L I Backus1, P S Belperio, T A Shahoumian, R Cheung, L A Mole. 1. Office of Public Health/Population Health Program, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA; Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the effectiveness of boceprevir and telaprevir in routine practice. AIM: To assess the comparative effectiveness of boceprevir and telaprevir regimens. METHODS: In this observational, intent-to-treat cohort analysis of hepatitis C genotype 1-infected veterans initiated on peginterferon/ribavirin and boceprevir (n = 661) or telaprevir (n = 198), we determined sustained virological response (SVR), treatment discontinuation rates and adverse haematological events. Inverse probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to estimate the effect of one drug over the other, with matched pairs and unweighted logistic regression on the entire cohort for comparison. RESULTS: Of 835 veterans, SVR occurred in 50% and 52% receiving boceprevir- and telaprevir-based treatment, respectively (P = 0.72). No significant differences occurred among subgroups: cirrhotics (37% vs. 39%, P = 0.94), null responders (23% vs. 18%, P = 0.81), partial responders (39% vs. 58%, P = 0.15) and relapsers (60% vs. 77%, P = 0.11). Early discontinuation rates for boceprevir and telaprevir, respectively, were 31% and 28% by week 24 (P = 0.46) and 54% and 45% by 48 weeks (in those completing at least 28 weeks) (P = 0.14). Choice of telaprevir over boceprevir was significantly associated with SVR in multivariate models (IPTW OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.10-2.25, P = 0.01; matched-pairs OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.23-3.00, P = 0.004; unweighted OR: 1.50 95% CI: 1.05-2.14, P = 0.02). Rates of haematological adverse events in boceprevir- and telaprevir-treated patients were as follows: anaemia 59% vs. 51%, P = 0.30, thrombocytopenia 41% vs. 48%, P = 0.26, neutropenia 41% vs. 27%, P = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Sustained virological response was more likely with telaprevir-based regimens compared with boceprevir-based regimens in routine medical practice, after accounting for patient differences. Early discontinuation and haematological events, however, were similar. Published 2013. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on the effectiveness of boceprevir and telaprevir in routine practice. AIM: To assess the comparative effectiveness of boceprevir and telaprevir regimens. METHODS: In this observational, intent-to-treat cohort analysis of hepatitis C genotype 1-infected veterans initiated on peginterferon/ribavirin and boceprevir (n = 661) or telaprevir (n = 198), we determined sustained virological response (SVR), treatment discontinuation rates and adverse haematological events. Inverse probability-of-treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to estimate the effect of one drug over the other, with matched pairs and unweighted logistic regression on the entire cohort for comparison. RESULTS: Of 835 veterans, SVR occurred in 50% and 52% receiving boceprevir- and telaprevir-based treatment, respectively (P = 0.72). No significant differences occurred among subgroups: cirrhotics (37% vs. 39%, P = 0.94), null responders (23% vs. 18%, P = 0.81), partial responders (39% vs. 58%, P = 0.15) and relapsers (60% vs. 77%, P = 0.11). Early discontinuation rates for boceprevir and telaprevir, respectively, were 31% and 28% by week 24 (P = 0.46) and 54% and 45% by 48 weeks (in those completing at least 28 weeks) (P = 0.14). Choice of telaprevir over boceprevir was significantly associated with SVR in multivariate models (IPTW OR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.10-2.25, P = 0.01; matched-pairs OR: 1.91, 95% CI: 1.23-3.00, P = 0.004; unweighted OR: 1.50 95% CI: 1.05-2.14, P = 0.02). Rates of haematological adverse events in boceprevir- and telaprevir-treated patients were as follows: anaemia 59% vs. 51%, P = 0.30, thrombocytopenia 41% vs. 48%, P = 0.26, neutropenia 41% vs. 27%, P = 0.04. CONCLUSIONS: Sustained virological response was more likely with telaprevir-based regimens compared with boceprevir-based regimens in routine medical practice, after accounting for patient differences. Early discontinuation and haematological events, however, were similar. Published 2013. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Javier Salmerón; Carmen Vinaixa; Rubén Berenguer; Juan Manuel Pascasio; Juan José Sánchez Ruano; Miguel Ángel Serra; Ana Gila; Moisés Diago; Manuel Romero-Gómez; José María Navarro; Milagros Testillano; Conrado Fernández; Dolores Espinosa; Isabel Carmona; José Antonio Pons; Francisco Jorquera; Francisco Javier Rodriguez; Ramón Pérez; José Luis Montero; Rafael Granados; Miguel Fernández; Ana Belén Martín; Paloma Muñoz de Rueda; Rosa Quiles Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Kevin P Vo; Philip Vutien; Matthew J Akiyama; Vinh D Vu; Nghiem B Ha; Joy I Piotrowski; James Wantuck; Marina M Roytman; Naoky Tsai; Ramsey Cheung; Jiayi Li; Mindie H Nguyen Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: R K Sterling; A Kuo; V K Rustgi; M S Sulkowski; T G Stewart; J M Fenkel; H El-Genaidi; M A Mah'moud; G M Abraham; P W Stewart; L Akushevich; D R Nelson; M W Fried; A M Di Bisceglie Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Seth N Sclair; Maria Del Pilar Hernandez; Evan Vance; Dani Gilinski; Helen Youtseff; Maribel Toro; Marie Antoine; Lennox J Jeffers; Adam Peyton Journal: Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) Date: 2016-08
Authors: Jennifer C Price; Rosemary C Murphy; Valentina A Shvachko; Mary Pat Pauly; M Michele Manos Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 3.199