Ribavirin Rather than PEG-interferon Pharmacodynamics Predict Nonresponse to Antiviral Therapy in Naive Chronic Hepatitis C Patients

From Journal of Viral Hepatitis

L. G. van Vlerken; E. J. Huisman; H. van Soest; G. J. Boland; J. P. H. Drenth; P. D. Siersema; D. M. Burger; K. J. van Erpecum

Posted: 01/30/2012; J Viral Hepat. 2012;19(1):39-46. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing

Abstract and Introduction

Abstract

Twenty to fifty per cent of patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) experience nonresponse to current antiviral therapy, which may relate in part to ribavirin or PEG-interferon pharmacodynamics. We evaluated potential relevance of various factors for nonresponse. Two hundred forty-two naive CHC patients who received in a previous trial at least 24 weeks of antiviral therapy, including PEG-interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin, were analysed. Of them, 53% were infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1–4, 71% exhibited high viral load and 32% had severe fibrosis/cirrhosis. After 24 weeks of treatment, 39 patients (16%) were nonresponders. In multivariate analysis, lower serum ribavirin concentrations, HCV genotype 1–4 and higher baseline γ-GT predicted nonresponse. Week-24 ribavirin concentrations (2.2 vs 2.8 mg/L, P < 0.001), average ribavirin doses (14.5 vs 15.2 mg/kg per day, P = 0.03) and week-24 haemoglobin decreases (1.7 vs 2.0 mm, P = 0.02) were lower in nonresponders. Nonresponse rates increased progressively at decreasing ribavirin concentrations: 4%, 11%, 13% and 36% in case of serum ribavirin concentrations ≥4, 3–4, 2–3 and ≤2 mg/L, respectively (P = 0.001). Ribavirin concentrations correlated with both week-24 haemoglobin decreases (r = 0.42, P < 0.001) and ribavirin doses (r = 0.17, P = 0.01). Subgroup analysis in HCV genotype 1–4 patients revealed essentially the same results. Nonresponse was exceptional in HCV genotype 2–3 patients and associated with ribavirin concentrations <2 mg/L. Presumed interferon-related factors (average PEG-interferon doses and decreases in leucocytes, granulocytes, platelets and body weight) did not differ between nonresponders and responders. In conclusion, ribavirin- rather than PEG-interferon-related factors are independent and potentially modifiable predictors of nonresponse in treatment-naive CHC patients.

Introduction

Current treatment for chronic hepatitis C (CHC), consisting of PEG-interferon and ribavirin, is not effective in 20–50% of cases.^[1,2] Several baseline patient and viral characteristics have been described as predictive factors for nonresponse to PEG-interferon and ribavirin treatment in previous studies, such as hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype, viral load, patient weight, presence of cirrhosis and African American race.^[3] It is important to explore which modifiable on-treatment factors affect nonresponse rates, in order to develop effective strategies to improve outcome of antiviral treatment. Adherence to at least 80% of the prescribed (PEG) interferon and ribavirin doses has been associated with better response rates, especially in HCV genotype 1 patients.^[4] Inter-individual variability in plasma concentrations of ribavirin during treatment is high,^[5,6] and low plasma concentrations of ribavirin could be important predictors of nonresponse.^[5,7–10] Interferon-related factors could also be relevant: in a recent post hoc analysis of the HALT-C trial in previous nonresponders with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis undergoing PEG-interferon and ribavirin re-treatment, presumed interferon-related factors (less pronounced reductions in body weight, leucocytes or platelets) were significantly associated with null response (≤1 log decrease in HCV RNA at week 24) in multivariate analysis.^[11] The underlying mechanism could be systemic interferon resistance. The aim of the current study was therefore to evaluate the influence of various baseline and on-treatment factors, including serum ribavirin concentrations, on nonresponse in treatment-naive CHC patients.

Patients and Methods

Patients

In this study, we analysed a subgroup of patients who participated in a multicentre, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial on potential benefit of adding amantadine to PEG-interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin combination therapy in 297 treatment-naive hepatitis C patients: the CIRA trial. Details of this study have been published previously.^[12] Of the 297 patients included in this trial, 242 patients received therapy for at least 24 weeks and are included in the current analysis. All patients received induction therapy (from day 1 combined with ribavirin), consisting of interferon alfa-2b (Schering Plough B.V., Maarssen, the Netherlands) 10 MIU/day subcutaneously during the first 6 days, followed by 5 MIU/day for the next 6 days, followed by PEG-interferon alfa-2b (Schering Plough B.V.) 1.5 μg/kg per week subcutaneously up to 26 weeks and 1.0 μg/kg per week from week 26 to 52, regardless of HCV genotype. Oral ribavirin (Schering Plough B.V.) was given from day 1 during the entire 52-week treatment period in two different doses: 1000 mg/day for body weight <75 kg and 1200 mg/day for body weight ≥75 kg. There were no differences in the amantadine and placebo groups regarding virological response. Therefore, data of both groups are combined in the following analyses.

Methods

Follow-up occurred at 0, 1, 2 and 4 weeks and monthly thereafter during 1 year of treatment and at 3-month intervals during 1 year after the end of treatment. During each visit, laboratory tests, including haemoglobin, leucocytes, granulocytes and platelet counts, were performed. Body weights and doses of ribavirin and PEG-interferon alfa-2b were also recorded at each visit. Average ribavirin and PEG-interferon alfa-2b doses during the first 24 weeks of therapy were calculated for each individual patient. Baseline creatinine clearance was calculated according to the Cockcroft–Gault equation.^[13] Quantitative serum HCV RNA testing (Cobas Amplicor HCV Monitor Test, version 2.0, detection limit 615 IU/mL; Roche Diagnostics, Almere, the Netherlands) and genotyping [sequence analysis of the 5' untranslated region of the HCV genome by TrueGene Hepatitis C Assay (Visible Genetic, Suwanee, GA, USA)] were performed before inclusion by the central study laboratory. Baseline HCV RNA values >800 000 IU/mL were considered high viral loads. Baseline liver biopsies were performed in 215 patients (89%) and assessed according to the METAVIR scoring system.^[14] Qualitative serum HCV RNA testing was performed at weeks 24, 52 and 104 (Cobas Amplicor HCV test, version 2.0; detection limit 50 IU/mL; Roche Diagnostics) by the central study laboratory. Treatment was terminated if qualitative HCV RNA test was positive after 24 weeks of treatment. Detailed information concerning dose reduction policy and definitions of virological response has been published previously.^[12]

Fifty-five of 297 patients discontinued treatment before week 24 because of patient preference (n = 13), noncompliance (n = 2), loss to follow-up (n = 9) or WHO grade 4 or persistent/recurrent grade 3 toxicity [n = 31: decompensated cirrhosis (n = 1), death because of drug overdose (n = 1), leucopenia or granulocytopenia (n = 16), anaemia (n = 2), psychiatric side effects (n = 7), miscellaneous (n = 4)].

Ribavirin Measurements

Serum samples of all patients were prospectively collected and stored at −80 °C. For the current analysis, all available week-24 samples (98% of all patients) were thawed, mixed and tested for ribavirin concentrations simultaneously using high-pressure liquid chromatography with UV detection (4.6 × 150 mm Atlantis T3 5 μm reverse-phase C18 column, autosampler column oven 35 °C: mobile phase 20 mm phosphate buffer pH 3.23 with flow rate 1.0 mL/min, λ 235 nm). Accuracy values were 104.6%, 105.2%, 101.5%, 100.9% and 100.8% at 0.300, 1.00, 4.00, 10.0 and 12.0 mg/L, respectively. At the same concentrations, the precision values (within and between days, coefficient of variation) were all below 6.0%. The calibration curve was linear over a concentration range of 0.3–12.0 mg/L. One hundred six possible co-medications were tested on this assay, none interfered with ribavirin.

Statistics

SPSS for Windows, version 15.0.1 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. We analysed patients according to per-protocol principle: for analysis of nonresponse, only patients who were treated for at least 24 weeks were included, and for analysis of final outcome, only patients who reached a primary study endpoint (i.e. completion until end of follow-up or detectable HCV RNA after 24 or 52 weeks of treatment) were included. Values are expressed as means ± SD for data with Gaussian distribution; otherwise medians with range are used. Differences in potential predictors for virological response were tested for statistical significance with the Student's t-test, Mann–Whitney U-test, Pearson's chi-square test and Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Differences between patients with nonresponse, relapse and sustained viral response (SVR) were tested with ANOVA with post hoc LSD test. Baseline and week-24 factors that were associated with nonresponse/SVR in univariate analysis at the 0.1 level were entered in a multivariate logistic regression model with stepwise backward selection to identify independent predicting factors for these two outcomes of interest. A two-sided P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patient and Treatment Characteristics

Baseline patient characteristics of the 242 patients who received antiviral therapy during at least 24 weeks are given in Table 1. Fifty-three per cent of patients were infected with HCV genotype 1–4, 71% had high viral loads (>800 000 IU/mL), 32% exhibited severe fibrosis or cirrhosis on liver biopsy and 54% had elevated γ-GT levels at baseline. Dose reductions of ribavirin were applied in 18 patients (7%: five patients WHO grade 3 toxicity of haemoglobin, 13 patients other reasons). Dose reductions of PEG-interferon were applied in 49 patients (20%: 30 patients WHO grade 3 toxicity of granulocytes and/or leucocytes, two patients WHO grade 3 platelet toxicity, 17 patients other reasons).

Ribavirin Concentrations

Average ribavirin dose during 24 weeks of treatment was [median (range)] 1033 mg/day (467–1200 mg/day). Median week-24 serum ribavirin concentration was 2.7 mg/L (range 0.2–7.4 mg/L). Serum ribavirin concentrations were higher in female than male patients (median 2.9 vs 2.6 mg/L, P = 0.045). Serum ribavirin concentrations were not affected by HCV genotype, baseline viral load, fibrosis severity or baseline body weight. By multivariate linear regression analysis with backward stepwise selection, only higher average ribavirin dose during the first 24 weeks of therapy (in mg/kg per day) was identified as an independent predictive factor for higher week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations (coefficient 0.07, 95% CI 0.02–0.13, P = 0.01) However, only 3% (r² = 0.029) of variability in serum ribavirin concentrations could be ascribed to differences in ribavirin doses. Week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations tended to negatively correlate with baseline creatinine clearance (r = −0.12, P = 0.07) and baseline haemoglobin (r = −0.12, P = 0.06). Furthermore, a significant correlation of serum ribavirin concentrations with week-24 haemoglobin decreases (r = 0.42, P ≤ 0.001) was found. In contrast, average ribavirin doses did not correlate with week-24 haemoglobin decreases (r = −0.05, P = 0.40).

Factors Associated with Nonresponse

After 24 weeks of therapy, 203 of 242 patients (84%) exhibited negative qualitative serum HCV RNA (responders). HCV RNA was positive in the remaining 39 patients (16%; nonresponders). Of the 128 patients with HCV genotype 1–4, 36 had a nonresponse (28%). In contrast, only three of the 113 patients (3%) infected with HCV genotype 2–3 were nonresponders.

Results of univariate analysis of baseline and on-treatment factors associated with nonresponse in the total group are summarized in Table 2. Baseline factors significantly associated with nonresponse were male gender, HCV genotype 1–4 infection and higher gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (γ-GT) levels. Week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations, average ribavirin doses during 24 weeks of therapy and week-24 haemoglobin decrease were significantly lower in nonresponders than responders.

Nonresponse rates increased progressively at decreasing serum ribavirin concentrations: 4%, 11%, 13% and 36% in case of serum ribavirin concentrations ≥4, 3–4, 2–3 and ≤2 mg/L, respectively (P = 0.001). Figure 1 shows the nonresponse rates as a function of serum ribavirin concentrations, according to HCV genotype. Interestingly, all HCV genotype 2 or 3 nonresponder patients exhibited week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations <2 mg/L.

