Julia Dietz1, Simone Susser1, Johannes Vermehren1, Kai-Henrik Peiffer1, Georgios Grammatikos1, Annemarie Berger2, Peter Ferenci3, Maria Buti4, Beat Müllhaupt5, Bela Hunyady6, Holger Hinrichsen7, Stefan Mauss8, Jörg Petersen9, Peter Buggisch9, Gisela Felten10, Dietrich Hüppe10, Gaby Knecht11, Thomas Lutz11, Eckart Schott12, Christoph Berg13, Ulrich Spengler14, Thomas von Hahn15, Thomas Berg16, Stefan Zeuzem1, Christoph Sarrazin17. 1. Department of Internal Medicine 1, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany, German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), External Partner Site Frankfurt, Germany. 2. Institute for Medical Virology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 3. Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Hospital Universitario Valle Hebron and Ciberehd del Instituto Carlos III, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Swiss Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Center and Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 6. Somogy County Kaposi Mór Teaching Hospital, Kaposvár, Hungary. 7. Practice of Gastroenterology, Kiel, Germany. 8. Practice of Gastroenterology, Düsseldorf, Germany. 9. Institute for Interdisciplinary Medicine IFI, Hamburg, Germany. 10. Practice of Hepatology, Herne, Germany. 11. Infektiologikum, Frankfurt, Germany. 12. Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 13. Department of Internal Medicine I, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. 14. Department of Internal Medicine I, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 15. Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endocrinology, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover, Hannover, Germany; German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Hannover-Braunschweig Site, Germany. 16. Department of Gastroenterology and Rheumatology, University Hospital Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany. 17. Department of Internal Medicine 1, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany, German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), External Partner Site Frankfurt, Germany; Medizinische Klinik II, St. Josefs-Hospital, Wiesbaden, Germany. Electronic address: sarrazin@em.uni-frankfurt.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about substitutions that mediate resistance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), due to the small number of patients with treatment failure in approval studies. It is important to identify resistance patterns to select effective salvage treatments. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive analysis for resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) in HCV genes (nonstructural protein [NS]3, NS5A, NS5B) targeted by DAAs. We compared NS3, NS5A, and NS5B sequences from 626 patients in Europe with DAA failure with sequences from 2322 DAA-naïve patients, infected with HCV genotypes 1 to 4. We considered RASs to be relevant if they were associated with DAA failure in patients or conferred a greater than twofold change in susceptibility compared with a reference strain in in vitro replicon assays. Data were collected on pretreatment status, DAA regimen, the treatment initiation date and duration, and virologic response. Patients who received at least 4 weeks of antiviral treatment were included in the analysis. RESULTS: RASs in NS3 associated with simeprevir or paritaprevir failure include R155K and D168E/V. In addition, several RASs were specifically associated with failure of simeprevir (Q80K/R in patients with genotype 1a or 4) or paritaprevir (Y56H in combination with D168V in patients with genotype 1b). Y93H in NS5A was the RAS most frequently associated with failure of daclatasvir, ledipasvir, or ombitasvir in patients with genotype 1b infection, and L31M was associated with failure of daclatasvir or ledipasvir, but not ombitasvir. RASs in NS5A were heterogeneous among patients with HCV genotype 1a or genotype 4 infections. In patients with HCV genotype 3, Y93H was associated with resistance to daclatasvir, but no RASs were associated with ledipasvir failure, pointing to a limited efficacy of ledipasvir in patients with genotype 3. Among patients failed by sofosbuvir-containing regimens, L159F was enriched in patients with genotype 1b (together with C316N) or genotype 3 infection, whereas the RAS S282T was rarely observed. CONCLUSIONS: We compared RASs in NS3, NS5A, and NS5B among patients failed by DAA therapy. Theses varied with the HCV genotype and subtype, and the different drug classes. These findings might be used to select salvage therapies.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about substitutions that mediate resistance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), due to the small number of patients with treatment failure in approval studies. It is important to identify resistance patterns to select effective salvage treatments. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive analysis for resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) in HCV genes (nonstructural protein [NS]3, NS5A, NS5B) targeted by DAAs. We compared NS3, NS5A, and NS5B sequences from 626 patients in Europe with DAA failure with sequences from 2322 DAA-naïve patients, infected with HCV genotypes 1 to 4. We considered RASs to be relevant if they were associated with DAA failure in patients or conferred a greater than twofold change in susceptibility compared with a reference strain in in vitro replicon assays. Data were collected on pretreatment status, DAA regimen, the treatment initiation date and duration, and virologic response. Patients who received at least 4 weeks of antiviral treatment were included in the analysis. RESULTS: RASs in NS3 associated with simeprevir or paritaprevir failure include R155K and D168E/V. In addition, several RASs were specifically associated with failure of simeprevir (Q80K/R in patients with genotype 1a or 4) or paritaprevir (Y56H in combination with D168V in patients with genotype 1b). Y93H in NS5A was the RAS most frequently associated with failure of daclatasvir, ledipasvir, or ombitasvir in patients with genotype 1b infection, and L31M was associated with failure of daclatasvir or ledipasvir, but not ombitasvir. RASs in NS5A were heterogeneous among patients with HCV genotype 1a or genotype 4 infections. In patients with HCV genotype 3, Y93H was associated with resistance to daclatasvir, but no RASs were associated with ledipasvir failure, pointing to a limited efficacy of ledipasvir in patients with genotype 3. Among patients failed by sofosbuvir-containing regimens, L159F was enriched in patients with genotype 1b (together with C316N) or genotype 3 infection, whereas the RAS S282T was rarely observed. CONCLUSIONS: We compared RASs in NS3, NS5A, and NS5B among patients failed by DAA therapy. Theses varied with the HCV genotype and subtype, and the different drug classes. These findings might be used to select salvage therapies.
Authors: Reem M Aljowaie; Fahad N Almajhdi; Hebatallh H Ali; Mohammad S El-Wetidy; Medhat K Shier Journal: Cell Stress Chaperones Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 3.667
Authors: Johannes Vermehren; Christoph Sarrazin; Kai-Henrik Peiffer; Lisa Kuhnhenn; Evelyn Stelzl; Julia Dietz; Simone Susser; Andrea Oliver Tal; Fabian Finkelmeier; Eli Zuckerman; Marcus Cornberg; Mira Barak; Valeria Piazzolla; Alessandra Mangia; Stefan Zeuzem; Harald H Kessler Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-06-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Desaboini Nageswara Rao; Jacqueto Zephyr; Mina Henes; Elise T Chan; Ashley N Matthew; Adam K Hedger; Hasahn L Conway; Mohsan Saeed; Alicia Newton; Christos J Petropoulos; Wei Huang; Nese Kurt Yilmaz; Celia A Schiffer; Akbar Ali Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2021-08-18 Impact factor: 8.039
Authors: Katharina Herzog; Simonetta Bandiera; Sophie Pernot; Catherine Fauvelle; Frank Jühling; Amélie Weiss; Anne Bull; Sarah C Durand; Béatrice Chane-Woon-Ming; Sébastien Pfeffer; Marion Mercey; Hervé Lerat; Jean-Christophe Meunier; Wolfgang Raffelsberger; Laurent Brino; Thomas F Baumert; Mirjam B Zeisel Journal: Gut Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 31.793