Telaprevir twice daily is noninferior to telaprevir every 8 hours for patients with chronic hepatitis C.

Background & Aims We performed an open-label, multicenter, phase 3 study of the safety and efficacy of twice-daily telaprevir in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection, including those with cirrhosis. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to groups treated with telaprevir 1125 mg twice daily or 750 mg every 8 hours plus peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin for 12 weeks; patients were then treated with peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin alone for 12 weeks if their level of HCV RNA at week 4 was <25 IU/mL or for 36 weeks if their level was higher. The primary objective was to demonstrate noninferiority of telaprevir twice daily versus every 8 hours in producing a sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12) (based on a -11% lower limit of the 95% lower confidence interval for the difference between groups). Results At baseline, of 740 patients, 85% had levels of HCV RNA ≥800,000 IU/mL, 28% had fibrosis (F3-F4), 14% had cirrhosis (F4), 57% were infected with HCV genotype 1a, and 71% had the non-CC IL28B genotype. Of patients who were treated with telaprevir twice daily, 74.3% achieved SVR12 compared with 72.8% of patients who were treated with telaprevir every 8 hours (difference in response, 1.5%; 95% confidence interval, -4.9% to 12.0%), so telaprevir twice daily is noninferior to telaprevir every 8 hours. All subgroups of patients who were treated with telaprevir twice daily versus those who were treated every 8 hours had similar rates of SVR12. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) in the telaprevir phase were fatigue (47%), pruritus (43%), anemia (42%), nausea (37%), rash (35%), and headache (26%); serious AEs were reported in 9% of patients. Rates of AEs and serious AEs were similar or slightly higher among patients treated with telaprevir every 8 hours. Conclusions Based on a phase 3 trial, telaprevir twice daily is noninferior to every 8 hours in producing SVR12, with similar levels of safety and tolerability. These results support use of telaprevir twice daily in patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, including those with cirrhosis. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT0124176

Efficacy and safety of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/r and dasabuvir compared to IFN-containing regimens in genotype 1 HCV patients: The MALACHITE-I/II trials

Background & AimsTelaprevir plus pegylated interferon/ribavirin (TPV+PegIFN/RBV) remains a therapeutic option for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) 1 infection in many regions. We conducted two open-label, phase IIIb trials comparing safety and efficacy of all-oral ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir±ribavirin (OBV/PTV/r+DSV±RBV) and TPV+PegIFN/RBV.MethodsTreatment-naïve (MALACHITE-I) or PegIFN/RBV-experienced (MALACHITE-II) non-cirrhotic, chronic HCV GT1-infected patients were randomized to OBV/PTV/r+DSV+weight-based RBV, OBV/PTV/r+DSV (treatment-naïve, GT1b-infected patients only), or 12weeks of TPV+PegIFN+weight-based RBV and 12–36 additional weeks of PegIFN/RBV. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response 12weeks post-treatment (SVR12). Patient-reported outcome questionnaires evaluated mental and physical health during the studies.ResultsThree hundred eleven treatment-naïve and 148 treatment-experienced patients were randomized and dosed. Among treatment-naïve patients, SVR12 rates were 97% (67/69) and 82% (28/34), respectively, in OBV/PTV/r+DSV+RBV and TPV+PegIFN/RBV-treated GT1a-infected patients; SVR12 rates were 99% (83/84), 98% (81/83), and 78% (32/41) in OBV/PTV/r+DSV+RBV, OBV/PTV/r+DSV, and TPV+PegIFN/RBV-treated GT1b-infected patients. Among treatment-experienced patients, SVR12 rates were 99% (100/101) and 66% (31/47) with OBV/PTV/r+DSV+RBV and TPV+PegIFN/RBV. Mental and physical health were generally better with OBV/PTV/r+DSV±RBV than TPV+PegIFN/RBV. Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events (0–1% and 8–11%, respectively, p<0.05) and rates of hemoglobin decline to <10g/dl (0–4% and 34–47%, respectively, p<0.05) were lower for OBV/PTV/r+DSV±RBV than TPV+PegIFN/RBV.ConclusionsAmong non-cirrhotic, HCV GT1-infected patients, SVR12 rates were 97–99% with 12week, multi-targeted OBV/PTV/r+DSV±RBV regimens and 66–82% with 24–48 total weeks of TPV+PegIFN/RBV. OBV/PTV/r+DSV±RBV was associated with a generally better mental and physical health, more favorable tolerability, and lower rates of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events