Figure 1. Nonresponse rates in naive chronic hepatitis C patients after 24 weeks of antiviral therapy as a function of week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations. Bars represent the percentage of patients with nonresponse after 24 weeks of antiviral treatment: grey bars represent patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1–4, white bars represent patients with HCV genotype 2–3.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified infection with HCV genotype 1–4, higher pretreatment levels of γ-GT and lower week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations as independent predicting variables for nonresponse at 24 weeks of therapy (Table 3). Uni- and multivariate analysis in the subgroup of HCV genotype 1–4 patients revealed essentially the same results as in the total group, again with lower serum ribavirin concentrations, lower ribavirin doses and higher baseline γ-GT levels as independent risk factors for nonresponse (Tables S1 and S2). As in the total population, week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations in the subgroup of HCV genotype 1–4-infected patients significantly correlated with week-24 haemoglobin decreases (r = 0.50, P < 0.001). In contrast, no significant correlation between serum ribavirin concentrations and average ribavirin doses (in mg/kg per day) was found (r = 0.15, P = 0.11). In HCV genotype 2–3 patients, serum ribavirin concentrations correlated with both week-24 haemoglobin decreases (r = 0.32, P = 0.001) and average ribavirin doses (r = 0.20, P = 0.03).

PEG-interferon-related Factors

Presumed interferon-related factors (leucocytes, granulocytes, platelets and body weight) did not differ significantly between nonresponders and responders, nor did PEG-interferon doses (Table 2). In the subgroup of HCV genotype 1–4 patients, also no significant differences in interferon-related factors were found between responders and nonresponders (Table S1).

Factors Associated With Null or Partial Virological Response After 24 Weeks of Therapy

Quantitative HCV RNA at week 24 in the nonresponders revealed <1 log₁₀ decrease of viral load (null response) in six cases, ≥1 log₁₀ decrease (partial response) in 30 cases and could not be determined in three cases because of absence of serum samples. Decreases from pretreatment levels of leucocytes (2.1 vs 3.7 × 10⁹/L, P = 0.09), granulocytes (0.8 vs 2.2 × 10⁹/L, P = 0.22), platelets (4 vs 48 × 10⁹/L, P = 0.08) and body weight (3.3 vs 5.0 kg, P = 0.11) and serum ribavirin concentrations (1.6 vs 2.3 mg/L, P = 0.18) tended to be less in null responders. Week-24 haemoglobin decreases and average ribavirin or PEG-interferon alfa-2b doses during antiviral therapy were not significantly different between the null and partial responders (data not shown).

Final Treatment Outcome

Of the 203 patients with negative qualitative HCV RNA at week 24, 145 patients (71%) reached SVR, 13 patients (6%) relapsed, 10 patients (5%) exhibited viral breakthrough and 35 patients (17%) were dropouts at later stages for various reasons. Characteristics for a more favourable treatment outcome generally increased progressively in the order: nonresponse, relapse and SVR groups, including week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations (2.2, 2.6 and 2.9 mg/L: Table S3). SVR rates increased progressively at increasing serum ribavirin concentrations: 47%, 69%, 76% and 95% in case of serum ribavirin concentrations ≤2, 2–3, 3–4 and ≥4 mg/L, respectively (P = 0.001, Fig. 2). By multivariate analysis, HCV genotype 2–3, lower baseline γ-GT levels and higher serum ribavirin concentrations were identified as independent predictors of SVR (Table S4). Highly similar findings were found in the subgroup of HCV genotype 1–4 patients (Tables S5 and S6).

Figure 2. Sustained viral response (SVR) rates in naive chronic hepatitis C patients as a function of week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations (per-protocol analysis). Bars represent the percentage of patients with SVR: grey bars represent patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1–4, white bars represent patients with HCV genotype 2–3.

Discussion

In this study, we explored the potential influence of various baseline and on-treatment factors, including serum ribavirin concentrations, on nonresponse to PEG-interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin in treatment-naive CHC patients. Our main finding is that lower week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations are an independent risk factor for nonresponse.

This finding indicates the importance of adequate exposure to ribavirin, especially in HCV genotype 1–4 patients. Only 3% of patients with HCV genotype 2–3 were nonresponders, but all had a serum ribavirin concentration below 2 mg/L. Although one could speculate that a certain threshold in serum ribavirin concentrations has to been reached to exclude an unfavourable outcome in patients with HCV genotype 2–3, the low numbers of genotype 2–3 patients with nonresponse preclude any conclusion in this respect.

Inter-patient variability in serum ribavirin concentrations is known to be high.^[5,6] Body weight, renal function, gender and age are associated with ribavirin clearance at various time points but can only explain a small part of the variability.^[5,15,16] In our study, only higher average ribavirin doses (in mg/kg per day) were an independent predictor of higher serum ribavirin concentrations (r² = 0.029). Determinants not studied in the current analysis such as nonadherence^[17] and factors influencing absorption, transport and intracellular metabolism of ribavirin could contribute to the high variability.

Ribavirin has a narrow therapeutic index: while low ribavirin concentrations increase the risk of nonresponse, high ribavirin concentrations increase the risk of toxicity, especially haemolytic anaemia.^{[5,7,8,18,19]} In line with these data, week-24 haemoglobin decreases in the current study were significantly correlated with week-24 ribavirin concentrations (r = 0.42, P < 0.001).

A potential bias in our analysis is that only patients who completed 24 weeks of treatment were included. However, only two patients stopped therapy before week 24 because of anaemia. We were interested in week-24 serum ribavirin concentrations, because we aimed at identifying factors determining risk of nonresponse rather than to adapt ribavirin dose at an early point during antiviral therapy. However, according to previous literature, steady state concentrations are already reached after 4–8 weeks.^[20] Another possible limitation of this study is that we did not measure serum PEG-interferon concentrations. It should also be noted that some aspects of the study protocol differ from current practice, because the design of the CIRA study dated from 1999–2000.^[12] Patients received high-dose induction therapy with interferon, which is currently not advised. PEG-interferon alfa-2b dose was decreased in the second half of the treatment period from 1.5 to 1.0 μg/kg per week. However, PEG-interferon doses 1.0 μg/kg per week appear not to compromise SVR rates.^[21,22] Also, in our series of 236 patients with ribavirin determinations, there was one outlier, with ribavirin concentration of 7.4 mg/L. Although we cannot exclude some haemolysis associated with antiviral therapy in this patient, all available clinical data would suggest that ribavirin exposure was considerable: the patient received a high ribavirin dose (17.5 mg/kg per day), with corresponding drop in haemoglobin (3.6 mm at week 24 compared to basal). Finally, patients were not checked after 12 weeks of treatment for early viral response,^[23] and patients with HCV genotype 2–3 were treated for 1 year.

Apart from lower serum ribavirin concentrations, infection with HCV genotype 1–4 and higher baseline γ-GT levels were identified as independent risk factors for nonresponse. HCV genotype 1 has extensively been described as the predominant risk factor for nonresponse to combination therapy for CHC. In our study, HCV genotype 1–4 was the predominant predictor for nonresponse. In contrast, elevated γ-GT levels have not been described as an independent predictive factor for nonresponse in patients with hepatitis C before. However, low or normal γ-GT levels have been associated with SVR,^[24–26] and our findings suggest that lower nonresponse rates under these circumstances could be the explanation of this finding. Elevated γ-GT levels are associated with more severe hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis.^[27,28] In the current analysis, 54% of patients exhibited elevated γ-GT levels, similar to other reports,^{[25,26,29,30]} and γ-GT levels were significantly correlated with severe fibrosis or cirrhosis (median of γ-GT level 70 (range 16–700) in case of severe fibrosis or cirrhosis vs 48 (5–575) in case of less severe fibrosis scores, P = 0.004). Severe fibrosis or cirrhosis could not be identified as a predictive factor for nonresponse, and one may speculate that γ-GT is a more sensitive marker for fibrosis than classification according to the METAVIR scoring system.

We also compared various on-treatment factors suggested to be different on re-treatment between patients with partial response and null response in the HALT-C trial^[11] to evaluate whether similar differences could be found in treatment-naive patients. The predictive value of less reduction in body weight, leucocytes and platelets for nonresponse was not confirmed in our treatment-naive patients. Nevertheless, when comparing partial responders with null responders, a trend towards less reduction in body weight, leucocytes, granulocytes and platelets was observed, suggesting type II error. Alternatively, interferon-related factors may predict null response, especially during re-treatment of previous nonresponder patients and/or patients with severe fibrosis/cirrhosis. No other relevant studies on this topic have been published.

In conclusion, our results indicate that ribavirin rather than PEG-interferon pharmacodynamics determine in part the chance of nonresponse in treatment-naive CHC patients. This is especially the case in patients with HCV genotype 1–4, although HCV genotype 2–3 patients with serum ribavirin concentrations below a threshold of 2.0 mg/L may also experience nonresponse.

References

1. Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 975–982.
2. Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 358: 958–965.
3. Kau A, Vermehren J, Sarrazin C. Treatment predictors of a sustained virologic response in hepatitis B and C. J Hepatol 2008; 49: 634–651.
4. McHutchison JG, Manns M, Patel K et al. Adherence to combination therapy enhances sustained response in genotype-1-infected patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2002; 123: 1061–1069.
5. Jen JF, Glue P, Gupta S, Zambas D, Hajian G. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Ther Drug Monit 2000; 22: 555–565.
6. Khakoo S, Glue P, Grellier L et al. Ribavirin and interferon alfa-2b in chronic hepatitis C: assessment of possible pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46: 563–570.
7. Arase Y, Ikeda K, Tsubota A et al. Significance of serum ribavirin concentration in combination therapy of interferon and ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C. Intervirology 2005; 48: 138–144.
8. Breilh D, Foucher J, Castera L et al. Impact of ribavirin plasma level on sustained virological response in patients treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 30: 487–494.
9. Larrat S, Stanke-Labesque F, Plages A, Zarski JP, Bessard G, Souvignet C. Ribavirin quantification in combination treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2003; 47: 124–129.
10. Tsubota A, Hirose Y, Izumi N, Kumada H. Pharmacokinetics of ribavirin in combined interferonalpha 2b and ribavirin therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 55: 360–367.
11. Lindsay KL, Morishima C, Wright EC et al. Blunted cytopenias and weight loss: new correlates of virologic null response to re-treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 234–241.
12. van Soest H, van der Schaar PJ, Koek GH et al. No beneficial effects of amantadine in treatment of chronic hepatitis C patients. Dig Liver Dis 2010; 42: 496–502.
13. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron 1976; 16: 31–41.
14. Bedossa P, Poynard T. An algorithm for the grading of activity in chronic hepatitis C. The METAVIR Cooperative Study Group. Hepatology 1996; 24: 289–293.
15. Bruchfeld A, Lindahl K, Schvarcz R, Stahle L. Dosage of ribavirin in patients with hepatitis C should be based on renal function: a population pharmacokinetic analysis. Ther Drug Monit 2002; 24: 701–708.
16. Wade JR, Snoeck E, Duff F, Lamb M, Jorga K. Pharmacokinetics of ribavirin in patients with hepatitis C virus. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 710–714.
17. Weiss JJ, Brau N, Stivala A, Swan T, Fishbein D. Review article: adherence to medication for chronic hepatitis C - building on the model of human immunodeficiency virus antiretroviral adherence research. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2009; 30: 14–27.
18. Lindahl K, Schvarcz R, Bruchfeld A, Stahle L. Evidence that plasma concentration rather than dose per kilogram body weight predicts ribavirin-induced anaemia. J Viral Hepat 2004; 11: 84–87.
19. Lindahl K, Stahle L, Bruchfeld A, Schvarcz R. High-dose ribavirin in combination with standard dose peginterferon for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2005; 41: 275–279.
20. Glue P. The clinical pharmacology of ribavirin. Semin Liver Dis 1999; 19(Suppl. 1): 17–24.
21. Lindsay KL, Trepo C, Heintges T et al. A randomized, double-blind trial comparing pegylated interferon alfa-2b to interferon alfa-2b as initial treatment for chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2001; 34: 395–403.
22. McHutchison JG, Lawitz EJ, Shiffman ML et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b or alfa-2a with ribavirin for treatment of hepatitis C infection. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 580–593.
23. Davis GL, Wong JB, McHutchison JG, Manns MP, Harvey J, Albrecht J. Early virologic response to treatment with peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2003; 38: 645–652.
24. Berg T, Sarrazin C, Herrmann E et al. Prediction of treatment outcome in patients with chronic hepatitis C: significance of baseline parameters and viral dynamics during therapy. Hepatology 2003; 37: 600–609.
25. Berg T, von Wagner M, Nasser S et al. Extended treatment duration for hepatitis C virus type 1: comparing 48 versus 72 weeks of peginterferon-alfa-2a plus ribavirin. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 1086–1097.
26. von Wagner M, Huber M, Berg T et al. Peginterferon-alpha-2a (40KD) and ribavirin for 16 or 24 weeks in patients with genotype 2 or 3 chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 522–527.
27. Imbert-Bismut F, Ratziu V, Pieroni L, Charlotte F, Benhamou Y, Poynard T. Biochemical markers of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis C virus infection: a prospective study. Lancet 2001; 357: 1069–1075.
28. Parise ER, Oliveira AC, Figueiredo-Mendes C et al. Noninvasive serum markers in the diagnosis of structural liver damage in chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Liver Int 2006; 26: 1095–1099.
29. Silva IS, Ferraz ML, Perez RM, Lanzoni VP, Figueiredo VM, Silva AE. Role of gamma-glutamyl transferase activity in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 19: 314–318.
30. Villela-Nogueira CA, Perez RM, de Segadas Soares JA, Coelho HS. Gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) as an independent predictive factor of sustained virologic response in patients with hepatitis C treated with interferon-alpha and ribavirin. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39: 728–730.

