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 & AIMS: The interferon-free regimen of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir was recommended by professional guidelines for certain patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection based on the findings of a phase 2 trial. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this regimen in clinical practice settings in North America. METHODS: We collected demographic, clinical, and virologic data, as well as reports of adverse outcomes, from sequential participants in HCV-TARGET--a prospective observational cohort study of patients undergoing HCV treatment in routine clinical care settings. From January through October 2014, there were 836 patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who began 12 weeks of treatment with simeprevir plus sofosbuvir (treatment duration of up to 16 weeks); 169 of these patients received ribavirin. Most patients were male (61%), Caucasian (76%), or black (13%); 59% had cirrhosis. Most patients had failed prior treatment with peginterferon and ribavirin without (46%) or with telaprevir or boceprevir (12%). The primary outcome was sustained virologic response (SVR), defined as the level of HCV RNA below quantification at least 64 days after the end of treatment (beginning of week 12 after treatment--a 2-week window). Logistic regression models with inverse probability weights were constructed to adjust for baseline covariates and potential selection bias. RESULTS: The overall SVR rate was 84% (675 of 802 patients, 95% confidence interval, 81%-87%). Model-adjusted estimates indicate patients with cirrhosis, prior decompensation, and previous protease inhibitor treatments were less likely to achieve an SVR. The addition of ribavirin had no detectable effects on SVR. The most common adverse events were fatigue, headache, nausea, rash, and insomnia. Serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation occurred in only 5% and 3% of participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a large prospective observational cohort study, a 12-week regimen of simeprevir plus sofosbuvir was associated with high rates of SVR and infrequent treatment discontinuation. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01474811.

BACKGROUND: A simple treatment regimen that is effective in a broad range of patients who are chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains an unmet medical need. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving untreated and previously treated patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6 infection, including those with compensated cirrhosis. Patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, 4, or 6 were randomly assigned in a 5:1 ratio to receive the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir and the NS5A inhibitor velpatasvir in a once-daily, fixed-dose combination tablet or matching placebo for 12 weeks. Because of the low prevalence of genotype 5 in the study regions, patients with genotype 5 did not undergo randomization but were assigned to the sofosbuvir-velpatasvir group. The primary end point was a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Of the 624 patients who received treatment with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir, 34% had HCV genotype 1a, 19% genotype 1b, 17% genotype 2, 19% genotype 4, 6% genotype 5, and 7% genotype 6. A total of 8% of patients were black, 19% had cirrhosis, and 32% had been previously treated for HCV. The rate of sustained virologic response among patients receiving sofosbuvir-velpatasvir was 99% (95% confidence interval, 98 to >99). Two patients receiving sofosbuvir-velpatasvir, both with HCV genotype 1, had a virologic relapse. None of the 116 patients receiving placebo had a sustained virologic response. Serious adverse events were reported in 15 patients (2%) in the sofosbuvir-velpatasvir group and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily sofosbuvir-velpatasvir for 12 weeks provided high rates of sustained virologic response among both previously treated and untreated patients infected with HCV genotype 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6, including those with compensated cirrhosis. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02201940.).

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) continues to be an important public health problem worldwide, including in the United States. An algorithm for managing CHB was developed by a panel of United States hepatologists in 2004 and subsequently updated in 2006 and 2008. Since 2008, additional data on long-term safety and efficacy of licensed therapies have become available and have better defined therapeutic options for CHB. The evidence indicates that potent antiviral therapy can lead to regression of extensive fibrosis or even cirrhosis, thus potentially altering the natural history of CHB. In addition, appropriate choice of antiviral agent can minimize the risk of resistance. This updated algorithm for managing CHB is based primarily on evidence from the scientific literature. Where data were lacking, the panel relied on clinical experience and consensus expert opinion. The primary aim of antiviral therapy for CHB is durable suppression of serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA to low or undetectable levels. CHB patients who have HBV DNA >2,000 IU/mL, elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and any degree of fibrosis should receive antiviral therapy regardless of their hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status. CHB patients with HBV DNA >2,000 IU/mL and elevated ALT but no evidence of fibrosis may also be considered for antiviral therapy. Approved antiviral therapies for CHB are interferon alfa-2b, peginterferon alfa-2a, lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir, telbivudine, and tenofovir, although the preferred first-line treatment choices are peginterferon alfa-2a, entecavir, and tenofovir. In determining choice of therapy, considerations include efficacy, safety, rate of resistance, method of administration, duration, and cost.

The nucleotide analog NS5B polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2013 for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in combination with ribavirin or peginterferon and ribavirin. Sofosbuvir was developed to meet an urgent medical need for shorter, safer, simplified, more effective HCV treatment regimens and to reduce or eliminate the need for peginterferon. New treatment regimens were especially required for patient populations with limited treatment options, including patients who had failed prior HCV therapy, those with compensated and decompensated cirrhosis, and those who were either intolerant of or had contraindications to interferon. Sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for patients with genotype 2 or 3 HCV infection was the first approved all-oral treatment option. Sofosbuvir is also the backbone of the first regimen available for patients awaiting liver transplantation to prevent HCV recurrence, as well as the first oral interferon-free regimen for patients coinfected with HCV and HIV. This paper describes the development of sofosbuvir up to its original FDA approval.