Daclatasvir vs telaprevir plus peginterferon alfa/ribavirin for hepatitis C virus genotype 1

AIM: To evaluate daclatasvir vs telaprevir, each combined with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV), in treatment-naive hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) 1-infected patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study, 602 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to daclatasvir vs telaprevir, stratified by IL28B rs12979860 host genotype (CC vs non-CC), cirrhosis status (compensated cirrhosis vs no cirrhosis), and HCV GT1 subtype (GT1a vs GT1b). Patients were selected by study inclusion criteria from a total of 793 enrolled patients. Patients received daclatasvir 60 mg once daily or telaprevir 750 mg 3 times daily plus pegIFN/RBV. Daclatasvir recipients received 24 wk of daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV; those without an extended rapid virologic response (eRVR; undetectable HCV-RNA at weeks 4 and 12) received an additional 24 wk of pegIFN/RBV. Telaprevir-treated patients received 12 wk of telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV followed by 12 (with eRVR) or 36 (no eRVR) wk of pegIFN/RBV. The primary objective was to compare for noninferiority of sustained virologic response rates at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12) in GT1b-infected patients. Key secondary objectives were to demonstrate that the rates of anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL) and rash-related events, through week 12, were lower with daclatasvir + pegIFN/RBV than with telaprevir + pegIFN/RBV among GT1b-infected patients. Resistance testing was performed using population-based sequencing of the NS5A region for all patients at baseline, and for patients with virologic failure or relapse and HCV-RNA ≥ 1000 IU/mL, to investigate any link between NS5A polymorphisms associated with daclatasvir resistance and virologic outcome. RESULTS: Patient demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced across treatment arms; however, there was a higher proportion of black/African Americans in the daclatasvir groups (6.0% and 8.2% in the GT1b and GT1a groups, respectively) than in the telaprevir groups (2.2% and 3.0%). Among GT1b-infected patients, daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV was noninferior to telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV for SVR12 [85% (228/268) vs 81% (109/134); difference, 4.3% (95%CI: -3.3% to 11.9%)]. Anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL) was significantly less frequent with daclatasvir than with telaprevir [difference, -29.1% (95%CI: -38.8% to -19.4%)]. Rash-related events were also less common with daclatasvir than with telaprevir, but the difference was not statistically significant. In GT1a-infected patients, SVR12 was 64.9% with daclatasvir and 69.7% with telaprevir. Among both daclatasvir and telaprevir treatment groups, across GT1b- or GT1a-infected patients, lower response rates were observed in patients with IL28B non-CC and cirrhosis - factors known to affect response to pegIFN/RBV. Consistent with these observations, a multivariate logistic regression analysis in GT1b-infected patients demonstrated that SVR12 was associated with IL28B host genotype (CC vs non-CC, P = 0.011) and cirrhosis status (absent vs present, P = 0.031). NS5A polymorphisms associated with daclatasvir resistance (at L28, R30, L31, or Y93) were observed in 17.3% of GT1b-infected patients at baseline; such variants did not appear to be absolute predictors of failure since 72.1% of these patients achieved SVR12 compared with 86.9% without these polymorphisms. Among GT1b-infected patients, treatment was completed by 85.4% (229/268) in the daclatasvir group, and by 85.1% (114/134) in the telaprevir group, and among GT1a-infected patients, by 67.2% (90/134) and 69.7% (46/66), respectively. Discontinuations (of all 3 agents) due to an AE were more frequent with telaprevir than with daclatasvir, whereas discontinuations due to lack of efficacy were more frequent with daclatasvir, due, in part, to differences in futility criteria. CONCLUSION: Daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV demonstrated noninferiority to telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV for SVR12 and was well-tolerated in treatment-naive GT1b-infected patients, supporting the use of daclatasvir with other direct-acting antivirals

