BACKGROUND: Monitoring ribavirin concentrations during hepatitis C treatment with dual therapy can help optimize treatment response and minimize anaemia. A defined therapeutic range for ribavirin during direct-acting antiviral-based therapies is lacking. This analysis explores whether a therapeutic range for ribavirin concentrations can be defined in patients treated with boceprevir- or telaprevir-based triple therapies. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients from ADVANCE, ILLUMINATE, OPTIMIZE and SPRINT-2, and treatment-experienced patients from RESPOND-2 were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether ribavirin concentrations were an independent predictor of sustained virological response or anaemia. Optimal cutoff values and the percentage of patients within the proposed therapeutic range were determined, along with the associated chance of response. RESULTS: Overall, 1,502 patients were included. In both regimens, ribavirin concentrations were significantly associated with anaemia (haemoglobin level <10 g/dl) at all time points (1.75 < odds ratio [OR] <2.45) and sustained virological response was associated with ribavirin concentrations at week 8 (OR=1.43 for telaprevir and 1.78 for boceprevir). A therapeutic range for ribavirin at week 8 of 2.2-3.5 mg/l was defined for telaprevir treatment. Of the 48% of patients with a concentration within this range, 81% achieved sustained virological response and only 5.1% reported anaemia. For boceprevir treatment, the week 8 optimal range was defined as 2.2-3.6 mg/l and 50% of patients had a concentration within this range, of whom 69% achieved sustained virological response and 46% developed anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: We established the therapeutic range for ribavirin in boceprevir- and telaprevir-based therapy that balances safety and efficacy.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring ribavirin concentrations during hepatitis C treatment with dual therapy can help optimize treatment response and minimize anaemia. A defined therapeutic range for ribavirin during direct-acting antiviral-based therapies is lacking. This analysis explores whether a therapeutic range for ribavirin concentrations can be defined in patients treated with boceprevir- or telaprevir-based triple therapies. METHODS: Treatment-naive patients from ADVANCE, ILLUMINATE, OPTIMIZE and SPRINT-2, and treatment-experienced patients from RESPOND-2 were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether ribavirin concentrations were an independent predictor of sustained virological response or anaemia. Optimal cutoff values and the percentage of patients within the proposed therapeutic range were determined, along with the associated chance of response. RESULTS: Overall, 1,502 patients were included. In both regimens, ribavirin concentrations were significantly associated with anaemia (haemoglobin level <10 g/dl) at all time points (1.75 < odds ratio [OR] <2.45) and sustained virological response was associated with ribavirin concentrations at week 8 (OR=1.43 for telaprevir and 1.78 for boceprevir). A therapeutic range for ribavirin at week 8 of 2.2-3.5 mg/l was defined for telaprevir treatment. Of the 48% of patients with a concentration within this range, 81% achieved sustained virological response and only 5.1% reported anaemia. For boceprevir treatment, the week 8 optimal range was defined as 2.2-3.6 mg/l and 50% of patients had a concentration within this range, of whom 69% achieved sustained virological response and 46% developed anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: We established the therapeutic range for ribavirin in boceprevir- and telaprevir-based therapy that balances safety and efficacy.