Source

New developments in HCV therapy

Journal of Viral Hepatitis

Special Issue: How to Optimize Treatment of Hepatitis C

Volume 19, Issue Supplement s1, pages 48–51, January 2012

B. Kronenberger, S. Zeuzem

Article first published online: 10 JAN 2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2011.01526.x

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Abstract

Summary. About half of the patients with chronic hepatitis C are still not cured by treatment with the current standard of care, peginterferon α/ribavirin. Direct antiviral drugs may overcome the limitations of standard antiviral therapy. The most promising new agents are inhibitors of the NS3/4A protease, the NS5B polymerase and the NS5A protein. Several compounds against these targets have entered clinical evaluation. Early clinical trials have emphasized the high potential for selecting resistant Hepatitis C virus variants. Furthermore, development of several new direct antivirals was stopped because of concerns over tolerability and safety. Then, in 2010, two phase III trials with the NS3/4A protease inhibitors boceprevir (SPRINT-2) and telaprevir (ADVANCE) showed that the combination of these compounds with standard care increases sustained virologic response rates in treatment-naïve genotype 1 patients from 38–44% to 66–75%. Future goals of therapy with direct antiviral agents are to improve tolerability, shorten the duration of therapy and overcome the issue of resistance. Several studies have been initiated that combine different novel therapies, with and without interferon α/ribavirin.

Introduction

Despite numerous attempts to optimize peginterferon α/ribavirin therapy, more than half of all patients with chronic Hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 cannot be cured with this treatment. The limitations of antiviral therapy with peginterferon α/ribavirin may be overcome by direct antiviral agents (DAA), which specifically target hepatitis C viral proteins.

Among all approaches for direct antiviral treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C, two NS3/4A protease inhibitors have progressed into phase III development (telaprevir and boceprevir). Both compounds show a good safety profile and high antiviral efficacy. Assuming approval by regulatory agencies these drugs, in combination with peginterferon α and ribavirin, will become the new standard treatment for patients with HCV genotype 1 infections.

Phase III Trials with Protease Inhibitors

Telaprevir

Treatment-naïve patients

The ADVANCE trial is a randomized placebo-controlled phase III study to investigate the efficacy and safety of telaprevir in combination with peginterferon α-2a and ribavirin [1,2]. Treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1–infected patients (n = 1095) were randomized into two telaprevir arms and one control arm. Telaprevir was administered for either 8 or 12 weeks in combination with peginterferon α-2a/ribavirin for 24 weeks. Patients without extended rapid virologic response (eRVR; undetectable HCV RNA at week 4 and 12) continued peginterferon α-2a/ribavirin up to week 48. Patients in the control arm received peginterferon α-2a/ribavirin for 48 weeks.

The sustained virologic response (SVR) rates in both telaprevir arms were superior to standard therapy, with the highest rate achieved in the 12-week telaprevir arm (75%) compared to 69% in the 8-week telaprevir arm and 44% in the peginterferon α-2a/ribavirin arm [1,2].

The ILLUMINATE trial was supplementary to ADVANCE and had the aim of investigating the effect of treatment duration on SVR rates [3]. In this trial, treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 were treated with telaprevir, peginterferon α-2a and ribavirin. Patients who achieved an eRVR (undetectable HCV RNA at weeks 4 and 12) were randomized at week 20 to continue receiving peginterferon α-2a/ribavirin for a total of 24 or 48 weeks of treatment. Patients not achieving an eRVR were assigned to 48 weeks of treatment. The overall SVR rate after response-guided therapy was 71.9%. Among patients who achieved an eRVR, a 24-week telaprevir-based therapy was noninferior to 48-week telaprevir-based treatment (92% SVR compared to 87.5%). The study supports response-guided therapy for telaprevir-based treatment regimens.

Retreatment of nonresponders to SOC therapy

The REALIZE trial evaluated telaprevir-based triple therapy in patients with prior treatment failure to SOC [4]. Telaprevir was administered for 12 weeks, while pegylated interferon α-2a/ribavirin combination therapy was given for 48 weeks. Telaprevir was either started simultaneously with peginterferon α-2a/ribavirin or delayed until after a 4-week lead-in (LI) phase with peginterferon α-2a/ribavirin. Overall, SVR rates following telaprevir-based retreatment in the simultaneous and delayed arm were superior to retreatment with standard therapy (64% and 66% vs 17%). The highest SVR rates were observed in patients with prior relapse after standard therapy (simultaneous/delayed/control: 83/88/24%), followed by partial responders (59/54/15%) and finally by nonresponders (29/33/5%).

Boceprevir

Treatment-naïve patients

SPRINT-2 is a randomized placebo-controlled phase III study to investigate the efficacy and safety of boceprevir in combination with peginterferon α-2b and ribavirin in treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection [5,6].

The study compared a 4-week lead-in (LI) treatment period with peginterferon α-2b/ribavirin (PR), followed by (i) response-guided therapy: boceprevir plus peginterferon α-2b/ribavirin (BPR) for 24 weeks with an additional 20 weeks of PR only if HCV RNA was detectable during weeks 8–24 (LI + 24 BPR ± 20 PR) or (ii) Boceprevir plus PR for 44 weeks (LI + 44 BPR) or (iii) PR plus placebo for 44 weeks (48 PR).

In the HCV SPRINT-2 study, 1097 treatment-naïve patients were enrolled. The overall SVR rates were superior in the boceprevir arms (66% for LI + 44 BPR and 63% for LI + 24 BPR ± 20 PR), compared with the control arm (38%, 48 PR). The SVR rates were further distinguished according to ethnicity, with 159 patients being African American/Black and 938 patients non-African American/Black. SVR rates among the non-African American/Black patients were higher than SVR rates in African American/Black patients (68%, 67% and 40% vs 53%, 42% and 23% for patients in the LI + 44 BPR, the response-guided therapy LI + 24 BPR ± 20 PR and control 48 PR arms, respectively).

Retreatment of nonresponders to SOC therapy

The HCV RESPOND-2 study was conducted in 403 patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infections who had failed prior standard therapy [7]. HCV genotype 1 partial responders (decrease in HCV RNA of at least 2 log₁₀ but with detectable HCV RNA throughout therapy) or relapsers to prior peginterferon α/ribavirin treatment were randomized into three arms. Each patient received a 4-week LI with PR. Patients in the control arm then received PR for 44 weeks. Patients in experimental arm 1 received boceprevir and PR for 32 weeks, and those with detectable HCV RNA at week 8 received an additional 12 weeks of PR. Patients in experimental arm 2 received BPR for 44 weeks. The SVR rates were 59% in the boceprevir response-guided arm, 66% in the 44-week boceprevir treatment arm and 21% in the control group.

Relevance of viral and host factors for direct antiviral agents treatment

Genotype

Both protease inhibitors telaprevir and boceprevir were developed for treatment of HCV genotype 1–infected patients. Telaprevir is less active against HCV genotype 2 and markedly so against HCV genotypes 3 and 4, compared with HCV genotype 1 [8,9]. Also, boceprevir was reported to have lower antiviral activity against HCV genotypes 2 and 3 [10]. HCV genotype will therefore remain an important factor for individualized therapy. New NS3/4A protease inhibitors such as ACH-2684 and MK-5172 currently in preclinical or early clinical development are active against genotypes 1–6 and genotypes 1 and 3, respectively, and may overcome this restriction [11,12]. Nuc polymerase inhibitors that target the active centre of the NS5B polymerase have the highest potential for direct antiviral therapy of nongenotype 1 HCV. A recent phase I study shows that NS5A inhibitors such as PPI-461 also have the potential for pan-genotype activity [13].

IL28B genotype

Genome-wide association studies have recently identified single-nucleotide polymorphisms at the IL28B gene locus that are strongly associated with treatment response to SOC in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 [14–17]. The more responsive C/C variant was associated with a twofold increase in cure rate. Allele frequencies differ between ethnic groups, largely explaining the observed differences in response rates between Caucasians, African Americans and Asians.

The IL28B C/C genotype is associated with improved early antiviral kinetics and a greater likelihood of rapid and complete early virologic response in patients with HCV genotype 1 [17]. An ongoing phase II trial revealed that the non-nuc polymerase inhibitor ANA598 was able to improve RVR and EVR rates in patients with the less favourable IL28B C/T and T/T alleles, where SOC alone is less efficacious (RVR 31% vs 10% and EVR 69% vs 50% for ANA598 plus SOC vs SOC alone) [18]. The study shows that the IL28B genotype distribution may also be important for DAA treatment. Furthermore, knowledge of the IL28B genotype may be relevant for designing early phase clinical trials with small patient numbers (stratification according to IL28B genotype) [19].

Future of Treatment

Combination therapy without interferon

Triple therapy of protease inhibitors with peginterferon α and ribavirin continues to be unsatisfactory for two reasons: (i) anti-HCV therapy still depends on peginterferon α and ribavirin, and therefore, SOC null responders are less likely to achieve SVR; (ii) triple therapy is associated with more adverse events than previous SOC. Therefore, the next goal of anti-HCV therapy will be to develop an interferon-free regimen with better tolerability. This goal may be achievable with a combination of two or more direct antivirals that have nonoverlapping resistance profiles.

Combination of NS3/4A inhibitor plus NS5B polymerase inhibitor

The INFORM-1 trial was the first study that investigated an interferon-free approach for treatment of chronic hepatitis C. The nuc polymerase inhibitor RG7128 and the protease inhibitor RG7227 were administered to treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced HCV genotype 1–infected patients for 2 weeks. All patients who received combination therapy achieved profound reduction in HCV RNA without evidence of treatment emergent resistance (HCV drop after 2 weeks −4.8, −4.0 and −4.9 log₁₀ IU/mL in treatment naïve, relapsed and nonresponders to SOC) [20].

