Common search

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Book on hepatitis from page 248 to 257

Book on hepatitis from page 248 to 257

248  Hepatology 2012
boceprevir Phase III studies have revealed a rapid decline of resistant variants below
the limit of detection (>20% of quasispecies) of population sequencing techniques
(Barnard 2011, Sherman 2011). However, telaprevir-  and boceprevir-resistant
variants were detectable by a clonal sequencing approach several years after
treatment in single patients who had been treated with telaprevir or boceprevir
within smaller Phase Ib studies (Susser 2011).
NS5B polymerase inhibitors
Molecular biology
HCV replication is initiated by the formation of the replication complex, a highly
structured association of viral proteins and RNA, of cellular proteins and cofactors,
and of rearranged intracellular lipid membranes derived from the endoplasmic
reticulum (Moradpour 2007). The key enzyme in HCV RNA replication is NS5B,
an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that catalyzes the synthesis of a
complementary negative-strand RNA by using the positive-strand RNA genome as
a template   (Lesburg 1999) (Figure 6). From this newly synthesized negative-strand
RNA, numerous RNA strands of positive polarity are produced by NS5B activity
that serve as templates for further replication and polyprotein translation. Because
of poor fidelity leading to a high rate of errors in its RNA sequencing, numerous
different isolates are generated during HCV replication in a given patient, termed
HCV quasispecies. It is reasoned that due to the lack of proofreading of the NS5B
polymerase together with the high replication of HCV, every possible mutation is
generated each day.
NS5B RNA polymerase inhibitors can be divided into two distinct categories.
Nucleoside analog inhibitors (NIs) like valopicitabine (NM283), mericitabine
(R7128), R1626, PSI-7977, PSI-938 or IDX184 mimic the natural substrates of the
polymerase and are incorporated into the growing RNA chain, thus causing direct
chain termination by tackling the active site of NS5B  (Koch 2006). Because the
active centre of NS5B is a highly conserved region of the HCV genome, NIs are
potentially effective against different genotypes. Single amino acid substitutions in
every position of the active centre may result in loss of function or in extremely
impaired replicative fitness. Thus, there is a relatively high barrier in the
development of resistances to NIs.
In contrast to NIs, the heterogeneous class of non-nucleoside inhibitors (NNIs)
achieves NS5B inhibition by binding to different allosteric enzyme sites, which
results in conformational protein change before the elongation complex is formed
(Beaulieu 2007). For allosteric NS5B inhibition high chemical affinity is required.
NS5B is structurally organized in a characteristic “right hand motif”, containing
finger, palm and thumb domains, and offers at least four NNI-binding sites, a
benzimidazole-(thumb 1)-, thiophene-(thumb 2)-, benzothiadiazine-(palm 1)- and
benzofuran-(palm 2)-binding site  (Lesburg 1999)  (Figure 6). Because of their
distinct binding sites, different polymerase inhibitors can theoretically be used in
combination or in sequence to manage the development of resistance. Because NNIs
bind distantly to the active centre of NS5B, their application may rapidly lead to the
development of resistant mutants in vitro and in vivo. Moreover, mutations at the
NNI binding sites do not necessarily lead to impaired function of the enzyme.
Figure 7 shows the structure of selected nucleoside and non-nucleoside inhibitors.
Hepatitis C: New Drugs  249
Figure 6. Structure of the HCV NS5B RNA polymerase and binding sites.
Figure 7. Molecular structure of selected NS5B polymerase inhibitors.
Nucleoside analogs
Valopicitabine (NM283, 2'-C-methylcytidine/NM107), the first nucleoside inhibitor
investigated in patients with chronic hepatitis C, showed a low antiviral activity
250  Hepatology 2012
(Afdhal 2007). Due to gastrointestinal side effects the clinical development of
NM283 was stopped.
The second nucleoside inhibitor to be reported in patients with chronic hepatitis C
was R1626 (4'-azidocytidine/PSI-6130). A Phase 1 study in genotype 1-infected
patients observed a high antiviral activity at high doses of R1626 in genotype 1-infected patients  (Pockros 2008). No viral breakthrough with selection of resistant
variants was reported from monotherapy or combination studies with pegylated
interferon ± ribavirin  (Pockros 2008). Due to severe lymphopenia and infectious
disease adverse events further development of R1626 was stopped.
Mericitabine (RG7128) is still in development and the most advanced nucleoside
polymerase inhibitor. Mericitabine is safe and well-tolerated, effective against all
HCV genotypes, and thus far no viral resistance against mericitabine has been
observed in clinical studies. Interim results of current Phase II clinical trials in HCV
genotype 1-, 2-, 3-infected patients of R7128 in combination with pegylated
interferon and ribavirin revealed superior SVR rates of mericitabine-based triple
therapy compared to PEG-IFN α alone  (Pockros 2011). In an all oral regimen,
administration of R7128 in combination with the protease inhibitor
R7227/ITMN191 for 14 days, a synergistic antiviral activity of both drugs was
observed (Gane 2010). No viral breakthrough with selection of resistant variants has
been reported.
Very promising clinical data have been published recently for PSI-7977, a
nucleoside analog NS5B inhibitor effective against all HCV genotypes. In HCV
genotype 2- and 3- infected patients, PSI-7977 (400 mg once daily) in combination
with ribavirin for 12 weeks + PEG-IFN α for 4-12 weeks resulted in 100% RVR and
100% week 12 SVR rates (Gane 2011). No PSI-7977-associated side effects have
been reported, and no virologic breakthrough has been observed. A second study
evaluated PSI-7977-based triple therapy in treatment-naïve  HCV genotype 1-infected patients. In this study, PSI-7977 was administered for 12 weeks, together
with PEG-IFN α and ribavirin for 24 or 48 weeks in total, according to whether
HCV RNA was below the limit of detection at treatment weeks 4 and 12 or not,
respectively (Lawitz 2011). Most patients were eligible for the shortened treatment
duration of 24 weeks, and SVR was achieved in approximately 90% of all patients.
Other nucleoside analogs (e.g., PSI-938 and IDX184) are at earlier stages of
clinical development (Sarrazin 2010).
