Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND & AIMS: HCV Council 2014, like its predecessor HCV Council 2011, assembled leading clinicians and researchers in the field of hepatitis C to critically evaluate current data regarding best practices for managing patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV). METHODS: Clinical practice statements were developed that reflect the areas of potential controversy with high clinical impact. Faculty members were responsible for reviewing the literature to support or reject these statements. After a review and comprehensive discussion of the data, the HCV Council faculty voted on the nature of the evidence and the level of support for each statement. RESULTS: The results of the detailed analysis with expert opinion are summarized in this article. CONCLUSION: Numerous questions regarding optimal management of certain populations and clinical scenarios remain unanswered. The discussion in the article provides a summary of evidenced-based expert opinion that may help guide clinicians as additional information is developed.

AIM: To evaluate daclatasvir vs telaprevir, each combined with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin (pegIFN/RBV), in treatment-naive hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype (GT) 1-infected patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, open-label, noninferiority study, 602 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to daclatasvir vs telaprevir, stratified by IL28B rs12979860 host genotype (CC vs non-CC), cirrhosis status (compensated cirrhosis vs no cirrhosis), and HCV GT1 subtype (GT1a vs GT1b). Patients were selected by study inclusion criteria from a total of 793 enrolled patients. Patients received daclatasvir 60 mg once daily or telaprevir 750 mg 3 times daily plus pegIFN/RBV. Daclatasvir recipients received 24 wk of daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV; those without an extended rapid virologic response (eRVR; undetectable HCV-RNA at weeks 4 and 12) received an additional 24 wk of pegIFN/RBV. Telaprevir-treated patients received 12 wk of telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV followed by 12 (with eRVR) or 36 (no eRVR) wk of pegIFN/RBV. The primary objective was to compare for noninferiority of sustained virologic response rates at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12) in GT1b-infected patients. Key secondary objectives were to demonstrate that the rates of anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL) and rash-related events, through week 12, were lower with daclatasvir + pegIFN/RBV than with telaprevir + pegIFN/RBV among GT1b-infected patients. Resistance testing was performed using population-based sequencing of the NS5A region for all patients at baseline, and for patients with virologic failure or relapse and HCV-RNA >/= 1000 IU/mL, to investigate any link between NS5A polymorphisms associated with daclatasvir resistance and virologic outcome. RESULTS: Patient demographics and disease characteristics were generally balanced across treatment arms; however, there was a higher proportion of black/African Americans in the daclatasvir groups (6.0% and 8.2% in the GT1b and GT1a groups, respectively) than in the telaprevir groups (2.2% and 3.0%). Among GT1b-infected patients, daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV was noninferior to telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV for SVR12 [85% (228/268) vs 81% (109/134); difference, 4.3% (95%CI: -3.3% to 11.9%)]. Anemia (hemoglobin < 10 g/dL) was significantly less frequent with daclatasvir than with telaprevir [difference, -29.1% (95%CI: -38.8% to -19.4%)]. Rash-related events were also less common with daclatasvir than with telaprevir, but the difference was not statistically significant. In GT1a-infected patients, SVR12 was 64.9% with daclatasvir and 69.7% with telaprevir. Among both daclatasvir and telaprevir treatment groups, across GT1b- or GT1a-infected patients, lower response rates were observed in patients with IL28B non-CC and cirrhosis - factors known to affect response to pegIFN/RBV. Consistent with these observations, a multivariate logistic regression analysis in GT1b-infected patients demonstrated that SVR12 was associated with IL28B host genotype (CC vs non-CC, P = 0.011) and cirrhosis status (absent vs present, P = 0.031). NS5A polymorphisms associated with daclatasvir resistance (at L28, R30, L31, or Y93) were observed in 17.3% of GT1b-infected patients at baseline; such variants did not appear to be absolute predictors of failure since 72.1% of these patients achieved SVR12 compared with 86.9% without these polymorphisms. Among GT1b-infected patients, treatment was completed by 85.4% (229/268) in the daclatasvir group, and by 85.1% (114/134) in the telaprevir group, and among GT1a-infected patients, by 67.2% (90/134) and 69.7% (46/66), respectively. Discontinuations (of all 3 agents) due to an AE were more frequent with telaprevir than with daclatasvir, whereas discontinuations due to lack of efficacy were more frequent with daclatasvir, due, in part, to differences in futility criteria. CONCLUSION: Daclatasvir plus pegIFN/RBV demonstrated noninferiority to telaprevir plus pegIFN/RBV for SVR12 and was well-tolerated in treatment-naive GT1b-infected patients, supporting the use of daclatasvir with other direct-acting antivirals.

BACKGROUND: Sofosbuvir (SOF) exhibits a high barrier to resistance, with no S282T NS5B substitution or phenotypic resistance detected in phase 3 registration studies. METHODS: Here, emergence of the NS5B variants L159F and V321A and possible association with resistance was evaluated in 8 studies of SOF (NEUTRINO, FISSION, POSITRON, FUSION, VALENCE, PHOTON-1, PHOTON-2, and P7977-2025) and 5 studies of combination ledipasvir (LDV) and SOF (LDV/SOF; LONESTAR, ELECTRON [LDV/SOF arms], ION1, ION2, and ION3), using deep sequencing. RESULTS: Deep sequencing detected L159F in 15% (53 of 353) and V321A in 5% (17 of 353) of patients with virologic failure in the SOF studies. Intensification of SOF treatment with LDV reduced the emergence of L159F or V321A to 2% (1 of 50 each) at virologic failure. L159F and V321A did not influence the outcome of retreatment with SOF, ribavirin, and pegylated interferon. At baseline, L159F was detected only in genotype 1-infected patients (1%) and was only associated with increased virologic failure in patients treated for short durations with SOF and ribavirin. CONCLUSIONS: Deep-sequencing analysis confirmed that NS5B variants L159F and V321A emerged in a subset of patients treated with SOF at virologic failure. These variants had no impact on retreatment outcome with SOF, ribavirin, and pegylated interferon. Baseline L159F in genotype 1 did not affect the treatment outcome with LDV/SOF.