Randomized controlled trial of the NS5A inhibitor daclatasvir plus pegylated interferon and ribavirin for HCV genotype-4 (COMMAND-4)

Decade of optimizing therapy with direct-acting antiviral drugs and the changing profile of patients with chronic hepatitis C

Chronic infection with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains a major health problem affecting approximately 58 million people worldwide. In the era of interferon (IFN)-based regimens, patients particularly infected with genotypes 1 and 4 achieved a low response rate. The implementation of direct-acting antivirals changed the landscape of HCV treatment. The increase in effectiveness provided us with the hope of eliminating HCV as a significant public threat by 2030. In the following years, there was an observed improvement in the treatment of HCV with genotype-specific regimens and highly effective pangenotypic options that are the most recent stage of the revolution. The optimization of therapy was accompanied by changes in the patient profile from the beginning of the IFN-free era over time. Patients treated with antiviral therapies were younger in successive periods, less burdened with comorbidities and comedications, more frequently treatment-naïve and had less advanced liver disease. Before the IFN-free era, specific subpopulations such as patients with HCV/HIV coinfection, those with a history of previous treatment, patients with renal impairment or with cirrhosis had lower chances for a virologic response. Currently, these populations should no longer be considered difficult to treat. Despite the high effectiveness of HCV therapy, there is a small percentage of patients with treatment failure. However, they can be effectively retreated with pangenotypic rescue regimens.

Genotype 4 hepatitis C virus-a review of a diverse genotype

PURPOSE

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains a major health problem and one of the leading causes of chronic liver disease worldwide. The purpose of this paper was to summarize knowledge about the epidemiology of HCV genotype (GT) 4 infection, similarities and differences with other genotypes, specific problems associated with this genotype, and treatment regimens used to treat GT4-infected patients.

METHODS

We performed an accurate search for literature using the PubMed database to select high-quality reviews and original articles concerning this topic.

RESULTS

GT4 with a global prevalence of 8% takes third place, closing the global HCV podium in terms of frequency. However, there are regions where GT4 infections are dominant, such as sub-Saharan and North Africa, and the Middle East. The disease course and complications are generally similar to those of chronic hepatitis C caused by other genotypes, although the faster progression of fibrosis was demonstrated in patients with coexisting schistosomiasis. In the era of interferon-based therapy, GT4-infected patients were described as difficult to treat due to suboptimal response. A breakthrough in the treatment of HCV-infected patients, including those with GT4 infection, was the introduction of direct-acting antiviral drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of safe and effective therapy has created a real opportunity for HCV eradication in line with the goal set by the World Health Organization. An example of a country where this is happening is Egypt, where GT4 accounts for more than 90% of HCV infections. There, broad access to therapy has been effectively supported by population-based screening.

Pangenotypic and Genotype-Specific Antivirals in the Treatment of HCV Genotype 4 Infected Patients with HCV Monoinfection and HIV/HCV Coinfection

The introduction of the direct-acting antivirals (DAA) has substantially improved the effectiveness of the therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We aimed to compare the efficacy of pangenotypic and genotype-specific DAA in the cohort of genotype (GT) four patients with HCV monoinfection and HIV coinfection. A total of 662 GT4-infected patients treated in 2015–2020—of whom 168 (25.3%) were coinfected with HIV, selected from the retrospective EpiTer-2 database—were enrolled in the analysis. Among HIV-coinfected patients, 54% (90) were treated with genotype-specific regimens and 46% (78) with pangenotypic options, while among HCV-monoinfected patients, the rates were 72% and 28%, respectively. Significantly higher rate of males (67.9% vs. 57.7%, p = 0.01), a lower rate of liver cirrhosis (10.2% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.02), and higher of treatment-naïve patients (87.5% vs. 76.7%, p = 0.003) were documented in the HIV coinfected population. The overall sustained virologic response after exclusion of non-virologic failures was achieved in 98% with no significant difference between HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients, 96.2% vs. 98.5%, respectively. While the genotype-specific regimens resulted in a similar cure rate regardless of the HIV status, the pangenotypic options were more efficacious in patients with HCV monoinfection (99.3% vs. 94.4%, p = 0.05). Hereby, we demonstrated the high effectiveness and good safety profile of the DAA therapy in the population of HCV GT4 infected patients with HIV coinfection supporting the current recommendations to treat HCV/HIV coinfected patients with the same options as those with HCV monoinfection.