Overall, the newer nucleoside analogs (PSI-7977, PSI-938) also demonstrate high
antiviral activities that, together with their high genetic barrier to resistance, suggest
that they are optimal candidates for all-oral combination therapies (see below).
Non-nucleoside analogs
At least 4 different allosteric binding sites have been identified for inhibition of the
NS5B polymerase by non-nucleoside inhibitors. Currently, numerous non-nucleoside inhibitors are in Phase I and II clinical evaluation (e.g., NNI site 1
inhibitor BI207127; NNI site 2 inhibitors filibuvir (PF-00868554), VCH-759, VCH-916 and VCH-222; NNI site 3 inhibitor ANA598, NNI site 4 inhibitors HCV-796,
and ABT-333) (Ali 2008, Cooper 2007, Erhardt 2009, Kneteman 2009). In general,
these non-nucleoside analogs display a low to medium antiviral activity and a low
genetic barrier to resistance, evidenced by frequent viral breakthrough during
monotherapy studies and selection of resistance mutations at variable sites of the
Hepatitis C: New Drugs  251
enzyme. In line with these experiences in Phase I studies, a Phase II triple therapy
study with filibuvir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin showed
high relapse and relative low SVR rates (Jacobson 2010). In contrast to nucleoside-analogs, non-nucleoside analogs in general do not display antiviral activity against
different HCV genotypes (Sarrazin 2010). Due to their low antiviral efficacy and
low genetic barrier to resistance, non-nucleoside analogs will probably not be
developed as part of triple therapy but rather as components of quadruple or all-oral
regimens (see below).
NS5A inhibitors
The HCV NS5A protein seems to play a manifold role in HCV replication,
assembly and release  (Moradpour 2007). It was shown that NS5A is involved in the
early formation of the replication complex by interacting with intracellular lipid
membranes, and it initiates viral assembly at the surface of lipid droplets together
with the HCV core  (Shi 2002). NS5A may also serve as a channel that helps to
protect and direct viral RNA within the membranes of the replication complex
(Tellinghuisen 2005). Moreover, it was demonstrated that NS5A is able to interact
with NS5B, which results in an enhanced activity of the HCV RNA polymerase.
Besides its regulatory impact on HCV replication, NS5A has been shown to
modulate host cell signaling pathways, which has been associated with interferon
resistance (Wohnsland 2007). Furthermore, mutations within the NS5A protein have
been clinically associated with resistance / sensitivity to IFN-based antiviral therapy
(Wohnsland 2007).
BMS-790052 was the first NS5A inhibitor to be clinically evaluated. Even low
doses of BMS-790052 display high antiviral efficacy against all HCV genotypes in
vitro. Monotherapy with BMS-790052 led to a sharp initial decline of HCV RNA
concentrations, though its genetic barrier to resistance is relatively low (Gao 2010).
According to an interim analysis of a Phase IIb clinical trial in treatment-naïve HCV
genotype 1 and 4 patients, treatment with 20 or 60 mg BMS-790052 once daily in
combination with PEG-IFN α and ribavirin for 24 or 28 weeks, 54% of all patients
achieved an extended RVR, compared to 13% in the control group (Hezode 2011).
SVR rates of this study are awaited.
During monotherapy, rapid selection of variants resistant to BMS-790052
occurred (Nettles 2011). The most common resistance mutations in HCV genotype
1a patients were observed at residues M28, Q30, L31, and Y93 of NS5A. In HCV
genotype 1b patients, resistance mutations were observed less frequently,
predominantly at positions L31 and Y93. These resistance mutations increased the
EC50 to BMS-790052 moderately to strongly (Fridell 2011). However, no cross-resistance between BMS-790052 and other DAA agents has been reported.
Collectively, BMS-790052 is a highly promising agent for both triple therapy as
well as all-DAA combination therapy approaches.
Other NS5A inhibitors (e.g., BMS-824393, PPI-461, GS-5885) are in early
clinical development.
252  Hepatology 2012
Compounds targeting viral attachment and entry
The tetraspanin protein CD81, claudin-1, occludine, scavenger receptor class B type
1 (SR-B1), the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor, glycosaminoglycans and the
dendritic cell- /lymph node-specific intercellular adhesion molecule 3-grabbing non-integrin (DC-SIGN/L-SIGN) have been identified as putative ligands for E1 and E2
in the viral attachment and entry steps (Moradpour 2007). HCV entry inhibition
might enrich future hepatitis C treatment opportunities, in particular in the
prevention of HCV liver graft reinfection. HCV entry inhibition can be theoretically
achieved by the use of specific antibodies or small molecule compounds either
blocking E1 and E2 or their cellular receptors. So far, only results from clinical
trials using polyclonal (e.g., civacir) (Davis 2005) or monoclonal (e.g., HCV-AB
68) (Schiano 2006) HCV-specific antibodies are available. The clinical benefit of
these antibodies has been poor, however. The development of small molecule entry
inhibitors is in a preclinical stage and is complicated by difficulties in the
crystallographic characterization of HCV envelope proteins.
Host factors as targets for treatment
Cyclophilin B inhibitors
HCV depends on various host factors throughout its life cycle. Cyclophilin B is
expressed in many human tissues and provides a cis-trans isomerase activity, which
supports the folding and function of many proteins. Cyclophilin B enhances HCV
replication by incompletely understood mechanisms, like the modulation of NS5B
activity. Debio-025 (alisporivir) is an orally bioavailable cyclophilin B inhibitor
exerting an antiviral impact on both HCV and HIV replication. In clinical trials in
HIV- and HCV-coinfected patients, treatment with 1200 mg Debio-025 twice daily
for two weeks led to a mean maximal log10 reduction of HCV RNA of 3.6 and of
HIV DNA of 1.0  (Flisiak 2008). Debio-025 was well-tolerated and no viral
breakthrough occurred during the 14 days of treatment.
