Novel interferon- and ribavirin-free regimens are needed to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of grazoprevir (NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and elbasvir (NS5A ...inhibitor) in treatment-naive patients.
Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02105467).
60 centers in the United States, Europe, Australia, Scandinavia, and Asia.
Cirrhotic and noncirrhotic treatment-naive adults with genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection.
Oral, once-daily, fixed-dose grazoprevir 100 mg/elbasvir 50 mg for 12 weeks, stratified by fibrosis and genotype. Patients were randomly assigned 3:1 to immediate or deferred therapy.
Proportion of patients in the immediate-treatment group achieving unquantifiable HCV RNA 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12); adverse events in both groups.
Among 421 participants, 194 (46%) were women, 157 (37%) were nonwhite, 382 (91%) had genotype 1 infection, and 92 (22%) had cirrhosis. Of 316 patients receiving immediate treatment, 299 of 316 (95% 95% CI, 92% to 97%) achieved SVR12, including 144 of 157 (92% CI, 86% to 96%) with genotype 1a, 129 of 131 (99% CI, 95% to 100%) with genotype 1b, 18 of 18 (100% CI, 82% to 100%) with genotype 4, 8 of 10 (80% CI, 44% to 98%) with genotype 6, 68 of 70 (97% CI, 90% to 100%) with cirrhosis, and 231 of 246 (94% CI, 90% to 97%) without cirrhosis. Virologic failure occurred in 13 patients (4%), including 1 case of breakthrough infection and 12 relapses, and was associated with baseline NS5A polymorphisms and emergent NS3 or NS5A variants or both. Serious adverse events occurred in 9 (2.8%) and 3 (2.9%) patients in the active and placebo groups, respectively (difference <0.05 percentage point CI, -5.4 to 3.1 percentage points); none were considered drug related. The most common adverse events in the active group were headache (17%), fatigue (16%), and nausea (9%).
The study lacked an active-comparator control group and included relatively few genotype 4 and 6 infections.
Grazoprevir-elbasvir achieved high SVR12 rates in treatment-naive cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients with genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection. This once-daily, all-oral, fixed-combination regimen represents a potent new therapeutic option for chronic HCV infection.
Merck & Co.
Summary Background Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in patients with stage 4–5 chronic kidney disease increases the risk of death and renal graft failure, yet patients with hepatitis C and ...chronic kidney disease have few treatment options. This study assesses an all-oral, ribavirin-free regimen in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and stage 4–5 chronic kidney disease. Methods In this phase 3 randomised study of safety and observational study of efficacy, patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and chronic kidney disease (stage 4–5 with or without haemodialysis dependence) were randomly assigned to receive grazoprevir (100 mg, NS3/4A protease inhibitor) and elbasvir (50 mg, NS5A inhibitor; immediate treatment group) or placebo (deferred treatment group) once daily for 12 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive voice response system. An additional cohort of patients who were not randomised received the same regimen open-label and underwent intensive pharmacokinetic sampling. The primary efficacy outcome was a non-randomised comparison of sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) after the end of therapy for the combined immediate treatment group and the pharmacokinetic population with a historical control. The primary safety outcome was a randomised comparison between the immediate treatment group and the deferred treatment group. After 4 weeks of follow-up (study week 16), unmasking occurred and patients in the deferred treatment group received grazoprevir and elbasvir. The primary efficacy hypothesis was tested at a two-sided significance level (type I error) of 0·05 using an exact test for a binomial proportion. Safety event rates were compared between immediate treatment and deferred treatment groups using the stratified Miettinen and Nurminen method with baseline dialysis status as the strata. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02092350. Findings 224 patients were randomly assigned to the immediate treatment group with grazoprevir and elbasvir (n=111) or the deferred treatment group (n=113), and 11 were assigned to the intensive pharmacokinetic population. Overall, 179 (76%) were haemodialysis-dependent, 122 (52%) had HCV genotype 1a infection, 189 (80%) were HCV treatment-naive, 14 (6%) were cirrhotic, and 108 (46%) were African American. Of the 122 patients receiving grazoprevir and elbasvir, six were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis for non-virological reasons (death, lost-to-follow-up n=2, non-compliance, patient withdrawal, and withdrawal by physician for violent behaviour). No patients in the combined immediate treatment group and intensive pharmacokinetic population and five (4%) in the deferred treatment group discontinued because of an adverse event. Most common adverse events were headache, nausea, and fatigue, occurring at similar frequencies in patients receiving active and placebo drugs. SVR12 in the combined immediate treatment group and intensive pharmacokinetic population was 99% (95% CI 95·3–100·0; 115/116), with one relapse 12 weeks after end of treatment when compared with a historical control of 45%, based on meta-analyses of interferon-based regimens used in clinical trials of patients infected with HCV who are on haemodialysis. Interpretation Once-daily grazoprevir and elbasvir for 12 weeks had a low rate of adverse events and was effective in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 and stage 4–5 chronic kidney disease. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in persons who inject drugs (PWID).