Hepatitis C genotype 4: A report on resistance-associated substitutions in NS3, NS5A, and NS5B genes

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION

FN performed the literature review and wrote the manuscript; STZ coauthored, edited, and reviewed the manuscript.

ABSTRACT

Treatment response in Hepatitis C virus (HCV) has generated varied effects in patients. Recently, nonresponsive and relapse patients related to host and genotype variabilities have been reported in clinical trials. However, these trials included minimal sample sizes of patients with genotype 4, the most prevalent genotype in Egypt and the Middle East, compared with genotypes 1 and 2. The genetic variabilities that have been detected within the HCV genes, especially the ones associated with genotype 4, and are linked to treatment response, will be the focus of this review with emphasis on direct acting antiviral agents. In addition, the major studies and clinical trials performed globally and their inclusivity of genotype 4 are reported. This review also delineates future study areas and missing data that need further investigation when it comes to genotype 4.

Long-term follow-up of clinical trial patients treated for chronic HCV infection with daclatasvir-based regimens

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Daclatasvir has achieved high sustained virologic response (SVR) rates in diverse hepatitis C virus (HCV) populations. This study evaluated the long-term efficacy and safety of daclatasvir-based regimens administered during clinical studies.

METHODS

Patients enrolled within 6 months of parent study completion or protocol availability at the study sites. The primary objective was durability of SVR at follow-up Week 12 (SVR12). Secondary objectives included analysing HCV sequences in non-responders or responders who relapsed, and characterization of liver disease progression.

RESULTS

Between 24 February 2012 and 17 July 2015, this study enrolled and began following 1503 recipients of daclatasvir-based regimens (follow-up cut-off, 13 October 2015); 60% were male, 18% aged ≥65 years, 87% had genotype-1a (42%) or -1b (45%) infection, and 18% had cirrhosis. Median follow-up from parent study follow-up Week 12 was 111 (range, 11-246) weeks. 1329/1489 evaluable patients were SVR12 responders; 1316/1329 maintained SVR until their latest visit. Twelve responders relapsed by (n = 9) or after (n = 3) parent study follow-up Week 24; one was reinfected. Relapse occurred in 3/842 (0.4%) and 9/487 (2%) responders treated with interferon-free or interferon-containing regimens, respectively. Hepatic disease progression and new hepatocellular carcinoma were diagnosed in 15 and 23 patients, respectively. Among non-responders, emergent non-structural protein-5A (NS5A) and -3 (NS3) substitutions were replaced by wild-type sequences in 27/157 (17%) and 35/47 (74%) patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SVR12 was durable in 99% of recipients of daclatasvir-based regimens. Hepatic disease progression and new hepatocellular carcinoma were infrequent. Emergent NS5A substitutions persisted longer than NS3 substitutions among non-responders.

Effect of Sofosbuvir Plus Daclatasvir in Hepatitis C Virus Genotype-4 Patients: Promising Effect on Liver Fibrosis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The effect of sofosbuvir and daclatasvir in treatment of genotype 4 Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is not well documented. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir with or without ribavirin in treatment of HCV genotype 4 patients. The impact of therapy on liver fibrosis as well as the role of IL18 polymorphism in therapeutic outcome was assessed.