Combination therapy of Debio-025 200 mg, 600 mg or 1000 mg and PEG-IFN α-2a was evaluated in a double-blind placebo-controlled Phase II trial in treatment-naïve patients monoinfected with HCV genotypes 1, 2, 3 or 4. Treatment was
administered for 29 days. Mean log10 reductions in HCV RNA at day 29 were 4.75
(1000 mg), 4.61 (600 mg) and 1.8 (200 mg) in the combination therapy groups
compared to 2.49 (PEG-IFN α-2a alone) and 2.2 (1000 mg Debio-025 alone) in the
monotherapy groups. No differences in antiviral activity were observed between
individuals infected with the different genotypes. Debio-025 was safe and well
tolerated but led to a reversible bilirubin increase in some of the patients treated
with 1000 mg Debio-025 daily (Flisiak 2009). A high genetic barrier to resistance of
Debio-025 and a broad HCV genotypic activity highlight the potential of drugs
targeting host proteins.
In a Phase II clinical trial in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1 patients,
combination therapy with Debio-025, PEG-IFN α-2a and ribavirin for 24-48 weeks
resulted in SVR rates of 69-76% compared to 55% in the control group (Flisiak
2011).
Hepatitis C: New Drugs  253
Nitazoxanide
Nitazoxanide with its active metabolite tizoxanide is a thiazolide antiprotozoal
approved for the treatment of Giardia lamblia  and Cryptosporidium parvum
infections. In vitro studies have revealed an essential inhibitory impact on HCV and
HBV replication by still unknown mechanisms.
Results of two Phase 2 studies evaluating 500 mg nitazoxanide twice daily for 12
weeks followed by nitazoxanide, PEG-IFN α-2a ± RBV for 36 weeks yielded
conflicting results with SVR rates of 79% in treatment-naïve genotype 4 patients,
but of only 44% in HCV genotype 1 patients (Rossignol 2009). Additional studies
are warranted to determine the role of nitazoxanide in the treatment of chronic
hepatitis C.
Silibinin
Silymarin, an extract of milk thistle (Silybum marianum) with antioxidant activity,
has been empirically used to treat chronic hepatitis C and other liver diseases.
Silibinin is one of the six major flavonolignans in silymarin. Surprisingly, recent
reports demonstrated that silibinin inhibits HCV at various steps of its life cycle
(Ahmed-Belkacem 2010, Wagoner 2010). In addition, intravenous silibinin in non-responders to prior IFN-based antiviral therapy led to a decline in HCV RNA
between 0.55 to 3.02 log10 IU/ml after 7 days and a further decrease after an
additional 7 days in combination with PEG-IFN α-2a/RBV in the range of 1.63 and
4.85 log10 IU/ml (Ferenci 2008). Ongoing studies will clarify the role of silibinin in
the treatment of chronic hepatitis C, including HCV liver graft reinfection.
Miravirsen
MicroRNA-122 (miRNA-122) is a liver-specific microRNA that has been shown to
be a critical host factor for HCV (Landford 2010). MiRNA-122 binds to the 5´NTR
region of the HCV genome, which appears to be vital in the HCV replication
process. Miravirsen is a modified antisense oligonucleotide that targets miRNA-122
and thereby prevents binding of miRNA-122 to the HCV genome. In a Phase IIa
proof-of-principle study, weekly subcutaneous injections of miravirsen led to a
reduction of HCV RNA serum concentration of up to 2.7 log10 IU/mL, indicating
that an antisense oligonucleotide-based approach of miRNA-122 inhibition could be
a promising modality for antiviral therapy (Janssen 2010). No relevant side effects
were seen in this study.
Newer combination therapies
The approval of the HCV protease inhibitors telaprevir and boceprevir in 2011
constitutes a milestone in the treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection.
Nevertheless, telaprevir- or boceprevir-based triple therapy has certain limitations.
In particular, treatment success still depends on the interferon-sensitivity of
individual patients because a slow decline of HCV viral load during triple therapy is
associated with a high risk of antiviral resistance development. Consequently, viral
breakthrough of drug resistant variants was observed in a significant number of
patients with partial or null response to previous treatment with PEG-IFN α and
ribavirin, in patients with limited decline of HCV viral load during lead-in treatment
with PEG-IFN α and ribavirin alone, or in difficult to cure populations like Blacks
254  Hepatology 2012
or patients with advanced liver fibrosis. In addition, triple therapy is not an option
for patients with contraindications to PEG-IFN α or ribavirin, such as patients with
decompensated liver cirrhosis or liver transplant failure.
To overcome these limitations, numerous trials have been initiated to investigate
the potential of combination therapies with different DAA agents alone (Table 3).
As is well established in the treatment of HIV infection, combining DAA agents
with different antiviral resistance profiles should result in a substantially decreased
risk of viral breakthrough of resistant variants. Nucleoside analog NS5B inhibitors
plus drugs targeting host factors such as the cyclophilin inhibitor alisporivir display
a high genetic barrier to resistance development and may therefore be key agents for
effective DAA combination therapies (Sarrazin 2010). In contrast, NS3-4A and
NS5A inhibitors display a low genetic barrier to resistance development, but in view
of their high antiviral efficacy they appear to be promising combination partners for
nucleoside analogs or cyclophilin inhibitors. Due to their low antiviral efficacy and
low genetic barrier to resistance development, the role of non-nucleoside analog
NS5B inhibitors is currently less clear. A potential advantage of non-nucleoside
analogs is their binding to multiple target sites that may allow simultaneous
treatment with several non-nucleoside analogs.
Currently, DAA combination treatment regimens can be classified according to
the usage of PEG-IFN α into quadruple therapy regimens and all-oral therapy
regimens. Quadruple therapy approaches are based on therapy of PEG-IFN α and
ribavirin plus combination of two DAA agents from different classes. In contrast,
all-oral treatment comprises interferon-free regimens including combinations of
various DAA compounds with or without ribavirin.
Quadruple therapy
Preliminary SVR data of a small but highly informative trial serves as a proof-of-concept for the potential of quadruple therapy approach for patients with previous
null response to PEG-IFN α + ribavirin (Lok 2011). In this Phase II study, 11 HCV
genotype 1 patients with prior null response were treated with a combination of the
NS5A inhibitor BMS-790052 and the protease inhibitor BMS-650032 together with
PEG-IFN α and ribavirin for 24 weeks. Quadruple therapy resulted in 100% SVR 12
weeks after treatment completion in both HCV genotype 1a-  and 1b-infected
patients. Even though the number of patients included in this trial was very limited,
this high SVR rate after quadruple therapy seems impressive compared to SVR rates
of ~30% that were achieved with telaprevir-based triple therapy in prior null
responders (Zeuzem 2011).