To evaluate elbasvir-grazoprevir in treating HCV infection in PWID.
Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. ...(ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02105688).
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
301 treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection who were at least 80% adherent to visits for opioid agonist therapy (OAT).
The immediate-treatment group (ITG) received elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks; the deferred-treatment group (DTG) received placebo for 12 weeks, no treatment for 4 weeks, then open-label elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks.
The primary outcome was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), evaluated separately in the ITG and DTG. Other outcomes included SVR24, viral recurrence or reinfection, and adverse events.
The SVR12 was 91.5% (95% CI, 86.8% to 95.0%) in the ITG and 89.5% (95% CI, 81.5% to 94.8%) in the active phase of the DTG. Drug use at baseline and during treatment did not affect SVR12 or adherence to HCV therapy. Among 18 patients with posttreatment viral recurrence through 24-week follow-up, 6 had probable reinfection. If the probable reinfections were assumed to be responses, SVR12 was 94.0% (CI, 89.8% to 96.9%) in the ITG. One patient in the ITG (1 of 201) and 1 in the placebo-phase DTG (1 of 100) discontinued treatment because of an adverse event.
These findings may not be generalizable to PWID who are not receiving OAT, nor do they apply to persons with genotype 3 infection, a common strain in PWID.
Patients with HCV infection who were receiving OAT and treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir had high rates of SVR12, regardless of ongoing drug use. These results support the removal of drug use as a barrier to interferon-free HCV treatment for patients receiving OAT.
Merck & Co.
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with HIV-1. The C-EDGE CO-INFECTION study assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of grazoprevir ...(MK-5172) plus elbasvir (MK-8742) in patients with HCV and HIV co-infection.
In this uncontrolled, non-randomised, phase 3, open-label, single-arm study, treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection and HIV co-infection, with or without cirrhosis, were enrolled from 37 centres in nine countries across Europe, the USA, and Australia. Patients were either naive to treatment with any antiretroviral therapy (ART) or stable on ART for at least 8 weeks. All patients received grazoprevir 100 mg plus elbasvir 50 mg in a fixed-dose combination tablet once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was sustained virological response (HCV RNA <15 IU/mL) 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). The primary population for efficacy analyses was all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02105662.
Between June 11, 2014, and Aug 29, 2014, 218 patients were enrolled and received grazoprevir plus elbasvir for 12 weeks, all of whom completed follow-up at week 12. SVR12 was achieved by 210 (96%) of 218 patients (95% CI 92·9-98·4). One patient did not achieve SVR12 because of a non-virological reason, and seven patients without cirrhosis relapsed (two subsequently confirmed as reinfections). All 35 patients with cirrhosis achieved SVR12. The most common adverse events were fatigue (29; 13%), headache (27; 12%), and nausea (20; 9%). No patient discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Two patients receiving ART had transient HIV viraemia.
This HCV treatment regimen seems to be effective and well tolerated for patients co-infected with HIV with or without cirrhosis. These data are consistent with previous trials of this regimen in the monoinfected population. This regimen continues to be studied in phase 3 trials.