Another phase I trial also investigated an interferon-free combination of the NS3/4A protease inhibitor BI201335 and the NS5B polymerase inhibitor BI207127 plus ribavirin for 4 weeks in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1–infected patients [21]. This combination yielded a rapid sharp drop in HCV RNA followed by a second declining phase in most patients. A majority of patients (11/15) in the BI207127 low-dose (400 mg TID) and all patients (17/17) in the high-dose (600 mg TID) arms had an HCV RNA level lower than 25 IU/mL at week 4. This combination will be investigated in a phase II trial testing different dose regimens and longer treatment using SVR as the primary endpoint.

GS-9256 is a NS3/4A protease inhibitor and GS-9190 a non-nucleoside NS5B inhibitor, which are each active against genotype 1 HCV as monotherapy. Mutations associated with resistance to GS-9256 or GS-9190 were introduced into HCV 1b replicons, and antiviral susceptibility was tested in transient replication assays. GS-9256 maintained antiviral activity in replicons bearing mutations associated with lower susceptibility to GS-9190 and vice versa, and GS-9190 maintained antiviral activity in replicons bearing mutations associated with lower susceptibility to GS-9256. The combination is now in active clinical development [22].

Combination of an NS3/4A inhibitor plus an NS5A inhibitor

A phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of the NS5A inhibitor BMS-790052 in combination with the NS3/4A inhibitor BMS-650032, with and without peginterferon α-2a/ribavirin in HCV genotype 1 patients not responding to prior SOC [23]. An interim analysis revealed RVR rates of 63% and 60% in the arms with and without interferon/ribavirin, respectively. However, between week 4 and 12, 6 of 11 patients in the interferon-free arm had viral breakthroughs, while all patients in the interferon/ribavirin-containing arm maintained viral suppression.

Summary

Peginterferon α/ribavirin has been the standard treatment for HCV for almost a decade. The most promising and clinically advanced direct anti-HCV compounds are inhibitors of the NS3/4A protease and the NS5B polymerase. Because of the risk of selecting for resistant strains, the current protease inhibitors telaprevir and boceprevir must be administered in combination with peginterferon α/ribavirin. Two phase III trials with boceprevir (SPRINT-2) and telaprevir (ADVANCE) in combination with SOC have shown SVR rates in the order of 66-75% in patients with genotype 1 HCV infections. The future of anti-HCV therapy will focus on the development of interferon-free treatment regimens with better tolerability and shorter treatment duration compared with SOC.

Acknowledgements and Disclosures

Bernd Kronenberger has served as a speaker or an advisory board member for Roche, Human Genome Sciences, Novartis, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Schering Plough. Stefan Zeuzem has served as a speaker, a consultant or an advisory board member for Abbott, Achillion, Anadys, BMS, Gilead, Itherx, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmasset, Roche, Santaris, Tibotec, Vertex; member of speaker’s bureau: BMS, Gilead, Merck, Novartis, Roche.

References

Source

Efficacy and safety of telaprevir, a new protease inhibitor, for difficult-to-treat patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C

Journal of Viral Hepatitis

Volume 19, Issue 2, pages e134–e142, February 2012

N. Hayashi¹, T. Okanoue², H. Tsubouchi³, J. Toyota⁴, K. Chayama⁵, H. Kumada⁶

Article first published online: 8 NOV 2011

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2011.01528.x

© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Abstract

Summary. The aims of this phase III study were to assess the efficacy and safety of telaprevir in combination with peginterferon alfa-2b (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) for difficult-to-treat patients who had not achieved sustained virological response (SVR) to prior regimens in Japan. The subjects were 109 relapsers (median age of 57.0 years) and 32 nonresponders (median age of 57.5 years) with hepatitis C virus genotype 1. Patients received telaprevir (750 mg every 8 h) for 12 weeks and PEG-IFN/RBV for 24 weeks. The SVR rates for relapsers and nonresponders were 88.1% (96/109) and 34.4% (11/32), respectively. Specified dose modifications of RBV that differed from that for the standard of care were introduced to alleviate anaemia. RBV dose reductions were used for 139 of the 141 patients. The SVR rates for relapsers did not depend on RBV dose reduction for 20–100% of the planned dose (SVR rates 87.5–100%, P < 0.05). Skin disorders were observed in 82.3% (116/141). Most of the skin disorders were controllable by anti-histamine and/or steroid ointments. The ratios of discontinuation of telaprevir only or of all the study drugs because of adverse events were 21.3% (30/141) and 16.3% (23/141), respectively. A frequent adverse event leading to discontinuation was anaemia. Telaprevir in combination with PEG-IFN/RBV led to a high SVR rate for relapsers and may offer a potential new therapy for nonresponders even with a shorter treatment period.

Introduction

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) affects approximately 170 million people worldwide [1]; patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) eventually develop cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [2,3]. The standard of care (SOC) with peginterferon plus ribavirin (RBV) for 48 weeks is most effective for eradicating HCV genotype 1 [4], which is a dominant genotype for CHC [1]. However, the sustained virological response (SVR) rate of SOC for the treatment of naïve patients with genotype 1 is approximately <50% [5,6]. The retreatment regimen for patients who do not achieve SVR is limited to exposure to peginterferon plus RBV with modification of dose and treatment duration. Some studies have been conducted to estimate the effectiveness of peginterferon plus RBV for 48 weeks for nonresponders to prior interferon-based combination therapy, and the SVR rates in most studies did not exceed 20% [7–9]. A large randomized study of patients who had not responded to previous treatment with peginterferon alfa-2b (PEG-IFN) plus RBV gave SVR rates for peginterferon alfa-2a 180 μg/kg plus RBV for 72 weeks that were not as high as those for 48 weeks (14%, 9%) [10]. HCV patients who had failed to achieve SVR with the combination therapy displayed high risk rates of decompensated cirrhosis, HCC and liver-related mortality [11]. Therefore, it is very important to establish new regimens to increase the SVR rate and shorten the treatment period for patients who do not achieve SVR with prior treatments.

Telaprevir, classified as a direct-acting antiviral agent, is a reversible, selective, orally bioavailable inhibitor of the nonstructural NS3/4A HCV serine protease [12]. Two phase II studies (PROVE 1 and PROVE 2) on the treatment of naïve patients with genotype 1 were conducted to assess the efficacy of telaprevir for 12 weeks in combination with peginterferon and RBV for 24 weeks [13,14]. These studies demonstrated that the SVR rates of the telaprevir regimen were significantly higher compared with SOC (PROVE 1: 61%vs 41%, P = 0.02, PROVE 2: 69%vs 46%, P = 0.004). A subsequent phase II study (PROVE 3) for treatment-failure patients with genotype 1 gave SVR rates for nonresponders, relapsers and breakthroughs in the telaprevir regimen of 39%, 69% and 57%, respectively [9].

In Japan, a phase III study was conducted for the treatment of naïve patients with genotype 1 to compare the efficacy and safety between the telaprevir regimen and SOC. It has demonstrated that the SVR rate for the telaprevir regimen was significantly higher than that for SOC (73.0%vs 49.2%, P = 0.0020) [15]. We decided to conduct a phase III study to assess the efficacy and safety of telaprevir in combination with PEG-IFN and RBV in relapsers and nonresponders who had not achieved SVR to a previously administered IFN-based regimen in Japan.

Patients and methods

Study patients

Relapsers and nonresponders were enrolled in Study 1 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00780910) and Study 2 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00781274), respectively. Relapsers were defined as patients who had been previously treated for CHC and had undetectable HCV RNA during interferon or peginterferon therapy (including combination with RBV). Nonresponders were defined as patients who were previously treated for CHC and had never had undetectable HCV RNA for more than 24 weeks with interferon or peginterferon therapy (including combination with RBV).

The patients were enrolled from 17 sites in Japan. Patients considered eligible were of 20–65 years of age, had CHC because of HCV genotype 1 (defined by NS5B sequence) [16] and ≥5.0 log₁₀ IU/mL HCV RNA level at the screening test, had been previously treated for CHC with interferon or peginterferon therapy (including combination with RBV), had a body weight of 40 kg or more and below 120 kg, could be hospitalized for at least 2 weeks after the first administration, were not pregnant and agreed to contraception from the screening period to 24 weeks after the last dosing of the study drug. The patients were excluded if they had a haemoglobin level of <12 g/dL, neutrophil count of <1500/mm³, platelet count of <100 000/mm³, were positive for HBs antigen and HIV antibodies at the screening test, had chronic renal failure or creatinine clearance of ≤50 mL/min, depression, schizophrenia or its history, history of suicide attempt, decompensated cirrhosis, previous or current HCC or other malignancies, autoimmune hepatitis, alcoholic liver disease or haemochromatosis.

All patients provided written informed consent before participating in the study. These studies were approved by each site’s institutional review board and conducted in accordance with good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Study design

All patients received PEG-IFN (PegIntron^®; MSD, Tokyo, Japan) at a dose of 1.5 μg/kg per week subcutaneously, RBV (Rebetol^®; MSD) at a dose of 600 mg per day (for body weight ≤60 kg), 800 mg per day (for body weight >60 to ≤80 kg) or 1000 mg per day (for body weight >80 kg) and telaprevir (MP-424; Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Osaka, Japan) at a dose of 750 mg every 8 h after food. The patients were treated with telaprevir, PEG-IFN and RBV for 12 weeks, followed by PEG-IFN and RBV (PEG-IFN/RBV) for 12 weeks. All patients had a 24-week follow-up period after the last dosing of study drugs to assess SVR.

Dose modification of study drugs

Specified dose modification of RBV that differed from the dose for SOC was introduced to alleviate anaemia. The initial dose of RBV was reduced by 200 mg per day in case of a haemoglobin level <13 g/dL at baseline. The RBV dose was reduced by 200 mg per day in patients receiving 600 or 800 mg per day (by 400 mg per day in those receiving 1000 mg) when the haemoglobin level was <12 g/dL and was reduced by an additional 200 mg per day when the haemoglobin level was <10 g/dL. The RBV dose was also reduced by 200 mg per day if the haemoglobin level dropped ≥1 g/dL within 1 week, and this level was <13 g/dL. Telaprevir was withdrawn when the haemoglobin level was <8.5 g/dL. PEG-IFN/RBV were withdrawn or interrupted when the haemoglobin level was <8.5 g/dL. The dose modifications of PEG-IFN were followed by SOC. Dose modification and interruption of telaprevir were not allowed. Telaprevir was withdrawn if serious adverse events appeared. The use of erythropoietin was not allowed for elevating the haemoglobin level.

Stopping rules

Patients could be discontinued from the study at any time if the investigator or sponsor determined that it was not in the interest of the patient to continue the study or the patient wished to withdraw from the study. The study drugs were discontinued if the patients had a haemoglobin level of <8.5 g/dL, white blood cell count of <1000/mm³, neutrophil count of <500/mm³ or platelet count of <50 000/mm³.

In case of the following criteria for serum HCV RNA viral kinetics measured during the treatment period, discontinuation of the study drugs was decided at the investigator’s discretion. (i) When the following criteria applied twice consecutively: (a) the amount of change from the lowest value for HCV RNA level exceeded 2.0 log₁₀ IU/mL and (b) HCV RNA level exceeded 2.0 log₁₀ IU/mL after it had been confirmed to be <1.2 log₁₀ IU/mL. (ii) When the serum HCV RNA level at 13 weeks after administration of study drugs did not decrease by >2.0 log₁₀ IU/mL from the baseline level.

Efficacy assessments

Serum HCV RNA levels were measured using the COBAS TaqMan HCV test (Roche Diagnostics Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The linear dynamic range was 1.2–7.8 log₁₀ IU/mL. Samples with undetectable HCV RNA were reported as ‘<1.2 log₁₀ IU/mL (no detectable HCV RNA)’. Measurements were obtained at week 4 before day 1 of the screening period: at days 1 (predose), 2 and 3; weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22 and 24 of the treatment period; and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 of the follow-up period.

