About 130-170 million people, is estimated to be infected with the hepatitis C virus(HCV). Chronic HCV infection is one of the leading causes of liverrelated death and in many countries it is the primaryreason for having a liver transplant. The main aim of antiviral treatment is to eradicate the virus. Until a few years ago the only treatment strategy was based on the combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin(PEG/RBV). However, in genotypes 1 and 4 the rates of viral response did not surpass 50%, reaching up to 80% in the rest. In 2011 approval was given for the first direct acting antiviral agents(DAA), boceprevir and telaprevir, for treatment of genotype 1, in combination with traditional dual therapy. This strategy managed to increase the rates of sustained viral response(SVR) in both naive patients and in retreated patients, but with greater toxicity, interactions and cost, as well as being less safe in patients with advanced disease, in whom this treatment can trigger decompensation or even death. The recent, accelerated incorporation since 2013 of new more effective DAA, with pan-genomic properties and excellent tolerance, besides increasing the rates of SVR(even up to 100%), has also created a new scenario: shorter therapies, less toxicity and regimens free of PEG/RBV. This has enabled their almost generalised applicability in all patients. However, it should be noted that most of the scientific evidence available is based on expert opinion, case-control series, cohort studies and phase 2 and 3 trials, some with a reduced number of patients and select groups. Few data are currently available about the use of these drugs in daily clinical practice, particularly in relation to the appearance of side effects and interactions with other drugs, or their use in special populations or persons with the less common genotypes. This situation suggests the need for the generalised implementation of registries of patients receiving antiviral therapy. The main inconvenience of these new drugs is their high cost. This necessitates selection and prioritization of candidate patients to receive them, via strategies established by the various national organs, in accordance with the recommendations of scientific societies. About 130-170 million people, estimated to be infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV). Chronic HCV infection is one of the leading causes of liverrelated death and in many countries it is the primaryreason for having a liver transplant. The main aim of antiviral treatment is to eradicate the virus. The only treatment strategy was based on the combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PEG / RBV). However, in genotypes 1 and 4 the rates of viral response did not surpass 50 %, reaching up to 80% in the rest. In 2011 approval was given for the first direct acting antiviral agents (DAA), boceprevir and telaprevir, for treatment of genotype 1, in combination with traditional dual therapy. This strategy managed to increase the rates of sustained viral response (SVR) in both naive patients and in retreated patients, but with greater toxicity, interactions and cost, as well as being less safe in patients with advanced disease, in whom this treatment can trigger The recent, accelerated incorporation since 2013 of new more effective DAA, with pan-genomic properties and excellent tolerance, than increasings rates of SVR (even up to 100%), has also created a new scenario: shorter therapies However, it should be noted that most of the scientific evidence available is based on expert opinion, case-control series, cohort studies and phase 2 and 3 trials, some with a reduced number of patients and select groups. Few data are currently available about the use of these drugs in daily clinical practice, particularly in relation to the appearance of side effects and interactions with other drugs, or their use in special populations or persons with the less common genotypes. This situation suggests the need for the generalized implementation of registries of patients receiving antiviral therapy. The main inconvenience of these new drugs is their high cost. This necessitates selection and prioritization of candidate patients to receive them, via strategies established by the various national organs, in accordance with the recommendations of scientific societies.