Seladelpar efficacy and safety at 3 months in patients with primary biliary cholangitis: ENHANCE, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: ENHANCE was a phase 3 study that evaluated efficacy and safety of seladelpar, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-δ (PPAR) agonist, versus placebo in patients with primary biliary cholangitis with inadequate response or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to oral seladelpar 5 mg (n=89), 10 mg (n=89), placebo (n=87) daily (with UDCA, as appropriate). Primary end point was a composite biochemical response [alkaline phosphatase (ALP) < 1.67×upper limit of normal (ULN), ≥15% ALP decrease from baseline, and total bilirubin ≤ ULN] at month 12. Key secondary end points were ALP normalization at month 12 and change in pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) at month 6 in patients with baseline score ≥4. Aminotransferases were assessed. ENHANCE was terminated early following an erroneous safety signal in a concurrent, NASH trial. While blinded, primary and secondary efficacy end points were amended to month 3. Significantly more patients receiving seladelpar met the primary end point (seladelpar 5 mg: 57.1%, 10 mg: 78.2%) versus placebo (12.5%) ( p < 0.0001). ALP normalization occurred in 5.4% ( p =0.08) and 27.3% ( p < 0.0001) of patients receiving 5 and 10 mg seladelpar, respectively, versus 0% receiving placebo. Seladelpar 10 mg significantly reduced mean pruritus NRS versus placebo [10 mg: -3.14 ( p =0.02); placebo: -1.55]. Alanine aminotransferase decreased significantly with seladelpar versus placebo [5 mg: 23.4% ( p =0.0008); 10 mg: 16.7% ( p =0.03); placebo: 4%]. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) with inadequate response or intolerance to UDCA who were treated with seladelpar 10 mg had significant improvements in liver biochemistry and pruritus. Seladelpar appeared safe and well tolerated

Seladelpar efficacy and safety at 3 months in patients with primary biliary cholangitis: ENHANCE, a phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Background and Aims: ENHANCE was a phase 3 study that evaluated efficacy and safety of seladelpar, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-δ (PPAR) agonist, versus placebo in patients with primary biliary cholangitis with inadequate response or intolerance to ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Approach and Results: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to oral seladelpar 5 mg (n=89), 10 mg (n=89), placebo (n=87) daily (with UDCA, as appropriate). Primary end point was a composite biochemical response [alkaline phosphatase (ALP) &lt; 1.67×upper limit of normal (ULN), ≥15% ALP decrease from baseline, and total bilirubin ≤ ULN] at month 12. Key secondary end points were ALP normalization at month 12 and change in pruritus numerical rating scale (NRS) at month 6 in patients with baseline score ≥4. Aminotransferases were assessed. ENHANCE was terminated early following an erroneous safety signal in a concurrent, NASH trial. While blinded, primary and secondary efficacy end points were amended to month 3. Significantly more patients receiving seladelpar met the primary end point (seladelpar 5 mg: 57.1%, 10 mg: 78.2%) versus placebo (12.5%) (p &lt; 0.0001). ALP normalization occurred in 5.4% (p=0.08) and 27.3% (p &lt; 0.0001) of patients receiving 5 and 10 mg seladelpar, respectively, versus 0% receiving placebo. Seladelpar 10 mg significantly reduced mean pruritus NRS versus placebo [10 mg: −3.14 (p=0.02); placebo: −1.55]. Alanine aminotransferase decreased significantly with seladelpar versus placebo [5 mg: 23.4% (p=0.0008); 10 mg: 16.7% (p=0.03); placebo: 4%]. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. Conclusions: Patients with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) with inadequate response or intolerance to UDCA who were treated with seladelpar 10 mg had significant improvements in liver biochemistry and pruritus. Seladelpar appeared safe and well tolerated