Hepatitis C viral evolution in genotype 1 treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients receiving telaprevir-based therapy in clinical trials

Background: In patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C infection, telaprevir (TVR) in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) significantly increased sustained virologic response (SVR) rates compared with PR alone. However, genotypic changes could be observed in TVR-treated patients who did not achieve an SVR. Methods: Population sequence analysis of the NS3•4A region was performed in patients who did not achieve SVR with TVR-based treatment. Results: Resistant variants were observed after treatment with a telaprevir-based regimen in 12% of treatment-naïve patients (ADVANCE; T12PR arm), 6% of prior relapsers, 24% of prior partial responders, and 51% of prior null responder patients (REALIZE, T12PR48 arms). NS3 protease variants V36M, R155K, and V36M+R155K emerged frequently in patients with genotype 1a and V36A, T54A, and A156S/T in patients with genotype 1b. Lower-level resistance to telaprevir was conferred by V36A/M, T54A/S, R155K/T, and A156S variants; and higher-level resistance to telaprevir was conferred by A156T and V36M+R155K variants. Virologic failure during telaprevir treatment was more common in patients with genotype 1a and in prior PR nonresponder patients and was associated with higher-level telaprevir-resistant variants. Relapse was usually associated with wild-type or lower-level resistant variants. After treatment, viral populations were wild-type with a median time of 10 months for genotype 1a and 3 weeks for genotype 1b patients. Conclusions: A consistent, subtype-dependent resistance profile was observed in patients who did not achieve an SVR with telaprevir-based treatment. The primary role of TVR is to inhibit wild-type virus and variants with lower-levels of resistance to telaprevir. The complementary role of PR is to clear any remaining telaprevir-resistant variants, especially higher-level telaprevir-resistant variants. Resistant variants are detectable in most patients who fail to achieve SVR, but their levels decline over time after treatment

Pharmacokinetic interactions between simeprevir and ledipasvir in treatment naive hepatitis C virus genotype 1-Infected patients without cirrhosis treated with a simeprevir-sofosbuvir-ledipasvir regimen

Interactions between simeprevir (hepatitis C virus [HCV] NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and ledipasvir (HCV NS5A replication complex inhibitor) were investigated in treatment-naive HCV genotype 1-infected patients without cirrhosis, treated with simeprevir-sofosbuvir-ledipasvir in a two-panel, phase 2, open-label study. Patients had stable background treatment with sofosbuvir (400 mg once daily [QD]). In panel 1 (n = 20), the effect of ledipasvir (90 mg QD) on simeprevir (150 mg QD) was studied. Patients received simeprevir and sofosbuvir from days 1 to 14; steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of simeprevir was assessed (day 14). On day 15, ledipasvir was added and steady-state PK of simeprevir in the combination was evaluated (day 28). In panel 2 (n = 20), the effect of simeprevir on ledipasvir was investigated. From days 1 to 14, patients received ledipasvir and sofosbuvir and steady-state PK of ledipasvir was assessed (day 14). On day 15, simeprevir was added and a full PK profile was obtained (day 28). The least-squares mean maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration-time curve (90% confidence interval) increased 2.3-fold (2.0- to 2.8-fold) and 3.1-fold (2.4- to 3.8-fold) for simeprevir, respectively (panel 1), and 1.6-fold (1.4- to 1.9-fold) and 1.7-fold (1.6- to 2.0-fold) for ledipasvir, respectively (panel 2), in the presence versus the absence of the other drug. All patients achieved sustained virologic responses 12 weeks after treatment end. Adverse events, mainly grade 1/2, occurred in 80% of patients; the most common was photosensitivity (45%). Due to the magnitude of interaction and the limited amount of safety data available, the use of this treatment combination is not recommended

Once-daily simeprevir (TMC435) with pegylated interferon and ribavirin in treatment-naïve genotype 1 hepatitis C: The randomized PILLAR study

