Purpose: We compared the incidence and management of adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients in Canada during post-marketing treatment for HCV genotype 1 with boceprevir (B) or telaprevir (T) in combination with PegIFN-alfa/ribavirin (PR) vs. PR alone. Methods: Gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and infectious disease specialists were invited to complete an online questionnaire to capture safety-related outcomes of their most recent patients who started therapy from June, 2011 to November, 2012, and at least 3 months prior to data capture. Authors were blinded to the identities of physicians and patients. Patients had to have tested positive for anti-HCV antibody and HCV RNA level ≥10,000 IU/mL for at least 6 months. Patients infected with other HCV genotypes or HIV were excluded. Results: A total of 28 physicians reported data on 217 patients treated with PR (n=83), B+PR (n=61), or T+PR (n=73). The majority of patients (77%) were treatment-naïve. Patients with baseline METAVIR scores F2-F4 were more likely to be treated with B+PR or T+PR. Compared to PR, B+PR and/or T+PR were associated with a higher incidence of any AE (69%/82% vs. 52%), anemia (51%/66% vs. 45%), Hb<100 g/L (26%/43% vs. 14%), Hb<85 g/L (7%/13% vs. 1%), rash (10%/41% vs. 7%), anorectal events (2%/25% vs. 0%), and neutropenia (15%/18% vs. 10%). Management of anemia in patients treated with PR, B+PR, and T+PR included ribavirin dose adjustment (11%, 33%, 49%), epoetin alfa (13%, 28%, 16%), transfusion (2%, 7%, 4%), and/or acute care (2%, 7%, 8%). Differences in the usage of epoetin alfa may be explained by differences in clinical course, stage of fibrosis, use of other management strategies, and/or reimbursement limitations in different provinces. Compared to PR, B+PR/T+PR were associated with a higher number of ribavirin dose adjustments and administration of higher doses of epoetin alfa for longer periods of time. T+PR was associated with higher incidence of grade ≥2 rash than B+PR/PR (14% vs. 2%/4%), requiring more frequent treatment with antihistamines and corticosteroids. One T+PR patient with rash received acute care and was admitted to hospital. Compared to B+PR and PR, T+PR was associated with a higher number of office visits within two months of initiation, as well as longer time spent with the physician per visit. Overall, 1%, 5%, and 5% of patients treated with PR, B+PR, and T+PR discontinued therapy due to treatment-associated AEs. Conclusion: Patients in Canada treated with B or T in combination with PR experienced more frequent and severe AEs, which required medical intervention and discontinuation of treatment. Treatment with B and T also increased utilization of medical resources. Disclosure - Dr. Morris Sherman - honoraria from Roche, Merck, Vertex, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, and Gilead. Dr. Alnoor Ramji - honoraria from Roche, Merck, Vertex, Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Gilead. Dr. David Sealey is an employee of Janssen Inc. This research was supported by an industry grant from This research was funded by Janssen Inc. Analysis of results and preparation of the abstract were performed jointly by the authors, including Dr. David Sealey who is an employee of Janssen Inc. Dr. Morris Sherman is the lead author.