Showing posts with label HCV Guidelines. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HCV Guidelines. Show all posts

May 5, 2014

The Rapid Evolution of Treatment Strategies for Hepatitis C

PDF Provided by NATAP

Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 15 April 2014; doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.66

Andrew J. Muir , MD, MHS1

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment took a major step forward at the end of 2013 with the approvals of the second-generation protease inhibitor simeprevir (Olysio) and the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir (Sovaldi). The interferon-free regimen of sofosbuvir and ribavirin is now available for genotype 2 and 3 patients. This regimen for 12 weeks is highly effective for genotype 2, whereas genotype 3 has proven to be more challenging and requires 24 weeks of therapy. Genotype 1 patients have reduced exposure to peginterferon-α with a 12-week regimen with sofosbuvir and a 24-week regimen with simeprevir. Genotype 4, 5, and 6 patients also respond well to the regimen of sofosbuvir, peginterferon-α, and ribavirin. In another landmark event, the initial approval of sofosbuvir included HCV/HIV-1 coinfected patients. Simeprevir and sofosbuvir also provide a window to the future with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of >90% for genotype 1 when these agents are combined. Interferon-free regimens for genotype 1 patients have anticipated approvals in late 2014 or early 2015. Clinicians and patients will have the opportunity to discuss and select from current treatment options or await upcoming regimens. These potent new agents provide the tools to cure HCV for many patients.

Introduction

For the past decade, we have been telling patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection about new treatments that would revolutionize care. Previous therapies have required 24Ð48 weeks of interferon-α with significant toxicity. Many patients could not complete therapy because of side effects, and too many were ineligible or declined therapy. The vision has been a regimen that is highly effective for all patients with a reasonable side-effect profile that expands the population eligible for treatment. In 2013, the field took a huge step forward with the release of the second-generation protease inhibitor simeprevir (Olysio) and the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for both HCV monoinfection and HCV/HIV-1 coinfection (1). The sofosbuvir and ribavirin combination for 12 weeks offers sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of >90% for genotype 2 patients (2). Genotype 3 infection has proven to be more challenging for sofosbuvir and ribavirin and requires 24 weeks. Most Americans have genotype 1 infection, and the FDA-approved regimens still require peginterferon-α and ribavirin in the regimen. In 2013, new medicines offered shorter duration for genotype 1 patients with a 24-week combination with simeprevir and a 12-week combination with sofosbuvir (1,3). Although not FDA approved, the availability of simeprevir and sofosbuvir provides an interferon-free regimen for genotype 1 patients and offers a glimpse of our future. The FDA-approved potent interferon-free regimens for genotype 1 are expected in late 2014 or early 2015. We therefore still find ourselves talking to patients about treatments in the future, and clinicians and patients will have the option of proceeding with current treatment or waiting. The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recently joined together to release HCV guidelines (www.hcvguidelines.org) that will also be discussed (4).

Treat now or wait?
When considering options, several factors might affect the decision to proceed with HCV treatment. The genotype is the major determinant, with the interferon-free regimens available now for genotypes 2 and 3. For the other genotypes, peginterferon-α is the next major consideration. Many patients are motivated to get treated because of concern about progression of disease or more personal considerations to put HCV behind them. For these patients, the clinician must determine that peginterferon-α will be safe. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis (history of ascites, variceal hemorrhage, or hepatic encephalopathy) or Model for End-stage Liver Disease score of >10 have risk of further decompensation and life-threatening infections with peginterferon-α. These patients should be referred to a liver transplant center for discussion of treatment and understanding of the potential role of transplantation in their management (5). Other contraindications to peginterferon-α include unstable psychiatric disorders, autoimmune disorders, advanced heart or lung disease, and low hematologic indices. Some patients may be eligible to take peginterferon-α but are reticent to take such a regimen because of side effects, and delaying treatment will be a reasonable approach for most patients. Some of these Òtreat or waitÓ decisions might hinge on the level of fibrosis. Although the patients with bridging fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis will likely remain stable until the potent interferon-free regimens are available for genotype 1 in late 2014 or early 2015, they should understand their level of fibrosis to help guide their own treatment decisions. All patients should undergo an evaluation of the level of fibrosis to inform these decisions and to guide monitoring of the complications of cirrhosis, including hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver biopsy and transient elastography are generally recommended, and serum markers may also be considered (5). The other major factor is treatment status. Outcomes for treatment-experienced patients are lower with recently approved medications with limited data available, and these patients may be well served to await future options if feasible. The approval of sofosbuvir for HCV/HIV-1 coinfection takes the outcomes with sofosbuvir and builds on the experience with boceprevir and telaprevir where HCV/HIV patients had similar outcomes to HCV monoinfected patients (6,7). HCV/HIV patients should perhaps not be thought of as a special population in HCV but instead as a group at risk for drugÐdrug interactions with some HCV regimens. Treatment for HCV/HIV patients should be strongly considered given the increased risk of fibrosis progression and complications of cirrhosis among this group (8,9).

Genotype 1 infection
Genotype 1 remains the ultimate challenge for HCV infection in the United States. Approximately 70% of Americans with HCV infection have genotype 1, with genotype 1a more common than 1b (10). Boceprevir and telaprevir have been supplanted by the second-generation protease inhibitor simeprevir and the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir. The summary recommendations from the AASLD/IDSA panel for treatment-naive and prior relapse patients are presented in Figure 1 and for other treatment failure patients in Figure 2. For patients eligible to take interferon, sofosbuvir with peginterferon-α and ribavirin is recommended, with the simeprevir in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin as an alternative. For the interferon-ineligible patients, simeprevir and sofosbuvir (with or without ribavirin) is recommended, with sofosbuvir and ribavirin offered as an alternative.

Capture

Figure 1 . The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) / Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for treatment-naïve and prior relapse patients. FDA, Food and Drug Administration; PEG, peginterferon- α ; RBV, ribavirin (all doses 1,000 mg body weight 75 kg and 1,200 mg >75 kg).

Capture2

Figure 2 . The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) / Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines for treatmentexperienced nonresponder patients. FDA, Food and Drug Administration; PEG, peginterferon- α ; RBV, ribavirin (all doses 1,000 mg body weight 75 kg and 1,200 mg >75 kg).

Simeprevir Simeprevir received FDA approval in a combination regimen with peginterferon-α and ribavirin for genotype 1 treatment-naive and -experienced patients (3). Simeprevir (see Figure 3) is a second-generation protease inhibitor with advantages of once daily dosing and the lack of additional anemia. Simeprevir is given with the peginterferon-α and ribavirin for the first 12 weeks, and then patients receive peginterferon-α and ribavirin for 12 more weeks (if treatment naive or prior relapse) or 36 more weeks (if prior partial or null response). Simeprevir should not be given to patients who failed the first-generation protease inhibitors boceprevir and telaprevir because of overlapping resistance. Genotype 1a patients treated with simeprevir had lower SVR rates if they had the Q80K variant present at baseline. Commercial testing for the Q80K variant is available, and patients with this variant should consider other treatment options.

