Telaprevir for Retreatment of HCV Infection Zeuzem, Stefan; Andreone, Pietro; Pol, Stanislas ...
New England journal of medicine/The New England journal of medicine,
06/2011, Letnik:
364, Številka:
25
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
In patients with HCV infection who did not have a sustained response to peginterferon plus ribavirin, the addition of telaprevir to this combination therapy was more effective than combination ...therapy alone. Adverse events with telaprevir included rash and anemia.
Approximately 60% of patients who are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 are not cured by 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa combined with ribavirin.
1
Such patients fall into one of three categories: those who have no response to therapy, which is defined as a reduction of less than 2 log
10
in HCV RNA levels after 12 weeks of therapy
2
; those who have a partial response, which is defined as a reduction of at least 2 log
10
in a patient who has always had detectable serum HCV RNA during therapy; and those who have a relapse, . . .
•Darunavir showed no in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 (EC50 > 100 μM).•Remdesivir demonstrated potent antiviral activity, confirming validity of the assay.•Overall, the data do not ...support use of darunavir for treatment of COVID-19.
Given the high need and the absence of specific antivirals for treatment of COVID-19 (the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus-2 SARS-CoV-2), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors are being considered as therapeutic alternatives.
Prezcobix/Rezolsta is a fixed-dose combination of 800 mg of the HIV protease inhibitor darunavir (DRV) and 150 mg cobicistat, a CYP3A4 inhibitor, which is indicated in combination with other antiretroviral agents for the treatment of HIV infection. There are currently no definitive data on the safety and efficacy of DRV/cobicistat for the treatment of COVID-19. The in vitro antiviral activity of darunavir against a clinical isolate from a patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 was assessed.
DRV showed no antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 at clinically relevant concentrations (EC50 > 100 μM). Remdesivir, used as a positive control, demonstrated potent antiviral activity (EC50 = 0.38 μM).
Overall, the data do not support the use of DRV for the treatment of COVID-19.
Simeprevir (TMC435) is a once-daily, single-pill, oral hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3 protease inhibitor approved for the treatment of chronic HCV infection. Phenotypic characterization of baseline ...isolates and isolates from HCV genotype 1-infected patients failing with a simeprevir-based regimen was performed using chimeric replicons carrying patient-derived NS3 protease sequences. Cutoff values differentiating between full susceptibility to simeprevir (≤ 2.0-fold reduction in simeprevir activity) and low-level versus high-level resistance (≥ 50-fold reduction in simeprevir activity) were determined. The median simeprevir fold change in the 50% effective concentration (FC) of pretreatment genotype 1a isolates, with and without Q80K, and genotype 1b isolates was 11, 0.9, and 0.4, respectively. Naturally occurring NS3 polymorphisms that reduced simeprevir activity, other than Q80K, were uncommon in the simeprevir studies and generally conferred low-level resistance in vitro. Although the proportion of patients with failure differed by HCV geno/subtype and/or presence of baseline Q80K, the level of simeprevir resistance observed at failure was similarly high irrespective of type of failure, HCV genotype 1 subtype, and presence or absence of baseline Q80K. At the end of the study, simeprevir activity against isolates that lost the emerging amino acid substitution returned to pretreatment values. Activity of simeprevir against clinical isolates and site-directed mutant replicons harboring the corresponding single or double amino acid substitutions correlated well, showing that simeprevir resistance can be attributed to these substitutions. In conclusion, pretreatment NS3 isolates were generally fully susceptible (FC, ≤ 2.0) or conferred low-level resistance to simeprevir in vitro (FC, >2.0 and <50). Treatment failure with a simeprevir-based regimen was associated with emergence of high-level-resistance variants (FC, ≥ 50).
Protease inhibitor (PI)-based response-guided triple therapies for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are still widely used. Noncirrhotic treatment-naive and prior relapser patients receiving ...telaprevir-based treatment are eligible for shorter, 24-week total therapy if HCV RNA is undetectable at both weeks 4 and 12. In this study, the concordance in HCV RNA assessments between the Roche High Pure System/Cobas TaqMan and Abbott RealTime HCV RNA assays and the impacts of different HCV RNA cutoffs on treatment outcome were evaluated. A total of 2,629 samples from 663 HCV genotype 1 patients receiving telaprevir/pegylated interferon/ribavirin in OPTIMIZE were analyzed using the High Pure System and reanalyzed using Abbott RealTime (limits of detection, 15.1 IU/ml versus 8.3 IU/ml; limits of quantification, 25 IU/ml versus 12 IU/ml, respectively). Overall, good concordance was observed between the assays. Using undetectable HCV RNA at week 4, 34% of the patients would be eligible for shorter treatment duration with Abbott RealTime versus 72% with the High Pure System. However, using <12 IU/ml for Abbott RealTime, a similar proportion (74%) would be eligible. Of the patients receiving 24-week total therapy, 87% achieved a sustained virologic response with undetectable HCV RNA by the High Pure System or <12 IU/ml by Abbott RealTime; however, 92% of the patients with undetectable HCV RNA by Abbott RealTime achieved a sustained virologic response. Using undetectable HCV RNA as the cutoff, the more sensitive Abbott RealTime assay would identify fewer patients eligible for shorter treatment than the High Pure System. Our data confirm the <12-IU/ml cutoff, as previously established in other studies of the Abbott RealTime assay, to determine eligibility for shortened PI-based HCV treatment. (The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT01241760.).
