. Frozen serum samples from the patients were tested for resistance with pan-genotypic population sequencing.ResultsOverall, 56% (20/36) of the patients achieved sustained viral response (SVR). The SVR was comparable between BOC (64%; 9/14) and TVR (50%; 11/22) (p = 0.07), and the IL28B type non-CC (48%; 12/25) and CC (46%; 6/13) (p = 0.77). The SVR was higher in patients without cirrhosis (89.5%; 17/19) (p < 0.0005), in treatment-naïve patients (70%; 14/20) (p = 0.02), and those with low viral load (<800,000 IU/mL) (66.7%; 8/12) (p < 0.0002), compared to those with cirrhosis (17.6%; 3/17), treatment-experienced (37.5%; 6/16), and high viral load (>800,000 IU/mL) (50%; 12/24).ConclusionPI triple regimes were highly effective in treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis, but in this real-world cohort an inferior effect was evident in cirrhotic and treatment-experienced patients. Although tested on a limited sample, the baseline resistance testing seems to have no impact on prediction of therapy outcome. The reason could be that the baseline RASs T54S and V55A have relatively low resistance towards BOC and TVR. Emerging RASs, mainly R155K, with known high resistance to BOC and TVR were frequently found in non-responders.