STARTVerso1: A randomized trial of faldaprevir plus pegylated interferon/ribavirin for chronic HCV genotype-1 infection

Viral dynamics among HCV infected patients with different genotypes treated with genotypic specific or pan-genotypic direct-acting antiviral agent combinations

BACKGROUND

New hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies have improved efficacy, allowed pangenotypic applications, increased barriers to drug resistance and shortened therapy duration.

METHODS

Patients infected with different HCV genotypes were divided into two groups: group 1 included 169 patients receiving genotypic specific regimens (GSR), while group 2 included 186 patients receiving pan-genotypic regimens (PGR). Patient's HCV RNA was quantified and sequenced.

RESULTS

Comparable sustained viral response (SVR) rates were observed in both GSR and PGR treated patients. Nevertheless, even if not significant, a greater proportion of non-detectable levels (NDL) of HCV RNA was observed in patients treated with PGR as compared with GSR. Overall, among patients in the GSR and PGR groups with residual viremia, 124/169 (73.4%) and 125/186 (67.2%) at four weeks, and 66/169 (39.1%) and 58/186 (31.2%) at eight weeks, achieved SVR. No difference was observed in the clinical outcome comparing patients in the GSR and PGR groups according to genotype. While, comparing patients between the two groups, the proportion of patients with NDL HCV RNA at four and eight weeks was higher in patients infected with genotype 1b treated with PGR (p=0.0015). A significantly higher number of patients infected with 1b had RASs at baseline (p=0.0001). In addition, the proportion of patients with treatment failure was higher in patients with RASs at baseline compared with those without (p=0.012). Overall, 2.5% patients failed to achieve SVR after DAA treatment.

CONCLUSION

A sharp HCV RNA decrease was observed in patients treated with both GSR and PGR. However, even if comparable, a slightly greater number of patients treated with PGR achieved NDL HCV RNA as compared with GSR. A significant difference was observed in patients with baseline RASs, both in relation to treatment failure and genotype. In conclusion, the use of new DAA combinations helps patients achieve a more rapid virologic response.

New Direct-Acting Antivirals for the Treatment of Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

New direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) approved for the treatment of patients infected by Hepatitis C virus (HCV) are well tolerated and increase sustained virological response (SVR) rate. We summarize current evidence on the efficacy and safety from comparative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DAAs.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Lilacs as well as a list of reference literature. We included RCTs comparing DAAs with placebo or active control and reporting response rates and adverse events according to antiviral regimens. Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled as appropriate. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies and graded the quality of evidence according to the GRADE method.

RESULTS

We included 28 RCTs, enrolling more than 7000 patients. The quality of evidence was generally low. Twelve-week treatment with DAAs in naïve patients significantly increased SVR12 and SVR24 compared with placebo (RR 1.4, 95% CI 1.3-1.6; RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.6, respectively). This means that for every 1000 patients, 240 or 260 more patients experienced SVR12 or SVR24 if treated with any DAAs. We could not find RCTs assessing progression of liver disease or development of hepatocellular carcinoma. DAAs were not associated with higher incidence of serious adverse events or discontinuation due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review confirms that new DAAs are more effective in inducing SVR than placebo. Outside clinical trials, in real word, HCV cure with DAA regimens occurs in less than 90% of patients, so further comparative evaluations are needed to establish their long-term effects.

Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Faldaprevir and Cyclosporine or Tacrolimus in Healthy Volunteers: A Prospective, Open-Label, Fixed-Sequence, Crossover Study