Capture3

Treatment outcomes with simeprevir are summarized in Table 1. The QUEST studies in treatment-naive patients and the PROMISE study in prior relapse patients demonstrated SVR12 rates of ~80% (11,12,13). Lower SVR rates (58Ð65%) were observed in patients with cirrhosis. Treatment-experienced patients were studied in the ASPIRE trial with reasonable outcomes for prior partial and null response patients (14). Although not FDA approved for HCV/HIV-1 patients, the combination of simeprevir with peginterferon-α and ribavirin was effective in this population in the C212 study (15). If this regimen is considered, the HIV regimen needs to be evaluated and adjusted for drugÐdrug interactions seen with a number of agents including nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and HIV protease inhibitors (3). The simeprevir regimen was well tolerated in studies, with most adverse events related to peginterferon-α and ribavirin. Photosensitivity and rash were reported with simeprevir, and patients should use sunscreen and alert their provider if they develop a rash. Mild elevations in bilirubin were reported because of inhibition of the hepatic transporters OATP1B1 and MRP2, but no drug-induced liver injury was observed. Simeprevir should not be given to patients with hepatic impairment because of increased exposure of 2Ð5-fold in patients with Child Pugh Class B and C. Simeprevir also should be used with caution in patients of East Asian ancestry because of increased exposure. Simeprevir is a substrate of CYP3A4 and therefore affected by both CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers. The FDA package insert or other online tools should be consulted because of interactions with common medications such as statins, calcium channel blockers, antibiotics, herbal therapies, HIV antiretroviral agents, and benzodiazepines (3).

Capture4

Sofosbuvir Sofosbuvir is a pangenotypic nucleotide polymerase inhibitor that was approved in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin for 12 weeks for HCV monoinfection and HCV/HIV-1 coinfection. The approval also included consideration of the interferon-free regimen of sofosbuvir and ribavirin for genotype 1 patients who are ineligible for peginterferon-α and for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma awaiting liver transplantation. For the hepatocellular carcinoma patients, the goal would be to avoid recurrent HCV after transplantation. Sofosbuvir has some advantages over previous direct-acting antiviral agents with its once daily dosing, very limited drugÐdrug interaction profile, absence of a food effect, and lack of significant viral resistance (see Figure 4). In the studies to date, almost all patients who fail sofosbuvir had undetectable HCV RNA on treatment and then relapsed. Other treatment failures were related to poor adherence. The regimen does not include stopping rules, and persistent HCV RNA on treatment should lead to an assessment of adherence. Sofosbuvir is also very well tolerated with adverse events in studies related to the other drugs in the regimen (1).

Capture5

Studies with the sofosbuvir regimen for genotype 1 are listed in Table 1. The NEUTRINO study evaluated treatment-naive patients and reported an SVR rate of 89% for all genotype 1 patients and 80% among patients with cirrhosis. In a reversal from what has been seen with the protease inhibitors, patients with genotype 1a infection had greater SVR than 1b (92% vs. 82%) (2). This regimen was not studied in treatment-experienced patients but did receive FDA approval for this group. The FDA conducted an analysis assuming that the NEUTRINO patient group included patients who would have been prior nonresponders, defined as patients with bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis, IL28B non-CC genotype, and HCV RNA >800,000 IU/ml). Among the 52 patients in NEUTRINO with these characteristics, 71% achieved SVR (1). The lack of data in clinical trials makes a broad recommendation in treatment-experienced patients difficult, but this FDA analysis could be used to guide patients on the general likelihood of outcomes.

The FDA decision to include an interferon-free regimen for genotype 1 patients in the approval for sofosbuvir was a surprise. This regimen was studied in the SPARE trial conducted by the National Institutes of Health in Washington, DC. The study population had a number of negative predictors of response with a peginterferon-α regimen, including 83% African American, 81% unfavorable IL28B genotype, and 62% high viral load. In the group receiving sofosbuvir and ribavirin for 24 weeks, 17/25 (68%) achieved SVR (16). The PHOTON trial treated patients with HCV/HIV-1 coinfection with sofosbuvir and ribavirin for 24 weeks and obtained similar SVR rates (17). Although these outcomes in these previously difficult-to-treat populations are impressive, interferon-free regimens with higher response rates with 12 weeks of treatment are expected in late 2014 or early 2015. Sofosbuvir and ribavirin should be reserved for genotype 1 patients who are ineligible for peginterferon-α regimens and unable to wait until 2015.

The sofosbuvir regimen with peginterferon-α and ribavirin was well tolerated with treatment discontinuation rate of 2% in the NEUTRINO study. Adverse events were related to the peginterferon-α and ribavirin. Sofosbuvir exposure is stable in patients with hepatic impairment, but treatment is not routinely recommended for decompensated cirrhosis or Child Pugh class B and C patients because of risk of severe adverse events from peginterferon-α. The elimination of sofosbuvir is renal, and no dose adjustment is required with moderate renal insufficiency (glomerular filtration rate >30 ml/min). Sofosbuvir exposure is increased in patients with end-stage renal disease, and an ongoing study is evaluating treatment in this population. Sofosbuvir has less risk of drugÐdrug interactions than other antivirals. Sofosbuvir is a substrate of P-glycoprotein, and inducers such as rifampin and St John's wort should be avoided (1).

Simeprevir and sofosbuvir Although not an FDA-approved regimen, simeprevir and sofosbuvir have been recommended by the AASLD/IDSA guidelines as the first-line option for genotype 1 interferon-ineligible patients and those with prior nonresponse. The regimen was evaluated in the phase 2a COSMOS study. The regimen was well tolerated, but patients should be made aware that the regimen was not studied in a large phase 3 study, limiting the understanding of the safety profile. The initial cohort in COSMOS included 80 prior null responders with mild-to-moderate fibrosis (F0ÐF2) randomized to simeprevir and sofosbuvir with and without ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks. There was no benefit to the 24-week duration, and the SVR12 rates in the 12-week groups were 96% (26/27) with ribavirin and 93% (13/14) without ribavirin. Cohort 1 included 27 patients with genotype 1a with the baseline Q80K, and 24/27 (89%) achieved SVR with 3 failures because of relapse. This study has been extended to patients with advanced fibrosis and to the treatment-naive patients. These cohorts have not completed follow-up, but SVR4 reports suggest comparable outcomes (18). However, it is unclear whether these impressive results will translate into broad acceptance. This regimen is not FDA approved, and this may affect coverage by payers. The AASLD/IDSA guideline recommendations should support clinicians in discussions of reimbursement with payers.