METHODS

One hundred HCV genotype 4 patients were categorized into 2 groups. The group 1 comprised treatment naïve patients, with total serum bilirubin ≤ 1.2 mg/10^-1 L, serum albumin ≥ 3.5 g/10^-1 L, INR ≤ 1.2, and platelet count ≥ 150 × 10⁹/L. This group was treated with sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir for 12 weeks. The group 2 included Peg-IFN-α-or sofosbuvir treatment experienced, or patients with at least 2 of the following findings: total serum bilirubin > 1.2 mg/10^-1 L, serum albumin < 3.5 g/10^-1 L, INR > 1.2, and platelet count < 150 × 10⁹ L^-1. Group 2 was treated with sofosbuvir-daclatasvir + ribavirin for 12 weeks, with the exception of sofosbuvir treatment experienced patients, who were treated with sofosbuvir/daclatasvir + ribavirin for 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Sustained Virological Response (SVR12) (undetectable viremia12 weeks post-treatment), was 93.3% in group 1 and 87.5% in group 2 (total = 91%). Such high efficacy was accompanied with tolerable adverse effects as well as with significant improvement in liver fibrosis. No significant association was observed between IL18 polymorphism (rs1946518) at position -607 and achievement of SVR12 in HCV patients after treatment.

CONCLUSION

Sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir, with or without ribavirin achieved high efficacy and safety in HCV genotype 4 patients. Their effects were accompanied with attenuation of liver fibrosis. Further wider-scale studies are needed to evaluate the actual role of IL18 polymorphisms in treatment response with sofosbuvir/daclatasvir.

Efficacy of daclatasvir-based quadruple therapy in nonresponder patients infected by hepatitis C virus genotype 4: the ANRS HC32 QUATTRO study

BACKGROUND

A few direct antiviral agents have been studied in difficult-to-treat patients infected by hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 4 (GT4). The efficacy of daclatasvir (DCV), asunaprevir (ASV), pegylated interferon and ribavirin (Peg-IFN/RBV) association was investigated in these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study was conducted in HCV GT4 patients who were null or partial responders to Peg-IFN/RBV. Patients received 24 weeks of DCV (60 mg, once daily), ASV (100 mg, twice daily) and Peg-IFN/RBV. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response at post-treatment week 12 [sustained virologic response (SVR)12].

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included; 45 (75%) were previous null responders and 27 (45%) had cirrhosis. The most frequent subtypes were GT4a (48%) and GT4d (27%) with 25% of the patients being infected with other subtypes such as 4c, 4r, 4f, 4k, 4j and 4q. The global SVR12 was 95% (90% confidence interval: 90.4-99.6) and 96.3% (90% confidence interval: 87.5-99.5) in cirrhotic patients. All patients achieving SVR12 also achieved SVR24. Previous Peg-IFN/RBV response, IL28b genotype, cirrhosis status or GT4 subtypes did not influence SVR12 rates. Serious adverse events occurred in 13% of the patients, four being cirrhotic and four noncirrhotic. Three (5%) patients stopped HCV therapy prematurely: one because of virologic breakthrough and two because of serious adverse events. Grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities included leukopenia (33%), neutropenia (27%), thrombocytopenia (4%) and transaminases increase (2%).

CONCLUSION

Association of DCV plus ASV and peg-IFN/RBV for 24 weeks demonstrated a high rate of SVR12 in HCV GT4-infected prior nonresponders, independently of the cirrhotic status or the GT4 subtype. The safety profile was acceptable, even in cirrhotic patients.