Faldaprevir (FDV) is a potent, orally administered inhibitor of hepatitis C virus. In this single-centre, open-label, fixed-sequence, crossover study of 32 healthy adult male and female volunteers, subjects received either a single dose of cyclosporine (CsA) 50 mg (N = 16) or tacrolimus (TAC) 0.5 mg (N = 16), followed by a washout of at least 14 days. Each subject then received a loading dose of FDV 240 mg followed by 120 mg FDV once daily for 6 days. FDV 120 mg was then co-administered with an additional single dose of CsA (50 mg) or TAC (0.5 mg), followed by an additional 6 days of FDV 120 mg once daily. Intensive blood sampling was performed to assess the PK interaction potential. Assessment of relative BA indicated that exposure to CsA co-administered with FDV was similar to CsA alone. However, the AUC_τ,ss and C_max,ss of FDV were increased by 23% and 41%, respectively, when FDV was co-administered with CsA. Exposure to TAC was slightly increased (AUC_0-∞ increased by 27%, no change in C_max ) when TAC was co-administered with FDV. In contrast, exposure to FDV co-administered with TAC was similar to FDV alone. No unexpected safety findings arose from the trial. The limitations of the study (use of single, low dose of TAC and CsA, and only healthy volunteers in the trial) are discussed.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.

Safety and efficacy of faldaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon α-2b and ribavirin in Japanese patients with genotype-1 chronic hepatitis C virus infection

AIM

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A A protease inhibitor faldaprevir plus pegylated interferon α-2b and ribavirin (PegIFNα-2b/RBV) in Japanese patients with HCV genotype-1 infection.

METHODS

Treatment-naïve patients were randomized (1:1) to faldaprevir 120 mg q.d. for 12 or 24 weeks (response-guided therapy [RGT], n = 44), or faldaprevir 240 mg q.d. for 12 weeks (n = 43), each combined with PegIFNα-2b/RBV for 24 or 48 weeks (RGT). Response-guided therapy was based on early treatment success (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL at week 4 and <25 IU/mL undetected at week 8). Treatment-experienced patients received 240 mg q.d. for 24 weeks, plus PegIFNα-2b/RBV RGT (24 or 48 weeks, prior relapsers, n = 29) or PegIFNα-2b/RBV (48 weeks, 5 prior partial responders/breakthroughs, 10 prior null responders). The primary objective was safety; sustained virologic response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12) was a secondary end-point.

RESULTS

All except one patient experienced drug-related adverse events. Adverse events led to faldaprevir discontinuation in 1 (2%), 13 (20%), and 3 (6.8%) patients on faldaprevir 120 mg, faldaprevir 240 mg 12 weeks, and faldaprevir 240 mg 24 weeks, respectively. The SVR12 rates were: 86% with faldaprevir 120 mg and 74% with faldaprevir 240 mg among treatment-naïve patients; and 86%, 60%, and 40% among prior relapsers, partial responders/breakthroughs, and null responders, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In treatment-naïve Japanese patients, faldaprevir 120 mg q.d. plus PegIFNα-2b/RBV was better tolerated than faldaprevir 240 mg q.d. plus PegIFNα-2b/RBV, with at least comparable efficacy. In treatment-experienced patients, most prior relapsers achieved SVR12 with 24 weeks of faldaprevir 240 mg q.d. plus PegIFNα-2b/RBV. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01579474.

von Willebrand factor antigen (vWF-Ag): A non-invasive predictor of treatment response and serious adverse events in HCV patients with interferon triple therapy

BACKGROUND

Treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection was revolutionized within the last years. Interferon free antiviral regimens are not accessible without limitations. Combination of peginterferon/ribavirin with first generation direct acting antivirals is less effective and associated with serious adverse events.

AIM

We have shown that vWF-Ag is associated with portal hypertension and treatment response to PEG/RBV and we evaluated if vWF-Ag is a predictive marker for treatment response and safety in patients with triple therapy.

METHODS

222 HCV-GT 1 patients and DAA based triple therapy were included in this retrospective, multicenter study.

RESULTS

Median vWF-Ag levels were 167.0% [IQR: 124.0-210.0%]. Significantly higher levels were seen in patients without SVR; median 190% [IQR: 146.0-259.5%] versus SVR: 142.5% [IQR: 114.3-196.8%], p<0.001. Furthermore levels of vWF-Ag were identified as independent predictor of non SVR; (OR: 1.009; 95%CI: 1.016-1.3, p=0.005). In patients with cirrhosis elevated vWF-Ag levels were associated with increased incidence of SAEs (OR: 1.016; 95%CI: 1.004-1.028; p=0.007). Best cut off for prediction of SAEs was vWF-Ag>281.5% with a sensitivity of 78% and a specificity of 90%.