Future genotype 1 HCV regimens By 2015, two interferon-free regimens are expected to be available in the United States with activity against both genotypes 1a and 1b. Phase 3 data will be presented at scientific meetings in 2014, but recent press releases have already reported SVR rates of >90%. One of these regimens is a combination of sofosbuvir with the NS-5A inhibitor ledipasvir. In the phase 2 ELECTRON study with the cohorts of treatment-naive patients without cirrhosis, SVR 12 rates according to treatment duration were 100% (25/25) for 12 weeks, 100% (21/21) for 8 weeks, and 68% (17/25) for 6 weeks (19). The phase 2 LONESTAR study reported excellent outcomes for protease inhibitor failures with SVR12 of 100% (21/21) when given sofosbuvir, ledipasvir, and ribavirin for 12 weeks (20). The other anticipated regimen is from Abbvie and includes the protease inhibitor ABT-450 boosted with ritonavir, the NS5A inhibitor ABT-267, and nonnucleoside polymerase inhibitor ABT-333. This regimen was studied in the AVIATOR trial with treatment-naive and prior null response patients, and the 12-week duration achieved SVR12 in 99% (78/79) treatment-naive and 93% (42/45) prior null response patients (21).

In addition to these regimens, other HCV agents are moving forward in development. The NS-5A inhibitor daclatasvir has been approved in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin in Japan and is expected to be submitted to the FDA soon. Daclatasvir in combination with the protease inhibitor asunaprevir and the nonnucleoside polymerase inhibitor BMS-791325 led to SVR12 rates of >90% in treatment-naive genotype 1 patients, and this regimen has moved to phase 3 studies (22). Although the initial approval for the United States would be with peginterferon-α and ribavirin, daclatasvir in combination with sofosbuvir achieved SVR12 in 98% of 126 treatment-naive genotype 1 patients and 98% of 41 protease inhibitor failures (23). Daclatasvir and sofosbuvir were not studied in phase 3 and are therefore not expected to receive FDA approval but potentially present another option for clinicians.

The message to patients with genotype 1 infection should be especially encouraging. For those with the ability to pay for these medicines, the main angst may come from deciding to take treatment now vs. waiting for the FDA-approved interferon-free regimens. For patients who are eligible for peginterferon-α regimens, the decision may hinge on a personal evaluation of proceeding with treatment compared with waiting. Although most patients with compensated cirrhosis will remain compensated until the potent interferon-free regimens are available in 2015, this stability cannot be guaranteed to every individual patient. The approach to wait and defer therapy may well be appropriate even for patients with cirrhosis, but these patients also need to be aware of the possibility of decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma if they elect to wait.

Genotype 2 infection
Although long favored by clinicians for the favorable response rates and shorter durations with interferon-containing regimen, genotype 2 has entered a new realm with a highly effective 12-week interferon-free regimen. The combination of sofosbuvir and ribavirin has been approved for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with both HCV monoinfection and HCV/HIV-1 coinfection. The outcomes with sofosbuvir and ribavirin are presented in Table 2. This regimen was very well tolerated across the studies with treatment discontinuation rates of <1%. The FISSION study included treatment-naive patients and compared 12 weeks of sofosbuvir and ribavirin with 24 weeks of peginterferon-α and ribavirin with clear superiority for sofosbuvir. The FUSION study of treatment-experienced patients evaluated 12 vs. 16 weeks of treatment duration with no clear benefit to extending treatment. Although very small sample sizes, the subgroup with cirrhosis suggested concern with SVR in 6/10 treated with 12 weeks and perhaps some increase with SVR in 7/9 patients treated for 16 weeks. The recently presented VALENCE study was encouraging, with 7/8 cirrhotic treatment-experienced subjects achieving SVR after 12 weeks. FUSION also suggested lower treatment responses among patients with prior partial or null response. As a result, the AASLD/IDSA guidelines recommended 12 weeks of sofosbuvir and ribavirin for treatment-experienced genotype 2 patients with a comment that they may benefit from 16 weeks of treatment. All in all, the regimen of sofosbuvir meets the expectation for a highly effective and well-tolerated treatment option for patients with genotype 2 infection (2,24).

Capture6

Genotype 3 infection
In the peginterferon-α and ribavirin era, genotypes 2 and 3 were generally grouped with the sense of similar responses. In time, genotype 3 emerged as more difficult to treat, and this designation has now continued with sofosbuvir.

Sofosbuvir and ribavirin are approved for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced HCV monoinfected and HCV/HIV-1 coinfected patients with genotype 3. The initial phase 3 studies (FISSION, FUSION, and POSITRON) all demonstrated that the sofosbuvir regimen was well tolerated, but the rate of relapse was unacceptable with the 12-week and 16-week durations ( Table 3) (2,24). The FISSION study found that the overall SVR rate for genotype 3 was not inferior statistically to the response with peginterferon-α but considerably lower than seen with genotype 2. The FUSION trial provided a hint that longer treatment duration was important with improvement at 16 weeks, and most recently the VALENCE trial in Europe demonstrated SVR rates of 93% for treatment-naive patients and 77% for treatment-experienced patients (25). The lower response rate among treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis demonstrates the continued challenge for this group. The recently presented LONESTAR-2 study presents another option for genotype 3 treatment-experienced patients with sofosbuvir in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin for 12 weeks (26). This study enrolled genotype 2 and 3 patients who failed peginterferon-α and ribavirin, and 12/24 genotype 3 patients also had cirrhosis. The SVR rate was 83% for genotype 3, with 10/12 (83%) cirrhotic and 10/12 (83%) noncirrhotic patients achieving SVR. This is not a head-to-head comparison with 24 weeks of sofosbuvir and is not an FDA-approved regimen but does provide a shorter duration and potentially more effective alternative option for treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis. The currently available 24-week regimen of sofosbuvir and ribavirin is a very reasonable option for patients with genotype 3 infections and was recommended as the first-line option in the AASLD/IDSA guidelines with the. However, this regimen must also be considered an intermediary choice. Future regimens will combine potent antivirals to decrease treatment duration to 12 weeks or less.

Capture7

Genotype 4 infection
The recent FDA approval included genotype 4 in the regimen of sofosbuvir, peginterferon-α, and ribavirin for 12 weeks. Previously, patients with genotype 4 infection were limited to 48 weeks of peginterferon-α and ribavirin. The NEUTRINO study enrolled patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6. Of the genotype 4 patients, 27/28 (96%) achieved SVR (2). The FDA approval did not mention sofosbuvir and ribavirin for this group, but a recently presented study examined this regimen in genotype 4. This study was conducted in the United States in 60 patients of Egyptian descent, and patients were randomized to 12 or 24 weeks of sofosbuvir and ribavirin. A total of 28 treatment-naive and 32 treatment-experienced patients were enrolled, and 14/60 (23%) had cirrhosis. At the 2013 annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, final results were presented for the patients in the 12-week arms, and 11/14 (79%) of treatment-naive and 10/17 (59%) of treatment-experienced patients achieved SVR. The 24-week study arms had not completed follow-up by the time of presentation, and SVR4 was achieved by 14/14 (100%) treatment-naive patients and 14/15 (93%) treatment-experienced patients (27). Final results from this study are expected to be presented at scientific meetings in 2014. As with the other genotypes, future regimens for genotype 4 will include multiple direct-acting antivirals in combination with treatment duration of 12 weeks or less.