Real-world challenges for hepatitis C virus medications: a critical overview

From 2010, the landscape of hepatitis C therapeutics has been changed rapidly, and today we are standing at a cusp of a pharmacological revolution where highly effective and interferon (IFN)-free direct acting antivirals (DAAs) are already on the market. Such treatment paradigms attain 90-95% sustained virologic response (SVR; undetectable viral load at week 12 or 24 at the end of therapy) rates in treated individuals compared to 50-70% with treatment completion of dual-therapy-pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV). As the major goal now for the hepatologists, clinicians, physicians, and health care workers is likely to eradicate hepatitis C infection in parallel to treatment, the demand is for a one-size-fits-all pill that could be prescribed beyond the limitations of hepatitis C genotype, viral load, previous treatment history, advanced hepatic manifestations (fibrosis, cirrhosis) and antiviral drug resistance. Although the new treatment strategies have shown high cure rates in clinical trials, such treatment paradigms are posing dilemmas too in real-world clinical practice. Therapy cost, treatment access to low and middle-income countries, treatment-emergent adverse events, lack of effective viral screening and disease progression simulation models are potential challenges in this prospect. This review article deeply overviews the challenges encountered while surmounting the burden of hepatitis C around the world.

Hepatitis C and kidney disease: A narrative review

Hepatitis-C (HCV) infection can induce kidney injury, mostly due to formation of immune-complexes and cryoglobulins, and possibly to a direct cytopathic effect. It may cause acute kidney injury (AKI) as a part of systemic vasculitis, and augments the risk of AKI due to other etiologies. It is responsible for mesangiocapillary or membranous glomerulonephritis, and accelerates the progression of chronic kidney disease due to other causes. HCV infection increases cardiovascular and liver-related mortality in patients on regular dialysis. HCV-infected patients are at increased risk of acute post-transplant complications. Long-term graft survival is compromised by recurrent or de novo glomerulonephritis, or chronic transplant glomerulopathy. Patient survival is challenged by increased incidence of diabetes, sepsis, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, and liver failure. Effective and safe directly acting antiviral agents (DAAs) are currently available for treatment at different stages of kidney disease. However, the relative shortage of DAAs in countries where HCV is highly endemic imposes a need for treatment-prioritization, for which a scoring system is proposed in this review. It is concluded that the thoughtful use of DAAs, will result in a significant change in the epidemiology and clinical profiles of kidney disease, as well as improvement of dialysis and transplant outcomes, in endemic areas.

Hepatitis C virus genotype 4: Genotype 1's little brother

Treatment for hepatitis C virus genotype 4 infection has undergone a major advance over the past 5 years with the emergence of direct-acting antiviral agents. Previously, genotype 4 treatment had been limited to the combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin, with low rates of sustained virological response. The combinations of new direct-acting agents have resulted in a radical improvement in hepatitis C therapy. Much of the currently available efficacy and safety information in the treatment of genotype 4 has been extrapolated through the results of genotype 1. In this report, we review the efficacy and safety data obtained in recent studies focusing on genotype 4 patients, including special populations, such as those with decompensated cirrhosis.

Daclatasvir for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: A Critique of the Clinical and Economic Evidence