CONCLUSION

Baseline vWF-Ag levels predict outcome of DAA based treatment in HCV-1 patients and identify patients with a risk of SAEs. Therefore vWF-Ag may be an additional marker for selecting patients for interferon free therapeutic regimens.

Boceprevir Plus Peginterferon Alfa-2a/Ribavirin in Treatment-Naïve Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 Patients: International Phase IIIb/IV TriCo Trial

INTRODUCTION

Boceprevir was not previously studied with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin in phase III trials in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis C patients. The international phase IIIb/IV TriCo study was, therefore, designed to evaluate boceprevir in combination with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin in treatment-naïve genotype 1 patients.

METHODS

A total of 165 treatment-naïve genotype 1 patients were assigned to boceprevir plus peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin therapy according to the label. All patients received a 4-week lead-in with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin, after which boceprevir (2400 mg/day) was introduced. The total duration of treatment ranged from 28 to 48 weeks depending on the virological response at Weeks 4, 8, and 24, and on fibrosis status. The primary efficacy outcome was sustained virological response (SVR) [undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) ribonucleic acid (RNA) 12 weeks after actual end of treatment, SVR12].

RESULTS

The overall SVR12 rate was 81% (133/165, 95% confidence interval 74-86%). After 8 weeks of treatment, 61% of patients had undetectable HCV RNA, and 78 patients (47%) had an early response (undetectable HCV RNA at Weeks 8 and 24) and were eligible to stop all therapy at Week 28. Among early responders the SVR12 rate was 95% (74/78), and among patients with cirrhosis assigned to 48 weeks' treatment, the SVR12 rate was 67% (14/21). The overall relapse rate was 7% (10/143), and was 4% (3/77) among early responders. The most common adverse events were anemia (41%), neutropenia (32%), and dysgeusia (31%).

CONCLUSION

High SVR12 rates can be achieved with boceprevir plus peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1 patients, including patients with well-compensated cirrhosis. Treatment is well tolerated when label restrictions are taken into account.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01591460.

FUNDING

F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Faldaprevir, pegylated interferon, and ribavirin for treatment-naïve HCV genotype-1: pooled analysis of two phase 3 trials

INTRODUCTION & AIM

Faldaprevir is a potent once-daily (q.d.) hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor. The STARTVerso1 and STARTVerso2 phase 3 studies evaluated faldaprevir plus peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) in treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype-1 infection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients were randomized 1:2:2 to receive placebo, faldaprevir 120 mg q.d. (12 or 24 weeks) or faldaprevir 240 mg q.d. (12 weeks) all with PegIFN/RBV (24-48 weeks). Faldaprevir 120 mg for 12 weeks only (STARTVerso1 only) required early treatment success (ETS, HCV RNA < 25 IU/mL at week 4 and undetected at week 8). All faldaprevir-treated patients with ETS stopped PegIFN/RBV at week 24. Primary endpoint: sustained virologic response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12).

RESULTS

SVR12 rates were significantly higher for patients treated with faldaprevir 120 or 240 mg (72% and 73%, respectively) compared with placebo (50%); estimated differences (adjusted for trial, race, and genotype-1 subtype) faldaprevir 120 mg 24% (95% CI: 17-31%, P < 0.0001), faldaprevir 240 mg 23% (95% CI: 16-30%, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses consistently showed higher SVR12 rates for patients receiving faldaprevir compared with placebo. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was similar in faldaprevir 120-mg and placebo groups and slightly higher in the faldaprevir 240-mg group. Serious Aes were reported in 6%, 7%, and 8% of patients in placebo, faldaprevir 120-mg, and faldaprevir 240-mg groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Addition of faldaprevir to PegIFN/RBV increased SVR12 in patients with HCV genotype-1, and was well tolerated. Faldaprevir 120 mg is effective in the treatment of HCV genotype-1. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01343888 and NCT01297270.

Investigation of the effect of food and omeprazole on the relative bioavailability of a single oral dose of 240 mg faldaprevir, a selective inhibitor of HCV NS3/4 protease, in an open-label, randomized, three-way cross-over trial in healthy participants

Objectives

This study was conducted to investigate the effect of food and coadministration of omeprazole on the relative bioavailability (BA) of faldaprevir (FDV).