Genotypes 5 and 6
Despite the activity of sofosbuvir against genotypes 5 and 6, these genotypes are not included in the recent approval of sofosbuvir because of small numbers enrolled in clinical trials. The NEUTRINO study population ultimately included only one genotype 5 patients and six genotype 6 patients, and all of these patients achieved SVR (2). This regimen is therefore an excellent option for genotype 5 and 6 patients and endorsed by the AASLD/IDSA guidelines. Future interferon-free regimens are also expected for genotypes 5 and 6 using pangenotypic direct-acting antiviral combinations, but no interferon-free regimen is currently available.

Costs and access to care
The enthusiasm for the tremendous strides in HCV treatment outcomes must be tempered with concern if all patients will be able to afford and have access to these medications. Sofosbuvir has received notoriety for the cost of $1,000 per day, and simeprevir is in a similar range at $66,000 for a 12-week supply. In the United States, HCV prevalence is highest among patients from lower socioeconomic groups. The NHANES analysis estimated that 30% of Americans with HCV have family income below the poverty level, with another 29% between 1.0 and 1.9 times the poverty level (28). Another NHANES analysis estimated that only one third of Americans with HCV had private insurance (29). It is unclear whether many uninsured patients with HCV will participate in programs offered as a result of the Affordable Care Act. It is also unclear whether government programs will be able to afford the rising costs of HCV treatment. Pharmaceutical companies have traditionally provided support for some HCV patients unable to afford medications, but the cost of the evaluation and laboratory monitoring on treatment remains a barrier for the uninsured. Clinicians will need to consider financial implications and the ability to afford treatment when considering options for patients.

SUMMARY

The revolution in HCV treatment is being realized at a rapid pace, and most patients with HCV monoinfection and HCV/HIV-1 coinfection have excellent options in 2014. Genotypes 2 and 3 have a highly effective interferon-free regimen of sofosbuvir and ribavirin. Genotypes 1, 4, 5, and 6 have a 12-week regimen with sofosbuvir, peginterferon-α, and ribavirin, and the genotype 1 patients have an alternative with simeprevir, peginterferon-α, and ribavirin for 24 or 48 weeks. Given the predominance of genotype 1 infection in the United States, our ability to affect HCV disease on a large scale requires interferon-free regimens. The simeprevir and sofosbuvir combination is available but not FDA approved and currently recommended for interferon-ineligible and prior nonresponders patients. FDA-approved interferon-free regimens are expected in late 2014 or early 2015. In 2014, clinicians will need to guide patients about their treatment options according to eligibility for peginterferon-α and fibrosis stage. We find ourselves in the gratifying position to offer almost all patients a future without HCV infection. Our challenges continue to be identifying patients through screening so we can offer these curative therapies. These exciting potent therapies are important tools for the public health campaign to eradicate HCV.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Guarantor of the article: Andrew J. Muir, MD, MHS.
Financial support: None.
Potential competing interests: Andrew J. Muir was in the advisory boards or did consulting for Abbvie, Achillion, BMS, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck, and Vertex.

REFERENCES
1 . FDA . Soldavi US prescribing information . 2013 . http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/204671s000lbl.pdf .
2 . Lawitz E , Mangia A , Wyles D et al. Sofosbuvir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C infection . N Engl J Med 2013 ; 368 : 1878 – 87 .
3 . FDA . Olysio U.S. prescribing information . 2013 . http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/205123s000lbl.pdf .
4 . Recommendations for Testing, Managing, and Treating Hepatitis C . 2014 Retrieved from http://hcvguidelines.org/on January 2014 .
5 . Ghany MG , Strader DB , Th omas DL et al. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C: an update . Hepatology 2009 ; 49 : 1335 – 74 .
6 . Sulkowski M , Pol S , Mallolas J e t al. Boceprevir versus placebo with pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin for treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 1 in patients with HIV: a randomised, double-blind, controlled phase 2 trial . Lancet Infect Dis 2013 ; 13 : 597 – 605 .
7 . Sulkowski MS , Sherman KE , Dieterich DT et al. Combination therapy with telaprevir for chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection in patients with HIV: a randomized trial . Ann Intern Med 2013 ; 159 : 86 – 96 .
8 . Monga HK , Rodriguez-Barradas MC , Breaux K e t al. Hepatitis C virus infection-related morbidity and mortality among patients with human immunodefi ciency virus infection . Clin Infect Dis 2001 ; 33 : 240 – 7 .
9 . Kirk GD , Mehta SH , Astemborski J et al. HIV, age, and the severity of hepatitis C virus-related liver disease: a cohort study . Ann Intern Med 2013 ; 158 : 658 – 66 .

Source

April 10, 2014

New Hepatitis C Guidelines Are Evolving Documents

Medscape Medical News > Conference News

Miriam E. Tucker
April 09, 2014

LONDON, United Kingdom — New guidelines for hepatitis C virus infection from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) will be released here at the EASL International Liver Congress 2014.

The WHO guidelines on the screening, care, and treatment of people with hepatitis C infection are the first-ever to take a public health approach primarily aimed at influencing policy in the developing world.

The EASL recommendations on the management of hepatitis C focus specifically on evidence-based treatment, and incorporate the anticipated approval of 3 new direct-acting antivirals in 2014 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). They will be released April  11.

Both documents reflect recent developments in hepatitis C, and both are expected to require revision soon. "It's such a rapidly moving field that, even as we were developing the guidelines, we had to modify our schedule to include recommendations on the newest drugs," Dr. Stefan Z. Wiktor, team lead of the WHO Global Hepatitis Programme in Geneva, told Medscape Medical News.

The EASL document, which is being released online only, updates guidelines that were just issued in January.

Jean-Michel Pawlotsky, MD, PhD, director of the French National Reference Centre for Viral Hepatitis, told Medscape Medical News that this new EASL document constitutes recommendations rather than guidelines because of the need to circumvent the traditional long guideline development process, which "doesn't fit the HCV field any longer."

"At this stage, the field isn't stable enough to allow us to do it as a print version. We will regularly update the recommendations. It's a new strategy," said Dr. Pawlotsky.

Approximately 185 million people worldwide are infected with hepatitis C; about 150 million are chronically infected, and 350,000 to 500,000 die from hepatitis C complications each year. In Europe, from 7.3 million to 8.8 million people are infected with hepatitis C, and there are approximately 3 to 4 million new infections annually, according to an EASL statement.