The phase IIb, double-blind, placebo-controlled PILLAR trial investigated the efficacy and safety of two different simeprevir (SMV) doses administered once-daily (QD) with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN)-α-2a and ribavirin (RBV) in treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. Patients were randomized to one of five treatments: SMV (75 or 150 mg QD) for 12 or 24 weeks or placebo, plus Peg-IFN and RBV. Patients in the SMV arms stopped all treatment at week 24 if response-guided therapy (RGT) criteria were met; patients not meeting RGT continued with Peg-IFN and RBV until week 48, as did patients in the placebo control group. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates measured 24 weeks after the planned end of treatment (SVR24) were 74.7%-86.1% in the SMV groups versus 64.9% in the control group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons [SMV versus placebo], except SMV 75 mg for 24 weeks). Rapid virologic response (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL undetectable at week 4) was achieved by 68.0%-75.6% of SMV-treated and 5.2% of placebo control patients. According to RGT criteria, 79.2%-86.1% of SMV-treated patients completed treatment by week 24; 85.2%-95.6% of these subsequently achieved SVR24. The adverse event profile was generally similar across the SMV and placebo control groups, with the exception of mild reversible hyperbilirubinemia, without serum aminotransferase abnormalities, associated with higher doses of SMV

Fatigue during treatment for hepatitis C virus : results of self-reported fatigue severity in two Phase IIb studies of simeprevir treatment in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection

Background: Fatigue is a common symptom of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and a frequent side-effect of peginterferon/ribavirin (PR) therapy for HCV. This study evaluated the impact of adding the oral HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor simeprevir to PR on patient-reported fatigue and health status among patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection enrolled in the Phase IIb PILLAR and ASPIRE trials [NCT00882908; NCT00980330]. Methods: Treatment-naïve patients (PILLAR, n = 386) and treatment-experienced patients (ASPIRE, n = 462) were randomized to simeprevir plus PR (simeprevir/PR) or placebo plus PR (placebo/PR). In PILLAR, duration of PR treatment in the simeprevir/PR groups was determined using response-guided therapy (RGT) criteria. PR could be terminated at Week 24, instead of Week 48, if HCV RNA was <25 IU/mL by Week 4 and then undetectable at Weeks 12, 16, and 20. In both studies, patients completed the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and EQ-5D quality-of-life questionnaire in their native language at baseline and throughout the studies up until Week 72. Results: During the first 24 weeks of treatment, mean FSS total score was increased to a similar degree compared with baseline among patients receiving simeprevir/PR or placebo/PR in both studies indicating increased fatigue severity. Mean FSS scores returned to values comparable with baseline among patients receiving simeprevir/PR after Week 24 in PILLAR (after treatment completion for the majority of patients) and in ASPIRE (after Week 48), consistent with RGT enabling early termination of all treatment at Week 24 in 82.2% of simeprevir/PR-treated patients in the PILLAR study. Similar results were observed for EQ-5D, with simeprevir/PR-treated patients experiencing less time with worse health problems according to EQ-5D scores compared with placebo/PR groups in both studies, and more rapid improvement in health status associated with shorter treatment duration in the PILLAR study. Conclusions: Combination of simeprevir with PR did not increase patient-reported fatigue severity or health status impairments beyond that reported by patients treated with PR alone. Many patients treated with simeprevir/PR returned to pretreatment fatigue and health status levels sooner due to increased treatment efficacy that enabled shorter duration of all therapy, compared with PR alone

Liver safety assessment in clinical trials of new agents for chronic hepatitis B

Investigational agents that reduce or eliminate covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) or enhance host immunity against hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐infected hepatocytes are intended to induce a durable off‐treatment clearance of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) (referred to as functional cure). The aim of this paper was to highlight challenges in interpreting liver safety data in clinical trials of these agents when given alone or in combination regimens. The incidence, grading and management of spontaneous serum ALT flares in untreated chronic HBV patients are reviewed along with a summary of serum ALT flares observed during the registration trials for peginterferon and nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Recommendations regarding the detection, management and interpretation of liver safety biomarker data in future clinical trials as well as suggested inclusion and exclusion criteria for phase 1/2 vs phase 3 studies are provided. Criteria to help classify liver safety signals as being due to the intended therapeutic response, emergence of drug‐resistant HBV virions, or idiosyncratic drug‐induced liver injury are provided along with a review of the role of an expert hepatic adjudication panel in assessing a compound’s hepatotoxicity profile. Finally, an algorithmic approach to the differential diagnosis and recommended medical evaluation and management of individual clinical trial patients that develop a liver safety signal is provided along with the rationale to collect and test research blood samples for future mechanistic studies.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153564/1/jvh13223_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153564/2/jvh13223.pd