Methods

Fifteen healthy participants participated in this open-label, randomized, three-way cross-over study. Faldaprevir was administered as a 240 mg single dose during fasting state, following intake of a high-fat breakfast, or following omeprazole 40 mg q.d. dosing for 5 days. PK samples were collected on the day of faldaprevir administration.

Key findings

We found geometric mean (gMean) AUC0–∞ values for faldaprevir of 48 200, 37 900 and 36 000 ng h/ml under the fed, fasted and omeprazole coadministration conditions respectively. Similarly, gMean Cmax values for faldaprevir were 2600, 2030, 1920 ng/ml under the same respective conditions. The adjusted gMean ratio between the fed and fasted condition was approximately 120% for both AUC0–∞ and Cmax, while the ratio of omeprazole coadministration to fasted condition was approximately 94%. Faldaprevir was safe and well tolerated in the study.

Conclusions

Administration of a single dose of 240 mg faldaprevir after high-fat breakfast led to a modest, clinically irrelevant increase in faldaprevir exposure, while coadministration of omeprazole did not influence faldaprevir exposure.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents for Treatment-Naive Hepatitis C Genotype 1

All possible direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA) regimens for treatment-naive hepatitis C genotype 1 were evaluated by many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the optimum regimen remains inconclusive. We aim to compare interventions in terms of sustained virological response at 12 (SVR12) and 24 (SVR24) weeks after the end of treatment and adverse effects (AEs) (fatigue, headache, nausea, insomnia). PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs until July 31, 2015. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) between treatments on clinical outcomes. Twenty-two eligible RCTs were included. Compared with peginterferon-ribavirin (PR), daclatasvir plus PR (OR 8.90, P < 0.001), faldaprevir plus PR (OR 3.72, P < 0.001), simeprevir plus PR (OR 3.59, P < 0.001), sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 4.69, P < 0.001) yield a significant effect in improving SVR12. Consistently, simeprevir plus PR (OR 3.49, P < 0.001), sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 4.51, P < 0.001), daclatasvir plus PR (OR 4.77, P < 0.001) also improved the rates of SVR24 significantly compared with PR. With respect to AEs, compared with PR, ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 2.13, P < 0.001) confer a significant AE in nausea, whereas daclatasvir plus PR (OR 0.20, P < 0.001 and OR 0.18, P < 0.001, respectively) lowered the incidence of fatigue and nausea significantly when compared with ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir plus PR. Daclatasvir plus PR was the most effective in SVR12 and SVR24, but caused an increased AEs profile (headache and insomnia). Combined ledipasvir with sofosbuvir or combination of PR was associated with higher incidence of fatigue and nausea.

Open-label study of faldaprevir plus peginterferon and ribavirin in hepatitis C virus genotype 1-infected patients who failed placebo plus peginterferon and ribavirin

Faldaprevir, a hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor, was evaluated in HCV genotype 1-infected patients who failed peginterferon and ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) treatment during one of three prior faldaprevir trials. Patients who received placebo plus PegIFN/RBV and had virological failure during a prior trial were enrolled and treated in two cohorts: prior relapsers (n = 43) and prior nonresponders (null responders, partial responders and patients with breakthrough; n = 75). Both cohorts received faldaprevir 240 mg once daily plus PegIFN/RBV for 24 weeks. Prior relapsers with early treatment success (ETS; HCV RNA <25 IU/mL detectable or undetectable at week 4 and <25 IU/mL undetectable at week 8) stopped treatment at week 24. Others received PegIFN/RBV through week 48. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virological response (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL undetectable) 12 weeks post treatment (SVR12). More prior nonresponders than prior relapsers had baseline HCV RNA ≥ 800,000 IU/mL (80% vs 58%) and a non-CC IL28B genotype (91% vs 70%). Rates of SVR12 (95% CI) were 95.3% (89.1, 100.0) among prior relapsers and 54.7% (43.4, 65.9) among prior nonresponders; corresponding ETS rates were 97.7% and 65.3%. Adverse events led to faldaprevir discontinuations in 3% of patients. The most common Division of AIDS Grade ≥ 2 adverse events were anaemia (13%), nausea (10%) and hyperbilirubinaemia (9%). In conclusion, faldaprevir plus PegIFN/RBV achieved clinically meaningful SVR12 rates in patients who failed PegIFN/RBV in a prior trial, with response rates higher among prior relapsers than among prior nonresponders. The adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of faldaprevir.

