Safety and efficacy of faldaprevir with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in Japanese patients with chronic genotype-1 hepatitis C infection

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We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the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the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials.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.

Population pharmacokinetics of peginterferon α2a in patients with chronic hepatitis B

There were significant differences in response and pharmacokinetic characteristics to the peginterferon α2a treatment among Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) patients. The aim of this study is to identify factors which could significantly impact the peginterferon α2a pharmacokinetic characteristics in CHB patients. There were 208 blood samples collected from 178 patients who were considered as CHB and had been treated with peginterferon α2a followed by blood concentration measurement and other laboratory tests. The covariates such as demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients were retrieved from medical records. Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling method was used to develop the population pharmacokinetic model with NONMEM software. A population pharmacokinetic model for peginterferon α2a has been successfully developed which shows that distribution volume (V) was associated with body mass index (BMI), and drug clearance (CL) had a positive correlation with creatinine clearance (CCR). The final population pharmacokinetic model supports the use of BMI and CCR-adjusted dosing in hepatitis B virus patients.

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.

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.

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.

Chronic hepatitis C: This and the new era of treatment

Over the last years it has started a real revolution in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. This occurred for the availability of direct-acting antiviral agents that allow to reach sustained virologic response in approximately 90% of cases. In the near future further progress will be achieved with the use of pan-genotypic drugs with high efficacy but without side effects.

Structure-activity relationship studies on quinoxalin-2(1H)-one derivatives containing thiazol-2-amine against hepatitis C virus leading to the discovery of BH6870

Chronic hepatitis C virus infection represents a serious global public health problem, typically resulting in fibrosis, cirrhosis, and ultimately hepatocellular carcinoma. Based on our previous discovery of lead compound 2 (Liu et al. J Med Chem 54:5747-5768, 2011), 35 new quinoxalinone derivatives were explored in this study. Outline of the structure-activity relationships (SARs) revealed that compound BH6870 (36) showed high anti-HCV potency ([Formula: see text]) and a good cell safety index (SI [Formula: see text]). SARs analysis indicated that quinoxalin-2(1H)-one containing a 4-aryl-substituted thiazol-2-amine moiety was optimal for antiviral activity. Introducing a hydrogen-bond acceptor (such as ester or amide group) at the C-3 position of quinoxalin-2(1H)-one was beneficial for the antiviral potency, and especially, N,N-disubstituted amide was far superior to N-monosubstituted amide. Incorporation of more than one halogen (fluorine or chlorine atom) or a strong electron-withdrawing group on the benzene ring of the thiazole-phenyl moiety might reduce electron atmosphere density further and resulted in a dramatical loss of activity. The NH-group of the lactam moiety was clearly required for anti-HCV activity. Design and synthesis of quinoxalin-2(1H)-one derivatives as new non-nucleoside small-molecule HCV inhibitors. BH6870 (36), showing higher antiviral potency and a good cell safety index, was identified.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy and tolerability of faldaprevir, a potent hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor, plus peginterferon (PegIFN) and ribavirin (RBV) was assessed in a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype-1 infection.

METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned (1:2:2) to PegIFN/RBV plus: placebo (arm 1, n = 132) for 24 weeks; faldaprevir (120 mg, once daily) for 12 or 24 weeks (arm 2, n = 259); or faldaprevir (240 mg, once daily) for 12 weeks (arm 3, n = 261). In arms 2 and 3, patients with early treatment success (HCV-RNA <25 IU/ml at week 4 and undetectable at week 8) stopped all treatment at week 24. Other patients received PegIFN/RBV until week 48 unless they met futility criteria. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12).

RESULTS

SVR12 was achieved by 52%, 79%, and 80% of patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (estimated difference for arms 2 and 3 vs. arm 1: 27%, 95% confidence interval 17%-36%; and 29%, 95% confidence interval, 19%-38%, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both). Early treatment success was achieved by 87% (arm 2) and 89% (arm 3) of patients, of whom 86% and 89% achieved SVR12. Adverse event rates were similar among groups; few adverse events led to discontinuation of all regimen components.