Dr. Wiktor told Medscape Medical News that the WHO guidelines "are meant primarily to guide policymakers who are thinking of starting hepatitis C programs and who look to WHO for the official word on what is recommended. That is really the primary goal," he said, adding that the WHO document is targeted mainly at low- and middle-income countries.

The EASL recommendations are meant to impart the best science, said Dr. Pawlotsky. They are designed "to guide treatment decisions based on the available knowledge. It's really a clinical document."

The EASL recommendations also have a political purpose. "We want to help doctors put pressure on their national governments for access to care and reimbursement. It's a guidance for what should be done and not done," he explained.

WHO Guidelines

The WHO guidelines call for risk-based screening and follow-up testing for people with hepatitis C infection, and for screening and counseling related to alcohol use and other behaviors that increase transmission risk. The treatment guidelines address interferon injections and the new all-oral regimens, with acknowledgement that cost and access could limit options for low- and middle-income countries in the near term. The guidelines also emphasize prevention.

Dr. Wiktor told Medscape Medical News that he expects the prices of the new direct-acting antivirals to drop, as they did for HIV drugs. In fact, in some places they already have. Notably, Egypt has negotiated with Gilead to provide a 12-week treatment course of sofosbuvir — which costs $84,000 in the United States — for just $900.

"They were able to guarantee volume. That's what we're hoping these guidelines do — move countries to think about national programs that will give them more leverage with the pharmaceutical companies to make these drugs affordable," said Dr. Wiktor.

"We really hope that some of the big global health funders will step in and say, here's an opportunity to invest," he added. "The big difference with hepatitis C is that there is a cure. That's a very unusual situation for a chronic viral infection."

It is expected that the WHO's next official document on hepatitis C will be released in 2016, but an interim guidance is planned for the end of 2014. In the meantime, the WHO is working on guidance for hepatitis B.

EASL Recommendations

By the time they were issued in January, the EASL hepatitis C guidelines were already out of date. The online recommendations include the latest data pertaining to the 3 new direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C, which are expected to be on the European market in the next few months for use as part of combination therapies.

Sofosbuvir, a nucleotide analogue inhibitor of hepatitis C RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, was approved in January. Simeprevir, a second-wave, first-generation NS3/4A protease inhibitor will be approved in May. Daclatasvir, an NS5A inhibitor, is likely to be approved in August or September, according to the EASL statement.

Next in line are investigational combinations from Gilead and AbbVie, Dr. Pawlotsky told Medscape Medical News. "It depends on the EMA. When they approve, we will update. We are reactive."

Dr. Wiktor has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pawlotsky has received grant and research support from Gilead; is on advisory boards for Abbott, AbbVie, Achillion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Idenix, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Roche; and is on the speakers/teachers bureaus for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, and Roche.

Source

Also See:

March 21, 2014

New HCV Guidance: Rapid Updates for Clinicians

Medscape Gastroenterology

Laura A. Stokowski, RN, MS, Helen W. Boucher, MD, Paul Martin, MD
March 21, 2014

HCV Science Catching Up to Medical Need

In just 2 or 3 years, the pace of progress in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has been fairly dramatic. A swift and steady stream of new drugs has challenged clinicians to keep up with the latest recommendations for therapy, and the pipeline is far from dry. The next wave of direct-acting antivirals will continue to target the HCV life cycle from different angles, and combining molecules with different mechanisms of action, different resistance profile, and high antiviral activity will be the name of the game.[1]

Safer, shorter, and more durable treatments are anxiously awaited by many patients already infected with HCV, who have been forestalling treatment or retreatment while waiting for all-oral, interferon-free regimens that will cure their infections without the adverse effects associated with previous drugs. For the rest of the estimated 2-3 million individuals infected with HCV in the United States, all the new drugs in the world are of scant worth if these infections remain undiagnosed.

The recommendation to add a 1-time HCV birth cohort screening for "baby boomers" to exposure risk-based screening[2] is expected to identify more than 800,000 new cases of chronic HCV infection in the United States.[3] Many clinicians -- from those on the frontlines of primary care to the specialists who are experienced in managing HCV and its complications -- will be needed to cope with the burgeoning newly diagnosed population.

The rapid advances in the field of HCV prompted the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), in collaboration with the International Antiviral Society-USA (IAS-USA), to sponsor an effort to synthesize the current evidence in the field, from which was derived a set of expert-developed recommendations for the management of HCV infection, a feat that was accomplished remarkably quickly. The first phase of the HCV guidance, available online at HCVguidelines.org, details the methodology used to develop the guidance, and covers the following sections related to diagnosis, referral, and management:

  • HCV Testing and Linkage to Care;

  • Initial Treatment of HCV Infection in Patients Starting Treatment;

  • Retreatment of Persons in Whom Prior Therapy Has Failed; and

  • Unique Patient Populations (HIV/HCV coinfection, cirrhosis, transplantation, renal impairment).

Sections ("coming soon") that are now being developed for updates of the guidance include:

  • In Whom and When to Initiate Treatment;

  • Monitoring Patients Who Are On or Have Completed Therapy; and

  • Management of Acute HCV Infection.

Clinicians will appreciate the color-coded treatment guidance within the report, allowing them to distinguish at a glance "recommended" (outlined in green) from the "not recommended" (outlined in red) treatment regimens. Each section of the report ends with a quick reference summary of recommendations, and useful resources are provided at exactly the point they might be needed. For example, the section on testing includes a table of commercially available, US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-HCV screening assays, and a simple algorithm of the recommended sequence for screening, testing, and linking patients to care for ongoing evaluation and management.

Medscape Talks to Paul Martin, MD, and Helen W. Boucher, MD, for Perspectives on New HCV Guidance

Medscape recently spoke with Dr. Paul Martin, a hepatologist and member of the guidance writing panel, and Dr. Helen W. Boucher, an infectious diseases specialist, about the new HCV guidance, including key points of emphasis about the content of the guidance, the implications for clinical practice, and what clinicians can expect in the way of updates.

Medscape: HCV treatment is still in flux -- it almost seems impossible to settle on treatment guidelines. How did the HCV guidance first come about?
Dr. Boucher: The HCV guidance was sponsored by the IDSA and the AASLD, with IAS-USA as the collaborating partner. The 2 societies have decided that the best way forward with the treatment of hepatitis C infection is to collaborate, and I think what is so exciting about this new guidance is the partnership behind it. We have recognized the need to provide up-to-date information, and that is what our societies have done with this guidance. The speed with which the guidance document was achieved was extremely noteworthy.

Medscape: You refer to the HCV guidance as a "living document." How does this differ from the model that we are accustomed to in medicine?