Pharmacokinetic Interactions between Simeprevir and Ledipasvir in Treatment-naïve Hepatitis C virus Genotype 1-infected Patients without Cirrhosis Treated with a Simeprevir/Sofosbuvir/Ledipasvir Regimen

Interactions between simeprevir (hepatitis C virus [HCV] NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and ledipasvir (HCV NS5A replication complex inhibitor) were investigated in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1-infected patients without cirrhosis, treated with simeprevir/sofosbuvir/ledipasvir in a two-panel, Phase 2, open-label study (NCT02421211). Patients had stable background treatment with sofosbuvir (400 mg once daily [QD]). In Panel 1 (N=20), the effect of ledipasvir (90 mg QD) on simeprevir (150 mg QD) was studied. Patients received simeprevir and sofosbuvir from Days 1--14; steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of simeprevir were assessed (Day 14). On Day 15, ledipasvir was added and steady-state PK of simeprevir in the combination was evaluated (Day 28). In Panel 2 (N=20), the effect of simeprevir on ledipasvir was investigated. From Days 1--14, patients received ledipasvir and sofosbuvir and steady-state PK of ledipasvir was assessed (Day 14). On Day 15, simeprevir was added and a full PK profile was obtained (Day 28). The least squares mean maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration--time curve (90% confidence interval) increased 2.3- (2.0-2.8) and 3.1- (2.4-3.8) fold for simeprevir, respectively, (Panel 1); and 1.6- (1.4-1.9) and 1.7- (1.6-2.0) fold for ledipasvir, respectively (Panel 2), in the presence versus the absence of the other drug. All patients achieved sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment end. Adverse events, mainly Grade 1/2, occurred in 80% of patients; the most common was photosensitivity (45%). Due to the magnitude of interaction and the limited amount of safety data available, the use of this treatment combination is not recommended.status: publishe

Randomised phase 2 study (JADE) of the HBV capsid assembly modulator JNJ-56136379 with or without a nucleos(t)ide analogue in patients with chronic hepatitis B infection

Objective: We present the final analysis results of the phase 2 JADE study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03361956). Design: 232 patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) not currently treated at study start (NCT) at study start or virologically suppressed were randomised to receive 75 mg (part 1) or 250 mg (part 2) JNJ-56136379, a hepatitis B virus (HBV)-capsid assembly modulator, one time per day or placebo with nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/entecavir) or JNJ-56136379 alone (NCT-only) for ≥24 and ≤48 weeks. Results: In patients who are NCT hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) positive, JNJ-56136379 75 mg+NA and 250 mg+NA showed limited mean (SE) hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) declines (0.14 (0.10) and 0.41 (0.15), respectively) from baseline at Week 24 (primary endpoint; placebo+NA: 0.25 (0.11) log10 international unit (IU)/mL). In patients who are NCT HBeAg positive, mean (SE) HBV DNA declines at Week 24 were 5.53 (0.23) and 5.88 (0.34) for JNJ-56136379 75 mg+NA and 250 mg+NA, respectively, versus 5.21 (0.42) log10 IU/mL for placebo+NA. In NCT patients, mean (SE) HBV RNA declines were 2.96 (0.23) and 3.15 (0.33) versus 1.33 (0.32) log10 copies/mL, respectively. Patients with HBsAg declines had HBeAg and hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) declines and some early on-treatment isolated alanine aminotransferase flares. Viral breakthrough occurred with JNJ-56136379 monotherapy with the emerging resistant-variant T33N, but not with JNJ-56136379+NA. JNJ-56136379 treatment beyond Week 24 had a generally small additional effect on viral markers. No study treatment-related serious adverse events or clinically significant changes in laboratory parameters occurred. Conclusions: In patients with non-cirrhotic CHB, JNJ-56136379+NA showed pronounced reductions in HBV DNA and HBV RNA, limited HBsAg or HBeAg declines in patients who are NCT HBeAg positive, and was well tolerated, but no clear benefit with regards to efficacy of JNJ-56136379 over NA was observed