CONCLUSIONS

Faldaprevir plus PegIFN/RBV significantly increased SVR12, compared with PegIFN/RBV, in treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype-1 infection. No differences were seen in responses of patients given faldaprevir once daily at 120 or 240 mg.

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 and pegylated interferon α-2a/ribavirin in individuals co-infected with hepatitis C virus genotype-1 and HIV

OBJECTIVE

Faldaprevir is a potent, once-daily hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor. STARTVerso4 assessed the efficacy and safety of faldaprevir and response-guided pegylated interferon α-2a/ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV) in individuals with HCV/HIV co-infection.

DESIGN

A phase 3 open-label study (NCT01399619).

METHODS

Individuals (N = 308) co-infected with HCV genotype 1 (treatment-naive or prior interferon relapsers) and HIV [96% on antiretroviral therapy (ART)] received faldaprevir 120 mg (N = 123) or 240 mg (N = 185) and PegIFN/RBV. Those receiving a protease inhibitor or efavirenz ART were assigned to faldaprevir 120 or 240 mg, respectively. Individuals achieving early treatment success (ETS; HCV RNA <25 IU/ml at week 4 and undetectable at week 8) were randomized to 24 or 48 weeks of PegIFN/RBV. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12).

RESULTS

SVR12 was achieved in 221 (72%) individuals, and the rates were comparable across faldaprevir doses. ETS was achieved in 80%, and of these 86% achieved SVR12, with comparable rates with 24 and 48 weeks of PegIFN/RBV (87 and 94%, respectively). In multivariate analysis, age below 40 years, IL28B CC genotype, and baseline HCV RNA below 800 000 IU/ml were associated with SVR12 (P = 0.027, P < 0.0001, and P = 0.0002, respectively), whereas treatment (ART regimen and faldaprevir dose), liver cirrhosis, and genotype 1 subtype were not. The safety profile was comparable to that of faldaprevir in HCV-monoinfected individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

High SVR12 rates were achieved with faldaprevir and PegIFN/RBV in HIV/HCV co-infected individuals, regardless of faldaprevir dose and background ART, HCV genotype 1 subtype, or cirrhosis status. SVR rates mirrored those obtained with similar regimens in HCV monoinfected individuals.

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.

Interactions of the hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor faldaprevir with cytochrome P450 enzymes: in vitro and in vivo correlation

The potential inhibition of the major human cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes by faldaprevir was evaluated both in vitro and in clinical studies (healthy volunteers and hepatitis C virus [HCV] genotype 1-infected patients). In vitro studies indicated that faldaprevir inhibited CYP2B6, CYP2C9, and CYP3A, and was a weak-to-moderate inactivator of CYP3A4. Faldaprevir 240 mg twice daily in healthy volunteers demonstrated moderate inhibition of hepatic and intestinal CYP3A (oral midazolam: 2.96-fold increase in AUC(0-24 h)), weak inhibition of hepatic CYP3A (intravenous midazolam: 1.56-fold increase in AUC(0-24 h)), weak inhibition of CYP2C9 ([S]-warfarin: 1.29-fold increase in AUC(0-120 h)), and had no relevant effects on CYP1A2, CYP2B6, or CYP2D6. Faldaprevir 120 mg once daily in HCV-infected patients demonstrated weak inhibition of hepatic and intestinal CYP3A (oral midazolam: 1.52-fold increase in AUC(0-∞)), and had no relevant effects on CYP2C9 or CYP1A2. In vitro drug-drug interaction predictions based on inhibitor concentration ([I])/inhibition constant (Ki) ratios tended to overestimate clinical effects and a net-effect model provided a more accurate approach. These studies suggest that faldaprevir shows a dose-dependent inhibition of CYP3A and CYP2C9, and does not induce CYP isoforms.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of faldaprevir in patients with renal impairment