A Phase II clinical trial assessed quadruple therapy with the non-nucleoside NS5B
inhibitor tegobuvir in combination with the NS3-4A inhibitor GS-9256 + PEG-IFN
α and ribavirin for 28 days in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1 patients (Zeuzem
2011). The primary endpoint of this study was rapid virologic response (RVR),
which was achieved in 100% of patients. After 28 days of quadruple therapy,
treatment with PEG-IFN α and ribavirin was continued, which led to complete early
virologic reponse (cEVR) in 94% of patients (Zeuzem 2011).
Another Phase II clinical trial investigated a response-guided approach during
quadruple therapy containing the non-nucleoside NS5B inhibitor VX-222 (100 mg
or 400 mg) in combination with the NS3-4A inhibitor telaprevir + PEG-IFN α and
ribavirin in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1 patients (Nelson 2011). Quadruple
Hepatitis C: New Drugs  255
treatment was administered for 12 weeks. All treatment was stopped after 12 weeks
in patients who were HCV RNA-negative at treatment weeks 2 and 8. Patients in
whom HCV RNA was detectable at treatment week 2 or 8 received an additional 12
weeks of PEG-IFN α and ribavirin alone. Up to 50% of patients met the criteria for
the 12-week treatment duration. Of those, 82-93% achieved an SVR 12 weeks after
treatment completion. In patients who were treated with an additional 12 weeks of
PEG-IFN α and ribavirin, the end-of-treatment response was 100%.
Collectively, the quadruple therapy approach appears to be highly promising in
patients with limited sensitivity to interferon-α, even in patients with HCV subtype
1a.
All-oral therapy without ribavirin
A first interferon-free clinical trial (the INFORM-1 study) evaluated the
combination of a polymerase inhibitor (R7128) and an NS3 inhibitor
(R7227/ITMN191). In this proof of principle study, patients were treated with both
compounds for up to 2 weeks (Gane 2010). HCV RNA concentrations decreased by
up to 5.2 log10 IU/ml, viral breakthrough was observed in only one patient (although
no resistant HCV variants were identified), and HCV RNA was undetectable at the
end of dosing in up to 63% of treatment-naïve patients. However, the fundamental
question of whether an SVR can be achieved with combination therapies of
different DAA compounds without PEG-IFN α and ribavirin was not answered by
this trial.
SVR data are available for a Phase II clinical trial investigating therapy with the
NS5A inhibitor BMS-790052 in combination with the NS3-4A protease inhibitor
BMS-60032 for 24 weeks in 10 HCV genotype 1 patients with a previous null
response to PEG-IFN α and ribavirin  (Lok 2011). 36% of patients achieved an SVR
24 weeks after treatment completion. All patients with viral breakthrough were
infected with HCV genotype 1a, and in all of them HCV variants with resistance
mutations against both agents were detected. Although data of longer follow-up
periods are needed, this trial constitutes a proof-of-principle that SVR can be
achieved via all-oral regimens, even in patients infected with HCV subtype 1b. This
was confirmed with a 100% SVR rate in a small study evaluating the same agents
(BMS-790052 and BMS-60032) in Japanese HCV genotype 1b previous null
responders (Chayama 2011).
Another trial has investigated 12 weeks of PSI-7977 monotherapy (400 mg once
daily) in HCV genotype 2-  and 3-infected patients (n=10). 100% of patients
achieved an RVR and EOTR, which translated into an SVR in 60% of patients
(Gane 2011).
All-oral therapy with ribavirin
Two trials evaluated all-oral DAA combination therapies with ribavirin. In one of
them, combination therapy of the NS3-4A inhibitor BI-201335, the non-nucleoside
NS5B inhibitor BI-207127 (400 or 600 mg TID) and ribavirin for 4 weeks was
assessed (Zeuzem 2011). Virologic response rates in patients treated with 600 mg
TID of BI-207127 were 82%, 100% and 100% at treatment days 15, 22, and 29,
respectively (Zeuzem 2011). In patients who received the lower dose of BI-207127,
virologic response rates were significantly lower, and in these patients lower
256  Hepatology 2012
virologic response rates were observed for patients infected with HCV subtype 1a
compared to subtype 1b.
Another trial compared tegobuvir (a non-nucleoside NS5B inhibitor) + GS-9256
(a NS3-4A inhibitor) with or without ribavirin in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1
patients (Zeuzem 2011). Importantly, tegobuvir + GS-9256 + ribavirin led to a
higher HCV RNA decline after 28 days of treatment compared to tegobuvir + GS-9256 alone (-5.1 log10 vs. -4.1 log10, respectively), indicating that ribavirin might be
an important component of interferon-free DAA combination therapies. SVR data
of these and additional combination therapy regimens are expected in the near
future.
Additional trials investigated all-oral combination regimens with ribavirin in
HCV genotype 2 and 3 patients. 12 weeks of PSI-7977 plus ribavirin resulted in
100% RVR, EOTR, and SVR rates in a small number of treatment-naïve patients
(n=10) (Gane 2011). In contrast, during treatment with the cyclophilin A inhibitor
alisporivir in combination with ribavirin, only approximately 50% of HCV genotype
2 and 3 patients became HCV RNA-negative at treatment week 6 (Pawlotsky 2011).
Nevertheless, these data highlight the impressive potential of all-oral regimens,
when agents with little risk of antiviral resistance development such as nucleoside
analog NS5B inhibitors are used in combination with ribavirin.
Table 3. Selected trials evaluating DAA combination therapies.