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Summary Background Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with potent in-vitro activity against HIV-1 strains including those resistant to currently available antiretroviral drugs. The ...aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of raltegravir when added to optimised background regimens in HIV-infected patients. Methods HIV-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA viral load over 5000 copies per mL, CD4 cell counts over 50 cells per μL, and documented genotypic and phenotypic resistance to at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, and one protease inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive raltegravir (200 mg, 400 mg, or 600 mg) or placebo orally twice daily in this multicentre, triple-blind, dose-ranging, randomised study. The primary endpoints were change in viral load from baseline at week 24 and safety. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , with the number NCT00105157. Findings 179 patients were eligible for randomisation. 44 patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg raltegravir, 45 to receive 400 mg raltegravir, and 45 to receive 600 mg raltegravir; 45 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. One patient in the 200 mg group did not receive treatment and was therefore excluded from the analyses. For all groups, the median duration of previous antiretroviral therapy was 9·9 years (range 0·4–17·3 years) and the mean baseline viral load was 4·7 (SD 0·5) log10 copies per mL. Four patients discontinued due to adverse experiences, three (2%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and one (2%) of the 45 patients on placebo. 41 patients discontinued due to lack of efficacy: 14 (11%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and 27 (60%) of the 45 patients on placebo. At week 24, mean change in viral load from baseline was −1·80 (95% CI −2·10 to −1·50) log10 copies per mL in the 200 mg group, −1·87 (−2·16 to −1·58) log10 copies per mL in the 400 mg group, −1·84 (−2·10 to −1·58) log10 copies per mL in the 600 mg group, and −0·35 (−0·61 to −0·09) log10 copies per mL for the placebo group. Raltegravir at all doses showed a safety profile much the same as placebo; there were no dose-related toxicities. Interpretation In patients with few remaining treatment options, raltegravir at all doses studied provided better viral suppression than placebo when added to an optimised background regimen. The safety profile of raltegravir is comparable with that of placebo at all doses studied.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK
Direct‐acting antiviral agents have not been studied exclusively in patients with inherited blood disorders and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The objective of the randomized, placebo‐controlled, ...phase III C‐EDGE IBLD study was to assess the safety and efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) in patients with inherited bleeding disorders and HCV infection. One hundred fifty‐nine adults with HCV infection and sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, or hemophilia A/B or von Willebrand disease were enrolled at 31 study sites in the United States, Europe, Australia, Canada, Israel, and Thailand. Patients were given an oral, once‐daily, fixed‐dose combination of EBR/GZR 50 mg/100 mg for 12 weeks and randomized to the immediate‐treatment group (ITG) or deferred‐treatment group (DTG; placebo followed by active treatment). The primary endpoints were the proportion of patients in the ITG with unquantifiable HCV RNA 12 weeks posttreatment (sustained virological response 12 weeks after completion of study treatment; SVR12) and the comparison of safety in the ITG and DTG. In the ITG, 100 of 107 patients (93.5%) achieved SVR12, 6 relapsed, and 1 was lost to follow‐up. SVR12 was achieved in 94.7% (18 of 19), 97.6% (40 of 41), and 89.4% (42 of 47) of patients with sickle cell disease, β‐thalassemia, and hemophilia A/B or von Willebrand disease, respectively. Serious adverse events were reported by 2.8% (n = 3) and 11.5% (n = 6) of patients in the ITG and DTG, respectively. Hemoglobin levels and international normalized ratio values were similar in patients receiving EBR/GZR and placebo; among patients with hemoglobinopathies, change in mean hemoglobin levels was similar in those receiving EBR/GZR compared to those receiving placebo. Conclusion: These results add to the expanding pool of data available for EBR/GZR, indicating a high level of efficacy and favorable tolerability in patients with HCV infection. (Hepatology 2017;66:736–745)
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Background & Aims
The aim of this integrated analysis was to assess the efficacy of the once‐daily combination of elbasvir 50 mg and grazoprevir 100 mg, with and without ribavirin in HCV genotype 4 ...(GT4)‐infected participants enrolled in the Phase 2/3 clinical programme with elbasvir/grazoprevir.
Methods
Treatment‐naïve and treatment‐experienced participants 18 years of age or older with chronic HCV GT4 infection and baseline HCV RNA ≥10 000 IU/mL were included in the analysis. The analysis population was the full analysis set (FAS; all participants who received at least 1 dose of study medication) and a total of 155 HCV GT4 participants were evaluated. The primary endpoint was sustained virologic response at week 12 (SVR12; HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantitation at 12 weeks after the completion of study therapy).