The present primary analysis of AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In naive Subjects (ARTEMIS) compares the efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) with that of ...lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-naive patients.
Patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 5000 copies/ml were stratified by HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count in a phase III, open-label trial, and randomized to receive DRV/r 800/100 mg qd or LPV/r 800/200 mg total daily dose (bid or qd) plus fixed-dose tenofovir and emtricitabine for 192 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of DRV/r as compared with LPV/r in HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml per-protocol time-to-loss of virologic response at 48 weeks.
Six hundred and eighty-nine patients were randomized and treated; mean baseline HIV-1 RNA: 4.85 log10 copies/ml and median CD4 count: 225 cells/microl. At 48 weeks, 84% of DRV/r and 78% of LPV/r patients achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (estimated difference = 5.6 95% confidence interval -0.1-11%), demonstrating non-inferiority of DRV/r as compared with LPV/r (P < 0.001; per-protocol time-to-loss of virologic response). Patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 100 000 copies/ml had a significantly higher response rate with DRV/r (79%) versus LPV/r (67%; P < 0.05). Median CD4 cell count increases (non-completer = failure; cells/mul) were 137 for DRV/r and 141 for LPV/r. DRV/r had a lower incidence of possibly treatment-related grade 2-4 gastrointestinal-related adverse events (7 versus 14%) and treatment-related moderate-to-severe diarrhea (4 versus 10%) than LPV/r. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were DRV/r: 3% and LPV/r: 7%.
DRV/r 800/100 mg qd was non-inferior to LPV/r 800/200 mg at 48 weeks, with a more favorable safety profile. Significantly higher response rates were observed with DRV/r in patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 100 000 copies/ml. DRV/r 800/100 mg offers a new effective and well tolerated once-daily, first-line treatment option for treatment-naive patients.
OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to examine the potential of once-daily dosing with darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg in a HIV-infected, treatment-experienced patient population with no ...baseline darunavir resistance-associated mutations (RAMs).
METHODS:Patients in the randomized controlled POWER 1 and 2 trials were treatment experienced, with ≥1 International AIDS Society-USA primary protease inhibitor (PI) mutation. The virological and immunological responses in patients with no baseline darunavir RAMs receiving darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily (n = 23), darunavir/r 600/100 mg twice daily (n = 29), or currently available PI(s) (n = 28) plus an optimized background regimen were compared.
RESULTS:The proportion of patients achieving HIV RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 24 was 67% for the group receiving darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily and 62% for the group receiving darunavir/r 600/100 mg twice daily (P = 0.774); both were superior to control PI(s) (11%; P < 0.0001). Mean HIV RNA change from baseline was 22.39 and 22.35 log10 copies per milliliter for the group receiving darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily and for the group receiving 600/100 mg twice daily, respectively (P = 0.895); mean CD4 increases were 88 and 111 cells per milliliter, respectively (P = 0.526).
CONCLUSIONS:Treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients with no baseline darunavir RAMs achieved similar high responses with darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily and 600/100 mg twice daily. This suggests that once-daily darunavir/r 800/100 mg therapy, which has been shown effective in treatment-naive patients and is currently being studied in treatment-experienced patients, shows potential in patients with no darunavir RAMs.
•Q80K polymorphism is associated with reduced treatment response to simeprevir with pegylated interferon and ribavirin.•Q80K prevalence in Europe in HCV genotype (G) 1 overall, HCV G1a and G1b was ...7.5%, 19.8% and 0.5%, respectively.•Among countries included in the study, Q80K prevalence in G1 varied by country (0% in Bulgaria to 18.2% in the UK).•Q80K prevalence also varied within the HCV G1a population by country.
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3 polymorphism Q80K is mainly found in patients with HCV genotype (G) 1a, and has been associated with a reduced treatment response to simeprevir with pegylated interferon (P) and ribavirin (R). Prevalence of Q80K among G1 patients may vary geographically. Q80K prevalence in the North-American G1 population in a recent study was 34%.
We conducted a post hoc meta-analysis of Q80K polymorphism prevalence among HCV G1-infected patients enrolled in simeprevir and telaprevir Phase II/III studies. Baseline HCV NS3/4A protease sequences were analysed by population sequencing to determine Q80K prevalence.