The primary endpoint was a SVR defined as an undetectable HCV RNA level 24 weeks after the end of treatment. Relapse, breakthrough, and nonresponse were defined based on AASLD Guidelines as follows [4]: ‘relapse’ was a state of undetectable serum HCV RNA at the end of treatment and reappearance of serum HCV RNA during the follow-up period; ‘breakthrough’ was a state of undetectable serum HCV RNA and reappearance of serum HCV RNA during the treatment period; and ‘nonresponse’ was a state of continuously detectable serum HCV RNA during the treatment period.

Safety assessments

All adverse events were recorded up to the last visit and coded using MedDRA/J version 13.0. (MedDRA Japanese Maintenance Organization, Tokyo, Japan) Measurements for chemical laboratory data were obtained at week 4 before day 1 of the screening period: at day 1 (predose); weeks 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 24 of the treatment period; and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 of the follow-up period. Electrocardiogram (ECG) and fundus examinations were performed once during the screening period. Adverse events, haematological and chemical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed and summarized. The severity of rash was categorized into three grades.

Statistical analysis

Sustained virological response rates were evaluated for the full analysis set. Categorical variables were compared by Fisher’s exact test. Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software SAS Version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA), and a P value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Study patients

From November 2008 to August 2009, a total of 168 patients [Study 1 (N = 135) and Study 2 (N = 33)] were screened, and 141 patients [Study 1 (N = 109) and Study 2 (N = 32)] received at least one dose of a study drug. The baseline characteristics of the study patients are shown in Table 1. Patients previously treated with PEG-IFN (with or without RBV) and IFN (with or without RBV) in Study 1 and Study 2 accounted for 75.2% (82 of 109) and 24.7% (27 of 109) and 90.6% (29 of 32) and 9.4% (3 of 32), respectively. The median of age, weight, haemoglobin level, platelet count and HCV RNA level for Study 1 and Study 2 were 57.0 and 57.5 years, 62.5 and 61.3 kg, 14.7 and 14.5 g/dL, 17.8 and 17.85 × 10⁴/mm³, and 6.75 and 6.78 log₁₀ IU/mL, respectively. Patients over 50 years of age accounted for 81.7% (89 of 109) and 81.3% (26 of 32), respectively.

Efficacy in study 1 (relapsers)

Figure 1 shows the change in the undetectable HCV RNA rates at each measurement point. The rapid viral response (RVR) rate and the end of treatment response (ETR) rate were 87.2% (95/109) and 94.5% (103/109), respectively. The SVR rate, nonresponse, breakthrough and relapse were 88.1% (96/109), 0.9% (1/109), 0.9% (1/109) and 7.3% (8/109), respectively (Fig. 2).

Figure 1. Undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA rates at each measurement point. SVR, sustained virological response; ETR, end-of-treatment response.

Figure 2. Response rates of patients with virological response. *Number of patients who achieved SVR in each subgroup/N (%). SVR, sustained virological response; RVR, rapid viral response; ETR, end-of-treatment response.

Factors influencing the SVR rate are compared in Table 2. The SVR rate in the patients who achieved undetectable HCV RNA at ≤week 4 was significantly higher than that in the patients who achieved undetectable HCV RNA at >week 4 (91.8%vs 66.7%, P = 0.0487). Also, the SVR rate for men was significantly higher than that for women (93.9%vs 79.1%, P = 0.0316). The SVR rate with discontinuation of all the study drugs was significantly lower than that with discontinuation of only telaprevir or no discontinuation of the study drugs (all the study drugs: 60.0%, only telaprevir: 95.0% and no discontinuation: 94.2%, P = 0.0007). In contrast, there was no difference in the SVR rate in relation to HCV RNA level and prior therapy for CHC. SVR rates by the ratio of the actual total RBV dose to the anticipated total RBV dose were evaluated (Fig. 3). The SVR rates did not depend on RBV dose reduction for 20–100% of the planned dose (87.5–100%, P < 0.05).

Figure 3. Sustained virological response rates according to adherence to the ribavirin dose.

Efficacy in study 2 (nonresponders)

The RVR and ETR rates were 71.9% (23/32) and 59.4% (19/32), respectively (Fig. 1). The SVR rate, nonresponse, breakthrough and relapse were 34.4% (11/32), 6.3% (2/32), 18.8% (6/32) and 40.6% (13/32), respectively (Fig. 2). There was no difference in the SVR rate in relation to baseline characteristics, HCV RNA level and prior treatment for CHC. The SVR rates for the patients who received 40–80% RBV dose reduction were over 30% (Fig. 3).

Safety

Adverse events were observed in all the patients in Study 1 and Study 2. Adverse events observed in at least 15% of the patients in each clinical study are listed in Table 3. Adverse events were similar between Study 1 and Study 2. Most of the adverse events were mild and moderate. Serious adverse events in Study 1 and Study 2 were reported in 11.9% (13/109) and 9.4% (3/32) of the patients, respectively. The ratios of discontinuation of all the study drugs because of adverse events in Study 1 and Study 2 were 17.4% (19/109) and 12.5% (4/32), respectively. A frequent adverse event leading to discontinuation was anaemia. Discontinuation rates of all the study drugs because of anaemia in Study 1 and Study 2 were 10.1% (11/109) and 9.4% (3/32), respectively. One death was reported in Study 1. One patient in Study 1 died of pulmonary embolism. Causality of PEG-IFN and RBV was classified as ‘probably related’ and that of telaprevir was classified as ‘possibly related’.

Adverse events related to skin disorders were observed in 82.3% (116/141) of the patients. Skin disorders reported in over 10% of the patients were rash in 39.0% (55/141), drug eruption in 24.1% (34/141), injection site reaction in 12.8% (18/141) and injection site erythema in 12.8% (18/141) of the patients. Most of the skin disorders were controllable by anti-histamine and/or steroid ointments. Grade 3 (severe) skin disorders in Study 1 and Study 2 were reported in 6.4% (7/109) and 6.3% (2/32) of the patients, respectively. Discontinuation of all the study drugs because of skin disorders in Study 1 amounted to 3.7% (4/109). No discontinuation because of skin disorders occurred in Study 2.

Figure 4 shows the changes in haemoglobin levels, platelet counts and neutrophil counts during the treatment and follow-up periods. Changes in the haematological parameters were similar between Study 1 and Study 2. The platelet count and neutrophil count decreased sharply within 4 weeks and then gradually decreased. Despite the modification of RBV, the median haemoglobin levels in Study 1 and Study 2 decreased to 10.6 and 10.4 g/dL at week 12, respectively. No patient discontinued all the study drugs because of neutrophil decrease. The haematological parameters recovered to the baseline level at the end of the follow-up period.

Figure 4. Changes in hematology parameters. Median haemoglobin levels (a), median platelet counts (b) and median neutrophil counts (c) were plotted during treatment and follow-up periods.

Discussion

This phase III study was planned and conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of telaprevir in combination with PEG-IFN/RBV for relapsers and nonresponders. Most of the patients who participated in this study had received a prior PEG-IFN/RBV regimen. Despite a shorter treatment period, the SVR rates for relapsers and nonresponders were 88.1% and 34.4%, respectively. The result indicates that the HCV RNA response to previous treatment history should be one of the diagnostic factors for predicting SVR.

The SVR rate for men was significantly higher than that for women in the relapser group (93.9%vs 79.1%, P = 0.0316). There was no significant difference in other characteristics of the patients in that group. Once the relapsers had achieved undetectable HCV RNA, this condition was sustained until the end of the treatment period. The patients who achieved RVR had a higher SVR rate than the patients who had no RVR in the relapser group (91.8%vs 66.7%, P = 0.0487).

In contrast, there was no significant difference related to characteristics in the nonresponder group. The SVR rates between men and women and undetectable HCV RNA were, however, slightly different. As Study 2 for the nonresponders was of a small scale, it will be necessary to evaluate a larger number of patients. The breakthrough ratio in the nonresponders during the PEG-IFN/RBV treatment period and relapse ratio were 18.8% and 40.6%, respectively. Two patients were nonresponders with high telaprevir-resistant variants; one was subtype 1a and the only patient with this characteristic in the study.

Triple therapy for 12 weeks, followed by PEG-IFN/RBV for 12 weeks for the relapsers led to a high SVR rate. In contrast to the relapsers, all breakthroughs were observed in 18.8% of nonresponder patients after the end of telaprevir treatment, and relapse were observed in 40.6% of nonresponder patients after the end of treatment period. Continuation of telaprevir over 12 weeks and PEG-IFN/RBV over 24 weeks might be needed to achieve a higher SVR rate for nonresponders.

Dose modification of RBV that differed from that for SOC was introduced to prevent anaemia in the patients [17]. Dose reductions of RBV were observed in 98.6% of the patients, and those who had 200 mg RBV per day as a minimum dose and those who discontinued it accounted for 41.8% and 29.8%, respectively. The haemoglobin level recovered to the baseline level at the end of the follow-up period. As a result of dose modification, the change in the haemoglobin level in this study was similar to that in PROVE 3 [9]. Checking the haemoglobin level once a week during the treatment period is important. The SVR rates did not depend on RBV dose reduction among the relapsers who had over 20% of the anticipated total RBV dose (87.5–100%). Thus, it is important to monitor haemoglobin levels and continue RBV dosing appropriately to achieve SVR, even with a low RBV dose.

Adverse events related to skin disorder were reported by 82.3% of the subjects. Of the nine cases of severe skin disorders, seven occurred within 8 weeks. Telaprevir was likely to be related to the occurrence of the severe skin disorders. The mechanism of skin disorders is unknown. All the patients who discontinued treatment received immediate care from dermatologists and recovered eventually. Skin disorders should be carefully monitored by physicians in collaboration with dermatologists.

The relationship between the SVR rates and the difference in SNPs in gene IL28B or near IL28B has become clear [18,19]. With genetic variation in rs8099917, SVR rates of 83.8% and 27.6% were achieved for patients with genotype TT and non-TT who were treated with telaprevir in combination with PEG-IFN/RBV, respectively [20]. Also, genetic variations in gene ITPA related to haemoglobin decrease and reduction of RBV has been discussed for patients treated with PEG-IFN/RBV [21,22]. We did not evaluate IL28B and ITPA in this study. As anaemia was the most frequent adverse event leading to the discontinuation of the study drugs in the present study, it should become a valuable pharmacogenetic diagnostic tool to optimize the triple therapy.

In conclusion, this phase III study conducted in Japan demonstrated that telaprevir in combination with PEG-IFN/RBV had a high SVR rate for relapsers and shows promise as a potential therapy for nonresponders even with a short treatment period. Prolongation of telaprevir and PEG-IFN/RBV treatment should be a better option for achieving high SVR for nonresponders. As the data demonstrated convincingly that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks, telaprevir-based regimen is at the lead for the next generation of HCV therapies.

Disclosures

None to declare.

References

Source

Long-term effects of treatment and response in patients with chronic hepatitis C on quality of life

Published on: 2012-01-31

Background Hepatitis C decreases health related quality of life (HRQL) which is further diminished by antiviral therapy. HRQL improves after successful treatment.

This trial explores the course of and factors associated with HRQL in patients given individualized or standard treatment based on early treatment response (Ditto-study).Methods The Short Form (SF)-36 Health Survey was administered at baseline (n= 192) and 24 weeks after the end of therapy (n= 128).Results At baseline HRQL was influenced by age, participating center, severity of liver disease and income. Exploring the course of HRQL (scores at follow up minus baseline), only the dimension general health increased.

In this dimension patients with a relapse or sustained response differed from non-responders. Men and women differed in the dimension bodily pain.

Treatment schedule did not influence the course of HRQL.Conclusions Main determinants of HRQL were severity of liver disease, age, gender, participating center and response to treatment. Our results do not exclude a more profound negative impact of individualized treatment compared to standard, possibly caused by higher doses and extended treatment duration in the individualized group.

Antiviral therapy might have a more intense and more prolonged negative impact on females.

Author: Geert BezemerArthur R van GoolElke Verheij-HartBettina E HansenYoav LurieJuan I EstebanMartin LaggingFrancesco NegroStefan ZeuzemCarlo FerrariJean-Michel PawlotskyAvidan U NeumannSolko W SchalmRobert J de Knegt

Credits/Source: BMC Gastroenterol

Source

How Do Lipids Affect Liver Disease?

As Posted on The AGA Journals Blog

Posted on January 30, 2012

by Kristine Novak, PhD, Science Editor

Changes in lipid intake or metabolism can affect development of liver injury and fibrosis, according to two studies in mice published in the January issue of Gastroenterology.

The liver is an important site of energy production and lipid metabolism. However, accumulation of excess fat in the liver promotes development of fibrosis, cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer. Not much is known about how lipids and lipid metabolism influence liver diseases. Two studies used mice to learn more.

Teratani et al. investigated the effects of a high cholesterol diet on hepatic fibrosis induced by bile duct ligation or carbon tetrachloride, which cause biliary and toxic liver injury.The diet did not affect hepatocytes, but increased levels of cholesterol in hepatic stellate cells (HSCs; liver cells that store lipid and promote fibrogenesis) and increased up-regulation of profibrogenic genes in response to transforming growth factor (TGF)-β.

Although the high-cholesterol diet did not affect expression of the receptor for TGF-β, the authors observed increased levels of the lipopolysaccharide Toll-like receptor (TLR)4, and other alterations in this hepatocyte signaling pathway. Cholesterol did not increase levels of TLR4 mRNA, so the authors to propose that cholesterol prevents degradation of TLR4 protein. This is one of the first studies to show that cholesterol affects HSCs and their fibrogenic abilities.

Moustafa et al. uncovered a unique role for hepatic lipids using a mouse model of cholestatic liver disease, caused by genetic disruption of the ATP-binding cassette sub-family B member 4 (Abcb4−/−). Abcb4 encodes a phospholipid flippase that promotes biliary secretion of phospholipid and protects the biliary epithelium from the damaging effects of bile acids. Mice deficient in Abcb4 develop hepatocellular injury, cholestasis, and liver fibrosis. ABCB4 mutations in humans cause progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 3 (PFIC3).

In the in Abcb4−/− mice, 24-NorUrsodeoxycholic acid (NorUDCA, a side-chain variant of ursodeoxycholic acid that ameliorates cholestatic liver injury), loss of PPAR-α (PPAR-/-), and the high-fat diet (HFD, in figure below) reduced cholestasis, hepatic inflammation and fibrosis. The improvements coincided with reductions in activities of hepatic phospholipase and triglyceride lipase.

Factors that alter lipid metabolism, leading to liver damage.

These results were surprising because they show that hepatic lipid homeostasis in an important determinant of outcome in a liver disease not characterized by hepatic steatosis. They are also unique in that they demonstrate cholestatic liver disease, at least in Abcb4−/−mice, is improved by increasing, rather than decreasing, hepatic triglyceride levels.

In an editorial that accompanies the articles, Robert Schwab and Jacquelyn Maher ask whether this means that there is some optimal level of hepatic triglyceride—that disease develops if there is too much or too little? They say that the answer is no—instead, the development of liver disease depends on the metabolic activity of hepatic lipid. Excess fatty acids in the liver are dangerous only when they are prevented from being incorporated into triglycerides, and the findings of Moustafa et al. show that liver injury can also occur if lipid droplets are unable to hold on to their triglyceride. Schwab and Maher conclude that these findings incriminate fatty acids as hepatotoxic compounds and support the concept that triglyceride synthesis in hepatocytes is a cytoprotective mechanism.

Although Abcb4−/− mice are a model of human cholestatic liver disease, it is not clear if the lipid-related abnormalities in these mice can be compared to those of patients—even patients with PFIC3. It will be important to determine whether patients with PFIC3 have the same reduction of hepatic triglycerides and increased triglyceride hydrolysis as Abcb4−/− mice. If so, these findings could lead to a new therapeutic approach for this disease.

Read the articles online:
Teratani T, Tomita K, Suzuki T, et al. A high-cholesterol diet exacerbates liver fibrosis in mice via accumulation of free cholesterol in hepatic stellate cells. Gastroenterology 2012;152–164.e10.

Moustafa T, Fickert P, Magnes C, et al. Alterations in lipid metabolism mediate inflammation, fibrosis, and proliferation in a mouse model of chronic cholestatic liver injury. Gastroenterology 2012; 140–151.e12

Read the accompanying editorial.
Schwabe RF, Maher JJ. Lipids in liver disease: looking beyond steatosis. Gastroenterology 2012;8–11.

Source

New Hep C treatment available in Australia

AAP February 01, 2012 12:20AM

A RECENTLY developed treatment for the most common form of hepatitis C has been approved for use in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Victrelis, also known as boceprevir, comes from a group of drugs known as a protease inhibitors.

Scientists say it is an effective way to fight hepatitis C, genotype 1.

The director of the AW Morrow Gastroenterology and Liver Centre in Sydney, Professor Geoff McCaughan, says people who suffer from this strand of hepatitis C now have their first new treatment option in a decade.

"In the last ten years there has been little development in the availability of treatments for hepatitis C and a significant proportion of patients fail to respond to current standard of care." Professor McCaughan said in a statement.

"Victrelis is an approved treatment that works directly on the hepatitis C virus and prevents it from replicating and therefore reproducing."

He said this was a big step forward in the battle against hepatitis C, genotype 1.

"Unfortunately, hepatitis C is a silent disease where there is very little awareness of the condition and patients often present late with severe complications.

"Hepatitis C is a huge burden for individuals and is still very heavily stigmatised, and having another new treatment option marks progress in the management of patients with the disease."

Hepatitis C affects more than 200,000 Australians, with 20,000 new cases reported each year.

A spokeswoman for the TGA said now that Victrelis had been approved it had been released for public use.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Committee is to consider listing the drug at its March meeting.

Source

Stem cells may shed light on hepatitis, MIT researchers find

Sangeeta Bhatia, MIT professor of health sciences and technology and electrical engineering and computer science

Monday, January 30, 2012

By Lori Valigra

Researchers at MIT and their colleagues said they have devised a way to produce liver-like cells from stem cells, a key step in studying why people respond differently to Hepatitis C.

An infectious disease that can cause inflammation and organ failure, Hepatitis C has different effects on different people, but no one is sure why, the researchers said in a press release from MIT. Some people are very susceptible to the infection, while others are resistant.

The researchers said that by studying liver cells from different people in the lab, they may determine how genetic differences produce these varying responses. However, liver cells are hard to get and very difficult to grow in a lab dish because they tend to lose their normal structure and function when removed from the body.

The researchers, from MIT, Rockefeller University and the Medical College of Wisconsin, have come up with a way to produce liver-like cells from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), which are made from body tissues rather than embryos. Those liver-like cells can then be infected with Hepatitis C and help scientists study the varying responses to the infection.

The scientists claim this is the first time an infection has been made in cells derived from iPSCs. Their new technique is described in the Jan. 30 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The development, they said, may also eventually enable personalized medicine, in which doctors could test the effect of different drugs on tissues derived from the patient being treated and then customize therapy for that patient.

The new study is a collaboration between Sangeeta Bhatia, professor of health sciences and technology and electrical engineering and computer science at MIT; Charles Rice, professor of virology at Rockefeller; and Stephen Duncan, professor of human and molecular genetics at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

The iPSCs are derived from normal body cells, often skin cells. By turning on certain genes in those cells, the scientists can revert them to an immature state that is identical to embryonic stem cells, which can turn into any cell type. Once the cells become pluripotent, they can be directed to become liver-like cells by turning on genes that control liver development.

The researchers’ goal is to take cells from patients who have unusual reactions to hepatitis C infection, transform them into liver cells and study their genetics to see why people respond as they do. “Hepatitis C virus causes an unusually robust infection in some people, while others are very good at clearing it. It’s not yet known why those differences exist,” Bhatia said in a statement.

Bhatia is a 2009 Mass High Tech Women to Watch honoree.

Source

UCLA researchers developing new hepatitis C treatment

Hepatitis C virus  Credits: Robin Wulffson, MD

January 30, 2012

Robin Wulffson, M.D. LA Health Examiner

Hepatitis C is a disease that impacts approximately 160 million individuals worldwide; it can lead to liver cancer and cirrhosis. Researchers from UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center have identified a cell-permeable peptide that inhibits a hepatitis C virus protein and blocks viral replication. The finding could lead to a new treatment for the disease. Senior author Dr. Samuel French, an assistant professor of pathology and senior author of the study, and his team published their results January 30 in the peer-reviewed journal Hepatology. It builds on previous work by the French laboratory that identified two cellular proteins that are important factors in hepatitis C virus infection.

French and his team initially set out to identify the cellular factors involved in hepatitis C replication and, using mass spectrometry, found that heat shock proteins (HSPs) 40 and 70 were important for viral infection. HSP70 was previously known to be involved; however, Dr. French noted that HSP40 was linked for the first time to hepatitis C infection. The researchers further showed that the natural compound Quercetin, which inhibits the synthesis of these proteins, significantly inhibits viral infection in tissue culture.

In the study, the researchers demonstrated that the viral non-structural protein 5A (NS5A) directly binds to HSP70 and mapped the site of the NS5A/HSP70 complex on NS5A. While HSP70 was previously shown to bind NS5A in cells, a direct NS5A/HSP70 interaction and complex formation was established in this study. In an effort to stop this interaction, they tested peptides that might inhibit HSP70.

“This is important because we’ve developed a small peptide that binds to that site and blocks the interaction between the proteins that is important for viral replication,” French said. “This is another, potentially highly efficacious way to block replication of hepatitis C.”

Conventional treatments for hepatitis C, interferon and ribavirin, can have significant side effects. A new drug targeting cellular proteins rather than viral proteins would be a valuable addition to the treatment arsenal, noted Dr. French. He explained, “We were surprised that this peptide works this well. While its mechanism is different, the activity of this peptide is comparable to other newly developed anti-virals.”

The study, done in tissue culture, shows that the peptide gains entry into the cell easily and blocks the cascade of cellular events that allows the virus to replicate, French said. Blocking the HSP70 protein rather than a viral protein also reduces the chance of patients with the hepatitis C virus developing resistance to the peptide.

“There’s no direct pressure on the virus, so it is less likely to mutate and develop resistance,” Dr. French said. “The goal is to achieve a sustained response, essentially a cure, meaning there is no more virus replication. There are a lot of drugs coming out now that are designed to stop hepatitis C replication, but resistance is still an issue. About 10-20% of patients on the new drugs become resistant. This new peptide may help combat resistance.”

Going forward, Dr. French and his team are testing variants of the newly discovered peptide to see if they can develop one with an even higher affinity and can decrease the size of the peptide to improve cellular penetration and liver targeting. The new and improved peptides will be tested in animal models.

This peptide “may be a candidate for hepatitis C therapy,” the study states. “Considering the potency of the peptide in suppressing viral translation levels, treatment with this peptide may significantly improve the efficacy of conventional treatments in patients who become resistant to conventional therapies.”

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health and by the California Center for Antiviral Drug Discovery at the University of California.

Source

A multi-disciplinary approach to treating hepatitis C with interferon and ribavirin in alcohol-dependent patients with ongoing abuse

Journal of Hepatology
Volume 56, Issue 2 , Pages 334-340, February 2012

Caroline Le Lan, Anne Guillygomarc’h, Hélène Danielou, Gérard Le Dréau, Fabrice Lainé, Claude Védeilhié, Yves Deugnier, Pierre Brissot, Dominique Guyader, Romain Moirand

Received 14 March 2011; received in revised form 1 May 2011; accepted 11 May 2011. published online 13 July 2011.

Abstract

Background & Aims

Guidelines recommend 6months of alcohol abstinence before treating hepatitis C (HCV). Abstinence is difficult for alcohol-dependent patients to achieve. This study evaluated HCV treatment in alcoholic patients with ongoing consumption or less than 6months of abstinence.

Methods

A multidisciplinary management model was built by a liver unit and two centers involved in the care of addict patients. Patients were included in a prospective observational study of treatment with pegylated interferon and ribavirin if they presented alcohol dependence with ongoing intoxication or abstinence of less than 6months. Pre-therapeutic evaluation and follow-up were multidisciplinary, and addiction care was personalized to patient condition and willingness. Alcohol abstinence or reduction was encouraged but not mandatory. The primary end point was sustained virological response (SVR). Results were compared to a control group of patients matched for genotype, viral load, fibrosis stage, sex, and age.

Results

A total of 73 patients treated between 2002 and 2008 were included in the study. Intent to treat analysis showed an SVR in 48% (35/73) of patients versus 49% (36/73) of controls. Low viral load and length of abstinence during treatment were independently associated with SVR. During treatment, 20 (27%) patients were abstinent, 23 (32%) had controlled consumption, and 24 (33%) had excessive consumption. At the end of the follow-up, 22 (30%) patients were durably abstinent.

Conclusions

A multidisciplinary approach allowed HCV treatment in alcohol-dependent patients with a satisfactory SVR rate and positive effects on addiction behavior.

Source

HIV’s Increasingly Dangerous Sidekick

30 January 2012

If you are HIV-positive you have a lot to deal with on your plate already. The last thing you need is to have your liver ruined by a Hepatitis C infection as well. Unfortunately it appears that the co-infection rate is soaring, according to the latest National AIDS Trust (NAT) report.

Recent studies have shown that the amount of gay men discovering that they are HIV-positive is increasing at a dramatic rate, especially in the younger population. Every week there seems to be a new statistic telling us that we are going to catch it, that every potential partner is going to infect us with it, and as a result we have started to moderate our behaviour to allow for this. However, there is another statistic which is increasing alongside this; infection of Hepatitis C is increasing too. According to the NAT’s Report, 9% of HIV-positive people in the UK are infected with Hepatitis C too, which doesn’t sound like a lot. If you factor in statistics like the amount of estimated people who are positive, and the increases in young men who have been infected, you end up looking at scary numbers. Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of NAT, told So So Gay, ‘The rate of HIV-positive gay men co-infected with hepatitis C in the UK is too high. It is crucial for this to be addressed as a strategic priority in gay men’s health promotion.’

According to the report, those who test positive for Hepatitis C are marginalised and vilified by the HIV-positive community in the same way that those with HIV have been by the gay community at large. One participant quoted in the report said, ‘Hep C is not yet owned by the gay community like HIV, and if it isn’t owned, then it is outside and more stigmatised… Even within the gay community, and the HIV community too, it has created a ‘them’ and ‘us’ type situation’. This seems ridiculous for two main reasons: one of the biggest things we hear from the HIV community is how they wish to be treated normally, and this paints a very hypocritical picture; and unlike HIV, Hepatitis is curable in the some cases.

The report goes on to discuss prevention and treatment of Hepatitis C, quoting a success rate of up to 80% early treatment rate in HIV-positive individuals. The key it seems, as per usual, is in the power of knowledge: knowing about the risks and how to avoid risky situations is what differs those who have it and those who don’t.

Source

---

More must be done to reduce hepatitis C transmission amongst HIV positive gay men

Jan. 27, 2012

More must be done to reduce hepatitis C transmission amongst HIV positive gay men

NAT has launched a report, ‘HIV and Hepatitis C Co-infection’, which looks at hepatitis C co-infection among HIV positive gay men and the UK’s response to this growing health challenge. Like HIV, hepatitis C* is a blood-borne virus and approximately 9% of HIV positive people in the UK also have hepatitis C. Having both conditions at the same time can have severe health implications, with liver disease caused by hepatitis B and/or C a leading cause of serious illness and death in people with HIV.

7% of HIV positive gay men are co-infected with hepatitis C. Of those who successfully clear hepatitis C through treatment, a significant percentage get re-infected within a short time. Infections among gay men are largely due to sexual risk factors, thought to include unprotected anal sex, fisting, use of sex toys, group sex – though drug use may also have a role. There have been some important information campaigns in the gay media around the risk of hepatitis C for HIV positive gay men but -

• There is no explicit national strategic approach to tackling this issue
• Hepatitis C testing recommendations for gay men at risk are not being adequately implemented
• A wide range of possible sexual risk factors are cited which can detract from focussing on what are clearly higher risk behaviours
• Stigma around hepatitis C in the gay community and amongst people with HIV hampers prevention efforts and harms gay men living with hepatitis C

Deborah Jack, Chief Executive of NAT (National AIDS Trust), comments:

‘The rate of HIV-positive gay men co-infected with hepatitis C in the UK is too high. It is crucial for this to be addressed as a strategic priority in gay men's health promotion.

‘It is vitally important that, as recommended, all people diagnosed with HIV are annually screened for hepatitis C infection and this should be made a requirement in the commissioning of all relevant services (in a recent audit only 66% had had an annual test). Clinics and health promoters need to provide intensive advice and support to gay men at significant risk of hepatitis C transmission. To that end, consensus is urgently needed on the key risk factors for sexual transmission so clear and appropriate recommendations can then be made.

‘We also strongly urge gay men not to rely on their sexual partners’ disclosure of their HIV or hepatitis C status as a high proportion are unaware they are infected, which is certainly fuelling onward transmission. And even when diagnosed, disclosure can be difficult - we need to start challenging hepatitis C stigma as well as HIV stigma - both are unfair, ill-informed and destructive.’

- Ends -

Notes to the editor:

* Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus that can cause liver inflammation and other long-term health problems. Unlike hepatitis A and hepatitis B there is no vaccine against hepatitis C.

Approximately 25% of people naturally clear the infection at the acute phase (the first six months of infection), but for the remaining 75%, hepatitis C infection becomes chronic. Treatment for hepatitis C is available and response rates vary from approximately 40% to 80% and therapy can cause significant side-effects. Unless successfully treated, the infection can lead to liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, end stage liver disease and liver cancer, and death.

The full report can be downloaded here.

For further information please contact:
Charli Scouller
Communications Manager
NAT
020 7814 6733
press@nat.org.uk

NAT

NAT (National AIDS Trust) is the UK’s leading charity dedicated to transforming society’s response to HIV. We provide fresh thinking, expertise and practical resources. We champion the rights of people living with HIV and campaign for change.

Shaping attitudes. Challenging injustice. Changing lives.
www.nat.org.uk

Source

Hepatitis C Virus Studied as Risk Factor in Liver Cancer

Infectious Disease Special Edition ISSUE: JANUARY 2012 | VOLUME: 1

by George Ochoa

Two Mayo Clinic studies have clarified the importance of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) in the rising trend of liver cancer, or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

One study (Yang et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:9-16) analyzed longitudinal trends in the incidence, etiology, treatment of HCC and survival in community residents in Olmsted County, Minn. The researchers found that in earlier periods (1976-1990, 1991-2000), alcohol use was the most common risk factor, but, in 2001 to 2008, HCV filled that role. At the same time, HCC incidence rose dramatically, from 3.5 per 100,000 person-years for the 1976 to 1990 time period, to 3.8 for the period from 1991 to 2000, to 6.9 for the 2001 to 2008 period.

Study author W. Ray Kim, MD, associate professor of medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minn., wrote in an email: “The biggest and unique risk factor of HCC is underlying liver disease. Our data showed that previously alcohol, more recently HCV has become the underlying cause.”

The second study (Shire et al. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:17-24) investigated a sample of Somali immigrants seen at Mayo Clinic from July 1, 1996, to Oct. 31, 2009. Non-Somali Olmsted County residents served as controls. The frequencies of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and HCV, and their associations with HCC, were studied. Both HBV and HCV occurred frequently in the sample of Somalis, but HCV was the major risk factor for HCC. There were significant differences in the HCV genotype distributions between Somalis and non-Somalis.

The high prevalence of HCV in the Somali sample came as a surprise to the researchers. “We didn’t expect it,” Abdirashid M. Shire, PhD, assistant professor of medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, said in an interview. The study, Dr. Shire added, “supports the value of early detection” of HCV. “It’s very important to screen for HCV.” Dr. Kim reported that his study also “indirectly” supports the value of early detection and treatment to improve outcomes.

—Drs. Kim and Shire had no relevant financial disclosures.

Source

Muscle Wasting Is Associated With Mortality in Patients With Cirrhosis

Dr. Aldo J. Montano-Loza discusses his manuscript "Muscle Wasting Is Associated With Mortality in Patients With Cirrhosis" To view the print version of this abstract go to http://bit.ly/yAAXok.

Blood Test Instead of Biopsy Identifies Liver Damage

30.01.2012

Siemens is marketing the first rapid, automated biomarker test for diagnosing and assessing liver fibrosis.

The ELF test (Enhanced Liver Fibrosis test) takes approximately one hour to complete and requires only a blood sample. The process is therefore less invasive but just as reliable as the previously required biopsy, and it usually takes about a week to deliver a biopsy result.

The new test was developed by Siemens Healthcare in collaboration with University College London and can be used as a routine test on the Siemens ADVIA Centaur Immunoassay System.

Liver fibrosis is the result of chronic liver damage caused by vi-ral hepatitis, alcoholic cirrhosis, or fatty liver disease. It is characterized by scarring of the liver tissue, which can lead to cirrhosis or cancer of the liver over the long term — a frequent cause of death worldwide.

At present, the “gold standard” for assessing the severity of a liver fibrosis is a liver biopsy, which involves the removal of a small amount of liver tissue. This biopsy has drawbacks, however: It is painful; it entails some risk for the patient; and it tests only a small sample of the liver.

With the automated ADVIA Centaur ELF Test, a fast and mini-mally invasive technique is now available for determining both the severity of a liver fibrosis and the risk that it will worsen. The test examines three direct blood serum biomarkers: hyaluronic acid (HA), procollagen III N-terminal propeptide (PIIINP), and the tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1). These direct biomarkers are molecules that are involved in the formation of fibrosis. In the test, special reagents react with the biomarkers and generate light in the process. The greater the intensity of this chemiluminescence, the greater the presence of the biomarker.

A special algorithm is used to convert the results of the three biomarkers into the ELF score, which indicates the degree of fibrosis. The combination of three biomarkers increases the accuracy of the test. As an international clinical trial has shown, the ELF test can precisely differentiate between slight, moderate, and serious cases of fibrosis. In the event of slight or moderate fibrosis, patients normally have no symptoms. Doctors can thus intervene before significant damage to the liver and monitor the progress of therapy.

To complement the ELF test, Siemens is also offering imaging and laboratory diagnostic technologies like hepatitis blood tests and ultrasound systems that help physicians identify liver fibrosis at an early stage and monitor its development.

Dr. Norbert Aschenbrenner | Source: Siemens InnovationNews
Further information: www.siemens.com/innovationnews

Source

---

The ELF Program

In 1997 a group of European investigators convened by Professor Michael Arthur embarked on a project led by Professor William Rosenberg funded by Bayer Healthcare to identify serum markers of liver fibrosis. This program of research has been continuously active for over a decade and has resulted in the identification of a panel of direct markers that have been validated, CE marked, and are now being marketed in Europe by iQur Limited and Siemens.

