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.
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.
Authors: Kenneth E Sherman; Steven L Flamm; Nezam H Afdhal; David R Nelson; Mark S Sulkowski; Gregory T Everson; Michael W Fried; Michael Adler; Hendrik W Reesink; Marie Martin; Abdul J Sankoh; Nathalie Adda; Robert S Kauffman; Shelley George; Christopher I Wright; Fred Poordad Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-09-15 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ira M Jacobson; John G McHutchison; Geoffrey Dusheiko; Adrian M Di Bisceglie; K Rajender Reddy; Natalie H Bzowej; Patrick Marcellin; Andrew J Muir; Peter Ferenci; Robert Flisiak; Jacob George; Mario Rizzetto; Daniel Shouval; Ricard Sola; Ruben A Terg; Eric M Yoshida; Nathalie Adda; Leif Bengtsson; Abdul J Sankoh; Tara L Kieffer; Shelley George; Robert S Kauffman; Stefan Zeuzem Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Paul Y Kwo; Eric J Lawitz; Jonathan McCone; Eugene R Schiff; John M Vierling; David Pound; Mitchell N Davis; Joseph S Galati; Stuart C Gordon; Natarajan Ravendhran; Lorenzo Rossaro; Frank H Anderson; Ira M Jacobson; Raymond Rubin; Kenneth Koury; Lisa D Pedicone; Clifford A Brass; Eirum Chaudhri; Janice K Albrecht Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Richard E Nettles; Min Gao; Marc Bifano; Ellen Chung; Anna Persson; Thomas C Marbury; Ronald Goldwater; Michael P DeMicco; Maribel Rodriguez-Torres; Apinya Vutikullird; Ernesto Fuentes; Eric Lawitz; Juan Carlos Lopez-Talavera; Dennis M Grasela Journal: Hepatology Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Eric Lawitz; Alessandra Mangia; David Wyles; Maribel Rodriguez-Torres; Tarek Hassanein; Stuart C Gordon; Michael Schultz; Mitchell N Davis; Zeid Kayali; K Rajender Reddy; Ira M Jacobson; Kris V Kowdley; Lisa Nyberg; G Mani Subramanian; Robert H Hyland; Sarah Arterburn; Deyuan Jiang; John McNally; Diana Brainard; William T Symonds; John G McHutchison; Aasim M Sheikh; Zobair Younossi; Edward J Gane Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Tarik Asselah; Emilie Estrabaud; Ivan Bieche; Martine Lapalus; Simon De Muynck; Michel Vidaud; David Saadoun; Vassili Soumelis; Patrick Marcellin Journal: Liver Int Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Min Gao; Richard E Nettles; Makonen Belema; Lawrence B Snyder; Van N Nguyen; Robert A Fridell; Michael H Serrano-Wu; David R Langley; Jin-Hua Sun; Donald R O'Boyle; Julie A Lemm; Chunfu Wang; Jay O Knipe; Caly Chien; Richard J Colonno; Dennis M Grasela; Nicholas A Meanwell; Lawrence G Hamann Journal: Nature Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Paweł Pabjan; Michał Brzdęk; Magdalena Chrapek; Kacper Dziedzic; Krystyna Dobrowolska; Katarzyna Paluch; Anna Garbat; Piotr Błoniarczyk; Katarzyna Reczko; Piotr Stępień; Dorota Zarębska-Michaluk Journal: Viruses Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 5.048
Authors: Dorota Zarębska-Michaluk; Jerzy Jaroszewicz; Anna Parfieniuk-Kowerda; Małgorzata Pawłowska; Ewa Janczewska; Hanna Berak; Justyna Janocha-Litwin; Jakub Klapaczyński; Krzysztof Tomasiewicz; Anna Piekarska; Rafał Krygier; Jolanta Citko; Olga Tronina; Krystyna Dobrowolska; Robert Flisiak Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.241
Authors: Iandra Holzmann; Cristiane V Tovo; Roseline Minmé; Mônica P Leal; Michele P Kliemann; Camila Ubirajara; Amanda A Aquino; Bruna Araujo; Paulo R L Almeida Journal: Braz J Infect Dis Date: 2018-07-21 Impact factor: 3.257