ITPA Genotypes Predict Anemia but Do Not Affect Virological Response with Interferon-Free Faldaprevir, Deleobuvir, and Ribavirin for HCV Infection

Background & Aim

Whether inosine triphosphatase (ITPA) gene polymorphisms predict anemia during interferon-free therapy in chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients is unknown. We examined the relationship between two ITPA polymorphisms, anemia, and sustained virological response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12) in patients receiving the NS3/4A protease inhibitor faldaprevir, the non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitor deleobuvir, and ribavirin.

Methods

HCV genotype 1-infected, treatment-naïve patients (N = 362) were randomized and treated in one of five treatment arms with faldaprevir and deleobuvir with or without ribavirin. Two ITPA polymorphisms (rs1127354 and rs6051702) were genotyped and defined as ITPA-deficient (rs1127354 AA or AC; rs6051702 CC or CA) or ITPA-non-deficient (rs1127354 CC; rs6051702 AA) according to their association with ITPA deficiency. Baseline and on-treatment variables associated with anemia and SVR12 were identified using logistic regression.

Results

In the pooled ribavirin-containing arms, 10.1% (32/316) of patients experienced on-treatment hemoglobin <10 g/dL, and 32.6% (103/316) experienced on-treatment hemoglobin <10 g/dL or a change from baseline ≥3.5 g/dL. Of the latter group, 99% (102/103) had the ITPA-non-deficient rs1127354 genotype. Other variables associated with on-treatment hemoglobin <10 g/dL or a decrease ≥3.5 g/dL were age, baseline hemoglobin, rs6051702 genotype, and plasma ribavirin concentration. In a multivariate analysis, high plasma ribavirin concentration, low baseline hemoglobin, HCV genotype 1b, and IL28B genotype CC were associated with higher SVR12.

Conclusions

The ITPA rs1127354 CC and rs6051702 AA genotypes may predict ribavirin-induced anemia during treatment with interferon-free, ribavirin-containing regimens. With this interferon-free regimen, SVR was associated with ribavirin levels, but not with anemia or ITPA genotypes.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01132313

The new era of hepatitis C virus therapy

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) has a significant medical and economic impact on societies around the world, and it has been estimated that 130-180 million people are infected with HCV. Therapies for HCV are currently undergoing a revolution. In recent years, several new treatments have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, and many other treatments are in phase II or III clinical trials, including direct antiviral agents (DAAs). Due to recent major advances in the field of HCV therapy, a summary of findings on new HCV therapies are provided in this review article, including reports on new DAAs.

Baseline Polymorphisms and Emergence of Drug Resistance in the NS3/4A Protease of Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1 following Treatment with Faldaprevir and Pegylated Interferon Alpha 2a/Ribavirin in Phase 2 and Phase 3 Studies

