NS5A Resistance-Associated Substitutions in Patients with Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus:Prevalence and Effect on Treatment Outcome

Background & Aims The efficacy of NS5A inhibitors for the treatment of patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be affected by the presence of NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RASs). We analyzed data from 35 phase I, II, and III studies in 22 countries to determine the pretreatment prevalence of various NS5A RASs, and their effect on outcomes of treatment with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir in patients with genotype 1 HCV. Methods NS5A gene deep sequencing analysis was performed on samples from 5397 patients in Gilead clinical trials. The effect of baseline RASs on sustained virologic response (SVR) rates was assessed in the 1765 patients treated with regimens containing ledipasvir-sofosbuvir. Results Using a 15% cut-off, pretreatment NS5A and ledipasvir-specific RASs were detected in 13% and 8% of genotype 1a patients, respectively, and in 18% and 16% of patients with genotype 1b. Among genotype 1a treatment-naïve patients, SVR rates were 91% (42/46) vs. 99% (539/546) for those with and without ledipasvir-specific RASs, respectively. Among treatment-experienced genotype 1a patients, SVR rates were 76% (22/29) vs. 97% (409/420) for those with and without ledipasvir-specific RASs, respectively. Among treatment-naïve genotype 1b patients, SVR rates were 99% for both those with and without ledipasvir-specific RASs (71/72 vs. 331/334), and among treatment-experienced genotype 1b patients, SVR rates were 89% (41/46) vs. 98% (267/272) for those with and without ledipasvir-specific RASs, respectively. Conclusions Pretreatment ledipasvir-specific RASs that were present in 8–16% of patients have an impact on treatment outcome in some patient groups, particularly treatment-experienced patients with genotype 1a HCV. Lay summary The efficacy of treatments using NS5A inhibitors for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can be affected by the presence of NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RASs). We reviewed results from 35 clinical trials where patients with genotype 1 HCV infection received treatments that included ledipasvir-sofosbuvir to determine how prevalent NS5A RASs are in patients at baseline, and found that ledipasvir-specific RASs were present in 8–16% of patients prior to treatment and had a negative impact on treatment outcome in subset of patient groups, particularly treatment-experienced patients with genotype 1a HCV

Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir for HCV Genotype 2 and 3 Infection

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 trials, treatment with the combination of the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir and the NS5A inhibitor velpatasvir resulted in high rates of sustained virologic response in patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 or 3. METHODS: We conducted two randomized, phase 3, open-label studies involving patients who had received previous treatment for HCV genotype 2 or 3 and those who had not received such treatment, including patients with compensated cirrhosis. In one trial, patients with HCV genotype 2 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sofosbuvir-velpatasvir, in a once-daily, fixed-dose combination tablet (134 patients), or sofosbuvir plus weight-based ribavirin (132 patients) for 12 weeks. In a second trial, patients with HCV genotype 3 were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for 12 weeks (277 patients) or sofosbuvir-ribavirin for 24 weeks (275 patients). The primary end point for the two trials was a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Among patients with HCV genotype 2, the rate of sustained virologic response in the sofosbuvir-velpatasvir group was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96 to 100), which was superior to the rate of 94% (95% CI, 88 to 97) in the sofosbuvir-ribavirin group (P=0.02). Among patients with HCV genotype 3, the rate of sustained virologic response in the sofosbuvir-velpatasvir group was 95% (95% CI, 92 to 98), which was superior to the rate of 80% (95% CI, 75 to 85) in the sofosbuvir-ribavirin group (P CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3 with or without previous treatment, including those with compensated cirrhosis, 12 weeks of treatment with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir resulted in rates of sustained virologic response that were superior to those with standard treatment with sofosbuvir-ribavirin. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; ASTRAL-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02220998; and ASTRAL-3, NCT02201953.)

Obeticholic acid for the treatment of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: interim analysis from a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a common type of chronic liver disease that can lead to cirrhosis. Obeticholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor agonist, has been shown to improve the histological features of NASH. Here we report results from a planned interim analysis of an ongoing, phase 3 study of obeticholic acid for NASH. Methods In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, adult patients with definite NASH,non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) activity score of at least 4, and fibrosis stages F2–F3, or F1 with at least oneaccompanying comorbidity, were randomly assigned using an interactive web response system in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive oral placebo, obeticholic acid 10 mg, or obeticholic acid 25 mg daily. Patients were excluded if cirrhosis, other chronic liver disease, elevated alcohol consumption, or confounding conditions were present. The primary endpointsfor the month-18 interim analysis were fibrosis improvement (≥1 stage) with no worsening of NASH, or NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis, with the study considered successful if either primary endpoint was met. Primary analyses were done by intention to treat, in patients with fibrosis stage F2–F3 who received at least one dose of treatment and reached, or would have reached, the month 18 visit by the prespecified interim analysis cutoff date. The study also evaluated other histological and biochemical markers of NASH and fibrosis, and safety. This study is ongoing, and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02548351, and EudraCT, 20150-025601-6. Findings Between Dec 9, 2015, and Oct 26, 2018, 1968 patients with stage F1–F3 fibrosis were enrolled and received at least one dose of study treatment; 931 patients with stage F2–F3 fibrosis were included in the primary analysis (311 in the placebo group, 312 in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 308 in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group). The fibrosis improvement endpoint was achieved by 37 (12%) patients in the placebo group, 55 (18%) in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group (p=0·045), and 71 (23%) in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group (p=0·0002). The NASH resolution endpoint was not met (25 [8%] patients in the placebo group, 35 [11%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group [p=0·18], and 36 [12%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group [p=0·13]). In the safety population (1968 patients with fibrosis stages F1–F3), the most common adverse event was pruritus (123 [19%] in the placebo group, 183 [28%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 336 [51%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group); incidence was generally mild to moderate in severity. The overall safety profile was similar to that in previous studies, and incidence of serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups (75 [11%] patients in the placebo group, 72 [11%] in the obeticholic acid 10 mg group, and 93 [14%] in the obeticholic acid 25 mg group). Interpretation Obeticholic acid 25 mg significantly improved fibrosis and key components of NASH disease activity among patients with NASH. The results from this planned interim analysis show clinically significant histological improvement that is reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. This study is ongoing to assess clinical outcomes

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

The Direct Cost of Managing Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B Infection in Australia

GOALS: To estimate the average annual cost of managing a patient with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) disease in Australia. BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence or economic burden of hepatitis B viral (HBV) infection in Australia, despite it being recognized as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. STUDY: A retrospective analysis of 149 patients with CHB disease in six disease states (noncirrhotic CHB, compensated and decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation in year 1, and liver transplantation in subsequent posttransplantation years) was conducted. The cost of palliative care for 53 patients with chronic hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma was also estimated, based on data from a palliative care unit. RESULTS: The average annual costs (year-2001 AUS$) for each disease state per patient were: noncirrhotic CHB, 1233 dollars (95% CI 939 dollars-1544 dollars); compensated cirrhosis, 1394 dollars (95% CI 975 dollars-1797 dollars); decompensated cirrhosis, 11,961 dollars (95% CI 6993 dollars-18,503 dollars); liver transplantation in year 1, 144,392 dollars (SD, 115,374 dollars); liver transplantation in year 2+, 23,160 dollars (SD, 19,289 dollars); and hepatocellular carcinoma, 11,753 dollars (95% CI 7385 dollars-17,159 dollars). Within the noncirrhotic CHB group, the cost of managing active disease was 1778 dollars (95% CI 1212 dollars-2374 dollars) compared with 758 dollars (95% CI 519 dollars-1045 dollars) for inactive disease. The average cost of palliative care for patients with chronic hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma was 6307 dollars (95% CI 4848 dollars-8187 dollars). Multivariate statistical analysis indicated that age, sex, marital status, country of birth, and duration of follow-up were not statistically significant in explaining variation in costs. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of managing patients with CHB disease varies significantly between the noncirrhotic CHB/compensated cirrhosis states and the other four disease states. Within the noncirrhotic CHB state, there is also a significant difference between the cost of managing active and inactive disease. These results will be useful in future cost-effectiveness analyses of prevention and treatment options