Faldaprevir is a potent hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor with negligible urinary excretion. We assessed the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single oral dose of faldaprevir (480 mg) in 32 HCV-negative subjects with renal impairment or normal renal function. Compared with subjects with normal renal function, the adjusted geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals in parentheses) for overall exposure area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-∞) were 113.6% (41.6 to 310.2%), 178.3% (85.2 to 373.0%), and 169.2% (73.2 to 391.2%) for subjects with mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment, respectively. Overall, 5/8 (63%) subjects with normal renal function and 20/24 (83%) subjects with renal impairment reported adverse events, with gastrointestinal events being the most common. No severe or serious adverse events or deaths were reported. These results suggest that moderate or severe renal impairment can result in a modest increase in faldaprevir exposure. The increase in exposure may be related to decrease in the activity of the liver uptake transporter OATP1B1 as a result of renal impairment. Given this relatively slight increase in exposure, a dose adjustment in HCV patients with renal impairment is not warranted. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01957657.).

Effect of faldaprevir on raltegravir pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers

Faldaprevir is a potent hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor and an inhibitor of UDP-glucuronosyltransferase-1A1 (UGT1A1), which is involved in raltegravir clearance. Raltegravir, an HIV integrase inhibitor, may be used in combination with HCV treatment in HCV/HIV co-infected patients. In this open-label, 2-period, fixed-sequence study, 24 healthy volunteers (12 males) received faldaprevir 240 mg and raltegravir 400 mg in 2 treatment schedules (A and B) separated by a washout phase of ≥7 days: (A) twice-daily raltegravir (Days 1-3), once-daily raltegravir (Day 4); (B) twice-daily raltegravir and twice-daily faldaprevir (loading dose, Day 1), twice-daily raltegravir and once-daily faldaprevir (Days 2-5), once-daily raltegravir and once-daily faldaprevir (Day 6). Pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed over 132 hours post-dosing. Compared with raltegravir alone, co-administration with faldaprevir led to 2.7-fold and 2.5-fold increases in raltegravir geometric mean AUC(τ,ss) and C(max,ss), respectively, and a similar increase in raltegravir glucuronide metabolite exposure. No serious adverse events (AEs) were reported and no subject discontinued due to AEs. Faldaprevir and raltegravir co-administration was well tolerated and resulted in a moderate increase in raltegravir exposure.

Effect of steady-state faldaprevir on the pharmacokinetics of steady-state methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone in subjects receiving stable addiction management therapy

The effects of steady-state faldaprevir on the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of steady-state methadone and buprenorphine-naloxone were assessed in 34 healthy male and female subjects receiving stable addiction management therapy. Subjects continued receiving a stable oral dose of either methadone (up to a maximum dose of 180 mg per day) or buprenorphine-naloxone (up to a maximum dose of 24 mg-6 mg per day) and also received oral faldaprevir (240 mg) once daily (QD) for 8 days following a 480-mg loading dose. Serial blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis. The pharmacodynamics of the opioid maintenance regimens were evaluated by the objective and subjective opioid withdrawal scales. Coadministration of faldaprevir with methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone resulted in geometric mean ratios for the steady-state area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24,ss)), the steady-state maximum concentration of the drug in plasma (C(max,ss)), and the steady-state concentration of the drug in plasma at 24 h (C(24,ss)) of 0.92 to 1.18 for (R)-methadone, (S)-methadone, buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and naloxone, with 90% confidence intervals including, or very close to including, 1.00 (no effect), suggesting a limited overall effect of faldaprevir. Although individual data showed moderate variability in the exposures between subjects and treatments, there was no evidence of symptoms of opiate overdose or withdrawal either during the coadministration of faldaprevir with methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone or after faldaprevir dosing was stopped. Similar faldaprevir exposures were observed in the methadone- and buprenorphine-naloxone-treated subjects. In conclusion, faldaprevir at 240 mg QD can be coadministered with methadone or buprenorphine-naloxone without dose adjustment, although given the relatively narrow therapeutic windows of these agents, monitoring for opiate overdose and withdrawal may still be appropriate. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01637922.).