Analysis of data pooled from multiple phase 2 (SILEN-C1 to 3) and phase 3 studies (STARTVerso1 to 4) of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 3/4A (NS3/4A) protease inhibitor faldaprevir plus pegylated interferon alpha/ribavirin (PR) provides a comprehensive evaluation of baseline and treatment-emergent NS3/4A amino acid variants among HCV genotype-1 (GT-1)-infected patients. Pooled analyses of GT-1a and GT-1b NS3 population-based pretreatment sequences (n = 3,124) showed that faldaprevir resistance-associated variants (RAVs) at NS3 R155 and D168 were rare (<1%). No single, noncanonical NS3 protease or NS4A cofactor baseline polymorphism was associated with a reduced sustained virologic response (SVR) to faldaprevir plus PR, including Q80K. The GT-1b NS3 helicase polymorphism T344I was associated with reduced SVR to faldaprevir plus PR (P < 0.0001) but was not faldaprevir specific, as reduced SVR was also observed with placebo plus PR. Among patients who did not achieve SVR and had available NS3 population sequences (n = 507 GT-1a; n = 349 GT-1b), 94% of GT-1a and 83% of GT-1b encoded faldaprevir treatment-emergent RAVs. The predominant GT-1a RAV was R155K (88%), whereas GT-1b encoded D168 substitutions (78%) in which D168V was predominant (67%). The novel GT-1b NS3 S61L substitution emerged in 7% of virologic failures as a covariant with D168V, most often among the faldaprevir breakthroughs; S61L in combination with D168V had a minimal impact on faldaprevir susceptibility compared with that for D168V alone (1.5-fold difference in vitro). The median time to loss of D168 RAVs among GT-1b-infected patients who did not have a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks posttreatment (non-SVR12) after virologic failure was 5 months, which was shorter than the 14 months for R155 RAVs among GT-1a-infected non-SVR12 patients, suggesting that D168V is less fit than R155K in the absence of faldaprevir selective pressure.

Is the use of IL28B genotype justified in the era of interferon-free treatments for hepatitis C?

In 2009, several groups reported that interleukin-28B (IL28B) genotypes are associated with the response to peginterferon plus ribavirin therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in a genome-wide association study, although the mechanism of this association is not yet well understood. However, in recent years, tremendous progress has been made in the treatment of HCV infection. In Japan, some patients infected with HCV have the IL28B major genotype, which may indicate a favorable response to interferon-including regimens; however, certain patients within this group are also interferon-intolerant or ineligible. In Japan, interferon-free 24-wk regimens of asunaprevir and daclatasvir are now available for HCV genotype 1b-infected patients who are interferon-intolerant or ineligible or previous treatment null-responders. The treatment response to interferon-free regimens appears better, regardless of IL28B genotype. Maybe other interferon-free regimens will widely be available soon. In conclusion, although some HCV-infected individuals have IL28B favorable alleles, importance of IL28B will be reduced with availability of oral interferon free regimen.

Features of hepatitis C virus infection, current therapies and ongoing clinical trials in ten Asian Pacific countries

Estimated hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection rates in the general populations were 1.3, 0.9, 0.4-1.0, 14.7, 0.1-0.3, 0.9-1.9, 1.0-2.0, 5, 4.4-8.6 and 0.5-1.3 % in Australia, Bangladesh, Mainland China, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Pakistan, Taiwan and Turkey, respectively. The main HCV genotypes (Gs) are G1, G3, G1b, G4, G1b, G3, G1b, G3, G1b and G2, and G1 in Australia, Bangladesh, Mainland China, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Pakistan, Taiwan and Turkey, respectively. Of IL28B genotypes, favorable alleles are ~50 % in Australia and Turkey, but 60-70 % in most of the other Asian countries. Peginterferon plus ribavirin is available in all ten Asian Pasific countries. In addition, HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitors with peginterferon plus ribavirin are currently available in several countries. Clinical trials of interferon-free regimens for HCV are ongoing in most of the ten Asian Pacific countries.

Faldaprevir for the treatment of hepatitis C

The current treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection are combinations of direct-acting antivirals, and faldaprevir is one of the new generation of HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitors. At the end of 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor simeprevir and the HCV NS5B polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir. Simeprevir or sofosbuvir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin are available for clinical use. Faldaprevir, another HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor that also has fewer adverse events than telaprevir or boceprevir, is under development. Of interest, faldaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin, and interferon-free treatment with faldaprevir in combination with deleobuvir plus ribavirin provides high sustained virological response rates for HCV genotype 1 infection. The aim of this article is to review these data concerning faldaprevir. Faldaprevir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin treatment appears to be associated with fewer adverse events than telaprevir or boceprevir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin, and may be one of the therapeutic options for treatment-naive patients with HCV genotype 1. The interferon-free combination of faldaprevir and deleobuvir with ribavirin was effective for HCV genotype 1 infection and may hold promise for interferon-ineligible and interferon-intolerant patients.