DAAs combined  Additional medication  Phase
BMS-650032 (NS3-4A inhibitor)  + / - PEG-IFN α
and ribavirin
II
+ BMS-790052 (N5A inhibitor)
BI-201335 (NS3-4A inhibitor)  + ribavirin
+ / - PEG-IFN α
II
+ BI-207127 (non-nuc. NS5B inhibitor)
GS-9190 (non-nuc. NS5B inhibitor)  + / - ribavirin
+ / - PEG-IFN α
II
+ GS-92568 (NS3-4A inhibitor)
Danoprevir (NS3-4A inhibitor)  followed by PEG-IFN α
and ribavirin
II
+ RG-7128 (nuc. NS5B inhibitor)
Telaprevir (NS3-4A inhibitor)  + / - ribavirin
+ / - PEG-IFN α
II
+ VX-222 (non-nuc. NS5B inhibitor)
PSI-938 (purine nuc. NS5B inhibitor)
-  II
+ PSI-7977 (pyrimidine nuc. NS5B inhibitor)
Novel interferons
Over the last years, attempts have been made to reduce side effects and treatment
discomfort of PEG-IFN α. However, interferons with longer half-life and sustained
plasma concentrations (e.g., albinterferon, a fusion protein of IFN α 2b with human
albumin) have so far shown no overall benefit with respect to SVR rates (Zeuzem
2010). Still promising is the development of pegylated interferon lambda 1 (PEG-IFN lambda 1). Like other type 3 interferons, IFN lambda 1, which is also called
interleukin-29 (IL-29), binds to a different receptor than IFN α, but downstream
signaling pathways of IFN lambda and IFN α are largely comparable. The IFN
lambda receptor is predominantly expressed in hepatocytes. Thus, interferon-related
side effects may be less frequent during PEG-IFN lambda treatment. A Phase I
clinical trial evaluating pegylated interferon lambda with or without ribavirin was
completed (Muir 2010). Interferon lambda was well-tolerated and the majority of
Hepatitis C: New Drugs  257
patients achieved a greater than 2 log10  decline of HCV RNA by 4 weeks.
According to an interim analysis of a subsequent Phase II clinical trial, PEG-IFN
lambda (240 ug, 180 ug, or 120 ug once weekly) was compared to PEG-IFN α-2a.
PEG-IFN lambda at doses of 240 or 180 ug resulted in approximately 10% higher
RVR and approximately 20% higher cEVR rates, a lower frequency of flu-like
symptoms, but with more frequent aminotransferase and bilirubin elevations than
PEG-IFN α-2a  (Zeuzem 2011).
Conclusions
Telaprevir- and boceprevir-based triple therapy of treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced HCV genotype 1 patients results in substantially increased SVR rates
compared to  PEG-INF-α and ribavirin alone. The approval of these agents
represents a major breakthrough in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. However,
successful use of these drugs  will require a precise classification of response
patterns to previous treatment, careful on-treatment monitoring of HCV viral load
and emergence of antiviral resistance as well as of additional side effects and
numerous possible drug-drug interactions. Next-generation NS3-4A protease
inhibitors and NS5A inhibitors may have even more favorable properties than
telaprevir and boceprevir in terms of HCV genotype coverage, safety profiles, less
pronounced drug-drug interactions, or possible once-daily administration. However,
the triple therapy approach has several limitations. First of all, concomitant IFN α
and ribavirin are necessary to avoid the development of antiviral resistance.
Consequently, the efficacy of triple therapy was limited in prior null responders to
PEG-IFN α and ribavirin, and triple therapy cannot be administered to patients with
contraindications to PEG-IFN α or ribavirin. Recent data indicate that the
development of DAA combination therapies in all-oral or quadruple treatment
regimens will likely be a very potent option for these patients. In such DAA
combination regimens, the inclusion of drugs with a high genetic barrier to
resistance such as nucleoside NS5B inhibitors or drugs targeting host factors such as
alisporivir may be important.
References
Afdhal N, O'Brien C, Godofsky E. Valopicitabine alone or with PEG-interferon/ribavirin
retreatment in patients with HCV-1 infection and prior non-reponse to PEGIFN/RBV:
One-year results. J Hepatol 2007;46:5.
Ahmed-Belkacem A, Ahnou N, Barbotte L, et al. Silibinin and related compounds are direct
inhibitors of hepatitis C virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Gastroenterology
2010;138:1112-22. (Abstract)
Ali S, Leveque V, Le Pogam S, et al. Selected replicon variants with low-level in vitro resistance
to the hepatitis C virus NS5B polymerase inhibitor PSI-6130 lack cross-resistance
with R1479. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008;52:4356-69. (Abstract)
Bacon BR, Gordon SC, Lawitz E, et al. Boceprevir for previously treated chronic HCV genotype
1 infection. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1207-17. (Abstract)
Barnard RJ, Zeuzem S, Vierling J, Sulkowski M, Manns M, Long J. Analysis of resistance-associated amino acid variants in non-SVR patients enrolled in a retrospective long-term follow-up analysis of boceprevir phase 3 clinical trials. Hepatology 2011;54:164.
Bartenschlager R, Frese M, Pietschmann T. Novel insights into hepatitis C virus replication and
persistence. Adv Virus Res 2004;63:71-180. (Abstract)

Book on hepatitis from page 258 to 265

Book on hepatitis from page 258 to 265

258  Hepatology 2012
Beaulieu PL. Non-nucleoside inhibitors of the HCV NS5B polymerase: progress in the
discovery and development of novel agents for the treatment of HCV infections. Curr
Opin Investig Drugs 2007;8:614-34. (Abstract)
Brainard DM, Petry A, Van Dyck K, et al. Safety and antiviral activity of MK-5172, a novel HCV
NS3/4A protease inhibitor with potent activity against known resistance mutants, in
genotype 1 and 3 HCV-infected patients. Hepatology 2010;52:706.
Chayama K, Takahashi S, Toyota J, et al. Dual therapy with the NS5A inhibitor BMS-790052
and the NS3 protease inhibitor BMS-650032 in HCV genotype 1b-infected null
responders. Hepatology 2011, in press. (Abstract)
Cooper C, Lawitz E, Ghali P, et al. Antiviral activity of the non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitor,
VCH-759, in chronic hepatitis C patients: Results from a randomized,double-blind,
placebo-controlled, ascending multiple dose study. Hepatology 2007;46:864.
