Randomized phase II study of GS-4774 as a therapeutic vaccine in virally suppressed patients with chronic hepatitis B

GS-4774 is a heat-inactivated, yeast-based, T-cell vaccine designed to elicit hepatitis B virus (HBV)-specific T-cell responses. We evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of GS-4774 in patients with chronic HBV infection

Randomized phase II study of GS-4774 as a therapeutic vaccine in virally suppressed patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND & AIMS: GS-4774 is a heat-inactivated, yeast-based, T-cell vaccine designed to elicit hepatitis B virus (HBV)-specific T-cell responses. We evaluated the safety, tolerability and efficacy of GS-4774 in patients with chronic HBV infection. METHODS: In this phase II study, 178 patients with chronic HBV infection and no cirrhosis who were virally suppressed on an oral antiviral (OAV) for ⩾1year were randomized (1:2:2:2) to continue OAV alone or receive OAV plus GS-4774 2, 10, or 40 yeast units (YU) subcutaneously every 4weeks until week 20. OAV was continued for the remainder of the study. Efficacy was measured by decline in serum hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) from baseline to week 24. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar across groups (mean age, 45-50years; male, 62-74%; Asian, 68-80%; hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive, 24-26%; mean HBsAg, 2.5-3.1log10IU/ml). There were no significant differences between groups in mean HBsAg declines from baseline to week 24 or 48. Five HBeAg-positive patients receiving GS-4774 experienced HBeAg loss vs. none in the control group. Three GS-4774 40 YU-treated patients had HBsAg declines ⩾0.5log10IU/ml, but no patient experienced loss of serum HBsAg. No virologic breakthrough occurred. Injection site reactions were the most frequent adverse event (AE), and there were no treatment discontinuations. CONCLUSIONS: GS-4774 was well tolerated, but did not provide significant reductions in serum HBsAg in virally suppressed patients with chronic hepatitis B. Efficacy of GS-4774 in treatment-naïve patients remains to be determined. LAY SUMMARY: GS-4774 is a therapeutic vaccine designed to improve the immune response against hepatitis B virus (HBV) in patients who already have chronic infection with HBV. In this study, GS-4774 was safe and well tolerated in patients with chronic HBV infection receiving oral antiviral therapy, but did not result in a clinical benefit. Combination approaches with other agents, and evaluation in other populations of patients with HBV are ongoing to determine if GS-4774 might have a therapeutic benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01943799

96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection

Background & Aims: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a new prodrug of tenofovir developed to treat patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection at a lower dose than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) through more efficient delivery of tenofovir to hepatocytes. In 48-week results from two ongoing, double-blind, randomized phase III trials, TAF was non-inferior to TDF in efficacy with improved renal and bone safety. We report 96-week outcomes for both trials. Methods: In two international trials, patients with chronic HBV infection were randomized 2:1 to receive 25 mg TAF or 300 mg TDF in a double-blinded fashion. One study enrolled HBeAg-positive patients and the other HBeAg-negative patients. We assessed efficacy in each study, and safety in the pooled population. Results: At week 96, the differences in the rates of viral suppression were similar in HBeAg-positive patients receiving TAF and TDF (73% vs. 75%, respectively, adjusted difference −2.2% (95% CI −8.3 to 3.9%; p = 0.47), and in HBeAg-negative patients receiving TAF and TDF (90% vs. 91%, respectively, adjusted difference −0.6% (95% CI −7.0 to 5.8%; p = 0.84). In both studies the proportions of patients with alanine aminotransferase above the upper limit of normal at baseline, who had normal alanine aminotransferase at week 96 of treatment, were significantly higher in patients receiving TAF than in those receiving TDF. In the pooled safety population, patients receiving TAF had significantly smaller decreases in bone mineral density than those receiving TDF in the hip (mean % change −0.33% vs. −2.51%; p <0.001) and lumbar spine (mean % change −0.75% vs. −2.57%; p <0.001), as well as a significantly smaller median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate by Cockcroft-Gault method (−1.2 vs. −4.8 mg/dl; p <0.001). Conclusion: In patients with HBV infection, TAF remained as effective as TDF, with continued improved renal and bone safety, two years after the initiation of treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341. Lay summary: At week 96 of two ongoing studies comparing the efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients, TAF continues to be as effective as TDF with continued improved renal and bone safety. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341

Combination of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Peginterferon alpha-2a Increases Loss of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients chronically infected with the hepatitis B virus rarely achieve loss of serum hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) with the standard of care. We evaluated HBsAg loss in patients receiving the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and peginterferon alpha-2a (peginter-feron) for a finite duration in a randomized trial. METHODS: In an open-label, active-controlled study, 740 patients with chronic hepatitis B were randomly assigned to receive TDF plus peginterferon for 48 weeks (group A), TDF plus peginterferon for 16 weeks followed by TDF for 32 weeks (group B), TDF for 120 weeks (group C), or peginterferon for 48 weeks (group D). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with serum HBsAg loss at week 72. RESULTS: At week seventy-two, 9.1% of subjects in group A had HBsAg loss compared with 2.8% of subjects in group B, none of the subjects in group C, and 2.8% of subjects in group D. A significantly higher proportion of subjects in group A had HBsAg loss than in group C (P < .001) or group D (P = .003). However, the proportions of subjects with HBsAg loss did not differ significantly between group B and group C (P = .466) or group D (P = .883). HBsAg loss in group A occurred in hepatitis B e antigen-positive and hepatitis B e antigen = negative patients with all major viral genotypes. The incidence of common adverse events (including headache, alopecia, and pyrexia) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving TDF plus peginterferon for 48 weeks had HBsAg loss than those receiving TDF or peginterferon alone

Combination of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Peginterferon alpha-2a Increases Loss of Hepatitis B Surface Antigen in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients chronically infected with the hepatitis B virus rarely achieve loss of serum hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) with the standard of care. We evaluated HBsAg loss in patients receiving the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and peginterferon alpha-2a (peginter-feron) for a finite duration in a randomized trial. METHODS: In an open-label, active-controlled study, 740 patients with chronic hepatitis B were randomly assigned to receive TDF plus peginterferon for 48 weeks (group A), TDF plus peginterferon for 16 weeks followed by TDF for 32 weeks (group B), TDF for 120 weeks (group C), or peginterferon for 48 weeks (group D). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with serum HBsAg loss at week 72. RESULTS: At week seventy-two, 9.1% of subjects in group A had HBsAg loss compared with 2.8% of subjects in group B, none of the subjects in group C, and 2.8% of subjects in group D. A significantly higher proportion of subjects in group A had HBsAg loss than in group C (P < .001) or group D (P = .003). However, the proportions of subjects with HBsAg loss did not differ significantly between group B and group C (P = .466) or group D (P = .883). HBsAg loss in group A occurred in hepatitis B e antigen-positive and hepatitis B e antigen = negative patients with all major viral genotypes. The incidence of common adverse events (including headache, alopecia, and pyrexia) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events was similar among groups. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly greater proportion of patients receiving TDF plus peginterferon for 48 weeks had HBsAg loss than those receiving TDF or peginterferon alone

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: 22-.68, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe