June 22, 2014

Nutrition and exercise in the management of liver cirrhosis

World J Gastroenterol. 2014 June 21; 20(23): 7286-7297.

Published online 2014 June 21. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i23.7286.

Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

Nobuyuki Toshikuni, Tomiyasu Arisawa and Mikihiro Tsutsumi.

Nobuyuki Toshikuni, Tomiyasu Arisawa, Department of Gastroenterology, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa 920-0293, Japan

Mikihiro Tsutsumi, Department of Hepatology, Kanazawa Medical University, Ishikawa 920-0293, Japan

Author contributions: Toshikuni N wrote the manuscript; Arisawa T and Tsutsumi M supervised the work.

Correspondence to: Nobuyuki Toshikuni, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Kanazawa Medical University, 1-1 Daigaku, Uchinada-machi, Ishikawa 920-0293, Japan. n.toshikuni@gmail.com

Telephone: +81-76-2862211 Fax: +81-76-2860892

Received January 4, 2014; Revised March 22, 2014; Accepted April 30, 2014;

Abstract

Liver cirrhosis (LC) patients often have protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) and decreased physical activity. These conditions often lead to sarcopenia, which is the loss of skeletal muscle volume and increased muscle weakness. Recent studies have demonstrated that PEM and sarcopenia are predictors for poor survival in LC patients. Nutrition and exercise management can improve PEM and sarcopenia in those patients. Nutrition management includes sufficient dietary intake and improved nutrient metabolism. With the current high prevalence of obesity, the number of obese LC patients has increased, and restriction of excessive caloric intake without the exacerbation of impaired nutrient metabolism is required for such patients. Branched chain amino acids are good candidates for supplemental nutrients for both obese and non-obese LC patients. Exercise management can increase skeletal muscle volume and strength and improve insulin resistance; however, nutritional status and LC complications should be assessed before an exercise management regimen is implemented in LC patients. The establishment of optimal exercise regimens for LC patients is currently required. In this review, we describe nutritional status and its clinical impact on the outcomes of LC patients and discuss general nutrition and exercise management in LC patients.

Keywords: Liver cirrhosis, Protein-energy malnutrition, Sarcopenia, Obesity, Exercise

Core tip: Recent studies have shown that sarcopenia is a predictor of poor survival in liver cirrhosis (LC) patients. LC-associated sarcopenia develops based on impaired nutrient metabolism and decreased physical activity. To improve this condition, nutrition and exercise management is imperative. Energy intake with branched chain amino acid supplementation is a promising method for nutrition management. Exercise can increase skeletal muscle volume and strength; however, nutritional status and LC complications should be assessed before exercise management begins. Obesity is another health issue for LC patients; improvement of insulin resistance is a key component in nutrition and exercise management for obese LC patients.

INTRODUCTION

Liver cirrhosis (LC) is a critical stage of chronic liver disease with poor outcomes. Substantial data have indicated that poor liver function and the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are responsible for the shortened survival of LC patients[1-4]. Accumulating data have also demonstrated that LC patients often develop protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) at a rate of 25.1%-65.5%[5-8] and that PEM plays a crucial role in their poor survival[6,9-11]. LC-associated PEM occurs in combination with poor dietary intake, malabsorption, increased intestinal protein loss, decreased hepatic protein synthesis, abnormal substrate utilization, and hypermetabolism[12,13]. Individuals with PEM typically suffer from a loss of skeletal muscle volume and from muscle weakness; this condition is classified as sarcopenia[14]. Aging-related sarcopenia is defined as primary sarcopenia, while LC is a cause of secondary sarcopenia[15]. Recent studies have demonstrated that sarcopenia is an independent predictor of poor survival in LC patients with or without HCC[16,17]. However, over-nutrition is increasingly affecting humans worldwide[18], and thus, overweight/obesity are frequently observed in LC patients. For example, 72.4% of patients had excess caloric intake in a study of compensated hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related LC[19], and 61% of compensated HCV-related LC patients have a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 25 kg/m2[20]. Both chronic HCV infection[21] and overweight/obesity can cause insulin resistance, which raises the risk of liver fibrosis progression[22] and HCC occurrence[23] in HCV-related LC. Thus, clinicians are now confronted with problems related to malnutrition and overnutrition in the management of LC. In this review, we describe nutritional status and its clinical impact on the outcomes of LC patients and discuss nutrition and exercise management strategies for LC patients.

ENERGY METABOLISM ASSOCIATED WITH PEM IN LC PATIENTS

Metabolic activity

Metabolic activity can be assessed by comparing a measured resting energy expenditure (REE) and a predicted REE[24]. There are notable differences in metabolic activity among LC patients; previous studies have reported that 15%-33.8% of LC patients exhibited hypermetabolism, while 8%-31% were hypometabolic[7,8,25,26]. Earlier studies with LC patients demonstrated that a hypermetabolic state is strongly associated with decreased muscle volume[27]. Increased beta-adrenergic activity may explain, at least in part, hypermetabolism[26]. In a multicenter prospective study, a detailed analysis of metabolic activity and energy balance in LC patients was conducted. The results showed that PEM significantly correlated with Child-Pugh grade, that hypermetabolic and hypometabolic patients showed a significant decrease in kg of free fat mass, and that hypermetabolic patients had a positive energy balance due to decreased physical activity, while hypometabolic patients had a negative energy balance due to a reduced caloric intake[7].

The relationship between metabolic activity and outcomes in LC patients has been investigated. A study found that survival rate is significantly higher in normal metabolic LC patients than in hypometabolic or hypermetabolic LC patients[10]. Furthermore, some results have suggested that LC-related hypermetabolism is a factor associated with both transplant-free[25,28] and post-transplantation survival[29]. Hypermetabolic LC patients have decreased transplant-free survival compared with non-hypermetabolic LC patients (9.7 mo vs 31.8 mo, P = 0.05)[28]. Moreover, in a study of patients with end-stage liver disease, pre-transplantation hypermetabolism was associated with decreased post-transplantation survival[29].

Carbohydrate and lipid metabolism

The liver plays a critical role in carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. Ingested carbohydrates are taken up by the liver and converted into and stored as glycogen. In the fasting state, glucose is generated in the liver via glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis; thus, blood glucose levels are maintained[30]. Because LC patients have decreased gluconeogenesis ability and glycogen stores capacity[31], they are prone to entering into a starvation state after a relatively short fasting period (e.g., overnight)[32]. In this situation, lipid metabolism is enhanced; energy metabolism shifts from a carbohydrate preference to lipid oxidation preference[33-35]. Accordingly, free fatty acid (FFA) levels are elevated in LC patients. A previous study found that impaired re-esterification rather than accelerated lipolysis elevates FFA in LC patients[36].

Protein metabolism

Because albumin synthesis is decreased in LC patients, serum albumin levels inversely correlate with the grade of liver dysfunction[37]. Furthermore, in a study of compensated LC patients with alanine aminotransferase levels > 50 IU/L, a positive correlation between serum albumin levels and skeletal muscle volume was observed[38]. LC-associated PEM accelerates protein catabolism, which is the overall breakdown of cellular proteins, mainly in skeletal muscles, and which provides amino acids, especially branched chain amino acids (BCAAs), for protein synthesis and energy supply[39-41]. BCAAs consist of leucine, isoleucine, and valine. In a study with LC patients, energy efficacy (increased energy expenditure/energy equivalent of the supplemented nutrient) was significantly higher in BCAAs (96% ± 16%) than in glucose (96% ± 16% vs 41% ± 8%, P < 0.01) and fatty acids (96% ± 16% vs 27% ± 13%, P < 0.05)[42]. Moreover, BCAAs are consumed for ammonia detoxification in LC patients in whom hepatic detoxification to urea is impaired. Skeletal muscles and, to a lesser extent, the brain clear blood ammonia by incorporating ammonia into the process of glutamine production from glutamate. During the process, BCAAs are required for glutamate synthesis[40]. Thus, there is a frequent lack of BCAAs in LC patients, resulting in decreased albumin synthesis. In contrast to decreased BCAA levels, aromatic amino acid (AAA) levels are typically increased in LC patients[43,44], although underlying mechanisms for the altered AAA metabolism in LC are not fully understood. A decrease in the BCAA to AAA ratio (Fischer ratio; BCAA to tyrosine ratio, BTR) is thought to play a causal role in hepatic encephalopathy by enhanced brain AAA uptake and subsequent neurotransmission disturbance[45]. Recent studies have suggested that this amino acid imbalance occurs in the early stages of LC[46].

IMPACT OF SARCOPENIA ON LC PATIENT OUTCOMES

Sarcopenia

As described above, protein breakdown from skeletal muscles is an important pathologic mechanism for sarcopenia in LC patients. Recently, some analyses have indicated that hyperammonemia can cause sarcopenia. The results of an animal experiment demonstrated that skeletal muscle autophagy is induced by hyperammonemia and may contribute to sarcopenia in cases of LC[47]. Another study showed that skeletal muscle from LC patients had increased expression of myostatin, a known inhibitor of skeletal muscle accretion and growth. That study found that myostatin expression is induced by hyperammonemia in murine myotubes, suggesting a mechanism by which sarcopenia develops in LC patients[48].

Recent studies have examined outcomes in LC patients with sarcopenia[16,17]. In a study of LC patients in which sarcopenia was observed in 40% of the patients, sarcopenia, Child-Pugh scores, and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were each found to be independent factors for mortality, with the mortality risk more than 2-fold higher in sarcopenic than nonsarcopenic patients[16]. Interestingly, the study also revealed a strong relationship between sarcopenia and sepsis-related death, which may reflect the impaired immunity found in LC patients. In line with those findings, a prospective study of LC patients demonstrated that PEM is an independent predictor of bacterial infection[49]. Furthermore, sarcopenia has been shown to correlate with poor survival after liver transplantation[50,51].

Sarcopenic obesity

The current global obesity epidemic has created a new condition: the combination of sarcopenia and obesity, described as sarcopenic obesity[52]. Because LC patients occasionally have sarcopenia (40%)[16] and obesity (30%-31%)[53,54], it can be deduced that a considerable number of them may have sarcopenic obesity. Furthermore, obesity is frequently accompanied by nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and the prevalence of this liver disease is increasing in industrialized countries[55-57]. NAFLD can progress to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and LC. Given this global trend, sarcopenic obesity will likely be a major condition in LC patients in the future.

Obesity typically occurs in tandem with decreased physical activity[58,59], which may create a vicious cycle of sarcopenia progression. Obesity also induces insulin resistance and systemic inflammation, both of which prompt hypercatabolism and impair the anabolic effect of muscles, resulting in protein breakdown stimulation and muscle synthesis suppression[59-61]. Moreover, a recent study revealed that sarcopenic obesity is more closely associated with insulin resistance than sarcopenia or obesity alone[62]. Taken together, this new condition appears to accelerate sarcopenia progression.

Although sarcopenia has been reported to be predictive of poor survival in LC patients[16,17], the impact of sarcopenic obesity on LC patient outcomes remains unknown. However, it has been suggested that obesity is an independent predictor of hepatic decompensation in LC patients[53]. Furthermore, obesity has been shown to be a risk factor for LC-related death or hospitalization[63,64]. A study of cancer patients revealed that sarcopenic obesity is associated with a poorer functional status compared with obesity without sarcopenia and is an independent predictor of survival[65]. These findings provide the rationale for further studies to clarify whether sarcopenic obesity worsens LC patient outcomes.

Table 1 lists the methods used to assess PEM and sarcopenia.

Capture

Indirect calorimetry

Indirect calorimetry can measure oxygen consumption per minute (VO2) and carbon dioxide production per minute (VCO2), thus calculating energy expenditure and non-protein respiratory quotient (npRQ). npRQ is considered to be a good marker for PEM assessment. In LC patients, npRQ is lower than in normal controls due to a shift of preferred energy metabolism from carbohydrate to lipid oxidation. A recent study of LC patients has revealed that the survival rate is significantly lower in patients with low npRQ (< 0.85) than in patients with scores above 0.85 (P < 0.01)[10]. Although the utility of indirect calorimetry in assessing energy metabolism has been proven, the high cost constrains its clinical application.

Anthropometric measurement

Because skeletal muscle volume reflects nutritional status, anthropometric measurement has been conducted to assess PEM in LC patients[66,67]. PEM indices include triceps skinfold thickness (TSF), arm muscle circumference (AMC), and arm circumference (AC). A study with LC patients reported that decreased AMC and TSF correlate with malnutrition and decreased liver functional reserve[67]. Accumulated data found a significant association between nutritional status estimated by anthropometric measurement and outcomes in LC patients. A previous study suggested that AMC may improve the prognostic capacity of Child-Pugh scores in LC patients[68]. Another study demonstrated that AMC and TSF may be useful in predicting survival of LC patients. In addition, the prognostic power of AMC was found to be higher than that of TSF[9]. A more recent study examined whether the anthropometric indices are alternatives to npRQ. When the measured values were expressed as percentages of normal values, percent of AMC and percent of AC were found to significantly correlate with npRQ, and a formula using %AC and Child-Pugh scores could represent npRQ[69]. External validation is needed to verify the relationship between the measurement values and npRQ. Although anthropometric measurements are simply and inexpensively performed, the interpretation of the measured values should be performed carefully. For example, a study suggested that AMC may be affected by edema[70], a symptom frequently observed in LC patients. Furthermore, possible errors related to anthropometric measurements should be noted: repeated measurements providing different values (unreliability, imprecision, undependability) and measurements departing from true values (inaccuracy, bias)[71].

Bioimpedance analysis

Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) is another measure to assess PEM. This method is based on the measurement of tissue conductivity[72]. Skeletal muscle is a major body component with low resistance and is therefore a dominant conductor[73]. A study with LC patients has demonstrated that BIA is a reliable bedside tool for the estimation of body cell mass, although it is limited in the case of LC with ascites[74]. The phase angle (PA) is a derived measure calculated from two parameters of BIA: PA = arc-tangent reactance/resistance × 180°/π[75]. Several studies have demonstrated that PA is useful in the assessment of the nutritional status in hemodialysis[76] or preoperative[77] patients. Another study has suggested that PA can serve as a prognostic indicator in cancer patients[78]. With regard to LC, a recent study indicated that PA is a promising parameter for the assessment of patient nutritional status[79]. Furthermore, a study suggested that PA is more predictive of survival than commonly used body composition information: a low PA is associated with shorter survival time[80]. Several studies have revealed that the estimated values of skeletal muscle mass obtained by BIA are not significantly different from those obtained by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)[73] or dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA)[81] (see below). Because of its convenience and low cost, BIA is a potential alternative to these imaging methods[14].

Methods for sarcopenia assessment

Imaging methods: There are several methods for sarcopenia assessment. Computed tomography (CT) is an imaging method that permits the precise measurement of skeletal muscle volume. CT technology enables specific tissue demarcation according to a CT measure of the tissue, thereby permitting calculation of its area. Human muscle tissue has a CT number in the range of -29 to +150 hounsfield units (HU). Muscles at the third lumbar (L3) vertebra encompass the psoas, erector spinae, quadratus lumborum, transversus abdominis, external and internal obliques, and rectus abdominis. A recent analysis revealed that the calculated L3 muscle area accurately represents the whole-body skeletal muscle volume (r = 0.86-0.94, P < 0.001)[82]. Based on that finding, the L3 muscle area normalized for stature (cm2/m2) can be used as an index of skeletal muscle volume (the L3 skeletal muscle index, L3 SMI)[65]. Although cutoff values for diagnosing sarcopenia have not been established, a recent study used cutoff values of 38.5 cm2/m2 for women and 52.4 cm2/m2 for men[65]. MRI has also been used for the assessment of skeletal muscle volume and sarcopenia[73,83,84].

DXA is another imaging method used in sarcopenia assessment. This method allows for the measurement of bone, fat, and lean-tissue content. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) accounts for more than 75% of the total body skeletal muscle mass and can thus serve as a marker for sarcopenia[59,85]. ASM divided by height squared (ASM/Ht2; kg/m2)[86] and ASM as a percentage of body weight (ASM/Wt)[87] have been proposed as indices for sarcopenia. Sarcopenia has been defined as an ASM < 1 SD[62] or < 2 SD[59] below the sex-specific mean for a young reference group. The accuracy of the DXA method has been shown to be comparable to that of the CT or MRI method[84,88], and the DXA method requires less radiation exposure and costs than the CT method[88].

Handgrip strength: Decreased muscle strength reflects a decreased volume of skeletal muscle. The European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP) recommends handgrip strength as a practical measure of muscle strength[14]. Handgrip strength has been shown to be a useful marker for the assessment of nutritional status in LC patients[89]. Moreover, a previous analysis has revealed that handgrip strength can be a useful predictor of hepatic decompensation in LC patients[6]. However, it should be noted that considerable variation in the measurement methods has the potential to introduce measurement errors[90].

NUTRITION MANAGEMENT FOR LC PATIENTS

Management for PEM in LC patients

Dietary management: Poor dietary intake is an important cause of PEM in LC patients. In a study of nutritional status in LC patients, decrease in daily caloric intake paralleled worsening of progressive liver failure: 48% and 34% of Child A patients, 51.7% and 35.8% of Child B patients, and 80.3% and 62.9% of Child C patients at admission had a caloric intake below 30 kcal/kg of body weight and protein intakes below 1 g/kg of body weight, respectively (P < 0.001). Furthermore, poor dietary intake was found to be an independent predictor for in-hospital mortality[67]. Some studies have aimed to clarify whether efforts to increase dietary intake can improve the outcome of LC patients, and short-term follow-up has suggested an improvement of nutritional status[91,92]. A study of alcoholic LC patients demonstrated that an increase in dietary intake altered the energy metabolism of Child C patients from preferred lipid oxidation to preferred carbohydrate metabolism. However, the dietary management appeared to be limited in improving nutritional status in end-stage LC patients, such as those with refractory ascites[92]. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines recommend that energy and protein intake should be 35-40 kcal/kg of body weight per day and 1.2-1.5 g/kg of body weight per day, respectively[93].

The timing of dietary intake can influence energy metabolism. Because LC patients are prone to entering a starvation state after a relatively short fasting period, a large number of small meals (“nibbling” pattern) rather than a small number of large meals (“gorging” pattern) is considered preferable to maintain optimal energy metabolism[94,95]. Several studies of LC patients found that late nocturnal energy supplementation altered energy metabolism from preferred lipid oxidation to preferred carbohydrate metabolism[96,97]. More recently, a randomized controlled trial with LC patients suggested that nocturnal energy supplementation may be superior to daytime energy supplementation for protein accretion[98].

BCAA supplementation: As previously discussed, a lack of BCAAs in LC patients can accelerate muscular protein catabolism, decreased albumin synthesis, and hyperammonemia and associated hepatic encephalopathy. A loss of skeletal muscle volume (i.e., sarcopenia)[16], low serum albumin levels[99-104], and hepatic encephalopathy[105] have been found to be predictors of poor survival in LC patients. These findings lead to the notion that BCAA supplementation may restore impaired protein metabolism and thereby improve outcomes of LC patients. Indeed, previous studies have revealed that BCAA administration stimulates albumin synthesis[40] and protein synthesis in skeletal muscles[106]. Of the BCAAs, leucine[106-108] is considered to play a central role in the synthesis process, of which, the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)[106,107] appears to be a key component in controlling its signaling pathway.

BCAA administration can be conducted either orally or intravenously. A BCAA-enriched amino acid solution has been used in the treatment of acute hepatic encephalopathy for several decades, and its utility has been demonstrated[109]. Oral BCAA-enriched formulas, BCAA granules and BCAA and carbohydrate mixtures, have been used in the effort to achieve preferred nutritional status and improved outcomes of decompensated LC patients[110]. Studies with LC patients have demonstrated that serum albumin levels and npRQ increased with oral BCAA supplementation[111,112]. In a study of HCV-related LC, the intake of BCAA and carbohydrate mixtures as late evening snacks was more effective in increasing serum albumin levels and improving energy metabolism than ordinary food intake[111]. Long-term follow-up studies of BCAA supplementation for LC patients showed positive results. In a randomized clinical trial with decompensated LC patients, supplementation with BCAA granules contributed to preventing progressive liver failure[113]. A similar randomized controlled trial found that supplementation with BCAA granules increased serum albumin levels and contributed to decreased liver failure and mortality[114].

Thus, BCAA supplementation is an effective therapeutic strategy for improving energy metabolism and overall outcomes in LC patients. This nutritional treatment is recommended in several guidelines[93,115]. The optimal timing of BCAA administration during the course of LC remains to be determined, although one randomized controlled trial suggested that patients with a BTR of < 4 should begin BCAA treatment even in cases of compensated LC[116]. Given the close relationship between BCAAs and protein synthesis in skeletal muscles, future studies focusing on the benefits of BCAA supplementation on sarcopenia in LC are necessary. In addition, some evidence suggests that BCAAs are essential for lymphocyte responsiveness and are necessary to support other immune cell functions[117]. Whether BCAA treatment can improve immunity in LC patients with sarcopenia and decrease the incidence of severe infection requires investigation.

Nutrition management of obese LC patients

With the increasing prevalence of obesity worldwide, the prevalence of obese LC patients is increasing[54]. Given that obesity accompanied by LC can accelerate hepatic decompensation[53], enhance hepatocarcinogenesis[118,119], and result in poor patient survival[63,64], nutrition management is imperative for obese LC patients. The restriction of excessive caloric intake without exacerbation of impaired nutrient metabolism is necessary for successful LC management. Furthermore, obesity is closely linked to insulin resistance; this metabolic problem increases the risk of disease progression, hepatocarcinogenesis, and mortality in LC patients[120]. Considering that obesity can exacerbate sarcopenia-associated insulin resistance[62,121], nutrition strategies for insulin resistance appear to be important, particularly in LC patients with sarcopenic obesity. Recent studies have suggested that BCAA supplementation is effective in improving insulin resistance[122,123]. Of the BCAAs, leucine appears to play a critical role in controlling carbohydrate metabolism; the amino acid regulates the oxidative use of glucose by skeletal muscle through the stimulation of glucose recycling via the glucose-alanine cycle[122]. Further trials are required to establish dietary regimens, such as dietary nutrient balance, for obese LC patients.

EXERCISE MANAGEMENT FOR LC PATIENTS

Physical activity and exercise capacity in LC patients

A recent survey of LC patients reported that physical activity levels were lower in LC patients than in healthy controls[124]. The survey results also suggested that low levels of physical activity were inversely associated with insulin resistance. In a study of compensated LC, low levels of physical activity and poor caloric intake were closely linked to sarcopenia[125]. These findings indicate that increased physical activity may prevent and improve sarcopenia in LC patients. Indeed, in studies of the elderly[126] or patients with certain types of chronic diseases[127], exercise management has been shown to be effective in preventing and improving sarcopenia.

Exercise capacity is described as the ability to use oxygen during exercise. The commonly used measure of exercise capacity is maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max)[128]. Studies with LC patients have shown decreased exercise capacity as evaluated by VO2max[129,130] and an inverse relationship between exercise capacity and the severity of liver disease[130-132]. Recent research has demonstrated that a decrease in exercise capacity is not only associated with LC severity but also predictive of mortality after liver transplantation[133,134]. Earlier studies on exercise management demonstrated that physical training programs as short as approximately one month were useful in increasing VO2max or peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) in LC patients[131,135].

Given these findings, exercise management is a key component in the management of LC patients because it can lead to increases in physical activity, skeletal muscle volume and strength, and exercise capacity, ultimately improving the quality of life and survival.

Assessment of nutritional status and complications for exercise management

The current guidelines for physical activity and health in older adults (men and women aged ≥ 65 years and adults aged 50-64 years with clinically significant chronic conditions and/or functional limitations) recommend that moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity should be performed for a minimum of 30 min five days each week in addition to two sessions of resistance training and flexibility exercises each week[136]. The applicability of these recommendations depends on the severity of the chronic conditions and complications. With regard to LC, inappropriate exercise may cause undesirable outcomes due to the impaired energy metabolism and/or complications associated with LC, including ascites[137], hepatic encephalopathy[138], portal hypertension[139], and hepatopulmonary syndrome[140]. For example, in patients with LC, portal pressure and portal hypertension reportedly increased with moderate exercise (30% of the maximum), suggesting that such physical load poses a risk for variceal bleeding[139]. Moreover, exercise under insufficient nutrient intake can promote protein catabolism and thereby a loss of skeletal muscle mass in LC patients[141,142]. The assessment of nutritional status and complications is therefore mandatory before any exercise management of LC patients.

Exercise regimens for LC patients

The optimal exercise regimens for LC patients remain uncertain. However, there are some preliminary data with regard to efficacious exercise management for LC patients. Recently, based on a survey of compensated LC patients, researchers recommended the following exercise regimen: walking 5000 or more steps per day with a total caloric intake of approximately 30 kcal/ideal body weight[125]. The authors claimed that the regimen has the potential to maintain and increase skeletal muscle volume in LC patients. Most recently, a randomized pilot study with LC patients, in which most participants had Child-Pugh grade A LC, examined whether an exercise program combined with leucine supplementation (10 g/d) can improve patient outcome. The program included three sessions per week of a 1-h treadmill and cycle ergometry exercise at an intensity of 60%-70% of the maximum heart rate, over a period of 12 wk. The intervention group had improved exercise capacity, as shown by the 6-min walk test (from median 365 m to median 445 m) and the 2-min step test (from median 100 steps to median 150 steps), increased lower thigh circumference, and improved health-related quality of life; the control group had no significant changes[143]. During the study, no adverse events due to the implementation of the exercise program were observed. These studies suggest the possibility that moderate exercise combined with LC-specific nutritional support can increase skeletal muscle volume and improve the outcomes of LC patients. Other studies have indicated that aerobic exercise can be expected to improve insulin resistance in patients with chronic liver disease[144,145]. This favorable effect of exercise on insulin sensitivity is particularly important for obese patients[144,146]. Future intensive studies are required to establish efficacious and safe exercise regimens for LC patients.

CONCLUSION

Substantial data exist clearly demonstrating that PEM confers a risk of poor survival in LC patients. PEM in LC patients is highly associated with sarcopenia and a decrease in serum albumin levels. These conditions have also been reported to be predictors of poor patient survival. Nutrition and exercise management can improve PEM and sarcopenia in LC patients. Nutrition management includes sufficient dietary intake and an improvement of impaired nutrient metabolism. In contrast, the current rise in obesity prevalence has increased the number of obese LC patients. Restriction of excessive caloric intake without exacerbation of impaired nutrient metabolism is necessary for those patients. BCAAs are good candidates for supplemental nutrients for both obese and non-obese LC patients. Exercise management can increase skeletal muscle volume and strength and can improve insulin resistance; however, assessment of nutritional status and LC complications is mandatory before the implementation of an exercise program for LC patients. The establishment of optimal exercise regimens for LC patients is required. Figure 1 shows a tentative practical approach for managing LC patients with sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity. The further development of methods for nutrition and exercise management will improve the overall health outcomes of LC patients.

WJG-20-7286-g001

Figure 1 A practical approach for managing liver cirrhosis patients with sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity. LC: Liver cirrhosis; PEM: Protein-energy malnutrition; CT: Computed tomography; MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; DXA: Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry; BCAA: Branched chain amino acid.

Footnotes

P- Reviewers: Maasoumy B, Ruiz-Margain A S- Editor: Qi Y L- Editor: A E- Editor: Zhang DN

References

1. Wilt TJ, Shamliyan T, Shaukat A, Taylor BC, MacDonald R, Yuan JM, Johnson JR, Tacklind J, Rutks I, Kane RL. Management of chronic hepatitis B. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2008;(174):1-671. [PubMed] 

2. Alazawi W, Cunningham M, Dearden J, Foster GR. Systematic review: outcome of compensated cirrhosis due to chronic hepatitis C infection. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;32:344-355. [PubMed] [DOI]

3. Schwartz JM, Reinus JF. Prevalence and natural history of alcoholic liver disease. Clin Liver Dis. 2012;16:659-666. [PubMed] [DOI]

4. Duvnjak M, Lerotić I, Barsić N, Tomasić V, Virović Jukić L, Velagić V. Pathogenesis and management issues for non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13:4539-4550. [PubMed] 

5. Lautz HU, Selberg O, Körber J, Bürger M, Müller MJ. Protein-calorie malnutrition in liver cirrhosis. Clin Investig. 1992;70:478-486. [PubMed] 

6. Alvares-da-Silva MR, Reverbel da Silveira T. Comparison between handgrip strength, subjective global assessment, and prognostic nutritional index in assessing malnutrition and predicting clinical outcome in cirrhotic outpatients. Nutrition. 2005;21:113-117. [PubMed] [DOI]

7. Guglielmi FW, Panella C, Buda A, Budillon G, Caregaro L, Clerici C, Conte D, Federico A, Gasbarrini G, Guglielmi A. Nutritional state and energy balance in cirrhotic patients with or without hypermetabolism. Multicentre prospective study by the ‘Nutritional Problems in Gastroenterology’ Section of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE). Dig Liver Dis. 2005;37:681-688. [PubMed] [DOI]

8. Peng S, Plank LD, McCall JL, Gillanders LK, McIlroy K, Gane EJ. Body composition, muscle function, and energy expenditure in patients with liver cirrhosis: a comprehensive study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007;85:1257-1266. [PubMed] 

9. Alberino F, Gatta A, Amodio P, Merkel C, Di Pascoli L, Boffo G, Caregaro L. Nutrition and survival in patients with liver cirrhosis. Nutrition. 2001;17:445-450. [PubMed] 

10. Tajika M, Kato M, Mohri H, Miwa Y, Kato T, Ohnishi H, Moriwaki H. Prognostic value of energy metabolism in patients with viral liver cirrhosis. Nutrition. 2002;18:229-234. [PubMed] 

11. Sam J, Nguyen GC. Protein-calorie malnutrition as a prognostic indicator of mortality among patients hospitalized with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Liver Int. 2009;29:1396-1402. [PubMed] [DOI]

12. Tsiaousi ET, Hatzitolios AI, Trygonis SK, Savopoulos CG. Malnutrition in end stage liver disease: recommendations and nutritional support. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;23:527-533. [PubMed] [DOI]

13. O’Brien A, Williams R. Nutrition in end-stage liver disease: principles and practice. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:1729-1740. [PubMed] [DOI]

14. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM, Boirie Y, Cederholm T, Landi F, Martin FC, Michel JP, Rolland Y, Schneider SM. Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: Report of the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People. Age Ageing. 2010;39:412-423. [PubMed] [DOI]

15. Lang T, Streeper T, Cawthon P, Baldwin K, Taaffe DR, Harris TB. Sarcopenia: etiology, clinical consequences, intervention, and assessment. Osteoporos Int. 2010;21:543-559. [PubMed] [DOI]

16.nMontano-Loza AJ, Meza-Junco J, Prado CM, Lieffers JR, Baracos VE, Bain VG, Sawyer MB. Muscle wasting is associated with mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:166-173, 173.e1. [PubMed] [DOI]

17. Meza-Junco J, Montano-Loza AJ, Baracos VE, Prado CM, Bain VG, Beaumont C, Esfandiari N, Lieffers JR, Sawyer MB. Sarcopenia as a prognostic index of nutritional status in concurrent cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47:861-870. [PubMed] [DOI]

18. Finucane MM, Stevens GA, Cowan MJ, Danaei G, Lin JK, Paciorek CJ, Singh GM, Gutierrez HR, Lu Y, Bahalim AN. National, regional, and global trends in body-mass index since 1980: systematic analysis of health examination surveys and epidemiological studies with 960 country-years and 9·1 million participants. Lancet. 2011;377:557-567. [PubMed] [DOI]

19. Yasutake K, Bekki M, Ichinose M, Ikemoto M, Fujino T, Ryu T, Wada Y, Takami Y, Saitsu H, Kohjima M. Assessing current nutritional status of patients with HCV-related liver cirrhosis in the compensated stage. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2012;21:400-405. [PubMed] 

20. Moucari R, Asselah T, Cazals-Hatem D, Voitot H, Boyer N, Ripault MP, Sobesky R, Martinot-Peignoux M, Maylin S, Nicolas-Chanoine MH. Insulin resistance in chronic hepatitis C: association with genotypes 1 and 4, serum HCV RNA level, and liver fibrosis. Gastroenterology. 2008;134:416-423. [PubMed] [DOI]

21. Harrison SA. Insulin resistance among patients with chronic hepatitis C: etiology and impact on treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6:864-876. [PubMed] [DOI]

22. Cammà C, Petta S, Di Marco V, Bronte F, Ciminnisi S, Licata G, Peralta S, Simone F, Marchesini G, Craxì A. Insulin resistance is a risk factor for esophageal varices in hepatitis C virus cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2009;49:195-203. [PubMed] [DOI]

23. Wang C, Wang X, Gong G, Ben Q, Qiu W, Chen Y, Li G, Wang L. Increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Int J Cancer. 2012;130:1639-1648. [PubMed] [DOI]

24. Plank LD, Metzger DJ, McCall JL, Barclay KL, Gane EJ, Streat SJ, Munn SR, Hill GL. Sequential changes in the metabolic response to orthotopic liver transplantation during the first year after surgery. Ann Surg. 2001;234:245-255. [PubMed] 

25. Müller MJ, Lautz HU, Plogmann B, Bürger M, Körber J, Schmidt FW. Energy expenditure and substrate oxidation in patients with cirrhosis: the impact of cause, clinical staging and nutritional state. Hepatology. 1992;15:782-794. [PubMed] 

26. Müller MJ, Böttcher J, Selberg O, Weselmann S, Böker KH, Schwarze M, von zur Mühlen A, Manns MP. Hypermetabolism in clinically stable patients with liver cirrhosis. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69:1194-1201. [PubMed] 

27. Müller MJ, Böker KH, Selberg O. Are patients with liver cirrhosis hypermetabolic?. Clin Nutr. 1994;13:131-144. [PubMed] 

28. Mathur S, Peng S, Gane EJ, McCall JL, Plank LD. Hypermetabolism predicts reduced transplant-free survival independent of MELD and Child-Pugh scores in liver cirrhosis. Nutrition. 2007;23:398-403. [PubMed] [DOI]

29. Selberg O, Böttcher J, Tusch G, Pichlmayr R, Henkel E, Müller MJ. Identification of high- and low-risk patients before liver transplantation: a prospective cohort study of nutritional and metabolic parameters in 150 patients. Hepatology. 1997;25:652-657. [PubMed] [DOI]

30. Postic C, Dentin R, Girard J. Role of the liver in the control of carbohydrate and lipid homeostasis. Diabetes Metab. 2004;30:398-408. [PubMed] 

31. Changani KK, Jalan R, Cox IJ, Ala-Korpela M, Bhakoo K, Taylor-Robinson SD, Bell JD. Evidence for altered hepatic gluconeogenesis in patients with cirrhosis using in vivo 31-phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Gut. 2001;49:557-564. [PubMed] 

32. Schneeweiss B, Graninger W, Ferenci P, Eichinger S, Grimm G, Schneider B, Laggner AN, Lenz K, Kleinberger G. Energy metabolism in patients with acute and chronic liver disease. Hepatology. 1990;11:387-393. [PubMed] 

33. Campillo B, Chapelain C, Bonnet JC, Frisdal E, Devanlay M, Bouissou P, Fouet P, Wirquin E, Atlan G. Hormonal and metabolic changes during exercise in cirrhotic patients. Metabolism. 1990;39:18-24. [PubMed] 

34. Merli M, Riggio O, Romiti A, Ariosto F, Mango L, Pinto G, Savioli M, Capocaccia L. Basal energy production rate and substrate use in stable cirrhotic patients. Hepatology. 1990;12:106-112. [PubMed] 

35. Riggio O, Merli M, Romiti A, Pinto G, Fanella R, Attili AF, Capocaccia L. Early postprandial energy expenditure and macronutrient use after a mixed meal in cirrhotic patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1992;16:445-450. [PubMed] 

36. Shangraw RE, Jahoor F. Lipolysis and lipid oxidation in cirrhosis and after liver transplantation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2000;278:G967-G973. [PubMed] 

37. Tessari P. Protein metabolism in liver cirrhosis: from albumin to muscle myofibrils. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2003;6:79-85. [PubMed] [DOI]

38. Kotoh K, Nakamuta M, Fukushima M, Matsuzaki C, Enjoji M, Sakai H, Nawata H. High relative fat-free mass is important for maintaining serum albumin levels in patients with compensated liver cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11:1356-1360. [PubMed] 

39. Blonde-Cynober F, Aussel C, Cynober L. Abnormalities in branched-chain amino acid metabolism in cirrhosis: influence of hormonal and nutritional factors and directions for future research. Clin Nutr. 1999;18:5-13. [PubMed] [DOI]

40. Moriwaki H, Miwa Y, Tajika M, Kato M, Fukushima H, Shiraki M. Branched-chain amino acids as a protein- and energy-source in liver cirrhosis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2004;313:405-409. [PubMed] [DOI]

41. Laviano A, Muscaritoli M, Cascino A, Preziosa I, Inui A, Mantovani G, Rossi-Fanelli F. Branched-chain amino acids: the best compromise to achieve anabolism?. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2005;8:408-414. [PubMed] 

42. Kato M, Miwa Y, Tajika M, Hiraoka T, Muto Y, Moriwaki H. Preferential use of branched-chain amino acids as an energy substrate in patients with liver cirrhosis. Intern Med. 1998;37:429-434. [PubMed] 

43. Dejong CH, van de Poll MC, Soeters PB, Jalan R, Olde Damink SW. Aromatic amino acid metabolism during liver failure. J Nutr. 2007;137:1579S-1585S; discussion 1597S-1598S. [PubMed] 

44. Michitaka K, Hiraoka A, Kume M, Uehara T, Hidaka S, Ninomiya T, Hasebe A, Miyamoto Y, Ichiryu M, Tanihira T. Amino acid imbalance in patients with chronic liver diseases. Hepatol Res. 2010;40:393-398. [PubMed] [DOI]

45. Fischer JE, Baldessarini RJ. False neurotransmitters and hepatic failure. Lancet. 1971;2:75-80. [PubMed] 

46. Habu D, Nishiguchi S, Nakatani S, Lee C, Enomoto M, Tamori A, Takeda T, Ohfuji S, Fukushima W, Tanaka T. Comparison of the effect of BCAA granules on between decompensated and compensated cirrhosis. Hepatogastroenterology. 2009;56:1719-1723. [PubMed] 

47. Qiu J, Tsien C, Thapalaya S, Narayanan A, Weihl CC, Ching JK, Eghtesad B, Singh K, Fu X, Dubyak G. Hyperammonemia-mediated autophagy in skeletal muscle contributes to sarcopenia of cirrhosis. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2012;303:E983-E993. [PubMed] [DOI]

48. Qiu J, Thapaliya S, Runkana A, Yang Y, Tsien C, Mohan ML, Narayanan A, Eghtesad B, Mozdziak PE, McDonald C. Hyperammonemia in cirrhosis induces transcriptional regulation of myostatin by an NF-κB-mediated mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:18162-18167. [PubMed] [DOI]

49. Merli M, Lucidi C, Giannelli V, Giusto M, Riggio O, Falcone M, Ridola L, Attili AF, Venditti M. Cirrhotic patients are at risk for health care-associated bacterial infections. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:979-985. [PubMed] [DOI]

50. Englesbe MJ, Patel SP, He K, Lynch RJ, Schaubel DE, Harbaugh C, Holcombe SA, Wang SC, Segev DL, Sonnenday CJ. Sarcopenia and mortality after liver transplantation. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211:271-278. [PubMed] [DOI]

51.Kaido T, Ogawa K, Fujimoto Y, Ogura Y, Hata K, Ito T, Tomiyama K, Yagi S, Mori A, Uemoto S. Impact of sarcopenia on survival in patients undergoing living donor liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:1549-1556. [PubMed] [DOI]

52. Zamboni M, Mazzali G, Fantin F, Rossi A, Di Francesco V. Sarcopenic obesity: a new category of obesity in the elderly. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2008;18:388-395. [PubMed] [DOI]

53. Berzigotti A, Garcia-Tsao G, Bosch J, Grace ND, Burroughs AK, Morillas R, Escorsell A, Garcia-Pagan JC, Patch D, Matloff DS. Obesity is an independent risk factor for clinical decompensation in patients with cirrhosis. Hepatology. 2011;54:555-561. [PubMed] [DOI]

54. Shiraki M, Nishiguchi S, Saito M, Fukuzawa Y, Mizuta T, Kaibori M, Hanai T, Nishimura K, Shimizu M, Tsurumi H. Nutritional status and quality of life in current patients with liver cirrhosis as assessed in 2007-2011. Hepatol Res. 2013;43:106-112. [PubMed] [DOI]

55. Kojima S, Watanabe N, Numata M, Ogawa T, Matsuzaki S. Increase in the prevalence of fatty liver in Japan over the past 12 years: analysis of clinical background. J Gastroenterol. 2003;38:954-961. [PubMed] [DOI]

56. McCullough AJ. Epidemiology of the metabolic syndrome in the USA. J Dig Dis. 2011;12:333-340. [PubMed] [DOI]

57. Fan JG. Epidemiology of alcoholic and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease in China. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;28 Suppl 1:11-17. [PubMed] [DOI]

58. Launer LJ, Harris T, Rumpel C, Madans J. Body mass index, weight change, and risk of mobility disability in middle-aged and older women. The epidemiologic follow-up study of NHANES I. JAMA. 1994;271:1093-1098. [PubMed] 

59. Levine ME, Crimmins EM. The impact of insulin resistance and inflammation on the association between sarcopenic obesity and physical functioning. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012;20:2101-2106. [PubMed] [DOI]

60. Lee CG, Boyko EJ, Strotmeyer ES, Lewis CE, Cawthon PM, Hoffman AR, Everson-Rose SA, Barrett-Connor E, Orwoll ES. Association between insulin resistance and lean mass loss and fat mass gain in older men without diabetes mellitus. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:1217-1224. [PubMed] [DOI]

61. Lee CG, Boyko EJ, Barrett-Connor E, Miljkovic I, Hoffman AR, Everson-Rose SA, Lewis CE, Cawthon PM, Strotmeyer ES, Orwoll ES. Insulin sensitizers may attenuate lean mass loss in older men with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:2381-2386. [PubMed] [DOI]

62. Lim S, Kim JH, Yoon JW, Kang SM, Choi SH, Park YJ, Kim KW, Lim JY, Park KS, Jang HC. Sarcopenic obesity: prevalence and association with metabolic syndrome in the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging (KLoSHA). Diabetes Care. 2010;33:1652-1654. [PubMed] [DOI]

63. Ioannou GN, Weiss NS, Kowdley KV, Dominitz JA. Is obesity a risk factor for cirrhosis-related death or hospitalization? A population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2003;125:1053-1059. [PubMed] [DOI]

64. Ioannou GN, Weiss NS, Boyko EJ, Kowdley KV, Kahn SE, Carithers RL, Tsai EC, Dominitz JA. Is central obesity associated with cirrhosis-related death or hospitalization? A population-based, cohort study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:67-74. [PubMed] 

65. Prado CM, Lieffers JR, McCargar LJ, Reiman T, Sawyer MB, Martin L, Baracos VE. Prevalence and clinical implications of sarcopenic obesity in patients with solid tumours of the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts: a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:629-635. [PubMed] [DOI]

66. Nutritional status in cirrhosis. Italian Multicentre Cooperative Project on Nutrition in Liver Cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 1994;21:317-325. [PubMed] 

67. Campillo B, Richardet JP, Scherman E, Bories PN. Evaluation of nutritional practice in hospitalized cirrhotic patients: results of a prospective study. Nutrition. 2003;19:515-521. [PubMed] 

68. Abad-Lacruz A, Cabré E, González-Huix F, Fernández-Bañares F, Esteve M, Planas R, Llovet JM, Quer JC, Gassull MA. Routine tests of renal function, alcoholism, and nutrition improve the prognostic accuracy of Child-Pugh score in nonbleeding advanced cirrhotics. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88:382-387. [PubMed] 