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of daclatasvir (Bristol-Myers Squibb) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for daclatasvir in combination with other medicinal products within its licensed indication for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article presents the ERG's critical review of the evidence presented in the company submission in the context of a description of the company submission, and the resulting NICE guidance. The main clinical effectiveness data for daclatasvir in combination with sofosbuvir (daclatasvir + sofosbuvir) were derived from two uncontrolled open-label trials. Among patients with genotype 1 infection, 98-100 % of patients had a sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12), overall. Among genotype 3 patients, between 85 and 100 % had SVR12 across patient populations and regimens. The main evidence for daclatasvir + pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin (PR) came from one randomised controlled trial comparing daclatasvir + PR with PR in patients with genotype 4. This found an SVR12 rate of 82 % in previously untreated patients. Serious adverse event rates associated with daclatasvir were low. The lack of comparative trial evidence for daclatasvir + sofosbuvir and many of the comparators defined in the NICE scope meant that established methods for comparing interventions either directly via head-to-head trial comparisons or via adjusted indirect comparisons were not feasible. Comparisons of SVR rates were therefore largely based on unadjusted estimates drawn from individual trial arms and subgroups of individual trial arms. The ERG concluded that, despite limited evidence, daclatasvir in combination with other treatments appeared to be associated with a high SVR rate. Daclatasvir + sofosbuvir was unlikely to be inferior to comparator treatments in genotype 1 patients; but, due to limited evidence, the relative efficacy of daclatasvir and other treatments in genotype 3 and 4 patients or patients with compensated cirrhosis was uncertain. The economic evaluation compared daclatasvir + sofosbuvir and daclatasvir + PR with a wide range of NICE-approved treatments for hepatitis C. The company submission focused on a series of subgroups defined by disease severity (METAVIR fibrosis stage F3, compensated cirrhosis), genotype and treatment history. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, daclatasvir-containing regimens were cost effective at a £20,000-£30,000 per QALY threshold in the following F3 populations: genotype 1 treatment naïve (Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = £19,739/QALY) and treatment experienced (£15,687/QALY) and genotypes 1, 3 and 4 interferon ineligible or intolerant (£5906-£9607/QALY depending on subgroup). In patients with cirrhosis, daclatasvir-containing regimens were not cost effective. The ERG found the company's economic analyses to be highly uncertain and in places biased. However, the ERG found that daclatasvir-containing regimens were cost effective in certain populations with significant fibrosis, and following new analyses by the company after a price reduction, in certain populations with cirrhosis, including patients who were not eligible for or who were intolerant to interferon therapy. The NICE Appraisal Committee's preliminary recommendation was that daclatasvir + sofosbuvir should be available as an option in genotype 1 and 4 patients with significant fibrosis but without cirrhosis, who had either been treated previously or were ineligible or intolerant to interferon. In response to the preliminary recommendation, the manufacturer submitted additional information including comparator SVR rates and a revised confidential price. Following this, the Committee expanded its original recommendation in its Final Appraisal Determination. The recommendation was expanded to include daclatasvir + sofosbuvir as an option for patients with significant fibrosis but without cirrhosis (in previously untreated patients with genotype 1, and genotype 3 patients ineligible or intolerant to interferon) and genotype 1, 3 and 4 cirrhotic patients who were ineligible or intolerant to interferon. Daclatasvir + PR was also recommended as an option for genotype 4 patients who had significant fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis.

Ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir for 12 weeks in patients with hepatitis C genotype 4 infection

Genotype 4 hepatitis C virus (HCV) was considered difficult to treat in the era of pegylated interferon-alpha (Peg-IFN-α) and ribavirin regimens. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of therapy with the nonstructural (NS) 5A inhibitor, ledipasvir, combined with the NS5B polymerase inhibitor, sofosbuvir, in patients with HCV genotype 4. In this phase 2, open-label study, 44 patients (22 treatment naïve and 22 treatment experienced) received a fixed-dose combination tablet of 90 mg of ledipasvir and 400 mg of sofosbuvir orally once-daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with HCV RNA <15 IU/mL 12 weeks after stopping therapy (SVR12). Among study participants, HCV genotype 4 subtypes were well represented (4a, n = 25; 4d, n = 10; other subtypes, n = 9). Ten patients (23%) had compensated cirrhosis. Of the 22 treatment-experienced patients, 21 (95%) had a non-CC IL-28B genotype. All 44 patients completed the full 12 weeks of dosing. The SVR12 rate was 93% (41 of 44; 95% confidence interval, 81-99). SVR12 rates were similar between treatment-naïve (95%; 21 of 22) and treatment-experienced (91%; 20 of 22) patients. All 3 patients who did not achieve SVR12 had virological relapse within 4 weeks of the end of treatment; all 3 had baseline HCV RNA ≥800,000 IU/mL, a non-CC IL-28B genotype, and pretreatment NS5A resistance-associated variants. None of the patients who relapsed had cirrhosis. The most common adverse events were asthenia, headache, and fatigue. No patients experienced a serious adverse event.

CONCLUSION

The all-oral regimen of ledipasvir and sofosbuvir is an effective and safe treatment for a wide range of HCV 4 subtypes in both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients, including those with compensated cirrhosis. (EudraCT number: 2013-003978-27; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02081079) (Hepatology 2016;64:1049-1056).

