Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Chronic Hepatitis C (1)
- DAA (1)
- Drug (1)
- EQ-5D (1)
- FSS (1)
- PROMISE (1)
- TMC435 (1)
- fatigue (1)
- hepatitis C virus (1)
- patient-reported outcomes (1)
- peginterferon-α (1)
- ribavirin (1)
- simeprevir (1)
- triple therapy (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Background & Aims: Simeprevir is an oral, once-daily inhibitor of hepatitis c virus (HCV) protease NS3/4A. We investigated the safety and efficacy of simeprevir with peg-interferon α-2a and ribavirin (PR) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who relapsed after previous interferon-based therapy.
Methods: Patients were assigned randomly (2:1) to groups given simeprevir (150 mg, once daily) and PR (n = 260) or placebo and PR (n = 133) for 12 weeks. Patients then were given PR alone for 12 or 36 weeks (simeprevir group, based on response-guided therapy criteria) or 36 weeks (placebo group).
Results: Simeprevir and PR was significantly superior to placebo and PR; rates of sustained virologic response 12 weeks after planned end of treatment (SVR12) were 79.2% vs 36.1%, respectively (43.8% difference; 95% confidence interval, 34.6–53.0; P < .001). Among patients given simeprevir, 92.7% met the response-guided therapy criteria and were eligible to complete PR at week 24; of these, 83.0% achieved SVR12. HCV RNA was undetectable at week 4 in 77.2% of patients given simeprevir and 3.1% given placebo. On-treatment failure and relapse rates were lower among patients given simeprevir and PR than those given placebo and PR (3.1% vs 27.1%, and 18.5% vs 48.4%, respectively). Patients given simeprevir did not have adverse events beyond those that occurred in patients given PR alone. Most adverse events were grades 1/2; the prevalence of anemia and rash was similar in both groups. Patients in both groups reported similar severity of fatigue and functional impairments during the study, but duration was reduced among patients given simeprevir.
Conclusions: In a phase 3 trial of patients who had relapsed after interferon-based therapy, the addition of simeprevir to PR was generally well tolerated, with an SVR12 rate of 79.2%. Most patients (92.7%) receiving simeprevir were able to shorten therapy to 24 weeks. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01281839.
Background: Fatigue is a common symptom of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and a frequent side-effect of peginterferon/ribavirin (PR) therapy for HCV. This study evaluated the impact of adding the oral HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor simeprevir to PR on patient-reported fatigue and health status among patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection enrolled in the Phase IIb PILLAR and ASPIRE trials [NCT00882908; NCT00980330].
Methods: Treatment-naïve patients (PILLAR, n = 386) and treatment-experienced patients (ASPIRE, n = 462) were randomized to simeprevir plus PR (simeprevir/PR) or placebo plus PR (placebo/PR). In PILLAR, duration of PR treatment in the simeprevir/PR groups was determined using response-guided therapy (RGT) criteria. PR could be terminated at Week 24, instead of Week 48, if HCV RNA was <25 IU/mL by Week 4 and then undetectable at Weeks 12, 16, and 20. In both studies, patients completed the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and EQ-5D quality-of-life questionnaire in their native language at baseline and throughout the studies up until Week 72.
Results: During the first 24 weeks of treatment, mean FSS total score was increased to a similar degree compared with baseline among patients receiving simeprevir/PR or placebo/PR in both studies indicating increased fatigue severity. Mean FSS scores returned to values comparable with baseline among patients receiving simeprevir/PR after Week 24 in PILLAR (after treatment completion for the majority of patients) and in ASPIRE (after Week 48), consistent with RGT enabling early termination of all treatment at Week 24 in 82.2% of simeprevir/PR-treated patients in the PILLAR study. Similar results were observed for EQ-5D, with simeprevir/PR-treated patients experiencing less time with worse health problems according to EQ-5D scores compared with placebo/PR groups in both studies, and more rapid improvement in health status associated with shorter treatment duration in the PILLAR study.
Conclusions: Combination of simeprevir with PR did not increase patient-reported fatigue severity or health status impairments beyond that reported by patients treated with PR alone. Many patients treated with simeprevir/PR returned to pretreatment fatigue and health status levels sooner due to increased treatment efficacy that enabled shorter duration of all therapy, compared with PR alone.
Background: In patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C infection, telaprevir (TVR) in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) significantly increased sustained virologic response (SVR) rates compared with PR alone. However, genotypic changes could be observed in TVR-treated patients who did not achieve an SVR.
Methods: Population sequence analysis of the NS3•4A region was performed in patients who did not achieve SVR with TVR-based treatment.
Results: Resistant variants were observed after treatment with a telaprevir-based regimen in 12% of treatment-naïve patients (ADVANCE; T12PR arm), 6% of prior relapsers, 24% of prior partial responders, and 51% of prior null responder patients (REALIZE, T12PR48 arms). NS3 protease variants V36M, R155K, and V36M+R155K emerged frequently in patients with genotype 1a and V36A, T54A, and A156S/T in patients with genotype 1b. Lower-level resistance to telaprevir was conferred by V36A/M, T54A/S, R155K/T, and A156S variants; and higher-level resistance to telaprevir was conferred by A156T and V36M+R155K variants. Virologic failure during telaprevir treatment was more common in patients with genotype 1a and in prior PR nonresponder patients and was associated with higher-level telaprevir-resistant variants. Relapse was usually associated with wild-type or lower-level resistant variants. After treatment, viral populations were wild-type with a median time of 10 months for genotype 1a and 3 weeks for genotype 1b patients.
Conclusions: A consistent, subtype-dependent resistance profile was observed in patients who did not achieve an SVR with telaprevir-based treatment. The primary role of TVR is to inhibit wild-type virus and variants with lower-levels of resistance to telaprevir. The complementary role of PR is to clear any remaining telaprevir-resistant variants, especially higher-level telaprevir-resistant variants. Resistant variants are detectable in most patients who fail to achieve SVR, but their levels decline over time after treatment.