69. Terakura Y, Shiraki M, Nishimura K, Iwasa J, Nagaki M, Moriwaki H. Indirect calorimetry and anthropometry to estimate energy metabolism in patients with liver cirrhosis. J Nutr Sci Vitaminol (Tokyo). 2010;56:372-379. [PubMed] 

70. Heymsfield SB, Casper K. Anthropometric assessment of the adult hospitalized patient. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1987;11:36S-41S. [PubMed] 

71. Ulijaszek SJ, Kerr DA. Anthropometric measurement error and the assessment of nutritional status. Br J Nutr. 1999;82:165-177. [PubMed] 

72. Kyle UG, Bosaeus I, De Lorenzo AD, Deurenberg P, Elia M, Gómez JM, Heitmann BL, Kent-Smith L, Melchior JC, Pirlich M. Bioelectrical impedance analysis--part I: review of principles and methods. Clin Nutr. 2004;23:1226-1243. [PubMed] [DOI]

73. Chien MY, Huang TY, Wu YT. Prevalence of sarcopenia estimated using a bioelectrical impedance analysis prediction equation in community-dwelling elderly people in Taiwan. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56:1710-1715. [PubMed] [DOI]

74. Pirlich M, Schütz T, Spachos T, Ertl S, Weiss ML, Lochs H, Plauth M. Bioelectrical impedance analysis is a useful bedside technique to assess malnutrition in cirrhotic patients with and without ascites. Hepatology. 2000;32:1208-1215. [PubMed] [DOI]

75. Baumgartner RN, Chumlea WC, Roche AF. Bioelectric impedance phase angle and body composition. Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;48:16-23. [PubMed] 

76. Oliveira CM, Kubrusly M, Mota RS, Silva CA, Choukroun G, Oliveira VN. The phase angle and mass body cell as markers of nutritional status in hemodialysis patients. J Ren Nutr. 2010;20:314-320. [PubMed] [DOI]

77. Cardinal TR, Wazlawik E, Bastos JL, Nakazora LM, Scheunemann L. Standardized phase angle indicates nutritional status in hospitalized preoperative patients. Nutr Res. 2010;30:594-600. [PubMed] [DOI]

78. Paiva SI, Borges LR, Halpern-Silveira D, Assunção MC, Barros AJ, Gonzalez MC. Standardized phase angle from bioelectrical impedance analysis as prognostic factor for survival in patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2010;19:187-192. [PubMed] [DOI]

79. Fernandes SA, Bassani L, Nunes FF, Aydos ME, Alves AV, Marroni CA. Nutritional assessment in patients with cirrhosis. Arq Gastroenterol. 2012;49:19-27. [PubMed] 

80. Selberg O, Selberg D. Norms and correlates of bioimpedance phase angle in healthy human subjects, hospitalized patients, and patients with liver cirrhosis. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002;86:509-516. [PubMed] [DOI]

81. Bosaeus I, Wilcox G, Rothenberg E, Strauss BJ. Skeletal muscle mass in hospitalized elderly patients: comparison of measurements by single-frequency BIA and DXA. Clin Nutr. 2014;33:426-431. [PubMed] [DOI]

82. Mourtzakis M, Prado CM, Lieffers JR, Reiman T, McCargar LJ, Baracos VE. A practical and precise approach to quantification of body composition in cancer patients using computed tomography images acquired during routine care. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008;33:997-1006. [PubMed] [DOI]

83. Beneke R, Neuerburg J, Bohndorf K. Muscle cross-section measurement by magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1991;63:424-429. [PubMed] 

84. Chen Z, Wang Z, Lohman T, Heymsfield SB, Outwater E, Nicholas JS, Bassford T, LaCroix A, Sherrill D, Punyanitya M. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is a valid tool for assessing skeletal muscle mass in older women. J Nutr. 2007;137:2775-2780. [PubMed] 

85. Gallagher D, Visser M, De Meersman RE, Sepúlveda D, Baumgartner RN, Pierson RN, Harris T, Heymsfield SB. Appendicular skeletal muscle mass: effects of age, gender, and ethnicity. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1997;83:229-239. [PubMed] 

86. Baumgartner RN, Koehler KM, Gallagher D, Romero L, Heymsfield SB, Ross RR, Garry PJ, Lindeman RD. Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am J Epidemiol. 1998;147:755-763. [PubMed] 

87. Janssen I, Heymsfield SB, Ross R. Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional impairment and physical disability. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50:889-896. [PubMed] 

88. Wang ZM, Visser M, Ma R, Baumgartner RN, Kotler D, Gallagher D, Heymsfield SB. Skeletal muscle mass: evaluation of neutron activation and dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry methods. J Appl Physiol (1985). 1996;80:824-831. [PubMed] 

89. Hirsch S, Bunout D, de la Maza P, Iturriaga H, Petermann M, Icazar G, Gattas V, Ugarte G. Controlled trial on nutrition supplementation in outpatients with symptomatic alcoholic cirrhosis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1993;17:119-124. [PubMed] 

90. Roberts HC, Denison HJ, Martin HJ, Patel HP, Syddall H, Cooper C, Sayer AA. A review of the measurement of grip strength in clinical and epidemiological studies: towards a standardised approach. Age Ageing. 2011;40:423-429. [PubMed] [DOI]

91. Bories PN, Campillo B. One-month regular oral nutrition in alcoholic cirrhotic patients. Changes of nutritional status, hepatic function and serum lipid pattern. Br J Nutr. 1994;72:937-946. [PubMed] 

92. Campillo B, Bories PN, Pornin B, Devanlay M. Influence of liver failure, ascites, and energy expenditure on the response to oral nutrition in alcoholic liver cirrhosis. Nutrition. 1997;13:613-621. [PubMed] 

93. Plauth M, Cabré E, Riggio O, Assis-Camilo M, Pirlich M, Kondrup J, Ferenci P, Holm E, Vom Dahl S, Müller MJ. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Liver disease. Clin Nutr. 2006;25:285-294. [PubMed] [DOI]

94. Swart GR, Zillikens MC, van Vuure JK, van den Berg JW. Effect of a late evening meal on nitrogen balance in patients with cirrhosis of the liver. BMJ. 1989;299:1202-1203. [PubMed] 

95. Verboeket-van de Venne WP, Westerterp KR, van Hoek B, Swart GR. Energy expenditure and substrate metabolism in patients with cirrhosis of the liver: effects of the pattern of food intake. Gut. 1995;36:110-116. [PubMed] 

96. Chang WK, Chao YC, Tang HS, Lang HF, Hsu CT. Effects of extra-carbohydrate supplementation in the late evening on energy expenditure and substrate oxidation in patients with liver cirrhosis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1997;21:96-99. [PubMed] 

97. Miwa Y, Shiraki M, Kato M, Tajika M, Mohri H, Murakami N, Kato T, Ohnishi H, Morioku T, Muto Y. Improvement of fuel metabolism by nocturnal energy supplementation in patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepatol Res. 2000;18:184-189. [PubMed] 

98. Plank LD, Gane EJ, Peng S, Muthu C, Mathur S, Gillanders L, McIlroy K, Donaghy AJ, McCall JL. Nocturnal nutritional supplementation improves total body protein status of patients with liver cirrhosis: a randomized 12-month trial. Hepatology. 2008;48:557-566. [PubMed] [DOI]

99. Alvarez MA, Cirera I, Solà R, Bargalló A, Morillas RM, Planas R. Long-term clinical course of decompensated alcoholic cirrhosis: a prospective study of 165 patients. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011;45:906-911. [PubMed] [DOI]

100. Masson S, Emmerson I, Henderson E, Fletcher EH, Burt AD, Day CP, Stewart SF. Clinical but not histological factors predict long-term prognosis in patients with histologically advanced non-decompensated alcoholic liver disease. Liver Int. 2014;34:235-242. [PubMed] [DOI]

101. Serfaty L, Aumaître H, Chazouillères O, Bonnand AM, Rosmorduc O, Poupon RE, Poupon R. Determinants of outcome of compensated hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis. Hepatology. 1998;27:1435-1440. [PubMed] [DOI]

102. Hu KQ, Tong MJ. The long-term outcomes of patients with compensated hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis and history of parenteral exposure in the United States. Hepatology. 1999;29:1311-1316. [PubMed] [DOI]

103. Kobayashi M, Ikeda K, Hosaka T, Sezaki H, Someya T, Akuta N, Suzuki F, Suzuki Y, Saitoh S, Arase Y. Natural history of compensated cirrhosis in the Child-Pugh class A compared between 490 patients with hepatitis C and 167 with B virus infections. J Med Virol. 2006;78:459-465. [PubMed] [DOI]

104. Toshikuni N, Izumi A, Nishino K, Inada N, Sakanoue R, Yamato R, Suehiro M, Kawanaka M, Yamada G. Comparison of outcomes between patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and those with hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:1276-1283. [PubMed] [DOI]

105. Bustamante J, Rimola A, Ventura PJ, Navasa M, Cirera I, Reggiardo V, Rodés J. Prognostic significance of hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 1999;30:890-895. [PubMed] 

106. Kimball SR, Jefferson LS. Signaling pathways and molecular mechanisms through which branched-chain amino acids mediate translational control of protein synthesis. J Nutr. 2006;136:227S-231S. [PubMed] 

107. Anthony JC, Anthony TG, Kimball SR, Jefferson LS. Signaling pathways involved in translational control of protein synthesis in skeletal muscle by leucine. J Nutr. 2001;131:856S-860S. [PubMed] 

108.Nicastro H, Artioli GG, Costa Ados S, Solis MY, da Luz CR, Blachier F, Lancha AH. An overview of the therapeutic effects of leucine supplementation on skeletal muscle under atrophic conditions. Amino Acids. 2011;40:287-300. [PubMed] [DOI]

109. Freund H, Dienstag J, Lehrich J, Yoshimura N, Bradford RR, Rosen H, Atamian S, Slemmer E, Holroyde J, Fischer JE. Infusion of branched-chain enriched amino acid solution in patients with hepatic encephalopathy. Ann Surg. 1982;196:209-220. [PubMed] 

110. Sato S, Watanabe A, Muto Y, Suzuki K, Kato A, Moriwaki H, Kato M, Nakamura T. Clinical comparison of branched-chain amino acid (l-Leucine, l-Isoleucine, l-Valine) granules and oral nutrition for hepatic insufficiency in patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis (LIV-EN study). Hepatol Res. 2005;31:232-240. [PubMed] [DOI]

111. Nakaya Y, Okita K, Suzuki K, Moriwaki H, Kato A, Miwa Y, Shiraishi K, Okuda H, Onji M, Kanazawa H. BCAA-enriched snack improves nutritional state of cirrhosis. Nutrition. 2007;23:113-120. [PubMed] [DOI]

112. Urata Y, Okita K, Korenaga K, Uchida K, Yamasaki T, Sakaida I. The effect of supplementation with branched-chain amino acids in patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepatol Res. 2007;37:510-516. [PubMed] [DOI]

113. Marchesini G, Bianchi G, Merli M, Amodio P, Panella C, Loguercio C, Rossi Fanelli F, Abbiati R. Nutritional supplementation with branched-chain amino acids in advanced cirrhosis: a double-blind, randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:1792-1801. [PubMed] 

114. Muto Y, Sato S, Watanabe A, Moriwaki H, Suzuki K, Kato A, Kato M, Nakamura T, Higuchi K, Nishiguchi S. Effects of oral branched-chain amino acid granules on event-free survival in patients with liver cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:705-713. [PubMed] 

115. ASPEN Board of Directors and the Clinical Guidelines Task Force.Guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26:1SA-138SA. [PubMed] 

116. Nishiguchi S, Habu D. Effect of oral supplementation with branched-chain amino acid granules in the early stage of cirrhosis. Hepatol Res. 2004;30S:36-41. [PubMed] [DOI]

117. Calder PC. Branched-chain amino acids and immunity. J Nutr. 2006;136:288S-293S. [PubMed] 

118. Shen C, Zhao CY, Zhang R, Qiao L. Obesity-related hepatocellular carcinoma: roles of risk factors altered in obesity. Front Biosci (Landmark Ed). 2012;17:2356-2370. [PubMed] 

119. Shimizu M, Tanaka T, Moriwaki H. Obesity and hepatocellular carcinoma: targeting obesity-related inflammation for chemoprevention of liver carcinogenesis. Semin Immunopathol. 2013;35:191-202. [PubMed] [DOI]

120. Garcia-Compean D, Jaquez-Quintana JO, Gonzalez-Gonzalez JA, Maldonado-Garza H. Liver cirrhosis and diabetes: risk factors, pathophysiology, clinical implications and management. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15:280-288. [PubMed] 

121. Srikanthan P, Hevener AL, Karlamangla AS. Sarcopenia exacerbates obesity-associated insulin resistance and dysglycemia: findings from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III. PLoS One. 2010;5:e10805. [PubMed] [DOI]

122. Layman DK, Walker DA. Potential importance of leucine in treatment of obesity and the metabolic syndrome. J Nutr. 2006;136:319S-323S. [PubMed] 

123. Zhang Y, Guo K, LeBlanc RE, Loh D, Schwartz GJ, Yu YH. Increasing dietary leucine intake reduces diet-induced obesity and improves glucose and cholesterol metabolism in mice via multimechanisms. Diabetes. 2007;56:1647-1654. [PubMed] [DOI]

124. Hayashi F, Momoki C, Yuikawa M, Simotani Y, Kawamura E, Hagihara A, Fujii H, Kobayashi S, Iwai S, Morikawa H. Nutritional status in relation to lifestyle in patients with compensated viral cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:5759-5770. [PubMed] [DOI]

125. Hayashi F, Matsumoto Y, Momoki C, Yuikawa M, Okada G, Hamakawa E, Kawamura E, Hagihara A, Toyama M, Fujii H. Physical inactivity and insufficient dietary intake are associated with the frequency of sarcopenia in patients with compensated viral liver cirrhosis. Hepatol Res. 2013;43:1264-1275. [PubMed] [DOI]

126. Montero-Fernández N, Serra-Rexach JA. Role of exercise on sarcopenia in the elderly. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;49:131-143. [PubMed] 

127. Zinna EM, Yarasheski KE. Exercise treatment to counteract protein wasting of chronic diseases. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2003;6:87-93. [PubMed] [DOI]

128. Jones JC, Coombes JS, Macdonald GA. Exercise capacity and muscle strength in patients with cirrhosis. Liver Transpl. 2012;18:146-151. [PubMed] [DOI]

129. Lemyze M, Dharancy S, Nevière R, Wallaert B. Cardiopulmonary response to exercise in patients with liver cirrhosis and impaired pulmonary gas exchange. Respir Med. 2011;105:1550-1556. [PubMed] [DOI]

130. Terziyski K, Andonov V, Marinov B, Kostianev S. Exercise performance and ventilatory efficiency in patients with mild and moderate liver cirrhosis. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2008;35:135-140. [PubMed] [DOI]

131. Campillo B, Fouet P, Bonnet JC, Atlan G. Submaximal oxygen consumption in liver cirrhosis. Evidence of severe functional aerobic impairment. J Hepatol. 1990;10:163-167. [PubMed] 

132. Epstein SK, Ciubotaru RL, Zilberberg MD, Kaplan LM, Jacoby C, Freeman R, Kaplan MM. Analysis of impaired exercise capacity in patients with cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci. 1998;43:1701-1707. [PubMed] 

133. Lemyze M, Dharancy S, Wallaert B. Response to exercise in patients with liver cirrhosis: implications for liver transplantation. Dig Liver Dis. 2013;45:362-366. [PubMed] [DOI]

134. Bernal W, Martin-Mateos R, Lipcsey M, Tallis C, Woodsford K, McPhail MJ, Willars C, Auzinger G, Sizer E, Heneghan M. Aerobic capacity during cardiopulmonary exercise testing and survival with and without liver transplantation for patients with chronic liver disease. Liver Transpl. 2014;20:54-62. [PubMed] [DOI]

135. Ritland S, Petlund CF, Knudsen T, Skrede S. Improvement of physical capacity after long-term training in patients with chronic active hepatitis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1983;18:1083-1087. [PubMed] 

136. Nelson ME, Rejeski WJ, Blair SN, Duncan PW, Judge JO, King AC, Macera CA, Castaneda-Sceppa C. Physical activity and public health in older adults: recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:1435-1445. [PubMed] [DOI]

137. Saló J, Guevara M, Fernández-Esparrach G, Bataller R, Ginès A, Jimenez W, Ginès P, Rivera F, Arroyo V, Rodés J. Impairment of renal function during moderate physical exercise in cirrhotic patients with ascites: relationship with the activity of neurohormonal systems. Hepatology. 1997;25:1338-1342. [PubMed] [DOI]

138. Sinniah D, Fulton TT, McCullough H. The effect of exercise on the venous blood ammonium concentration in man. J Clin Pathol. 1970;23:715-719. [PubMed] 

139. García-Pagàn JC, Santos C, Barberá JA, Luca A, Roca J, Rodriguez-Roisin R, Bosch J, Rodés J. Physical exercise increases portal pressure in patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension. Gastroenterology. 1996;111:1300-1306. [PubMed] 

140. Epstein SK, Zilberberg MD, Jacoby C, Ciubotaru RL, Kaplan LM. Response to symptom-limited exercise in patients with the hepatopulmonary syndrome. Chest. 1998;114:736-741. [PubMed] 

141. Shimomura Y, Murakami T, Nakai N, Nagasaki M, Harris RA. Exercise promotes BCAA catabolism: effects of BCAA supplementation on skeletal muscle during exercise. J Nutr. 2004;134:1583S-1587S. [PubMed] 

142. Shimomura Y, Honda T, Shiraki M, Murakami T, Sato J, Kobayashi H, Mawatari K, Obayashi M, Harris RA. Branched-chain amino acid catabolism in exercise and liver disease. J Nutr. 2006;136:250S-253S. [PubMed] 

143. Román E, Torrades MT, Nadal MJ, Cárdenas G, Nieto JC, Vidal S, Bascuñana H, Juárez C, Guarner C, Córdoba J. Randomized Pilot Study: Effects of an Exercise Programme and Leucine Supplementation in Patients with Cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;:Epub ahead of print. [PubMed] [DOI]

144. Hickman IJ, Jonsson JR, Prins JB, Ash S, Purdie DM, Clouston AD, Powell EE. Modest weight loss and physical activity in overweight patients with chronic liver disease results in sustained improvements in alanine aminotransferase, fasting insulin, and quality of life. Gut. 2004;53:413-419. [PubMed] 

145. Konishi I, Hiasa Y, Tokumoto Y, Abe M, Furukawa S, Toshimitsu K, Matsuura B, Onji M. Aerobic exercise improves insulin resistance and decreases body fat and serum levels of leptin in patients with hepatitis C virus. Hepatol Res. 2011;41:928-935. [PubMed] [DOI]

146. Goodpaster BH, Katsiaras A, Kelley DE. Enhanced fat oxidation through physical activity is associated with improvements in insulin sensitivity in obesity. Diabetes. 2003;52:2191-2197. [PubMed] 

Source

June 20, 2014

Boehringer Ingelheim Statement on Hepatitis C drug development

20 June 2014

For media outside of the US, the UK only

Ingelheim, Germany – 20 June, 2014 - Boehringer Ingelheim has re-evaluated its strategy in hepatitis C (HCV), and as a result the company has decided not to move forward in this therapeutic area. The HCV treatment environment has significantly and rapidly evolved since the submission of the faldaprevir marketing applications to regulatory bodies around the world. There are now several new treatment options available for patients and additional all-oral options are expected to be approved in 2014. This decision was taken as there is no longer an unmet medical need for the faldaprevir interferon-based regimen that was the subject of the application.

Boehringer Ingelheim will withdraw all pending marketing applications for faldaprevir worldwide and is discontinuing further development.

Boehringer Ingelheim is committed to developing new treatments that provide high therapeutic value in areas where medical need exists. The company is focusing its efforts on numerous promising development projects in immunology, cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic diseases, diseases of the central nervous system and oncology.

Boehringer Ingelheim
The Boehringer Ingelheim group is one of the world's 20 leading pharmaceutical companies. Headquartered in Ingelheim, Germany, Boehringer Ingelheim operates globally with 142 affiliates and a total of more than 47,400 employees. The focus of the family-owned company, founded in 1885, is researching, developing, manufacturing and marketing new medications of high therapeutic value for human and veterinary medicine.

Taking social responsibility is an important element of the corporate culture at Boehringer Ingelheim. This includes worldwide involvement in social projects, such as the initiative "Making more Health" and caring for the employees. Respect, equal opportunities and reconciling career and family form the foundation of the mutual cooperation. In everything it does, the company focuses on environmental protection and sustainability.

In 2013, Boehringer Ingelheim achieved net sales of about 14.1 billion euros. R&D expenditure corresponds to 19.5% of its net sales.

Source

HCV Drug Out of the Running - Faldaprevir

Infectious Disease

Published: Jun 20, 2014

By Michael Smith, North American Correspondent, MedPage Today

The German pharmaceutical giant Boehringer Ingelheim is stopping development of faldaprevir, its hepatitis C virus (HCV) drug.

In a statement, the company said HCV treatment has "significantly and rapidly evolved since the submission of the faldaprevir marketing applications to regulatory bodies around the world."

As a result, the company said, "there is no longer an unmet medical need" for faldaprevir, an inhibitor of the HCV protease enzyme that was intended to be used with pegylated interferon and ribavirin.

The drug yielded good results in clinical trials, and it was a gentler therapy than similar combinations currently on the market. But given the development of all-oral regimens that do not use interferon, faldaprevir was increasingly regarded as a dead end.

In 2013, Peter Ferenci, MD, of the Medical University of Vienna, told MedPage Today the drug's development began in a clinical context in which its competitors were two other protease inhibitors -- telaprevir (Incivek) and boceprevir (Victrelis).

Both are approved, in combination with interferon and ribavirin, but they have been associated with serious and sometimes dangerous adverse events. Both, for instance, cause significant anemia, and telaprevir has been associated with a life-threatening rash that in at least two cases led to death.

Ferenci said the gentler side effect profile of faldaprevir, combined with more convenient dosing, might let the drug find a market while the interferon-free regimens are still being worked out.

But other investigators told MedPage Today that, even if it were approved, they would only use it for the most serious cases; patients with less severe disease could wait for an interferon-free treatment regimen.

Source

A 4-week hep C cure? Bristol to test drugs with Gilead's Sovaldi

By Bill Berkrot
NEW YORK  Fri Jun 20, 2014 9:07am EDT

(Reuters) - In the race to find a faster cure for hepatitis C, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co said it will test its experimental antiviral drug combination with Gilead Sciences Inc's blockbuster drug Sovaldi, hoping to cut treatment time to four weeks.

Bristol-Myers disclosed plans for the exploratory 30-patient trial testing its three-drug combination with Sovaldi in an interview with Reuters. Eric Hughes, the leader of Bristol's global hepatitis program, said the details were due to be posted on the clinicaltrials.gov website next week.

Sovaldi's $84,000 price tag for a 12-week treatment has spurred outrage among insurers, state health officials and lawmakers who fear the cost of treating millions of Americans with the progressive liver disease will top $250 billion. Insurers are pushing Gilead's rivals to offer lower prices when their hepatitis C medicines reach the market.

Using the drug for a shorter course of treatment could, in theory, lower the cost, even when combined with Bristol's therapies. Rivals Merck & Co and AbbVie are also racing to develop next-generation hepatitis C treatments that cure most people of the virus in a shorter time frame.

But drug pricing experts expect Gilead and its rivals may still argue that the quicker cure represents a value to patients, buffering any steep price reductions.

"The position and concept of pharma is not ingredient costs or duration of treatment cost. Pharma is looking at it as cost per cure," said John Whang, co-president of Reimbursement Intelligence, which works with pharmaceutical companies and payers to help determine prices for medicines.

The cost could come down, he said, "but it's not going to be proportionate to the degree that the duration of treatment shortens."

The new generation of oral drugs being developed by several companies has raised hepatitis C cure rates to well above 90 percent from about 75 percent without the need for interferon or ribavirin, which caused miserable side effects that led many patients to delay or drop treatment. The drugs in clinical trials have already cut treatment time to 12 weeks from 24 to 48 weeks.

"We got rid of the tolerability problem. We got rid of the efficacy problem. Now there is a tremendous drive to get down to shorter treatment durations," Bristol-Myers' Hughes said in a telephone interview.

REVIVING A SOVALDI COMBO

Bristol's plan essentially revives an effort to test its drugs in combination with Sovaldi. It previously tested a single compound with Sovaldi, achieving cure rates close to 100 percent in 12 weeks. But Gilead scrapped further testing in 2012, as it preferred to develop its own combination without a partner.

Gilead's pill that combines Sovaldi with its ledipasvir is expected to gain U.S. approval this year for therapies of eight or 12 weeks, depending on the patient. The company is also testing the combination as a six-week treatment.

The go-it-alone strategy has already paid off as Gilead was first to market with Sovaldi, breaking pharmaceutical industry sales records with $2.3 billion in sales within a few months.

The new study, set to begin in late July, will test a trio of Bristol drugs with Sovaldi in previously untreated patients with the most common Genotype 1 form of the virus. It will involve two groups of 15 patients each - one getting four weeks of treatment and the other six.

If Bristol can demonstrate cure rates in excess of 90 percent in four weeks, it plans to conduct larger trials with a more diverse patient population.

"We'll see what the data says," Hughes said. "Taking this forward will be a very exciting thing."

With Gilead not involved in the effort, Bristol will pay full price for Sovaldi to conduct the trial.

Bristol would not discuss potential pricing of its regimen, since its drugs are not approved. But if treatment can be cut to four weeks from 12, the Sovaldi portion would be closer to $28,000.

Other rivals are also advancing efforts to compete in what is expected to be a huge market.

Merck this month agreed to pay $3.85 billion to acquire Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc with the hope that combining the two companies' most promising drugs will produce cures in four to six weeks across the full spectrum of genotypes.

U.S. and European health regulators in the last week said they would accelerate their reviews of AbbVie's four-drug regimen, meaning it could be vying for market share by early next year.

(Reporting by Bill Berkrot; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Douglas Royalty)

Source

Emerging therapeutic options for the management of hepatitis C infection

World J Gastroenterol. 2014 June 21; 20(23): 7079-7088.

Published online 2014 June 21. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i23.7079.

Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.

J Richard Thompson.

J Richard Thompson, Department of Pharmacy Practice, One University Park Drive, Lipscomb University College of Pharmacy, Nashville, TN 37204, United States

Author contributions: Thompson JR reviewed the literature and wrote the entire content for this manuscript.

Correspondence to: J Richard Thompson, PharmD, MBA, BCPS, Department of Pharmacy Practice, One University Park Drive, Lipscomb University College of Pharmacy, Nashville, TN 37204, United States. richard.thompson@lipscomb.edu

Telephone: +1-615-9667172 Fax: +1-615-9667163

Received October 10, 2013; Revised January 22, 2014; Accepted May 1, 2014;

Abstract

Until recently the traditional treatment for hepatitis C infection included pegylated interferon and ribavirin combination therapy. The sustained virological response (SVR) seen with this combination is poor and requires lengthy treatment to achieve. Additionally, significant side effects and numerous contraindications prevented many patients from being successfully treated with this therapy. In 2011, two new protease inhibitors, telaprevir and boceprevir, were approved for use with pegylated interferon and ribavirin in the United States by the United States Food and Drug Administration. These agents have significantly improved SVR rates; however significant problems with toxicity remain including severe skin rash and neutropenia. There are a wide range of compounds in late stage development for the future treatment of hepatitis C that exploit many different mechanisms of viral inhibition. Some of these compounds include additional protease inhibitors, like telaprevir and boceprevir, as well as inhibitors of other nonstructural proteins in the viral genome such as NS5A and NS5B, and compounds that target host proteins within the virus. Some of these agents are being developed for oral administration once daily and various combinations are being assessed for use without the need for pegylated interferon and ribavirin. This paper reviews agents in late phase development that may be commercially available within 1-2 years.

Keywords: Hepatitis C, Pharmacotherapy, Interferon, Ribavirin, Protease inhibitors, Polymerase inhibitors, Cyclophilin inhibitors

Core tip: A plethora of new agents for the management of hepatitis C promising higher response rates and better tolerated side effect profiles is upon us. Many of these new drugs in development utilize novel pharmacologic mechanisms and may replace older more toxic therapies such as interferon and ribavirin. In addition, once daily dosing and shorter treatment durations should help improve adherence and optimize therapeutic outcomes for hepatitis C infection.

INTRODUCTION

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major cause of gastrointestinal morbidity and mortality worldwide. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 170 million people have chronic HCV infection with 3-4 million new infections occurring each year. In the United States, up to four million people have chronic HCV and 18-20000 new infections are diagnosed annually per the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Until recently treatment for HCV infection relied upon pegylated-interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin combination therapy. The sustained virological response (SVR) seen with this combination is poor and requires lengthy treatment to achieve[1]. Additionally, significant side effects and numerous contraindications, prevent most patients from being successfully treated with these agents.

Recently two new protease inhibitors, telaprevir and boceprevir, have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the use of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) triple therapy has substantially improved SVRs[2,3]. In addition, a plethora of new chemical entities directed against various components of the nonstructural proteins in the hepatitis C virion are in late phase development and offer the promise of greater efficacy and fewer side effects, with once or twice daily oral administration and perhaps no longer requiring interferon and ribavirin. This paper will review telaprevir and boceprevir as well as agents that are in late phase development and may come available within the next 1-2 years.

TRADITIONAL TREATMENT APPROACH TO HEPATITIS C

The traditional treatment approach to hepatitis C relies heavily on combination therapy with pegylated interferon and ribavirin[4,5]. For genotype I disease, patients less than 75 kg receive peginterferon alpha-2a 180 μg by injection per week plus ribavirin 1000 mg daily in divided doses for 48 wk or peginterferon alpha-2b 1.5 μg/kg per week by injection plus ribavirin 800-1000 mg (based on weight) daily in divided doses for 48 wk. Patients greater than 75 kg receive peginterferon alpha-2a 180 μg by injection per week plus ribavirin 1200 mg daily in divided doses for 48 wk or peginterferon alpha-2b 1.5 μg/kg per week by injection plus ribavirin 1000-1400 mg (based on weight) daily in divided doses for 48 wk. Patients with genotypes 2 or 3 disease may be treated with peginterferon alpha-2a 180 μg by injection per week plus ribavirin 800 mg daily in divided doses for 24 wk or peginterferon alpha-2b 1.5 μg/kg per week by injection plus ribavirin 800-1400 mg (based on weight) daily in divided doses for 24 wk. Dose reductions may be necessary for patients with significant renal disease or those experience serious adverse reactions. For patients with contraindications or intolerance to ribavirin, monotherapy with peginterferon alpha-2a 180 μg by injection per week for 48 wk or peginterferon alpha-2b 1 μg/kg per week by injection for one year may be used.

Clinical success is greater with combination therapy, but SVR rates remain less than optimal at 54%-56%[5]. Numerous contraindications to ribavirin preclude some patients from receiving combination therapy. These contraindications include autoimmune hepatitis, decompensated liver disease, pregnancy, hemoglobinopathy, renal insufficiency, hemodialysis, thyroid disease, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischemic cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease. Also, side effects associated with both pegylated interferon and ribavirin are substantial and include fatigue, fever, headache, nausea, arthralgia, musculoskeletal pain, insomnia, depression, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and anemia. For these reasons, only about 10% of patients with hepatitis C are successfully treated with traditional therapy.

TRIPLE THERAPY WITH PROTEASE INHIBITORS FOR HEPATITIS C

The hepatitis C virus contains six nonstructural HCV proteins that are processed by both viral and host proteases[6]. These nonstructural proteins (NS2, NS3, NS4A, NS4B, NS5A, and NS5B) are primarily enzymes that are essential in the HCV life cycle (Figure 1). A number of compounds have been developed which target these proteases involved in HCV polyprotein procession. They are divided into two chemical classes, macrocyclic inhibitors and linear tetra-peptide α-ketoamid derivatives. The NS3/4A protease inhibitors are potent anti-viral agents as monotherapy against HCV replication, but may cause selection of resistance species. However, this resistance appears to be attenuated when the drugs are used in combination with standard peginterferon/ribavirin therapy. The first two drugs to reach the commercial marketplace in this class are telaprevir and boceprevir.

WJG-20-7079-g001

Figure 1 Hepatitis C genomic targets for drug development. HCV: Hepatitis C virus; IFN: Interferon.

Telaprevir

Telaprevir is an orally bioavailable NS3 protease inhibitor of the α-ketoamid class that binds the enzyme in a covalent but reversible manner with an enzyme-inhibitor complex half-life of 58 min. A phase I, placebo-controlled dose ranging study compared telaprevir 450 mg or 750 mg every 8 h with 1250 mg every 12 h in treatment-naïve genotype I patients and found the 750 mg dose to be most effective with a median reduction in HCV RNA of 4.4 log10 after 14 d[7]. A subsequent similar phase I study compared this dose following a 1250 mg loading dose either alone or in combination with peginterferon alpha-2a with peginterferon alpha-2a monotherapy for 14 d. The reduction in HCV RNA was 1.09 log10 in the peginterferon alpha-2a/placebo group, 3.99 log10 in the telaprevir/placebo group, and 5.49 log10 in the peginterferon alpha-2a/telaprevir group at the end of therapy. The development of resistant mutants was significantly lower in the peginterferon combination treatment group and no breakthrough of virus was seen throughout the study period[8]. An additional 28 d trial in treatment-naïve genotype I patients showed undetectable HCV RNA serum levels following telaprevir 750 mg every 8 h combined with peginterferon alpha-2a and weight-based dosing of ribavirin[9].

These early results were further validated in two phase II trials, PROVE 1 (American) and PROVE 2 (European) in treatment naïve, genotype I patients. In the PROVE 1 trial, combination therapy with telaprevir 1250 mg loading dose followed by 750 mg every 8 h or placebo, peginterferon alfa-2a 180 μg weekly, and ribavirin 1000-1200 mg/d based on weight for 12 wk was followed by interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin at the same dosages for an additional 0, 12, or 36 wk. Treatment was stopped after 12 or 24 wk only when a rapid virologic response (RVR) was achieved. This produced SVR rates of 35%, 61% and 67% at 12, 24, and 48 wk, respectively, vs 41% SVR with 48 wk standard therapy[10]. The PROVE 2 trial compared telaprevir + peginterferon alone for 12 wk, telaprevir + peginterferon and ribavirin for 12 wk, and telaprevir + peginterferon and ribavirin for 12 wk followed by an additional 12 wk of peginterferon and ribavirin alone, against standard peginterferon and ribavirin therapy. SVRs of 36%, 60%, and 69% respectively, vs 46% with standard therapy were documented[11]. thus, ribavirin appears important to achieve high SVRs and 12 wk of therapy appears insufficient to prevent relapse. In these trials skin rash, anemia, and gastrointestinal disorders were the most common side effects, causing up to 18% of patients to discontinue therapy.

A third trial, PROVE 3, evaluated telaprevir-based combination therapy in patients who had prior non-response or relapse with standard peginterferon and ribavirin therapy[12]. SVRs in patients retreated with telaprevir, interferon and ribavirin for 12 or 24 wk followed by peginterferon and ribavirin alone for up to 24 wk were 51% and 53%, respectively, compared with standard therapy at 14%. However, retreatment with telaprevir and interferon alone for 24 wk followed by peginterferon and ribavirin alone for an additional 24 wk gave only a 24% SVR rate, again demonstrating the need for ribavirin in initial therapy with telaprevir.

Telaprevir has since been evaluated in three large, randomized, controlled trials in both treatment naïve and standard treatment failure patients. The ADVANCE trial enrolled a total of 1095 patients with treatment naïve genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C and compared three treatment arms: telaprevir 750 mg three times daily for 8 wk followed by peginterferon and ribavirin or placebo for an additional 4 wk and then peginterferon and ribavirin in both groups for 12 subsequent weeks (or 36 subsequent weeks in patients who did not have a RVR at 24 wk); telaprevir 750 mg three times daily for 12 wk followed by peginterferon and ribavirin for 12 subsequent weeks (or 36 subsequent weeks in patients who did not have a RVR at 24 wk); and peginterferon and ribavirin or placebo for 12 wk followed by peginterferon and ribavirin for the subsequent 36 wk. SVRs were seen in 72% of the telaprevir 8-wk arm, 79% in the telaprevir 12-wk arm, but only 46% in the peginterferon and ribavirin or placebo 48-wk group (P < 0.001)[13]. A 24-wk treatment period appeared sufficient for patients who achieved an early RVR.

The REALIZE trial evaluated telaprevir in 662 patients of which 354 were prior relapsers and 308 were prior non-responders to standard treatment with peginterferon and ribavirin. This study compared telaprevir 750 mg three times daily with peginterferon and ribavirin for 12 wk followed by peginterferon and ribavirin for an additional 36 wk; peginterferon and ribavirin for 4 wk followed by telaprevir 750 mg three times daily with peginterferon and ribavirin for an additional 12 wk, and then peginterferon and ribavirin alone for a subsequent 32 wk; or standard therapy with peginterferon and ribavirin for a full 48 wk course. In patients who had previously relapsed, SVR rates were 84%-88% in the telaprevir groups compared with only 22% in the placebo or peginterferon and ribavirin standard therapy groups[14]. In patients who had previously partially responded to standard therapy, SVR rates were 56%-61% in telaprevir treated patients compared with 15% in placebo or peginterferon and ribavirin treated patients. Previous nonresponders to standard therapy achieved SVRs of 31%-33% with telaprevir compared with only 5% with placebo or peginterferon and ribavirin standard therapy. The 4 wk lead-in exposure to interferon and ribavirin did not produce substantially different results than starting simultaneously with telaprevir. Patients with on-treatment virologic failure were fewer in telaprevir groups and relapse rates were lower than the control subjects for prior relapsers and prior non-responders.

A third phase III clinical trial, ILLUMINATE, evaluated the efficacy of telaprevir therapy for 12 wk with either 24 or 48 wk of peginterferon and ribavirin based upon an achievement of extended RVR (eRVR) at 24 wk. Treatment naïve patients with genotype I chronic hepatitis C were given telaprevir 750 mg three times daily for 12 wk with peginterferon and ribavirin for at least 24 wk. Patients who achieved an extended rapid virologic response as evidenced by undetectable HCV RNA levels at weeks 4 and 12 were randomized to either stop treatment at week 24 or continue peginterferon and ribavirin therapy for a full 48 wk. Patients who did not achieve an eRVR continued peginterferon and ribavirin therapy for the full 48 wk as well. SVRs were at least 90% in both groups and total treatment for 24 wk was non-inferior to 48 wk for those achieving an extended rapid virologic response. The SVR rate was > 70% for all groups, compared with historical standards of 46%-52%, and this study population included patients with historically lower SVRs with standard therapy. In addition, the relapse rate was low for both eRVR+ and eRVR- patients at an overall rate of 9.2%[15].

The safety profile of telaprevir was evaluated in a pooled analysis of adverse events reported in all five phase II and III placebo-controlled trials[16]. During these trials, 2012 patients received at least one dose of telaprevir and 1346 patients were randomized to receive telaprevir 750 mg three times daily for 12 wk with peginterferon and ribavirin for 24-48 wk and 764 patients were randomized to receive placebo with peginterferon and ribavirin. A total of 73% of telaprevir-treated patients and 49.1% of placebo-treated patients completed the full duration of therapy. The most frequently occurring adverse events in the telaprevir group (> 20%) included pruritus, nausea, rash, anemia, and diarrhea. Hemorrhoids, anorectal discomfort, anal pruritus, dysgeusia, and generalized pruritus occurred less frequently. Anemia caused discontinuation of participation in 2.7% of telaprevir treated patients and 0.5% of placebo treated patients. Hemoglobin concentrations decreased rapidly over the first four weeks of treatment in both groups, but continued to decrease to a greater extent thereafter in telaprevir treated patients. The initial onset of rash occurred at any time following treatment with telaprevir, but most commonly occurred within the first four weeks. Progression of severity was reported for < 10% of cases, and many cases of rash resolved over the first 24 wk of therapy. A Dermatology Expert Panel reviewed the rashes and determined that the visual appearance of rash in telaprevir-treated patients was virtually indistinguishable from that seen in peginterferon and ribavirin-treated patients. One case of rash was suggestive of Stevens-Johnson syndrome, but it was not thought to be drug related as it occurred 11 wk after the last dose of telaprevir.

Boceprevir

Boceprevir is another orally bioavailable NS3 protease inhibitor of the α-ketoamid class that binds the enzyme in a covalent but reversible manner. In an early dose ranging trial of 100-400 mg daily for 14 d as monotherapy in genotype I patients with prior treatment failure on standard therapy, the maximum dose achieved a 2.06 log10 reduction in HCV RNA load and was well tolerated. Viral breakthrough occurred in some patients, however[17]. A later phase I trial compared boceprevir 200 or 400 mg every 8 h for 7 d alone or in combination with peginterferon alpha 2b for 14 d with peginterferon alpha 2b monotherapy for 14 d in genotype I patients who were nonresponders to standard therapy. This approach achieved maximal reductions in HCV RNA of 2.45 and 2.88 log10 for boceprevir 200 and 400 mg, respectively, with peginterferon alpha 2b, 1.08 and 1.61 log10 for boceprevir 200 and 400 mg monotherapy, and 1.08 and 1.26 log10 for peginterferon alpha 2b alone in the respective boceprevir dose groups[18]. Boceprevir was well tolerated in this trial as well, both alone and in combination with peginterferon alpha-2b, but viral breakthrough was observed again, primarily in patients receiving monotherapy.

The addition of ribavirin to boceprevir and peginterferon alpha-2b was evaluated in a phase II trial (SPRINT-1) in treatment naïve, genotype I patients. In this trial patients received 28 or 48 wk of boceprevir 800 mg three times daily, peginterferon alpha-2b, and ribavirin or a 4 wk lead-in treatment of peginterferon alpha-2b with ribavirin followed by 24 or 44 wk of boceprevir 800 mg three times daily, peginterferon alpha-2b, and ribavirin compared with standard therapy with peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for a full 48 wk. The four week lead-in treatment with peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin boosted SVR rates from 54% to 56% at 28 wk and from 67% to 75% at 48 wk, compared with 38% with standard peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin therapy for 48 wk[19]. However, RVR rates with boceprevir triple therapy were only 38% compared with 70% seen in telaprevir triple therapy trials. The most common side effects seen with boceprevir in this trial were anemia, nausea, vomiting, and dysgeusia. A subsequent phase II trial evaluated boceprevir triple therapy in HCV genotype I nonresponders, but SVR rates were poor, ranging from 2% for control to 14% with boceprevir[20].

Boceprevir has subsequently been evaluated in two large, well-controlled, multicenter clinical trials in both untreated and previously treated patients with genotype I chronic HCV infection. The SPRINT-2 trial enrolled a total of 1099 patients with untreated genotype I HCV infection who were randomized to receive triple therapy with boceprevir 800 mg three times daily with peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for 24 or 44 wk following a lead-in treatment of 4 wk with standard peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin therapy and compared with a full 48 wk course of standard peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin therapy. One arm of the trial was allowed to discontinue therapy at 24 wk if HCV RNA levels were undetectable, while those with detectable levels received additional interferon alpha-2b and ribavirin with placebo from weeks 28 to 48. Black patients and nonblack patients were enrolled and analyzed separately. In the larger, nonblack cohort, an SVR rate of 40% was achieved with standard pegylated interferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for 48 wk, compared with 67% in patients treated with boceprevir for 24 wk and 68% in patients treated with boceprevir for 44 wk (P < 0.001)[21]. In the black cohort, an SVR rate of 23% was achieved with standard pegylated interferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for 48 wk, compared with 42% in patients treated with boceprevir for 24 wk (P < 0.04) and 53% in patients treated with boceprevir for 44 wk (P < 0.004). In the variable duration arm, 44% of patients had nondetectable HCV RNA levels and were able to discontinue therapy at 24 wk. Adverse events occurred in 98% of patients and were similar in number across groups. Fatigue, headache, and nausea were the most common clinical adverse events. Dysgeusia was twice as frequent in boceprevir treated patients and anemia occurred in 49% of boceprevir treated patients compared with 29% of those receiving peginterferon alpha-2b only. This led to dose reduction in 13% of the control patients and 21% of boceprevir treated patients and discontinuation of therapy in 1% and 2%, respectively.

The RESPOND-2 trial provided a similar evaluation of boceprevir in patients with chronic HCV genotype I infection, who had been previously treated with standard therapy and experienced either a nonresponse or relapse. This trial enrolled 403 patients and randomized them in a 1:2:2 fashion to standard therapy with peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for 48 wk, boceprevir 800 mg three times daily with peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for 32 wk, or boceprevir 800 mg three times daily with peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin for 44 wk. Both boceprevir triple therapy arms were preceded by 4 wk of treatment with standard peginterferon alpha-2b and ribavirin therapy. One arm of the trial was allowed to discontinue therapy at 32 wk if HCV RNA levels were undetectable, while those with detectable levels received additional interferon alpha-2b and ribavirin with placebo from weeks 36 to 48. The overall rate of SVR for boceprevir treated patients was significantly higher in this trial (59% at 32 wk and 66% at 44 wk) compared with standard therapy (21%, P < 0.001) for the full 48 wk[22]. Patients who had undetectable HCV RNA levels at week 8 had SVR rates of 86% after 32 wk of boceprevir triple therapy and 88% after 44 wk. Patients whose HCV RNA level decreased by less than 1 log10 at 4 wk had SVR rates of 33% and 34% after boceprevir triple therapy compared with 0% after standard therapy. Side effects seen in this trial were similar to those seen in SPRINT-2, with anemia being more common in boceprevir treated patients (43%-46%) compared with standard therapy (20%). Erythropoeitin was required to manage the anemia in 41%-46% of boceprevir treated patients compared with 21% with standard therapy.

DEVELOPMENTAL PROTEASE INHIBITORS

Protease inhibitors are classified as 1st generation or 2nd generation based upon resistance profiles. The generations are further subdivided into waves based on improved potency and dosing[23]. Telaprevir and boceprevir represent the first wave of the first generation of protease inhibitors. A number of agents are currently being investigated, which constitute the second wave. These agents have resistance profiles similar to telaprevir and boceprevir. Second generation protease inhibitors have pan-genotypic activity and a higher barrier for resistance than first generation PIs. Table 1 lists protease inhibitors currently under development.

Table 1 Protease inhibitors currently under development

  • First generation (wave 2)
  • Simeprevir
  • Faldaprevir
  • Danoprevir
  • Vaniprevir
  • ABT-450/ABT-450r
  • Asunaprevir
  • Second generation
  • MK-5172
  • ACH-2684

Simeprevir

Simeprevir is a macrocyclic NS3/4A protease inhibitor that is active against all genotypes of hepatitis C except genotype 3. It undergoes hepatic metabolism through cytochrome p4503A with an elimination half-life of 40 h, which makes it suitable for once daily dosing[24]. In a large phase III clinical trial, simeprevir 150 mg once daily with pegylated interferon and ribavirin for 12 wk followed by pegylated interferon and ribavirin alone for an additional 12-36 wk produced SVRs at 12 wk post-treatment (SVR12) of 81% in genotype 1, treatment naïve patients[25]. Response rates were even higher in patients with the IL28B polymorphism and lower stage liver fibrosis. Frequently reported adverse effects included rash and indirect hyperbilirubinemia.

Faldaprevir

Faldaprevir is another potent NS3 protease inhibitor that can be dosed on a once daily basis. However, its activity is limited to genotype 1 disease. In a large phase III trial of genotype 1, treatment-naïve patients, faldaprevir 120 or 240 mg once daily with pegylated interferon and ribavirin for 12 wk achieved 80% SVR12 with even higher responses seen in patients with the IL28B polymorphism[26]. Indirect hyperbilirubinemia was reported in this trial as well.

Danoprevir

Danoprevir is also a potent macrocyclic protease inhibitor with activity against HCV genotypes 1, 4, and 6. Unlike simeprevir and faldaprevir, however, danoprevir requires twice daily dosing. In a recent phase IIb study, danoprevir 300 mg every 8 h, 600 mg every 12 h, 900 mg every 12 h or placebo was given with pegylated interferon and ribavirin for 12 wk in genotype 1 patients and followed with pegylated interferon/ribavirin alone for an additional 48 wk[27]. Treatment was stopped at 24 wk if an extended rapid virologic response (eRVR) with HCV RNA below 15 IU/mL during weeks 4-20 was achieved. This occurred in 65% of the 300 mg group and 70% of the 600 mg group. Unfortunately, the 900 mg group was discontinued early due to reversible, grade 4 increases in alanine aminotransferase in three patients. SVR at 24 wk post-treatment was 68%, 85%, and 76% in the 300 mg, 600 mg, and 900 mg groups, respectively, vs 42% in the placebo group. Serious adverse effects occurred in 19% of patients in the placebo group vs 7%-8% of patients in the active treatment groups.

Vaniprevir

Vaniprevir is a potent NS3/4A protease inhibitor in genotypes 1 and 2 that has shown efficacy in phase II trials when given twice daily to non-cirrhotic patients who failed previous pegylated interferon/ribavirin therapy. Vaniprevir 300 mg and 600 mg twice daily for 24-48 wk with pegylated interferon/ribavirin therapy produced SVR rates at 24 wk post-treatment ranging from 66.7%-78% vs only 19% with placebo and pegylated interferon/ribavirin[28]. Higher rates of gastrointestinal adverse events were seen with vaniprevir, but no difference in rash or anemia occurred between the two groups.

ABT-450/ABT-450r

ABT-450 is an NS3/4A protease inhibitor that is metabolized by cytochrome p4503A and coadministered with ritonavir 100 mg (ABT-450r) to allow once daily dosing. It has been studied in combination with ABT-333, an NS5B nonnucleoside polymerase inhibitor, as part of an interferon-free regimen[29]. Clinical trial results of this combination will be discussed later.

Asunaprevir

Asunaprevir is also a potent NS3 inhibitor that is dosed twice daily, but is limited in efficacy to genotype 1 disease. It has been studied in combination with daclatasvir, a potent NS5A replication complex inhibitor, as a part of an interferon-free regimen[30]. Clinical trial results of this combination will be discussed later.

MK-5172

MK-5172 is a second generation protease inhibitor with pan-genotypic activity. In a phase II trial, MK-5172 100, 200, 400 and 800 mg once daily combined with pegylated interferon and ribavirin for 12 wk gave SVRs of 86%, 92%, 91%, and 87%, respectively, compared with 54% in the control group receiving triple therapy with pegylated interferon/ribavirin and boceprevir[31]. Elevations in bilirubin and serum transaminases were seen mostly in the higher dose groups. Rates of serious adverse events were similar between all groups but half as many patients discontinued therapy due to adverse events in the MK-5172 treatment arms (7% vs 14%).

ACH-2684

ACH-2684 is also a pan-genotypic, highly potent second generation protease inhibitor. This compound can be dosed orally once daily and does not inhibit cytochrome p450 microsomal enzymes or activate transcription[32]. ACH-2684 has completed phase I trials and is currently being evaluated in phase II.

NS5A HCV REPLICATION INHIBITORS

Daclatasvir

Unlike protease inhibitors that generally interfere with protein processing within the HCV genome, a number of compounds in development target nonstructural proteins involved in viral replication. (Table 2) Daclatasvir works by inhibiting the function of a viral replication complex by binding to the NS5A protein. It is highly potent orally, pan-genotypic in coverage and can be dosed once daily, but offers a lower barrier to resistance so will likely be used as combination therapy. Initial studies in combination with pegylated interferon/ribavirin showed 10 and 60 mg doses once daily produced SVRs at 24 wk post-treatment of 83% compared to 25% with standard therapy alone[33]. More recently, daclatasvir combined with sofosbuvir, an NS5B polymerase inhibitor discussed below, was shown to produce a 100% SVR at 24 wk in genotype 1 patients who had failed triple therapy with pegylated interferon/ribavirin and telaprevir or boceprevir without ribavirin[34]. The combination was generally well tolerated without serious adverse events or discontinuations related to adverse events. Daclatasvir has also been studied in combination with asunaprevir and another NS5B polymerase inhibitor (BMS-791325) in treatment-naïve, genotype 1 non-cirrhotic patients for 12 and 24 wk with SVRs of 88% and 94%, respectively[30].

Table 2 Additional drugs in development for hepatitis C

  • NS5A hepatitis C virus replication inhibitors
  • Daclatasvir
  • Ledipasvir
  • ACH-3102
  • ABT-267
  • NS5B RNA dependent RNA polymerase inhibitors
  • Sofosbuvir
  • Mericitabine
  • ABT-333
  • Host targeted agents
  • Alisporivir
  • Miravirsen
  • Interferon-λ

Ledipasvir

Ledipasvir is also an NS5A replication inhibitor that has been studied in combination with sofosbuvir, an NS5B polymerase inhibitor, in phase II trials. Ledipasvir 90 mg orally once daily in combination with both sofosbuvir and ribavirin in genotype 1 treatment-naïve and prior nonresponse patients increased SVRs to 100% at 12 wk post-treatment vs 84% in naïve patients given sofosbuvir and ribavirin alone and 10% in sofosbuvir/ribavirin nonresponders[35]. These agents are currently in phase III trials in a fixed-dose, once daily oral combination formulation.

ACH-3102

ACH-3102 is a structurally distinct, pan-genotypic, second generation NS5A replication inhibitor with a high barrier to resistance. An ongoing phase II clinical trial is evaluating an oral, interferon-free combination regimen of ACH-3102 and sovaprevir with and without ribavirin for 12 and 8 wk durations of treatment in genotype 1 patients with HCV[36]. ACH-3102 has been granted fast-track status from the United States Food and Drug Administration.

ABT-267

ABT-267 is an additional NS5A replication inhibitor that has been studied at a dose of 25 mg once daily in combination with ABT-450/r and ABT-333, an NS5B polymerase inhibitor, and ribavirin in non-cirrhotic, treatment-naïve patients with genotype 1 disease and prior pegylated interferon/ribavirin nonresponders. Phase II trial data showed a greater than 90% SVR in both groups at both 12 and 24 wk post-treatment[37]. This combination regimen is currently being evaluated in a large phase III trial.

NS5B RNA DEPENDENT RNA POLYMERASE INHIBITORS

Nucleoside/tide inhibitors (NIs) block HCV RNA transcription and elongation by acting as chain terminators. Because of the highly conserved nature of the polymerase catalytic site, NIs as a class are pan-genotypic in coverage and they have the highest barrier to resistance. Non-NIs (NNIs) bind allosteric polymerase sites away from the catalytic site and, while potent, have a much lower barrier to resistance.

Sofosbuvir

Sofosbuvir is an NS5B nucleoside inhibitor that is pan-genotypic, highly potent, and suitable for once daily oral dosing. This compound has now completed study in four large, phase III trials and has been awarded priority review status by the United States Food and Drug Administration. Additionally, phase II studies of sofosbuvir combination therapies as interferon-free regimens are currently underway.

Sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily was initially studied in combination with pegylated interferon/ribavirin therapy in 327 HCV patients with genotypes 1, 4, 5, or 6 for 12 wk (98% of patients were genotype 1 or 4)[38]. A SVR of 90% was achieved in these patients. A subsequent follow up study compared 499 patients with HCV genotypes 2 or 3 receiving sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily plus ribavirin or pegylated interferon plus ribavirin for 12 wk. The sofosbuvir/ribavirin regimen was shown to be non-inferior to the pegylated interferon/ribavirin regimen achieving as SVR of 67%[38]. Adverse events were less common with sofosbuvir than pegylated interferon and consisted primarily of headache, fatigue, nausea, and neutropenia.

Sofosbuvir has since been evaluated in HCV patients with genotype 2 or 3 who were not eligible to receive pegylated interferon or who had previous failed therapy with this agent. Sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily in combination with ribavirin or matching placebos was studied in 278 patients who had previously discontinued pegylated interferon therapy secondary to side effects, who had a current medical condition precluding treatment with pegylated interferon, or who decided against treatment with pegylated interferon for other reasons. Sofosbuvir produced a SVR at 12 wk of 78% vs 0% with placebo in these patients[39]. In a study of 201 similar patients who had failed previous therapy with pegylated interferon, sofosbuvir 400 mg once daily plus ribavirin was compared in 12 and 16 wk treatment groups. Sofosbuvir achieved SVR rates of 50% and 73% in these treatment arms respectively, compared with historical controls of 25%[39]. The drug was well tolerated in both of these trials with primary side effects of fatigue and insomnia occurring in 3%-5% of patients and few patients discontinuing use because of adverse effects.

Mericitabine

Mericitabine is also an NS5B nucleoside inhibitor with pan-genotypic activity, but requiring twice daily dosing. Mericitabine 1000 mg twice daily or placebo was given with pegylated interferon/ribavirin to 166 patients with HCV genotypes 1 or 4 for 24 wk. Patients who achieved an HCV RNA level < 15 IU/mL (eRVR) from weeks 4 to 22 stopped all treatment at that time, but all other patients continued to receive pegylated interferon/ribavirin for a full 48 wk of therapy. Mericitabine-treated patients achieved a SVR at 24 wk post-treatment of 56.8%, compared with 36.5% of placebo-treated patients[40]. Relapse rates were 27.7% and 32% in patients treated with mericitabine and placebo, respectively. The safety profile was similar in both groups, but fewer patients in the mericitabine group discontinued therapy for reasons of safety.

ABT-333

ABT-333 is a NS5B non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitor that has been evaluated in combination with the protease inhibitor, ABT450/r, and ribavirin in HCV genotype 1 treatment-naïve patients, as well as null or partial prior responders to pegylated interferon and ribavirin. ABT-333 at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus ABT-450/r 150 or 250 mg and ribavirin produced SVRs of 93%-95% at 12 wk post-treatment in previously untreated patients[41]. Only 47% of prior null or partial responders to pegylated interferon and ribavirin achieved an SVR12, however. As mentioned previously, this drug is currently being studied in a phase III trial in combination with ABT-450/r and ABT-267, with or without ribavirin in genotype 1b patients with HCV.