Dr. Martin: The whole area of hepatitis C treatment is evolving so rapidly that we felt that it was crucial that treating healthcare providers have access to up-to-date information. The more traditional practice guidelines go through a detailed process and take some time to appear in print. Clearly, however, this whole field is moving so rapidly that we felt that it was best to have our recommendations online as soon as possible. As far as updating it, the same panel will be involved, and additional experts may be invited to participate for specific topics. The idea is that this will be updated on a regular basis. We plan to add additional sections later on. Clearly, however, the HCV guidance reflects treatment options in the United States, as these new drugs may not yet be licensed in other countries where different standards of care exist.

I think this is probably going to be the wave of the future, because we are all now so dependent on the Internet for information. We use the Internet in the office to research clinical questions when a patient is being seen, and I think practice guidelines in the future will reflect what we have done and mirror this sort of model. Speed and completeness are going to be the watchwords of the future.

Medscape: Is it significant that the document is called "HCV Guidance" rather than "HCV Guidelines"?

Dr. Martin: Yes. We view it that guidelines are typically developed after a protracted process, and the word "guidance" reflects the need to make recommendations available to potential treaters in a relatively short period. The recommendations are still based on a combination of review of the literature and consensus of expert opinion, but we view guidance as reflecting an up-to-date process.

Dr. Boucher: We were (and still are) experiencing an explosion of information about how best to treat patients with HCV, similar to what happened with HIV years ago The IAS-USA has done something similar, in a very high-quality way, for HIV/AIDS.

Medscape: With the recommendation to test all "baby boomers" (people born between 1945 and 1965) in addition to risk-based screening, the numbers of individuals with active hepatitis C infection are going to climb in the near future, and concerns have been raised about having enough healthcare providers to evaluate and treat all of these individuals.

In the section on testing and linkage to care, it says, "All patients with current HCV infection and a positive HCV RNA test result should be evaluated by a practitioner with expertise in assessment of liver disease severity and HCV treatment." Does this mean that primary care/internal medicine practitioners should refer all newly diagnosed patients to liver specialists?

Dr. Martin: We didn't restrict management of HCV to any particular discipline. The key thing is in managing hepatitis C is that although you are managing a viral disease, you are also managing the liver disease. We didn't seek to preclude any type of healthcare practitioner from caring for these patients, but we wanted to recommend that patients be seen by somebody who can not only treat the viral infection but also understands that the severity of the liver disease needs to be addressed -- because ultimately that is going to determine, or be an important component of determining, the patient's prognosis.

Dr. Boucher: The important point is that the patient ends up with a healthcare practitioner who is expert in managing his or her disease. Many physicians are expert in treating HCV. Some are infectious diseases trained, and some are gastroenterology/hepatology trained. It differs by medical center; there are no absolutes.

Medscape: In the section about initiating treatment, as written today, what would you most like to draw clinicians' attention to?

Dr. Martin: The most important point is endorsing the use of the combination of sofosbuvir and simeprevir in the treatment of hepatitis C and discouraging the use of telaprevir- and boceprevir-containing regimens. These drugs are still approved for use, although they are associated with higher rates of adverse effects, such as rash and anemia.

Medscape: If a patient has already been started on a regimen involving either telaprevir or boceprevir, would you switch to a different combination, or allow the patient to complete the treatment?
Dr. Martin: If a patient is already doing well on treatment, there is no need to switch therapy.

Medscape: How important is genotyping in tailoring treatment to the patient?

Dr. Martin: Genotyping is key to picking the optimal regimen.

Medscape: Can you speak a little about the progress toward an all-oral, interferon-free treatment for hepatitis C?
Dr. Martin: In my mind, it has already arrived. We are in the first phase of it already. Obviously, interferon is still part of a number of regimens, but as we speak, many patients are receiving all oral therapies

It depends on the genotype. For patients with genotype 1, we have the COSMOS protocol, which is a combination of simeprevir and sofosbuvir. For patients with some non-genotype 1 infections, there is the option of using sofosbuvir with ribavirin, for instance.

In general, therefore, we are seeing an increased use of these all-oral regimens. This reflects what has been approved as of the date that the guidance was generated. A drug such as the NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir will be part of the revised treatment strategy if and when it has been approved.

Medscape: We hear talk of an "avalanche" of drugs in the HCV pipeline, and that some of the drugs are pan-genotypic: For example, a drug such as the NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir might become part of a revised treatment strategy if approved. Can we really expect this many new drugs, and how will you keep this manageable for clinicians who must keep up to date with new drugs all the time?

Dr. Martin: "Avalanche" might be overstating it. I would describe it as a very good developmental pipeline, and I think we are going to see continued advances related to the licensing of new drugs. We will probably see several more drugs licensed in the next 1-2 years. It will certainly be challenging to help clinicians keep them all straight, but that is one of the reasons we were interested in developing these guidelines and, in fact, the reason that they are called hepatitis C "guidance" rather than "guidelines." It is a huge amount of information, and it needs to be updated frequently.

Medscape: How much concern do you have about the development of resistance to these drugs?

Dr. Martin: When we are seeing sustained virologic response rates now routinely in excess of 90%, clearly resistance is going to be substantially less of a concern, because most patients are going to be cured by a single course of treatment. That being said, I don't think anybody thinks resistance is going to go away. However, the key to managing or preventing resistance is to very effectively treat the infection with the best drug combination available and to eradicate the infection the first time around.

Medscape: In the guidance document, you don't mention cost of treatment at all. It is understandable that you wouldn't want to get into that, but would you be willing to comment on the reports about the high cost of these drugs?

Dr. Martin: It is fair to say that the more treatment options that there are, the more price pressure there will be on the individual companies to license or sell their drugs at a competitive price. It is very expensive to take care of a patient with advanced liver disease -- not just the cost of a liver transplant, but a patient with advanced liver disease who is in and out of hospital with one complication after another is enormously resource-intensive for the system. If we can abort the progression of liver disease, we are ultimately going to have a major impact on healthcare costs related to hepatitis C. Many patients with hepatitis C may elect to wait for less expensive regimens if their liver disease is mild.

Medscape: Is there anything else practice-changing about the guidance document, as it stands today, that you would like to mention?

Dr. Martin: It is critically important that patients are seen by practitioners who are comfortable managing and treating hepatitis C. We don't want to restrict anyone from taking care of these patients, but we want to make sure that patients have the appropriate work-up. Patients with advanced liver disease who may need additional consideration, such as a liver transplant, should be referred for specialty care. Another group of patients who might need referral are those who are coinfected with HIV, who might need expertise in HIV management.

Dr. Boucher: We hope that primary care practitioners will use the guidance to help them decide who needs a referral and when.

Medscape: How do you plan to disseminate the guidance to clinicians, both now and when there is updated guidance that you want to make them aware of?

Dr. Boucher: I believe that the plan is to use the Website www.hcvguidelines.org as the major point of dissemination.

Source

February 7, 2014

New HCV Interim Treatment Recommendations Available

Medscape Medical News

Troy Brown, RN
February 07, 2014

The latest treatment recommendations for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are now available on HCVguidelines.org, the result of a collaboration between the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Antiviral Society-USA.