Safety and efficacy of daclatasvir in the management of patients with chronic hepatitis C

Daclatasvir (Daklinza™), a new oral direct-acting antiviral, is an inhibitor of hepatitis C virus NS5A protein and has recently been approved in the United States, Europe and Japan in chronic hepatitis C. It shows potent pangenotypic activity and moderately high genetic barrier to resistance improving the sustained virological response (SVR) rates. In COMMAND phase 2 trials, daclatasvir demonstrated high SVR rates in HCV genotype 1-4 chronically infected patients treated with peginterferon-a (pegIFNα) plus ribavirin (RBV). Furthermore, it produced even higher response rates in all-oral combination with sofosbuvir, an interferon-free regimen, with or without ribavirin, in patients with advanced liver disease, HCV/HIV coinfection, liver transplantation in ALLY studies and other real-world studies. This narrative review provides information on the pharmacological properties, role, efficacy and safety of daclatasvir-containing regimens in chronic hepatitis C patients. Daclatasvir administered once-daily in combination with sofosbuvir is an effective 12-week treatment in adult patients with chronic hepatitis C and is generally safe and well tolerated.

Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) Guidance for Antiviral Therapy Against HCV Infection: Update 2016

India contributes significantly to the global burden of HCV. While the nucleoside NS5B inhibitor sofosbuvir became available in the Indian market in March 2015, the other directly acting agents (DAAs), Ledipasvir and Daclatasvir, have only recently become available in the India. The introduction of these DAA in India at a relatively affordable price has led to great optimism about prospects of cure for these patients as not only will they provide higher efficacy, but combination DAAs as all-oral regimen will result in lower side effects than were seen with pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin therapy. Availability of these newer DAAs has necessitated revision of INASL guidelines for the treatment of HCV published in 2015. Current considerations for the treatment of HCV in India include the poorer response of genotype 3, nonavailability of many of the DAAs recommended by other guidelines and the cost of therapy. The availability of combination DAA therapy has simplified therapy of HCV with decreased reliance of evaluation for monitoring viral kinetics or drug related side effects.

Antiviral treatment prioritization in HCV-infected patients with extrahepatic manifestations - An Egyptian perspective

Egypt, the single country with highest incidence of HCV infection in the world, has embarked on a government-sponsored mass treatment program using several combinations of DAAs. Recognizing the importance of extrahepatic manifestations, independently of the hepatic, a subcommittee was assigned to develop national guidelines for respective prioritizing indications and protocols. It evaluated the benefit of treating patients with different extrahepatic manifestations, and reviewed relevant clinical trials and guidelines concerning DAA combinations available in Egypt. The latter included Sofosbuvir plus either peg-interferon, Simeprevir, Ledipasvir or daclatasvir, and the Viekera family comprising paritaprevir/ritonavir + ombitasvir with (GT-1) or without (GT-4) Dasabuvir. Any of these protocols may be used with or without Ribavirin according to indication. A blueprint was subjected to peer debate in dedicated workshops in two national meetings and subsequently to an online professional review, eventually leading to a final report that was adopted by the health authorities. Seven compelling and 10 optional indications were identified for treating patients with predominantly extrahepatic manifestations. The former include kidney disease at different stages, cryoglobulinemic vasculitis and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Selected treatment protocols, were encoded and their use was prioritized on the basis of evidence of efficacy and safety. We concluded that any of the studied protocols may be used, preferably with ribavirin, for 12-week treatment in all patients with extrahepatic manifestations without cirrhosis and with eGFR above 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm. Ribavirin should be included in protocols for treating patients with compensated cirrhosis. Daclatasvir-based protocols are recommended for decompensated cirrhosis, while the Viekera family is recommended in patients with eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 sqm, including those on dialysis. In kidney-transplanted patents, caution is due to avoidance of the pharmacokinetic interaction with the Cytochrome-P450 enzyme system, in-between immunosuppressive agents and most DAAs, particularly the Viekera family.