Results
Overall, among GT4‐infected participants treated with 12 or 16 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir ± ribavirin, the SVR12 efficacy rates were 96.4% (107/111) in treatment‐naïve participants and 88.6% (39/44) in treatment‐experienced participants. The SVR12 rates were 96.0% (97/101) in treatment‐naïve participants treated with 12 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir and 100% (8/8) in treatment‐experienced participants treated with 16 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir plus ribavirin. Efficacy was not impacted by GT4 subtype.
Conclusions
The regimens of 12 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir without ribavirin, and 16 weeks of elbasvir/grazoprevir plus ribavirin, were efficacious in HCV GT4‐infected treatment‐naïve and treatment‐experienced participants respectively. Baseline NS5A resistance‐associated substitutions did not impact the efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir in GT4‐infected participants.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, DOBA, FZAB, GIS, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
In Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 treatment-naive adults, a fixed combination of doravirine/lamivudine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate demonstrated non-inferior antiretroviral efficacy to ...efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate at week 48, with similar immunologic effects, low viral drug resistance rates, and significantly fewer neuropsychiatric adverse events.
Abstract
Background
Doravirine (DOR), a novel non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), is active against wild-type Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-1 and the most common NNRTI-resistant variants, and has a favorable and unique in vitro resistance profile.
Methods
DRIVE-AHEAD is a phase 3, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Antiretroviral treatment-naive adults with ≥1000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL were randomized (1:1) to once-daily, fixed-dose DOR at 100 mg, lamivudine at 300 mg, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) at 300 mg (DOR/3TC/TDF) or to efavirenz at 600 mg, emtricitabine at 200 mg, and TDF at 300 mg (EFV/FTC/TDF) for 96 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants with <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL at week 48 (Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach; non-inferiority margin 10%).
Results
Of the 734 participants randomized, 728 were treated (364 per group) and included in the analyses. At week 48, 84.3% (307/364) of DOR/3TC/TDF recipients and 80.8% (294/364) of EFV/FTC/TDF recipients achieved <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL (difference 3.5%, 95% CI, -2.0, 9.0). DOR/3TC/TDF recipients had significantly lower rates of dizziness (8.8% vs 37.1%), sleep disorders/disturbances (12.1% vs 25.2%), and altered sensorium (4.4% vs 8.2%) than EFV/FTC/TDF recipients. Mean changes in fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) were significantly different between DOR/3TC/TDF and EFV/FTC/TDF (−1.6 vs +8.7 mg/dL and −3.8 vs +13.3 mg/dL, respectively).
Conclusions
In HIV-1 treatment-naive adults, DOR/3TC/TDF demonstrated non-inferior efficacy to EFV/FTC/TDF at week 48 and was well tolerated, with significantly fewer neuropsychiatric events and minimal changes in LDL-C and non-HDL-C compared with EFV/FTC/TDF.
Clinical Trials Registration
NCT02403674
To inform development of guidelines for hypertension management in Vietnam, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of different strategies on screening for hypertension in preventing cardiovascular ...disease (CVD).
A decision tree was combined with a Markov model to measure incremental cost-effectiveness of different approaches to hypertension screening. Values used as input parameters for the model were taken from different sources. Various screening intervals (one-off, annually, biannually) and starting ages to screen (35, 45 or 55 years) and coverage of treatment were analysed. We ran both a ten-year and a lifetime horizon. Input parameters for the models were extracted from local and regional data. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate parameter uncertainty. A threshold of three times GDP per capita was applied.
Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained varied in different screening scenarios. In a ten-year horizon, the cost-effectiveness of screening for hypertension ranged from cost saving to Int$ 758,695 per QALY gained. For screening of men starting at 55 years, all screening scenarios gave a high probability of being cost-effective. For screening of females starting at 55 years, the probability of favourable cost-effectiveness was 90% with one-off screening. In a lifetime horizon, cost per QALY gained was lower than the threshold of Int$ 15,883 in all screening scenarios among males. Similar results were found in females when starting screening at 55 years. Starting screening in females at 45 years had a high probability of being cost-effective if screening biannually was combined with increasing coverage of treatment by 20% or even if sole biannual screening was considered.
From a health economic perspective, integrating screening for hypertension into routine medical examination and related coverage by health insurance could be recommended. Screening for hypertension has a high probability of being cost-effective in preventing CVD. An adequate screening strategy can best be selected based on age, sex and screening interval.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
PDF