Direct-acting Antiviral Agents for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the US and Japan. Therefore, eradication of HCV may reduce the occurrence of HCC in HCV-infected individuals. In 2011, the use of first-generation HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitors such as telaprevir and boceprevir was initiated for clinical treatment of HCV. Administration of telaprevir and boceprevir plus peginterferon and ribavirin increased rates of sustained virological response (SVR) in HCV genotype 1-infected patients. However, this treatment regimen also led to severe adverse events. Second-generation direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for HCV, such as simeprevir plus peg-interferon and ribavirin also resulted in higher SVR rates, with similar adverse events to other peg-interferon and ribavirin treatments. Higher SVR rates in HCV genotype 1- and 2-infected patients were achieved with 12-16 weeks of sofosbuvir plus other class DAAs with/without ribavirin and 12 weeks of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, respectively. For "difficult-to-treat" HCV-infected patients, more therapeutic options are needed. Further studies examining the efficacy and adverse effects of such therapies will be required for the development of additional treatments.

Hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor-resistance mutations: Our experience and review

Direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are one of the major advances in its medical treatment. The HCV protease inhibitors boceprevir and telaprevir were the first approved DAAs in the United States, Europe, and Japan. When combined with peginterferon plus ribavirin, these agents increase sustained virologic response rates to 70%-80% in treatment-naïve patients and previous-treatment relapsers with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Without peginterferon plus ribavirin, DAA mono-therapies increased DAA-resistance mutations. Several new DAAs for HCV are now in clinical development and are likely to be approved in the near future. However, it has been reported that the use of these drugs also led to the emergence of DAA-resistance mutations in certain cases. Furthermore, these mutations exhibit cross-resistance to multiple drugs. The prevalence of DAA-resistance mutations in HCV-infected patients who were not treated with DAAs is unknown, and it is as yet uncertain whether such variants are sensitive to DAAs. We performed a population sequence analysis to assess the frequency of such variants in the sera of HCV genotype 1-infected patients not treated with HCV protease inhibitors. Here, we reviewed the literature on resistance variants of HCV protease inhibitors in treatment naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, as well as our experience.

Baseline hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3 polymorphisms and their impact on treatment response in clinical studies of the HCV NS3 protease inhibitor faldaprevir

A challenge to the treatment of chronic hepatitis C with direct-acting antivirals is the emergence of drug-resistant hepatitis C virus (HCV) variants. HCV with preexisting polymorphisms that are associated with resistance to NS3/4A protease inhibitors have been detected in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We performed a comprehensive pooled analysis from phase 1b and phase 2 clinical studies of the HCV protease inhibitor faldaprevir to assess the population frequency of baseline protease inhibitor resistance-associated NS3 polymorphisms and their impact on response to faldaprevir treatment. A total of 980 baseline NS3 sequences were obtained (543 genotype 1b and 437 genotype 1a sequences). Substitutions associated with faldaprevir resistance (at amino acid positions 155 and 168) were rare (<1% of sequences) and did not compromise treatment response: in a phase 2 study in treatment-naive patients, six patients had faldaprevir resistance-associated polymorphisms at baseline, of whom five completed faldaprevir-based treatment and all five achieved a sustained virologic response 24 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR24). Among 13 clinically relevant amino acid positions associated with HCV protease resistance, the greatest heterogeneity was seen at NS3 codons 132 and 170 in genotype 1b, and the most common baseline substitution in genotype 1a was Q80K (99/437 [23%]). The presence of the Q80K variant did not reduce response rates to faldaprevir-based treatment. Across the three phase 2 studies, there was no significant difference in SVR24 rates between patients with genotype 1a Q80K HCV and those without Q80K HCV, whether treatment experienced (17% compared to 26%; P = 0.47) or treatment naive (62% compared to 66%; P = 0.72).