Consensus: guidelines: best practices for detection, assessment and management of suspected acute drug-induced liver injury during clinical trials in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen a rapid growth in the number of clinical trials enrolling patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Due to the underlying chronic liver disease, patients with NASH often require different approaches to the assessment and management of suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) compared to patients with healthy livers. However, currently no regulatory guidelines or position papers systematically address best practices pertaining to DILI in NASH clinical trials. AIMS: This publication focuses on best practices concerning the detection, monitoring, diagnosis and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in patients with NASH. METHODS: This is one of several papers developed by the IQ DILI Initiative, comprised of members from 15 pharmaceutical companies, in collaboration with DILI experts from academia and regulatory agencies. This paper is based on extensive literature review, and discussions between industry members with expertise in drug safety and DILI experts from outside industry to achieve consensus on common questions related to this topic. RESULTS: Recommended best practices are outlined pertaining to hepatic inclusion and exclusion criteria, monitoring of liver tests, DILI detection, approach to a suspected DILI signal, causality assessment and hepatic discontinuation rules. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a framework for the approach to assessment and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in patients with NASH

No evident association between efavirenz use and suicidality was identified from a disproportionality analysis using the FAERS database

ObjectiveTo assess the potential association of selected antiretrovirals (ARVs), including efavirenz, with suicidality.DesignRetrospective analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), by performing a Multi-Item Gamma Poisson Shrinker (MGPS) disproportionality analysis.MethodsMGPS disproportionality analysis, a technique to identify associations between drugs and adverse events, was performed using cumulative data from the FAERS database collected up to August 2012. This method yields an Empirical Bayesian Geometric Mean score and corresponding 90% confidence interval (EB05, EB95). EB05 scores ≥2 were pre-defined as a signal for a potential drug-event association. The FAERS database includes spontaneous adverse-event reports from consumers and healthcare professionals. All FAERS reports of suicidality (including suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and completed suicide or a composite of these) in patients taking efavirenz (as single agent or in fixed-dose combination), atazanavir, darunavir, etravirine, nevirapine and raltegravir were identified. A number of parallel analyses were performed to assess the validity of the methodology: fluoxetine and sertraline, antidepressants with a known association with suicidality, and raltegravir, an ARV with rhabdomyolysis and myopathy listed as “uncommon” events in the US-prescribing information.ResultsA total of 29,856 adverse event reports were identified among patients receiving efavirenz, atazanavir, darunavir, etravirine, nevirapine and raltegravir, of which 457 were reports of suicidality events. EB05 scores observed for the composite suicidality term for efavirenz (EB05=0.796), and other ARVs (EB05=0.279–0.368), were below the pre-defined threshold. Fluoxetine and sertraline gave EB05 scores for suicidality >2. Raltegravir gave EB05 scores >2 for myopathy and rhabdomyolysis.ConclusionsThe pre-determined threshold for signals for suicidality, including suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, completed suicide and a composite suicidality endpoint, was not exceeded for efavirenz and other ARVs in this analysis. Efavirenz has been associated with suicidality in clinical trials. Further studies that adjust for confounding factors are needed to better understand any potential association with ARVs and suicidality

Virologic Suppression, Treatment Adherence, and Improved Quality of Life on a Once-Daily Efavirenz-Based Regimen in Treatment-Naïve HIV-1-Infected Patients Over 96 Weeks

Purpose: This study evaluated the long-term efficacy, safety, adherence, and quality of life (QoL) of a once-daily efavirenz-based antiretroviral regimen in two 96-week prospective open-label single-arm studies of treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients. Methods: Patients received once-daily efavirenz 600 mg and lamivudine 300 mg with either enteric-coated didanosine 400 mg (Daily Antiretroviral Therapy trial [DART] I) or extended-release stavudine 100 mg (DART II). The primary efficacy outcome measure was HIV RNA <400 copies/mL at Week 48. Results: In an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, HIV RNA level <400 (<50) copies/mL was reached by 82%(80%) and 74% (72%) of patients at Week 48 in DART I and II. At Week 96, the corresponding values were 74% (68%) and 55% (54%), respectively. Both regimens were well tolerated. There were no discontinuations for virologic failure. Medication adherence assessed by pill counts was above 80% in 90% of the patients in DART I and more than 80% of patients in DART II. Treatment produced a significant improvement in overall QoL. Conclusion: Once-daily efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy was effective, durable, and well tolerated. In this study, a high level of adherence was achieved with improvement in overall QoL

Randomization to Once-Daily Stavudine Extended Release/Lamivudine/Efavirenz Versus a More Frequent Regimen Improves Adherence While Maintaining Viral Suppression