Davis GL, Nelson DR, Terrault N, et al. A randomized, open-label study to evaluate the safety
and pharmacokinetics of human hepatitis C immune globulin (Civacir) in liver
transplant recipients. Liver Transpl 2005;11:941-9. (Abstract)
Erhardt A, Deterding K, Benhamou Y, et al. Safety, pharmacokinetics and antiviral effect of
BILB 1941, a novel hepatitis C virus RNA polymerase inhibitor, after 5 days oral
treatment. Antivir Ther 2009;14:23-32. (Abstract)
Ferenci P, Scherzer TM, Kerschner H, et al. Silibinin is a potent antiviral agent in patients with
chronic hepatitis C not responding to pegylated interferon/ribavirin therapy.
Gastroenterology 2008;135:1561-7. (Abstract)
Flisiak R, Feinman SV, Jablkowski M, et al. The cyclophilin inhibitor Debio 025 combined with
PEG IFN alpha 2a significantly reduces viral load in treatment-naive hepatitis C
patients. Hepatology 2009;49:1460-8. (Abstract)
Flisiak R, Horban A, Gallay P, et al. The cyclophilin inhibitor Debio-025 shows potent anti-hepatitis C effect in patients coinfected with hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency
virus. Hepatology 2008;47:817-26. (Abstract)
Flisiak R, Pawlotsky JM, Crabbe R, Callistru PI, Kryczka W, Häussinger D. Once daily
alisporivir (Debio025) plus pegIFNalfa2a/ribavirin results in superior sustained
virologic response (SVR) in chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 treatment naive patients.
J Hepatol 2011;54:24.
Fridell RA, Wang C, Sun JH, et al. Genotypic and phenotypic analysis of variants resistant to
hepatitis C virus nonstructural protein 5A replication complex inhibitor BMS-790052 in
Humans: In Vitro and In Vivo Correlations. Hepatology 2011, in press. (Abstract)
Gane EJ, Roberts SK, Stedman CA, et al. Oral combination therapy with a nucleoside
polymerase inhibitor (RG7128) and danoprevir for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1
infection (INFORM-1): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation trial. Lancet 2010;376:1467-75. (Abstract)
Gane EJ, Stedman CA, Hyland RH, et al. Once daily PSI-7977 plus RBV: pegylated interferon-alpha not required for complete rapid viral response in treatment-naive patients with
HCV Gt2 or Gt3. Hepatology 2011;54:18.
Gao M, Nettles RE, Belema M, et al. Chemical genetics strategy identifies an HCV NS5A
inhibitor with a potent clinical effect. Nature 2010;465:96-100. (Abstract)
Gaudieri S, Rauch A, Pfafferott K, et al. Hepatitis C virus drug resistance and immune-driven
adaptations: relevance to new antiviral therapy. Hepatology 2009;49:1069-82.
(Abstract)
Hezode C, Hirschfield GM, Ghesquiere W, et al. BMS-790052, a NS5A replication complex
inhibitor, combined with peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin in treatment-navie HCV-gentoype 1 or 4 patients: phase 2b AI444010 study interim week 12 results.
Hepatology 2011;54:115.
Hinrichsen H, Benhamou Y, Wedemeyer H, et al. Short-term antiviral efficacy of BILN 2061, a
hepatitis C virus serine protease inhibitor, in hepatitis C genotype 1 patients.
Gastroenterology 2004;127:1347-55. (Abstract)
Jacobson IM, McHutchison JG, Dusheiko G, et al. Telaprevir for previously untreated chronic
hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2011;364:2405-16. (Abstract)
Jacobson IM, Pockros PJ, Lalezari JP, et al. Virologic response rates following 4 weeks of
filibuvir in combination with pegylated interferon-alpha-2a and ribavrin in chronically
infected HCV genotype1 patients. J Hepatol 2010;52:465.
Janssen HL, Reesink HW, Zeuzem S, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled
safety and anti-viral proof of concept study of miravirsen, an oligonucleotide targeting
Hepatitis C: New Drugs  259
mir-122, in treatment naive patients with gentoype 1 chronic HCV infection.
Hepatology 2010;54:1071.
Kim JL, Morgenstern KA, Griffith JP, et al. Hepatitis C virus NS3 RNA helicase domain with a
bound oligonucleotide: the crystal structure provides insights into the mode of
unwinding. Structure 1998;6:89-100. (Abstract)
Kim JL, Morgenstern KA, Lin C, et al. Crystal structure of the hepatitis C virus NS3 protease
domain complexed with a synthetic NS4A cofactor peptide. Cell 1996;87:343-55.
(Abstract)
Kneteman NM, Howe AY, Gao T, et al. HCV796: A selective nonstructural protein 5B
polymerase inhibitor with potent anti-hepatitis C virus activity in vitro, in mice with
chimeric human livers, and in humans infected with hepatitis C virus. Hepatology
2009;49:745-52. (Abstract)
Koch U, Narjes F. Allosteric inhibition of the hepatitis C virus NS5B RNA dependent RNA
polymerase. Infect Disord Drug Targets 2006;6:31-41. (Abstract)
Lamarre D, Anderson PC, Bailey M, et al. An NS3 protease inhibitor with antiviral effects in
humans infected with hepatitis C virus. Nature 2003;426:186-9. (Abstract)
Landford RE, Hildebrandt-Eriksen ES, Petri A, et al. Therapeutic silencing of microRNA-122 in
primates with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Science 2010;327:198-201.
(Abstract)
Lawitz E, Lalezari JP, Hassanein T, et al. Once-daily PSI-7977 plus peg/RBV in treatment-naive pateitns with HCV GT1: robust end of treatemnt response rates are sustained
post-treatment. Hepatology 2011;54:113.
Lenz O, Fevery B, Vigen L, et al. TMC435 in combination with peginterferon alpha-2a/ribavirin
in treatment-naive patients infected with HCV genotype 1: virology analysis of the
Pillar study. Hepatology 2011;54:985.
Lesburg CA, Cable MB, Ferrari E, Hong Z, Mannarino AF, Weber PC. Crystal structure of the
RNA-dependent RNA polymerase from hepatitis C virus reveals a fully encircled
active site. Nat Struct Biol 1999;6:937-43. (Abstract)
Lin C, Gates CA, Rao BG, et al. In vitro studies of cross-resistance mutations against two
hepatitis C virus serine protease inhibitors, VX-950 and BILN 2061. J Biol Chem
2005;280:36784-91. (Abstract)
Lindenbach BD, Evans MJ, Syder AJ, et al. Complete replication of hepatitis C virus in cell
culture. Science 2005;309:623-6. (Abstract)
Lohmann V, Korner F, Koch J, Herian U, Theilmann L, Bartenschlager R. Replication of
subgenomic hepatitis C virus RNAs in a hepatoma cell line. Science 1999;285:110-3.