HOST TARGETED AGENTS FOR HEPATITIS C

Alisporivir

Alisporivir is a nonimmunosuppressive form of cyclosporine that blocks HCV replication by neutralizing the peptidyl-prolyl isomerase activity of the host protein, cyclophilin, which is required by NS5B for maximum RNA binding[42]. Alisporivir 600 mg twice daily for one week followed by 600 mg daily thereafter or placebo combined with pegylated interferon and ribavirin was evaluated in 288 patients with treatment-naïve genotype 1 HCV for 24 and 48 wk of therapy[43]. SVR rates at 24 wk post-treatment were 76% in patients receiving triple therapy with alisporivir and pegylated interferon/ribavirin for 48 wk vs 55% in the control arm. The drug was well tolerated overall with serious adverse events occurring in 7% of patients treated with alisporivir for 24 wk and 10% of patients treated with alisporivir for 48 wk. Subsequent to this trial, 3 patients developed pancreatitis, including one who died, and the FDA asked the manufacturer to place further trials on clinical hold until it can be determined if alisporivir potentiates the risk of hepatitis that is known with interferon therapy.

Miravirsen

Miravirsen is an antisense oligonucleotide that works by inhibiting miR-122, a micro-RNA found in the liver essential to the stability and propagation of HCV RNA. Miravirsen can be dose subcutaneously once daily, is pan-genotypic in activity, and has a high barrier to resistance. In a phase IIa dose-ranging trial, miravirsen resulted in dose-dependent reduction in HCV RNA levels that were still not present 14 wk post-treatment[44]. No dose-limiting adverse events or escape mutations were noted in this small trial.

Interferon-λ

Pegylated interferon lambda is a type 3 interferon that signals through a different receptor than type 1 interferon, but can inhibit HCV viral replication in vitro. In early trials it was well tolerated without the usual flu-like syndrome and hematopoietic effects typically seen with interferon alpha. A phase II trial comparing pegylated interferon lambda with pegylated interferon alpha each in combination with ribavirin found comparable SVR rates but less interferon side effects with pegylated interferon lambda[45]. This could prove to be a useful option for patients who do not respond to interferon-free regimens currently in development.

PLACE IN THERAPY OF NEW AGENTS FOR HEPATITIS C

Clearly the availability of both telaprevir and boceprevir, as well as other anti-HCV drugs in development, will vastly improve our antiviral armamentarium for patients with hepatitis C. Telaprevir and boceprevir must be used in conjunction with standard pegylated interferon and ribavirin therapy. However, the duration of treatment may be reduced substantially for many patients, based upon the clinical trial results from patients receiving a rapid virologic response. Substantial improvement in the SVR should be seen with these new agents for both treatment-naïve as well as prior relapsed or non-responsive patients. The further development of non-protease inhibitor based therapy offers the potential for interferon and ribavirin free therapy with once or twice daily oral dosing and a better tolerated side-effect profile. Additional studies are needed to determine which agent or agents should be used initially and the optimal combination regimen for patients needing additional therapy.

At this point in time, it appears that second generation protease inhibitors will supplant current protease inhibitor therapy on the basis of broader genotypic coverage and a higher barrier to resistance. Both NS5A replication inhibitors and NS5B RNA dependent RNA polymerase inhibitors offer greater potency than currently available drugs, but a lower barrier to resistance with the NS5As will likely require combination therapy. The availability of these new agents should preclude the continued need for interferon therapy and possibly for ribavirin therapy as well.

Footnotes

P- Reviewer: Scuteri A S- Editor: Ma YJ L- Editor: A E- Editor: Zhang DN

References

1. Strader DB, Wright T, Thomas DL, Seeff LB. Diagnosis, management, and treatment of hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2004;39:1147-1171. [PubMed] [DOI]

2. INCIVEK. Cambridge, MA: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, 2011. Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex_Pharmaceuticals

3. VICTRELIS. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Schering Corporation, 2011. Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/020503s046lbl.pdf

4. PEGASYS®. Nutley, NJ: Hoffman-La Roche Inc. 2011. Available from: http://www.manta.com/c/mmbpq0d/hoffmann-la-roche-inc

5. PegIntron®. Whitehouse Station, NJ: Merck & Co., Inc., 2011. Available from: http://www.merck.com/index.html

6. Tencate V, Sainz B Jr, Cotler SJ, Uprichard SL. Potential treatment options and future research to increase hepatitis C virus treatment response rate. Hepat Med. 2010;2010:125-145. [PubMed] 

7. Reesink HW, Zeuzem S, Weegink CJ, Forestier N, van Vliet A, van de Wetering de Rooij J, McNair L, Purdy S, Kauffman R, Alam J. Rapid decline of viral RNA in hepatitis C patients treated with VX-950: a phase Ib, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:997-1002. [PubMed] 

8. Forestier N, Reesink HW, Weegink CJ, McNair L, Kieffer TL, Chu HM, Purdy S, Jansen PL, Zeuzem S. Antiviral activity of telaprevir (VX-950) and peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with hepatitis C. Hepatology. 2007;46:640-648. [PubMed] 

9. Lawitz E, Rodriguez-Torres M, Muir AJ, Kieffer TL, McNair L, Khunvichai A, McHutchison JG. Antiviral effects and safety of telaprevir, peginterferon alfa-2a, and ribavirin for 28 days in hepatitis C patients. J Hepatol. 2008;49:163-169. [PubMed] [DOI]

10. McHutchison JG, Everson GT, Gordon SC, Jacobson IM, Sulkowski M, Kauffman R, McNair L, Alam J, Muir AJ. Telaprevir with peginterferon and ribavirin for chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1827-1838. [PubMed] [DOI]

11. Hézode C, Forestier N, Dusheiko G, Ferenci P, Pol S, Goeser T, Bronowicki JP, Bourlière M, Gharakhanian S, Bengtsson L. Telaprevir and peginterferon with or without ribavirin for chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1839-1850. [PubMed] [DOI]

12. McHutchison JG, Manns MP, Muir AJ, Terrault NA, Jacobson IM, Afdhal NH, Heathcote EJ, Zeuzem S, Reesink HW, Garg J. Telaprevir for previously treated chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1292-1303. [PubMed] [DOI]

13. Jacobson IM, McHutchison JG, Dusheiko G, Di Bisceglie AM, Reddy KR, Bzowej NH, Marcellin P, Muir AJ, Ferenci P, Flisiak R. Telaprevir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2405-2416. [PubMed] [DOI]

14. Zeuzem S, Andreone P, Pol S, Lawitz E, Diago M, Roberts S, Focaccia R, Younossi Z, Foster GR, Horban A. Telaprevir for retreatment of HCV infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2417-2428. [PubMed] [DOI]

15. Sherman KE, Flamm SL, Afdhal NH, Nelson DR, Sulkowski MS, Everson GT, Fried MW, Adler M, Reesink HW, Martin M. Response-guided telaprevir combination treatment for hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:1014-1024. [PubMed] [DOI]

16. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Briefing Information for the April 28, 2011 Meeting of the Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/AntiviralDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm252559.htm

17. Susser S, Welsch C, Wang Y, Zettler M, Domingues FS, Karey U, Hughes E, Ralston R, Tong X, Herrmann E. Characterization of resistance to the protease inhibitor boceprevir in hepatitis C virus-infected patients. Hepatology. 2009;50:1709-1718. [PubMed] [DOI]

18. Sarrazin C, Rouzier R, Wagner F, Forestier N, Larrey D, Gupta SK, Hussain M, Shah A, Cutler D, Zhang J. SCH 503034, a novel hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor, plus pegylated interferon alpha-2b for genotype 1 nonresponders. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:1270-1278. [PubMed] 

19. Kwo PY, Lawitz EJ, McCone J, Schiff ER, Vierling JM, Pound D, Davis MN, Galati JS, Gordon SC, Ravendhran N. Efficacy of boceprevir, an NS3 protease inhibitor, in combination with peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin in treatment-naive patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C infection (SPRINT-1): an open-label, randomised, multicentre phase 2 trial. Lancet. 2010;376:705-716. [PubMed] [DOI]

20. Poordad F, Bronowicki JP, Gordon SC, Zeuzem S, Jacobson IM, Sulkowski MS, Poynard T, Morgan TR, Molony C, Pedicone LD. Factors that predict response of patients with hepatitis C virus infection to boceprevir. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:608-618.e1-5. [PubMed] [DOI]

21. Poordad F, McCone J, Bacon BR, Bruno S, Manns MP, Sulkowski MS, Jacobson IM, Reddy KR, Goodman ZD, Boparai N. Boceprevir for untreated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1195-1206. [PubMed] [DOI]

22. Bacon BR, Gordon SC, Lawitz E, Marcellin P, Vierling JM, Zeuzem S, Poordad F, Goodman ZD, Sings HL, Boparai N. Boceprevir for previously treated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:1207-1217. [PubMed] [DOI]

23. Poordad F, Dieterich D. Treating hepatitis C: current standard of care and emerging direct-acting antiviral agents. J Viral Hepat. 2012;19:449-464. [PubMed] [DOI]

24. Tanwar S, Trembling PM, Dusheiko GM. TMC435 for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2012;21:1193-1209. [PubMed] [DOI]

25. Manns PM, Poordad F. Simeprevir (TMC435) with peginterferon/ribavirin for treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection in treatment-resistant patients: results from QUEST-2 a phase III trial. Presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver: 2013 Apr 24-28; Amsterdam.

26. Ferenci P, Asselah T, Foster GR. Faldaprevir plus pegylated interferon alpha-2A and ribavirin in chronic HCV genotype-1 treatment-naïve patients: final results from STARTVerso1, a randomized double blind placebo-controlled phase III trial. Presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver: 2013 Apr 24-28; Amsterdam.

27. Marcellin P, Cooper C, Balart L, Larrey D, Box T, Yoshida E, Lawitz E, Buggisch P, Ferenci P, Weltman M. Randomized controlled trial of danoprevir plus peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in treatment-naïve patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:790-800.e3. [PubMed] [DOI]

28. Park JS, Chang DY, Kim JH, Jung JH, Park J, Kim SH, Lee YD, Kim SS, Suh-Kim H. Retrovirus-mediated transduction of a cytosine deaminase gene preserves the stemness of mesenchymal stem cells. Exp Mol Med. 2013;45:e10. [PubMed] [DOI]

29. Lawitz E, Poordad F, Kowdley KV, Cohen DE, Podsadecki T, Siggelkow S, Larsen L, Menon R, Koev G, Tripathi R. A phase 2a trial of 12-week interferon-free therapy with two direct-acting antivirals (ABT-450/r, ABT-072) and ribavirin in IL28B C/C patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1. J Hepatol. 2013;59:18-23. [PubMed] [DOI]

30. Everson GT, Sims KD, Rodriguez-Torres M. Interim analysis of an interferon (IFN)- and ribavirin (RBV)-free regimen of daclatasvir (DCV), asunaprevir (ASV), and BMS-791325 in treatment-naive, hepatitis C virus genotype 1-infected patients. Presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver: 2013 Apr 24-28; Amsterdam.

31. Manns M, Vierling JM, Bacon BR. High sustained viral response at 12- and 24-week follow-up of MK-5172 with pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin (PR) in HCV genotype 1 treatment-naive non-cirrhotic patient. Presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL 2013): 2013 Apr 24-28; Amsterdam.

32. Lawitz E, Hill J, Vince B. ACH-2684 demonstrates potent viral suppression in genotype 1 hepatitis C patients with and without cirrhosis: safety, pharmacokinetic, and viral kinetic analysis. Presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver: 2013 April 24-28; Amsterdam.

33. Pol S, Ghalib RH, Rustgi VK, Martorell C, Everson GT, Tatum HA, Hézode C, Lim JK, Bronowicki JP, Abrams GA. Daclatasvir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C genotype-1 infection: a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding, phase 2a trial. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:671-677. [PubMed] [DOI]

34. Sulkowski MS, Gardiner DF, Rodriguez-Torres M. Sustained virologic response with daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir ribavirin (RBV) in chronic HCV genotype (GT) 1-infected patients who previously failed telaprevir (TVR) or boceprevir (BOC). Presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver: 2013 Apr 24-28; Amsterdam.

35. Gane EJ, Stedman CA, Hyland RH. ELECTRON: 100% SVR rate for once-daily sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir plus ribavirin given for 12 weeks in treatment- naive and previously treated patients with HCV GT 1. Presented at 20th Annual Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections: 2013 Mar 3-6; Atlanta.

36. HCV NS5A Inhibitor – ACH-3102. Available from: http://www.achillion.com/ACH3102. Accessed Sep 28, 2013

37. Kowdley KV, Lawitz E, Poordad F. Safety and efficacy of interferon-free regimens of ABT-450/r, ABT-267 and ABT-333 /- ribavirin in patients with chronic genotype 1 infection: results from the Aviator study. Presented at 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL 2013): 2013 Apr 24-28; Amsterdam.

38. Lawitz E, Mangia A, Wyles D, Rodriguez-Torres M, Hassanein T, Gordon SC, Schultz M, Davis MN, Kayali Z, Reddy KR. Sofosbuvir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1878-1887. [PubMed] [DOI]

39. Jacobson IM, Gordon SC, Kowdley KV, Yoshida EM, Rodriguez-Torres M, Sulkowski MS, Shiffman ML, Lawitz E, Everson G, Bennett M. Sofosbuvir for hepatitis C genotype 2 or 3 in patients without treatment options. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1867-1877. [PubMed] [DOI]
 
40. Pockros PJ, Jensen D, Tsai N, Taylor R, Ramji A, Cooper C, Dickson R, Tice A, Kulkarni R, Vierling JM. JUMP-C: a randomized trial of mericitabine plus pegylated interferon alpha-2a/ribavirin for 24 weeks in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1/4 patients. Hepatology. 2013;58:514-523. [PubMed] [DOI]

41. Poordad F, Lawitz E, Kowdley KV, Cohen DE, Podsadecki T, Siggelkow S, Heckaman M, Larsen L, Menon R, Koev G. Exploratory study of oral combination antiviral therapy for hepatitis C. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:45-53. [PubMed] [DOI]

42. Schultheiss C, Schauer T, Nahrstaedt H, Seidl RO. Evaluation of an EMG bioimpedance measurement system for recording and analysing the pharyngeal phase of swallowing. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270:2149-2156. [PubMed] [DOI]
 
43. Flisiak R. Cyclophilin inhibitor alisporivir active against HCV in phase 2b, HBV in lab. Presented at 46th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL 2011): 2011 Mar 30-Apr 3; Berlin.

44. Janssen HL, Reesink HW, Lawitz EJ, Zeuzem S, Rodriguez-Torres M, Patel K, van der Meer AJ, Patick AK, Chen A, Zhou Y. Treatment of HCV infection by targeting microRNA. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1685-1694. [PubMed] [DOI]

45. Muir A, Hillson J, Gray T. Peginterferon lambda-1a (Lambda) compared to peginterferon alpha-2a (Alfa) in treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotypes (GT) 1 or 4: SVR24 results from EMERGE Phase 2b. Presented at 63rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases: 2012 Nov 9-12; Boston, MA.

Source