Background: In antiretroviral (ARV) therapy, pill burden, dosing frequency, and regimen complexity adversely affect adherence. We sought to evaluate the effect of regimen simplification on maintenance of virologic suppression and treatment adherence. Method: In this 48-week, open-label, randomized study, 320 HIV-1-infected adult patients with a viral load of <50 copies/mL on a twice-daily or more frequent ARV regimen were either switched to a once-daily regimen of efavirenz, extended-release stavudine, and lamivudine (QD arm) or continued on existing therapy (BID+ arm). Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) caps, AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG)-validated questionnaire, and pill counts were used to evaluate adherence. Treatment satisfaction and preference were also evaluated. Results: The QD arm was noninferior to the BID+ arm in the primary efficacy measure (proportion of patients who maintained virologic suppression at Week 48; QD arm, 80.0% vs. BID+ arm, 75.8%). Adherence and treatment satisfaction significantly favored the QD arm, in which 91.0% of patients preferred the simpler regimen. Overall, the majority of adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and resulted in a low rate of treatment discontinuations. Conclusions: Simplifying twice-daily or more frequent ARV therapy to a once-daily efavirenz-containing regimen in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected patients maintains virologic suppression while improving adherence and patient satisfaction

Consensus Guidelines: Best Practices for Detection, Assessment and Management of Suspected Acute Drug-Induced Liver Injury During Clinical Trials in Adults with Chronic Viral Hepatitis and Adults with Cirrhosis Secondary to Hepatitis B, C and Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.

With the widespread development of new drugs to treat chronic liver diseases (CLDs), including viral hepatitis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), more patients are entering trials with abnormal baseline liver tests and with advanced liver injury, including cirrhosis. The current regulatory guidelines addressing the monitoring, diagnosis, and management of suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) during clinical trials primarily address individuals entering with normal baseline liver tests. Using the same laboratory criteria cited as signals of potential DILI in studies involving patients with no underlying liver disease and normal baseline liver tests may result in premature and unnecessary cessation of a study drug in a clinical trial population whose abnormal and fluctuating liver tests are actually due to their underlying CLD. This position paper focuses on defining best practices for the detection, monitoring, diagnosis, and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in patients with CLD, including hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV), both with and without cirrhosis and NASH with cirrhosis. This is one of several position papers developed by the IQ DILI Initiative, comprising members from 16 pharmaceutical companies in collaboration with DILI experts from academia and regulatory agencies. It is based on an extensive literature review and discussions between industry members and experts from outside industry to achieve consensus regarding the recommendations. Key conclusions and recommendations include (1) the importance of establishing laboratory criteria that signal potential DILI events and that fit the disease indication being studied in the clinical trial based on knowledge of the natural history of test fluctuations in that disease; (2) establishing a pretreatment value that is based on more than one screening determination, and revising that baseline during the trial if a new nadir is achieved during treatment; (3) basing rules for increased monitoring and for stopping drug for potential DILI on multiples of baseline liver test values and/or a threshold value rather than multiples of the upper limit of normal (ULN) for that test; (4) making use of more sensitive tests of liver function, including direct bilirubin (DB) or combined parameters such as aspartate transaminase:alanine transaminase (AST:ALT) ratio or model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) to signal potential DILI, especially in studies of patients with cirrhosis; and (5) being aware of potential confounders related to complications of the disease being studied that may masquerade as DILI events

Pam Clark, Assistant to the Editor EDITORIAL BOARD

Faith-Based Organizations

Efficacy and tolerability of 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing antiretroviral regimens for treatment-naive volunteers infected with HIV-1: a randomized, controlled equivalence trial.

BackgroundNonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy is not suitable for all treatment-naive HIV-infected persons.ObjectiveTo evaluate 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing initial antiretroviral regimens to show equivalence for virologic efficacy and tolerability.DesignA phase 3, open-label study randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio with follow-up for at least 96 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00811954).Setting57 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.PatientsTreatment-naive persons aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA levels greater than 1000 copies/mL without resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or protease inhibitors.InterventionAtazanavir, 300 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d; raltegravir, 400 mg twice daily; or darunavir, 800 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d, plus combination emtricitabine, 200 mg/d, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg/d.MeasurementsVirologic failure, defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level greater than 1000 copies/mL at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks or greater than 200 copies/mL at or after 24 weeks, and tolerability failure, defined as discontinuation of atazanavir, raltegravir, or darunavir for toxicity. A secondary end point was a combination of virologic efficacy and tolerability.ResultsAmong 1809 participants, all pairwise comparisons of incidence of virologic failure over 96 weeks showed equivalence within a margin of equivalence defined as -10% to 10%. Raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir were equivalent for tolerability, whereas ritonavir-boosted atazanavir resulted in a 12.7% and 9.2% higher incidence of tolerability discontinuation than raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir, respectively, primarily because of hyperbilirubinemia. For combined virologic efficacy and tolerability, ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, and raltegravir was superior to both protease inhibitors. Antiretroviral resistance at the time of virologic failure was rare but more frequent with raltegravir.LimitationThe trial was open-label, and ritonavir was not provided.ConclusionOver 2 years, all 3 regimens attained high and equivalent rates of virologic control. Tolerability of regimens containing raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to that of the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir regimen.Primary funding sourceNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Efficacy and tolerability of 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing antiretroviral regimens for treatment-naive volunteers infected with HIV-1: a randomized, controlled equivalence trial.

BackgroundNonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy is not suitable for all treatment-naive HIV-infected persons.ObjectiveTo evaluate 3 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing initial antiretroviral regimens to show equivalence for virologic efficacy and tolerability.DesignA phase 3, open-label study randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio with follow-up for at least 96 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00811954).Setting57 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico.PatientsTreatment-naive persons aged 18 years or older with HIV-1 RNA levels greater than 1000 copies/mL without resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or protease inhibitors.InterventionAtazanavir, 300 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d; raltegravir, 400 mg twice daily; or darunavir, 800 mg/d, with ritonavir, 100 mg/d, plus combination emtricitabine, 200 mg/d, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 300 mg/d.MeasurementsVirologic failure, defined as a confirmed HIV-1 RNA level greater than 1000 copies/mL at or after 16 weeks and before 24 weeks or greater than 200 copies/mL at or after 24 weeks, and tolerability failure, defined as discontinuation of atazanavir, raltegravir, or darunavir for toxicity. A secondary end point was a combination of virologic efficacy and tolerability.ResultsAmong 1809 participants, all pairwise comparisons of incidence of virologic failure over 96 weeks showed equivalence within a margin of equivalence defined as -10% to 10%. Raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir were equivalent for tolerability, whereas ritonavir-boosted atazanavir resulted in a 12.7% and 9.2% higher incidence of tolerability discontinuation than raltegravir and ritonavir-boosted darunavir, respectively, primarily because of hyperbilirubinemia. For combined virologic efficacy and tolerability, ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, and raltegravir was superior to both protease inhibitors. Antiretroviral resistance at the time of virologic failure was rare but more frequent with raltegravir.LimitationThe trial was open-label, and ritonavir was not provided.ConclusionOver 2 years, all 3 regimens attained high and equivalent rates of virologic control. Tolerability of regimens containing raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted darunavir was superior to that of the ritonavir-boosted atazanavir regimen.Primary funding sourceNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Comparative Value of Four Measures of Retention in Expert Care in Predicting Clinical Outcomes and Health Care Utilization in HIV Patients

This study compared the ability of four measures of patient retention in HIV expert care to predict clinical outcomes. This retrospective study examined Veterans Health Administration (VHA) beneficiaries with HIV (ICD-9-CM codes 042 or V08) receiving expert care (defined as HIV-1 RNA viral load and CD4 cell count tests occurring within one week of each other) at VHA facilities from October 1, 2006, to September 30, 2008. Patients were ≥18 years old and continuous VHA users for at least 24 months after entry into expert care. Retention measures included: Annual Appointments (≥2 appointments annually at least 60 days apart), Missed Appointments (missed ≥25% of appointments), Infrequent Appointments (>6 months without an appointment), and Missed or Infrequent Appointments (missed ≥25% of appointments or >6 months without an appointment). Multivariable nominal logistic regression models were used to determine associations between retention measures and outcomes. Overall, 8,845 patients met study criteria. At baseline, 64% of patients were virologically suppressed and 37% had a CD4 cell count >500 cells/mm3. At 24 months, 82% were virologically suppressed and 46% had a CD4 cell count >500 cells/mm3. During follow-up, 13% progressed to AIDS, 48% visited the emergency department (ED), 28% were hospitalized, and 0.3% died. All four retention measures were associated with virologic suppression and antiretroviral therapy initiation at 24 months follow-up. Annual Appointments correlated positively with CD4 cell count >500 cells/mm3. Missed Appointments was predictive of all primary and secondary outcomes, including CD4 cell count ≤500 cells/mm3, progression to AIDS, ED visit, and hospitalization. Missed Appointments was the only measure to predict all primary and secondary outcomes. This finding could be useful to health care providers and public health organizations as they seek ways to optimize the health of HIV patients