The evidence-based consensus recommendations for the screening, treatment, and management of patients with HCV were developed by a panel of 27 liver disease and infectious disease specialists and a patient advocate.

Between 3 and 4 million Americans have HCV that may progress to advanced liver disease and/or hepatocellular cancer, according to information on the Web site.

Because of recent changes in HCV testing guidelines, increasing numbers of patients are being diagnosed with HCV who were unaware they have the disease, Adrian Di Bisceglie, MD, president of AASLD, explained in a joint statement from the AASLD and the IDSA. "The guidance provided through HCVguidelines.org comes at a critical time as more and more of these patients seek treatment that has the potential to effectively 'cure' them," Dr. Di Bisceglie said.

Rapidly Changing Field

Drug development for HCV is progressing rapidly, with new direct-acting antiviral medications capable of essentially curing HCV.

Eugene Schiff, MD, director, Schiff Center for Liver Disease at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine in Florida, commented on the development of the Web site in an interview with Medscape Medical News. "The reason [for the development of the Web site] is that the field is moving so rapidly...the [US Food and Drug Administration] is trying to advance some of these [medications] faster than they have traditionally in the past, which is wonderful for the patients," Dr. Schiff said.

"Because of all this, the average clinician can't keep up with it, and they're trying to be more in sync with the advances," he added.

"In just the past 3 months, 2 new medications became available for treating HCV that hold a great deal of promise for patients living with this disease, and more are expected. HCVguidelines.org provides physicians with the latest information and informed guidance on the available treatment options based on a rigorous review of data," Barbara Murray, MD, president of IDSA, explained in the statement.

"[The development of newer drugs is] of historical significance. We are quickly approaching 100% cure rates of this disease with treatment," Dr. Schiff explained.

"The presence of a readily available, frequently updated guidance document is a great service to providers and their patients, who will benefit from modern treatments that result in cure of HCV up to 95% of the time," Michael Saag, MD, a member of the board of directors of the International Antiviral Society-USA and a cochair of the guidance panel, said in the statement.

"The site will be updated regularly to keep pace with improved diagnostic tools and new drug options as they meet [US Food and Drug Administration] approval," according to the statement.

The Web site will include an ongoing summary of recent changes.

Guidance for Insurance Carriers Also

The rapid development of medications has made insurance companies as well as clinicians unsure of the best treatment options, the statement explains.

The newer drugs are expensive, and not all insurance carriers are willing to pay for them. The guidelines may help insurance carriers evaluate the appropriateness of these drugs for patients with HCV. As the drugs become more available to patients, the cost may go down, Dr. Schiff said.

Even though the newer drugs are expensive, they may still be cost-effective if they are curing patients, he added.

Dr. Schiff reports a variety of relationships with pharmaceutical companies, including receipt of consulting fees, membership on scientific advisory boards and the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, and receipt of grants/research support for clinical trials.

Source

Also See: Online Expert Advice for Clinicians Treating Hepatitis C Now Available

February 6, 2014

Hepatitis C: How might the new AASLD/IDSA recommendation impact the category?

Provided by Zitter Health

Lee Goldberg, Director, Syndicated Research, Zitter Health Insights

FEBRUARY 5, 2014

The HCV category is certainly dynamic enough, with numerous agents poised for approval in the next 18 to 24 months. Still, the release last Wednesday of the AASLD/IDSA Recommendations for Testing, Managing, and Treating Hepatitis Cadded another variable for payers and manufacturers to consider before determining their strategies. The recommendations were both confirmatory and surprising and it remains to be seen how payers will ultimately integrate them into management.

The Recommendations fully endorse new oral agents as the standard of care, advocating sofosbuvir first among treatment-naïve, genotype 1 patients who are eligible for interferon, followed by a simeprevir-based regimen as an alternative. The panel made a comparable recommendation for genotype 4 patients, then endorsed sofosbuvir for treatment of patients with genotypes 2 and 3, per label. Endorsements for telaprevir and boceprevir-based regimens were withdrawn as being “markedly inferior to the preferred and alternative regimens.”

However, not all endorsements followed the obvious path, namely those for patients intolerant to interferon. Labeling for sofosbuvir permits usage “in combination with ribavirin for 24 weeks . . . for CHC patients with genotype 1 infection who are interferon ineligible.” Nonetheless, the AASLD/IDSA made its primary treatment an off-label regimen of sofosbuvir plus simeprevir in combination for treatment-naïve, interferon-ineligible genotype 1 patients. It’s a safe assumption the panelists were impressed with the 90%-plus SVR rates achieved in the ongoing phase 2 COSMOS study, but it’s less clear payers will hold the same opinion.

Early research from the Hepatitis C Impact Monitor, a multi-stakeholder view of this rapidly changing area, published by Zitter Health Insights, indicates a majority of payers (52%) hold the guidelines as meaningfully or significantly influential on their determination of utilization management of the HCV category.  By itself that finding would indicate positive coverage of the sofosbuvir/simeprevir pairing.  But an even larger majority of the same payer sample, this time 80%, indicated they’re more unlikely than likely to cover those drugs in combination.  But that was before the guidelines were released.

To begin developing an understanding of how payers and doctors expect to change their behavior as events occur, we asked four pharmacy directors from national payers (in aggregate representing approximately 25 million commercial lives) how they anticipate their organizations will react.  While it’s still early for many to have determined final policies, reactions were evenly split.  One participant commented, “We try to support evidence based guidelines, but, the evidence is not there to support use at phase 2.  We’ll need more evidence development.” However, another pharmacy director was more resigned, commenting, “We won’t have a choice.  There’s no way to combat the recommendation.”
Combat may be a strong word, but may not be far from an accurate description because physicians appear on board. Prior to publication nearly a majority (47%) of specialists were more likely than unlikely to prescribe the combination. We expect those figures to increase because seventy-three percent of them grant the guidelines meaningful or significant influence in their prescribing decisions.

Perhaps beneficially for pharmacy directors, the conundrum about off-label sofosbuvir/simeprevir coverage comes with an expiration date. The AASLD/IDSA includes the caveat that “This regimen should be considered only in those patients who require immediate treatment, because it is anticipated that safer and more effective IFN-free regimens will be available by 2015.”  Which means payers will have new guidelines to digest upon the approval of Gilead’s sofosbuvir/ledipasvir, or of AbbVie’s triple therapy, or of Boehringer’s faldaprevir/deleobuvir. In the interim, payers will weigh the nature of Phase 2 results against the imprimatur of the AASLD.  Each of the four pharmacy directors we spoke with on Monday indicated their organization is currently reviewing the Recommendations document but hadn’t yet made a final policy determination.  Zitter’s Hepatitis C Impact Monitor will continue to examine the changing HCV landscape, providing timely, deep insights into non-clinical factors that influence agent access and adoption.