Lok AS, Gardiner DF, Lawitz E. Quadruple therapy with BMS-790052, BMS-650032 and Peg-IFN/RBV for 24 weeks results in 100% SVR12 in HCV genotype null responders. J
Hepatol 2011;54:536.
Lorenz IC, Marcotrigiano J, Dentzer TG, Rice CM. Structure of the catalytic domain of the
hepatitis C virus NS2-3 protease. Nature 2006;442:831-5. (Abstract)
Manns M, Reesink H, Berg T, et al. Rapid viral response of once-daily TMC435 plus pegylated
interferon/ribavirin in hepatitis C genotype-1 patients: a randomized trial. Antivir Ther
2011;16:1021-33. (Abstract)
McCown MF, Rajyaguru S, Kular S, Cammack N, Najera I. GT-1a or GT-1b subtype-specific
resistance profiles for hepatitis C virus inhibitors telaprevir and HCV-796. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 2009;53:2129-32. (Abstract)
Meylan E, Curran J, Hofmann K, et al. Cardif is an adaptor protein in the RIG-I antiviral pathway
and is targeted by hepatitis C virus. Nature 2005;437:1167-72. (Abstract)
Moradpour D, Penin F, Rice CM. Replication of hepatitis C virus. Nat Rev Microbiol 2007;5:453-63. (Abstract)
Muir AJ, Shiffman ML, Zaman A, et al. Phase 1b study of pegylated interferon lambda 1 with or
without ribavirin in patients with chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection.
Hepatology 2010;52:822-32. (Abstract)
Nelson DR, Gane EJ, Jacobson IM, Di Bisceglie AM, Alves K, Koziel MJ. VX-222/Telaprevir in
combination with peginterferon-alfa-2a and ribavirin in treatment-naive genotype 1
HCV patients treated for 12 weeks: Zenith study, SVR 12 interim analyses.
Hepatology 2011;54:1442.
Nettles RE, Gao M, Bifano M, et al. Multiple ascending dose study of BMS-790052, an NS5A
replication complex inhibitor, in patients infected with hepatitis C virus genotype 1.
Hepatology 2011, in press. 
260  Hepatology 2012
Pawlotsky JM, Flisiak R, Rasenack J, et al. Once daily alisporivir interferon-free regimens
achieve high rates of early HCV clearance in previously untreated patients with HCV
gentoype 2 or 3. Hepatology 2011;54:1074.
Pockros P, Jensen DM, Tsai N. First SVR data with the nucleoside analogue polymerase
inhibitor mericitabine (RG7128) combined with peginterferon/ribavirin in treatment-naive HCV G1/4 patients: interim analysis of the JUMP-C trial. J Hepatol
2011;54:538.
Pockros P, Nelson D, Godofsky E, et al. High relapse rate seen at week 72 for patients treated
with R1626 combination therapy. Hepatology 2008;48:1349-50. (Abstract)
Pockros PJ, Nelson D, Godofsky E, et al. R1626 plus peginterferon Alfa-2a provides potent
suppression of hepatitis C virus RNA and significant antiviral synergy in combination
with ribavirin. Hepatology 2008;48:385-97. (Abstract)
Poordad F, McCone J Jr, Bacon BR, et al. Boceprevir for untreated chronic HCV genotype 1
infection. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1195-206. (Abstract)
Reesink HW, Fanning GC, Farha KA, et al. Rapid HCV-RNA decline with once daily TMC435: a
phase I study in healthy volunteers and hepatitis C patients. Gastroenterology
2010;138:913-21. (Abstract)
Reesink HW, Zeuzem S, Weegink CJ, et al. Rapid decline of viral RNA in hepatitis C patients
treated with VX-950: a phase Ib, placebo-controlled, randomized study.
Gastroenterology 2006;131:997-1002. (Abstract)
Reiser M, Hinrichsen H, Benhamou Y, et al. Antiviral efficacy of NS3-serine protease inhibitor
BILN-2061 in patients with chronic genotype 2 and 3 hepatitis C. Hepatology
2005;41:832-5. (Abstract)
Rossignol JF, Elfert A, El-Gohary Y, Keeffe EB. Improved virologic response in chronic hepatitis
C genotype 4 treated with nitazoxanide, peginterferon, and ribavirin.
Gastroenterology 2009;136:856-62. (Abstract)
Sarrazin C, Kieffer TL, Bartels D, et al. Dynamic hepatitis C virus genotypic and phenotypic
changes in patients treated with the protease inhibitor telaprevir. Gastroenterology
2007;132:1767-77. (Abstract)
Sarrazin C, Rouzier R, Wagner F, et al. SCH 503034, a novel hepatitis C virus protease
inhibitor, plus pegylated interferon alpha-2b for genotype 1 nonresponders.
Gastroenterology 2007;132:1270-8. (Abstract)
Sarrazin C, Zeuzem S. Resistance to direct antiviral agents in patients with hepatitis C virus
infection. Gastroenterology 2010;138:447-62. (Abstract)
Schiano TD, Charlton M, Younossi Z, et al. Monoclonal antibody HCV-AbXTL68 in patients
undergoing liver transplantation for HCV: results of a phase 2 randomized study.
Liver Transpl 2006;12:1381-9. (Abstract)
Sherman KE, Flamm SL, Afdhal NH, et al. Response-guided telaprevir combination treatment
for hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1014-24. (Abstract)
Sherman KE, Sulkowski M, Zoulim F, Alberti A. Follow-up of SVR durability and viral resistance
in patients with chronic hepatitis C treatetd with telaprevir-based regimens: interim
analysis of the extend study. Hepatology 2011;54:1471.