Discovery

The original European Liver Fibrosis project recruited over 1,000 patients having investigation with a liver biopsy at 13 centres across Europe. The subjects had a wide range of CLD reflecting clinical practice. Over 40% had CHC or CHB. All patients had a fasting serum sample taken at the time of their biopsy. This was sent to a central laboratory for analysis of a panel of candidate analytes representing direct markers of fibrosis as well as a number of indirect makers. The individual sandwich ELISA test for each of the direct markers were carefully developed to a high standard of accuracy, reproducibility and repeatability. Using logistic regression and multivariate analysis those markers that most accurately reflected the stage of liver fibrosis assigned by a central pathologist were identified in a “training” cohort of 521 patients and then confirmed in a “validation” cohort of 400. This revealed that the combination of HA, P3NP and TIMP-1 combined in an algorithm, originally incorporating Age, could be used to determine the severity of liver fibrosis with good accuracy.¹⁴ Subsequently the team have established that Age could be omitted from the algorithm to generate the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis test or ELF Test.

The original European Liver Fibrosis project recruited over 1,000 patients having investigation with a liver biopsy at 13 centres across Europe. The subjects had a wide range of CLD reflecting clinical practice. Over 40% had CHC or CHB. All patients had a fasting serum sample taken at the time of their biopsy. This was sent to a central laboratory for analysis of a panel of candidate analytes representing direct markers of fibrosis as well as a number of indirect makers. The individual sandwich ELISA test for each of the direct markers were carefully developed to a high standard of accuracy, reproducibility and repeatability. Using logistic regression and multivariate analysis those markers that most accurately reflected the stage of liver fibrosis assigned by a central pathologist were identified in a “training” cohort of 521 patients and then confirmed in a “validation” cohort of 400. This revealed that the combination of HA, P3NP and TIMP-1 combined in an algorithm, originally incorporating Age, could be used to determine the severity of liver fibrosis with good accuracy.¹⁴ Subsequently the team have established that Age could be omitted from the algorithm to generate the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis test or ELF Test.

External Validation

Subsequent to the original study, investigators around the world have conducted validation studies in independent populations to further assess the performance of the markers. Studies in CHC, NAFLD and PBC have all confirmed that the markers accurately reflect the severity of fibrosis as staged on liver biopsy ^15-19. In these studies the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) ranges around 0.8. This level of performance is considered to be a threshold for acceptance in clinical practice.

Longitudinal follow-up

However the investigators have been limited in their ability to assess the performance of the markers by the errors inherent in biopsy staging. In an attempt to overcome this “glass ceiling” the ELF team have begun to investigate the ability of the serum markers to predict long-term clinical outcomes of CLD including the development of portal hypertension, decompensation of CLD, the development of hepatocellular cancer, liver transplantation and death from liver disease, as well as all cause mortality. Whilst not yet complete, interim analysis of the 7 year follow-up of over 500 patients has shown that the ELF markers are at least as good, if not better than liver histology at predicting clinical outcome. Similar work has been conducted in a cohort of patients with PBC. ²⁰

Advantages over single markers

Systematic reviews of the literature have consistently shown that single markers of fibrosis can detect cirrhosis with some degree of accuracy. However single marker test are less accurate than panels of markers in detecting lesser degrees of fibrosis ^21,22. While the detection of cirrhosis is important, clinical judgement can often identify patients who are likely to have end-stage CLD. It is of greater importance to be able to detect patients with mild or moderate fibrosis which is usually asymptomatic, in order to be able to intervene with life-style modification or treatment before the liver becomes irreparably damaged. It is in the screening and management of patients with CLD that the ELF markers have great potential.

Advantages compared to indirect markers

The careful and extensive validation program employed by the ELF development team has taken years to come to fruition. A number of algorithms have been derived employing indirect markers that are available in general clinical chemistry laboratories as routine analytes. While the performance of many of these algorithms such as Fibrotest/Fibrosure, APRI, Forns Index and Hepascore is good, the majority are unreliable in patients undergoing treatment for viral hepatitis (where aminotransferases are altered due to therapy) or when bilirubin levels may be elevated due to haemolysis (such as when Ribavirin is administered) or cholestasis. ^23-29

Use in clinical practice and Impact on patient management

The coming year will see the introduction of the ELF test into clinical practice and its impact in the management of patients will begin to be appreciated. Doctors in primary care are flooded with patients with obesity and hazardous drinking all of whom could be at risk of CLD. The ability to use a simple blood test to accurately identify those with significant liver disease will greatly aid triage and the appropriate targeting of interventions including weight loss, exercise and drug interventions. In secondary care the ELF test will be of great use in the early evaluation of patients with a wide range of CLD. It will not replace liver biopsy in the detailed assessment of liver inflammation, architectural damage of pathology. However it can be used to prioritise patients for investigation, to determine the severity of fibrosis in patients unwilling or unable to undergo biopsy and to compliment biopsy given the inaccuracies that surround histological staging arising from sampling error and observer error. Once a diagnosis of CLD has been made most patients will undergo some form of treatment and long-term follow-up. Further repeated biopsies are not acceptable in the vast majority of patients but further knowledge of the severity of fibrosis, its progression or regression would be highly valuable to both the patient and the doctor. The ELF test will make this information accessible through a simple blood test that could be repeated at frequent intervals.

 

Figure 1 AUROC curve of ELF predicting stages 0,1 Vs 2-6 in NAFLD cohort (none or mild fibrosis from significant fibrosis Ishak classification)

Future developments

While the introduction of the ELF test represents a major advance in the diagnostic armoury available clinician screening for CLD managing CLD further challenges remain. The ELF markers have been developed for a range of CLD. In specific diseases other combinations of markers may perform better. So far the development of algorithms such as ELF has relied on the testing of candidate markers. New discovery approaches such as metabonomics, proteomics and transcriptomics that make no assumptions about the relevance of specific molecules to disease processes may uncover new markers that complement or enhance the existing panels. Imaging of the liver using a variety of modalities including ultrasound, elastography and magnetic resonance imaging has advanced in parallel with non-invasive marker testing ^30,31. The integration of these complementary modalities should further increase the diagnostic power available to clinicians. Determining the optimal combinations and suitability for specific CLD will be challenging.

The discovery of the ELF markers represents the dawn of a new era of early detection of treatable liver disease and the effective monitoring of CLD to evaluate the impact of interventions and the course of disease.

Disadvantages of liver biopsy

• Morbidity & mortality
• Sampling error
• Ordinal categorical variable to assess continuous biological process
• Costly & time consuming- requires hospital visit and expert
• Inter-observer variability- kappa scores 0.4-0.6
• Error rate –up to 25-35% of ≥1 stage
• Less experienced pathologist perform less well than “expert”
• Cannot perform repeat biopsy at short intervals to assess liver disease or effects of therapeutics due to the hazards.

Liver Fibrosis
Overview Page
What is liver fibrosis?
Non-invasive markers of liver fibrosis

Part of the article “Biomarkers of liver disease: the enhanced liver fibrosis test”
As published in CLI October 2007
www.cli-online.com

The authors
William Rosenberg MD, D.Phil
Professor of Hepatology,
The Liver Group,
University of Southampton,
Southampton, UK

Julie Parkes MD
Public Health Science & Medical Statistics,
University of Southampton,
Southampton, UK

Reference List

^{(14) Rosenberg WM, Voelker M, Thiel R, Becka M, Burt A, Schuppan D et al. Serum markers detect the presence of liver fibrosis: a cohort study. Gastroenterology 2004; 127(6):1704-1713.}

^{(15) Parkes J, Bialek SR.,Bell BP ,Terrault N., Zaman A., Sofair A., Guha IN, Cross R, Harris S, Roderick PJ, Rosenberg WMC European Liver fibrosis markers accurately distinguish fibrosis severity in a cohort of patients with Chronic Hepatitis C; an external validation study. Hepatology 44[Suppl 1]. 2006.}

^{(16) Parkes J, Cross R, Harris S, Ryder S, Irving W, Zaitoun A, The Trent Hepatitis C Research Group, Rosenberg WMC. European liver fibrosis markers accurately distinguish fibrosis severity in Chronic Hepatitis C. Journal of Hepatology. 40 [Suppl 1]. 2005.}

^{(17) IN Guha, GP Aithal, J Parkes , PJ Roderick, S Harris , R Cross, P Kaye, SD Ryder, WM Rosenberg European liver fibrosis markers in Non Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD); an external validation study. Hepatology 44 Suppl 1. 2006.}

^{(18) J. Parkes, M. Mayo , R.Cross , S.Harris, P.J.Roderick B. Coombs, B. Huet The PUMPS Investigators and W.M. Rosenberg . European liver fibrosis markers accurately distinguish fibrosis severity in primary biliary cirrhosis; an external validation study. Hepatology 44 Suppl 1. 2006.}

^{(19) Non-invasive markers of fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: validatingthe European Liver Fibrosis panel and exploring simple markers. IN Guha, J Parkes ,P Roderick , D Chattopadhyay, R Cross, S Harris, P Kaye , AD Burt, SD Ryder, GP Aithal , CP Day, WM Rosenberg. Hepatology 2007 (in press)}

^{(20) Mayo M., Parkes J, Huet B, Combes B, Mills S., Markin R. et al. Serum fibrosis markers predict future clinical decompensation in primary biliary cirrhosis bettter than liver biopsy, bilirubin, or Mayo risk score. Hepatology 44 Suppl 1. 2006.}

^{(21) Guha IN, Parkes J, Roderick PR, Harris S, Rosenberg WM. Non-invasive markers associated with liver fibrosis in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease 2. GUT 2006; 55(11):1650-1660.}

^{(22) Parkes J, Guha IN, Roderick P, Rosenberg W. Performance of serum marker panels for liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Journal of Hepatology 2006; 44:462-474.}

^{(23) Imbert-Bismut F, Ratziu V, Pieroni L, Charlotte F, Benhamou Y, Poynard T. Biochemical markers of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatitis C virus infection: a prospective study. Lancet 2001; 357(9262):1069-1075.}

^{(24) Ratziu V, Massard J, Charlotte F, Messous D, Imbert-Bismut F, Bonyhay L et al. Diagnostic value of biochemical markers (Fibro Test-FibroSURE) for the prediction of liver fibrosis in patients with non-alcholic fatty liver disease. BMC Gastroenterology 2006; 6(6):1-13.}

^{(25) Wai CT, Greenson JK, Fontana RJ, Kalbfleisch JD, Marrero JA, Conjeevaram HS et al. A simple noninvasive index can predict both significant fibrosis and cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.. Hepatology 2003; 38(2):518-526.}

^{(26) Forns X, Ampurdanes S, Llovet JM, Aponte J, Quinto L, Martinez-Bauer E et al. Identification of chronic hepatitis C patients without hepatic fibrosis by a simple predictive model.. Hepatology 2002; 36(4 Pt 1):986-992.}

^{(27) Patel K, Muir AJ, McHutchison JG. Validation of a simple predictive model for the identification of mild hepatic fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C patients.. Hepatology 2003; 37(5):1222-1223.}

^{(28) Hepascore: An Accurate Validated Predictor of Liver Fibrosis in Chronic Hepatitis C Infection Adams,L.A.; Bulsara,M.; Rossi,E.; de Boer,B.; Speers,D.; George,J.; Kench,J.; Farrell G; McCaughan,G.W.; Jeffrey,G.P. Clinical Chemistry 51 (10) 1-7}

^{(29) Cales P, Oberti F, Michalak S, Hubert-Fouchard I, Rousselet MC, Konate A et al. A novel panel of blood markers to assess the degree of liver fibrosis 10. Hepatology 2005; 42(6):1373-1381.}

^{(30) Ganne-Carríe N, Ziol M, Ledinghen V, Douvin C, Marcellin P, Castera L et al. Accuracy of Liver Stiffness Measurement for the Diagnosis of Cirrhosis in Patients With Chronic Liver Disease. Hepatology 2006; 44:1511-1517.}

^{(31) Foucher J ,Chanteloup E,Vergniol J,Castera L,Le Bail B,Adhoute X,Bertet J,Couzigou P,de Ledinghen V. Diagnosis of cirrhosis by transient elastography (FibroScan): a prospective study. GUT 2006; 55(3):403-408.}

^{* The ELF test is only available outside the US}

^Source