Hep-C-Feb-2014-Image-1

Source

January 30, 2014

Culture Shock: Web-Based Hep C Tx Guidelines

Published: Jan 30, 2014

By Michael Smith, North American Correspondent, MedPage Today

184199561

Practice guidelines are a fact of life in modern medicine. They provide clinicians with the best data and the latest consensus on what the data mean for the care of patients.

But they are -- or have been -- rather slow to react to changes.

Enter HCVguidelines.org, a website that aims to keep up with one of the fastest-moving fields in medicine today – the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) with what are called direct-acting agents.

The website was developed and will be run jointly by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and the International Antiviral Society-USA.

A panel of 26 experts will keep clinicians on top of HCV treatment options, spokesmen for the three societies told MedPage Today before the site went live.

For those who haven't been following, HCV therapy for years was a long, difficult course of ribavirin and pegylated interferon. Neither agent actually targets the virus -- interferon is a general immune booster and ribavirin a general anti-viral.

On the other hand, direct-acting agents -- there are now four on the market and about a dozen in late clinical development -- aim at aspects of HCV replication. In general, they appear to be safer and less difficult to take than ribavirin and peginterferon, as well as being markedly more effective.

But the arrival of the new drugs over the next year or so will create a conundrum.

Between 3 million and 4 million Americans are thought to have chronic HCV and could benefit from treatment with the new drugs.

Indeed, for the first time, there is a "promise to cure nearly all" people with chronic HCV, according to David Thomas, MD, of Johns Hopkins University and a spokesman for the infectious diseases society.

The conundrum is that there are not enough specialists to go around, so that nonspecialists will have to fill in. And despite the increased safety and efficacy of the new drugs, actually using them is not going to be a matter of "take these and call me in the morning."

All the drugs are meant to be taken in combination with others, and the combinations have varying efficacy and side-effect profiles depending on such things as the genotype of the virus and the stage of liver disease. Moreover, the data seem likely to change and grow much more rapidly than we have ever seen.

For that reason, the website is "perhaps one of the only guidance documents that is a living document," according to Michael Saag, MD, of the University of Alabama Birmingham and a spokesman for the anti-viral society.

"The ability to be nimble," Saag said during a press briefing, is necessary to keep up with the expected tidal wave of information.

He told MedPage Today that the site will contain information -- not only on approved uses, but also on specific off-label drug combinations that have not been through the FDA approval process.

That's because it's not realistic to get specific approval for all possible combinations in all possible patient types, Saag said. A major advantage of the new website, he said, is that the panel can look at all the evidence and "craft [regimens that] experts in the field would be using."

Indeed, the first iteration of the site suggests a combination of two new drugs -- simeprevir (Olysio) and sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) -- that is not specifically approved by the FDA, although both drugs are on the market, according to Donald Jensen, MD, of the University of Chicago Medical Center and a spokesman for the liver society.

The first iteration of the site will also deal only with what to do once the decision to treat has been made. Other questions -- such as who to treat and when -- will be dealt with later.

Source

Also See: Online Expert Advice for Clinicians Treating Hepatitis C Now Available

January 29, 2014

Online Expert Advice for Clinicians Treating Hepatitis C Now Available

Online Expert HCV Advice Now Available

aasldsmallidsasmall

Embargoed for Release Until:
Wednesday, January 29th 6 p.m. ET

Contacts:
Jennifer Ford, IDSA (703) 299-0412
Greg Bologna, AASLD (703) 299-9766

Online Expert Advice for Clinicians Treating Hepatitis C Now Available at
HCVguidelines.org

Today, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), in collaboration with the International Antiviral Society-USA (IAS-USA), announced the launch of a new website, HCVguidelines.org, that will offer up-to-date guidance for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

It is estimated that between 3 and 4 million Americans are infected with HCV and have chronic liver disease as a result. The most recent generation of direct-acting antivirals has the potential to cure most patients with HCV. However, the rapid pace of drug development has left medical providers and insurance companies unsure what the optimal treatments are. The guidance provided through HCVguidelines.org will assist clinicians in using these and other treatments in the care of their patients.

HCVguidelines.org is the result of an ongoing collaboration between the two medical professional societies and IAS-USA. A panel of 27 liver disease and infectious diseases specialists and a patient advocate developed evidenced-based, consensus recommendations for the screening, treatment and management of patients with HCV. This guidance will be made available for health care providers who treat the disease and others who need updated information on the best practices. The site will be updated regularly to keep pace with improved diagnostic tools and new drug options as they meet Food and Drug Administration approval.

"Recent changes in HCV testing guidelines have led to the diagnosis of increasing numbers of patients who were previously unaware of their infection. The guidance provided through HCVguidelines.org comes at a critical time as more and more of these patients seek treatment that has the potential to effectively 'cure' them," said Adrian Di Bisceglie, MD, FACP, president of AASLD.

"In just the past three months, two new medications became available for treating HCV that hold a great deal of promise for patients living with this disease, and more are expected. HCVguidelines.org provides physicians with the latest information and informed guidance on the available treatment options based on a rigorous review of data," said Barbara Murray, MD, FIDSA, president of IDSA.

"An estimated 3-4 million Americans are infected with HCV and are at risk of progressing to chronic liver disease as a result," said Michael Saag, MD, FIDSA, a member of the Board of Directors of the IAS-USA and a co-chair of the guidance panel. He added, "The presence of a readily available, frequently updated guidance document is a great service to providers and their patients, who will benefit from modern treatments that result in cure of HCV up to 95% of the time."
About AASLD
AASLD is a medical subspecialty society representing clinicians and researchers in liver disease. The work of our members has laid the foundation for the development of drugs used to treat patients with viral hepatitis. Access to care and support of liver disease research are at the center of AASLD's advocacy efforts.

AASLD is the leading organization of scientists and healthcare professionals committed to preventing and curing liver disease. AASLD was founded in 1950 by a small group of leading liver specialists and has grown to an international society responsible for all aspects of hepatology.

About IDSA
The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) is an organization of physicians, scientists, and other health care professionals dedicated to promoting health through excellence in infectious diseases research, education, prevention, and patient care. The Society, which has nearly 10,000 members, was founded in 1963 and is based in Arlington, VA. For more information, see www.idsociety.org.

Visit www.idsociety.org/Hepatitis_C to access IDSA's extensive collection of resources on hepatitis C, including the Society's Core Curriculum for HCV at www.idsociety.org/HCV_Curriculum/#Introduction.

About IAS-USA
The International Antiviral Society – USA (IAS-USA) serves as a collaborating partner for the AASLD/IDSA Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Guidance and is responsible for providing expertise and administrative support to HCV Guidance Panel members and processes. A representative from the IAS-USA serves as a co-chair of the HCV Guidance Panel. For more information, see http://iasusa.org

Source