Overall, of 3349 patients from 25 countries in the European region analysed, 35.8%, 63.8% and 0.3% of patients had G1a, G1b and other/unknown HCV G1 subtypes, respectively. Q80K was detected at baseline in 7.5% of HCV G1 patients overall. Examination by subtype showed that 19.8%, 0.5% and 18.2% of patients with G1a, G1b and other/unknown HCV G1 subtypes had the Q80K polymorphism, respectively. Among countries in the European region with sequencing data available for either ⩾20 patients with G1a and/or ⩾40 G1 patients overall, the Q80K prevalence in G1 ranged from 0% in Bulgaria to 18.2% in the UK. Q80K prevalence also varied within G1a across different countries.
HCV subtype 1a was correctly determined in 99% of patients by the LiPA v2 assay.
A low overall prevalence of Q80K was observed in HCV G1-infected patients in the European region, compared with North America. However, the prevalence varied by country, due to differing ratios of G1a/G1b and differing Q80K prevalence within the G1a populations.
In treating hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections, the rapid reselection of resistance-associated variants (RAVs) is well known in patients with repeated exposure ...to the same class of antiviral agents. For chronic hepatitis C patients who have experienced virologic failure with direct-acting antiviral drugs, the potential for the reselection of persistent RAVs is unknown. Nine patients who received 14 days of telaprevir monotherapy were retreated with telaprevir-based triple therapy 4.3 to 5.7 years later. In four patients with virologic failure with both telaprevir-containing regimens, population-based and deep sequencing (454 GS-FLX) of the NS3 protease gene were performed before and at treatment failure (median coverage, 4,651 reads). Using deep sequencing, with a threshold of 1.0% for variant calling, no isolates were found harboring RAVs at the baseline time points. While population-based sequencing uncovered similar resistance patterns (V36M plus R155K for subtype 1a and V36A for subtype 1b) in all four patients after the first and second telaprevir treatments, deep sequencing analysis revealed a median of 7 (range, 4 to 23) nucleotide substitutions on the NS3 backbone of the resistant strains, together with large phylogenetic differences between viral quasispecies, making the survival of resistant isolates highly unlikely. In contrast, in a comparison of the two baseline time points, the median number of nucleotide exchanges in the wild-type isolates was only 3 (range, 2 to 8), reflecting the natural evolution of the NS3 gene. In patients with repeated direct antiviral treatment, a continuous evolution of HCV quasispecies was observed, with no clear evidence of persistence and reselection but strong signs of independent de novo generation of resistance. Antiviral therapy for chronic viral infections, like HIV, hepatitis B virus (HBV), or hepatitis C virus (HCV), faces several challenges. These viruses have evolved survival strategies and proliferate by escaping the host's immune system. The development of direct-acting antiviral agents is an important achievement in fighting these infections. Viral variants conferring resistance to direct antiviral drugs lead to treatment failure. For HIV/HBV, it is well known that viral variants associated with treatment failure will be archived and reselected rapidly during retreatment with the same drug/class of drugs. We explored the mechanisms and rules of how resistant variants are selected and potentially reselected during repeated direct antiviral therapies in chronically HCV-infected patients. Interestingly, in contrast to HIV and HBV, we could not prove long-term persistence and reselection of resistant variants in HCV patients who failed protease inhibitor-based therapy. This may have important implications for the potential to reuse direct-acting antivirals in patients who failed the initial direct antiviral treatment. (The phase IIIb study described in this paper is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration number NCT01054573.).
Background. Telaprevir (TVR), a hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor, has been approved to treat genotype 1 HCV. To understand the clinical impact of TVR-resistant variants, we analyzed ...samples from patients in phase 3 clinical trials to determine the frequency and retention of TVR-resistant variants in patients who did not achieve sustained virologic response (SVR). Methods. A total of 1797 patients were treated with TVR. Resistant variants (V36A/G/I/L/M, T54A/S, I132V subtype 1a only, R155G/K/T/M, A156F/N/S/T/V, and D168N) were identified after treatment failure and at visits thereafter, by direct (population) sequencing of the NS3/4A region. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine median time to loss of these variants. Results. Resistant variants were observed in 77% (299/388) of patients who did not achieve SVR. Resistance occurred more commonly in subtype 1a (86%; 232/269) than subtype 1b infections (56%; 67/119). After treatment failure, 355 patients had at least 1 follow-up visit (median follow-up period: 9.6 months). Of patients with resistance at time of failure and at least 1 follow-up visit, 60% (153/254) lost resistance. Kaplan-Meier analysis, including all patients with any sequence data after treatment failure, indicated that median time to wild type was 10.6 months (95% confidence interval CI, 9.47–12.20) in subtype 1a and 0.9 months (95% CI, 0.00–2.07) in subtype 1b infections. Conclusions. After failure to achieve SVR with TVR-based treatment, resistant variants are observed in most patients. However, presumably due to the lower fitness of those variants, they tend to be replaced with wild-type virus over time.
PDF