Shi ST, Polyak SJ, Tu H, Taylor DR, Gretch DR, Lai MM. Hepatitis C virus NS5A colocalizes
with the core protein on lipid droplets and interacts with apolipoproteins. Virology
2002;292:198-210. (Abstract)
Susser S, Vermehren J, Forestier N, et al. Analysis of long-term persistence of resistance
mutations within the hepatitis C virus NS3 protease after treatment with telaprevir or
boceprevir. J Clin Virol 2011. (Abstract)
Tellinghuisen TL, Marcotrigiano J, Rice CM. Structure of the zinc-binding domain of an
essential component of the hepatitis C virus replicase. Nature 2005;435:374-9.
(Abstract)
Wagoner J, Negash A, Kane OJ, et al. Multiple effects of silymarin on the hepatitis C virus
lifecycle. Hepatology 2010;51:1912-21. (Abstract)
Wakita T, Pietschmann T, Kato T, et al. Production of infectious hepatitis C virus in tissue
culture from a cloned viral genome. Nat Med 2005;11:791-6. (Abstract)
Welsch C, Domingues FS, Susser S, et al. Molecular basis of telaprevir resistance due to V36
and T54 mutations in the NS3-4A protease of the hepatitis C virus. Genome Biol
2008;9:R16. (Abstract)
Wohnsland A, Hofmann WP, Sarrazin C. Viral determinants of resistance to treatment in
patients with hepatitis C. Clin Microbiol Rev 2007;20:23-38. (Abstract)
Hepatitis C: New Drugs  261
Zeuzem S, Andreone P, Pol S, et al. Telaprevir for retreatment of HCV infection. N Engl J Med
2011;364:2417-28. (Abstract)
Zeuzem S, Arora S, Bacon B, Box T, Charlton M. Pegylated interferon-lambda shows superior
viral response with improved safety and tolerability versus pegIFN-alfa-2a in hCV
patients (G1/2/3/4): merge phase IIB trhough week 12. J Hepatol 2011;54:538.
Zeuzem S, Asselah T, Angus P, et al. Efficacy of the Protease Inhibitor BI 201335, Polymerase
Inhibitor BI 207127, and Ribavirin in Patients With Chronic HCV Infection.
Gastroenterology 2011, in press. (Abstract)
Zeuzem S, Berg T, Moeller B, et al. Expert opinion on the treatment of patients with chronic
hepatitis C. J Viral Hepat 2009;16:75-90. (Abstract)
Zeuzem S, Buggisch P, Agarwal K, et al. The protease inhibitor GS-9256 and non-nucleoside
polymerase inhibitor tegobuvir alone, with RBV or peginterferon plus RBV in hepatitis
C. Hepatology 2011, in press. (Abstract)
Zeuzem S, Sulkowski MS, Lawitz EJ, et al. Albinterferon Alfa-2b was not inferior to pegylated
interferon-alpha in a randomized trial of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus
genotype 1. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1257-66. (Abstract)
262  Hepatology 2012
15. Management of Adverse Drug Reactions
Martin Schaefer and Stefan Mauss
Introduction
Good adherence is a key factor for success in the treatment of hepatitis C. However,
almost all patients on treatment with interferon and ribavirin will experience adverse
events that can threaten good adherence. Therefore, proactive clinical management
is crucial to avoid suboptimal therapy and treatment discontinuations.
The most common adverse events in patients on treatment with pegylated
interferon plus ribavirin are flu-like symptoms, myalgia, sleep disturbances,
asthenia, gastrointestinal disorders and depressive episodes (Table 1).
Table 1. Incidence of most reported IFN α-induced psychiatric side effects. Data
from Outpatient Department, Essen-Mitte Clinics, Essen.
Psychiatric side effects  Incidence
Fatigue
Sleep disturbances
Irritability
Cognitive disturbances with impairments of concentration and memory
Depressive episodes
Mild
Moderate
Severe
Delirium, psychosis
Suicidal syndrome
50-80%
45-65%
60-85%
45-60%
20-60%
30-60%
20-30%
5-10%
1-6%
<1%
For most adverse events, clinical trials with dose adjustment have not been done,
and because of this, recommendations in this review are necessarily partially based
on clinical experience.
Flu-like symptoms, fever, arthralgia and myalgia
Flu-like symptoms, fever, arthralgia and myalgia appear a few hours after the PEG-IFN injection and may last for up to three days. One common approach is the use of
Management of Adverse Drug Reactions  263
paracetamol or other NSAIDs immediately before or after the injection of
interferon. Flu-like symptoms usually diminish spontaneously over the first weeks
of treatment (Figure 1).
Low platelets are a contraindication for the use of acetylsalicylic acid, diclofenac
or ibuprofen because of the inhibition of platelet aggregation. High doses of
paracetamol may result in liver toxicity. Doses exceeding 2 g/day of paracetamol
are not recommended.
Figure 1. Time course of interferon-associated adverse events.
Gastrointestinal disorders
Nausea can be mitigated by prokinetic agents such as metoclopramide or
domperidone taken before the ribavirin. This may also positively influence the
frequently observed loss of appetite.
Dry mouth has been reported as a result of inhibition of saliva production, a
frequent complication of ribavirin, which may continue after discontinuation of
therapy.
Weight loss
The average weight loss in interferon-based controlled studies is around 6-10% for a
treatment period of 48 weeks (Seyam 2004). This may be predominantly due to loss
of appetite and reduction in calorie intake. The weight loss is rapidly reversible
upon discontinuation of therapy.
Asthenia and fatigue
Asthenia and fatigue are frequent complaints of patients that usually increase slowly
in intensity over the first couple weeks of therapy (Figure 1). In patients with
marked anemia these symptoms can be improved by raising low hemoglobin with
264  Hepatology 2012
the use of erythropoietin, reduction of ribavirin or red blood cell transfusion
(Pockros 2004). Asthenia is also reported by patients without marked anemia. In
these patients hypothyroidism may be the explanation. Symptomatic treatment of
asthenia and fatigue in patients without an underlying complication such as anemia,
depression or hypothyroidism is difficult.
Chronic fatigue has been successfully treated in individual cases with
antidepressants or tryptophan (Sammut 2002; Schaefer 2008). A first prospective
randomised controlled trial showed superior effects of the 5-HT3 receptor
antagonist ondansetron compared to placebo (Piche 2005). However, currently
available data does not offer specific treatment recommendations.
Cough and dyspnea
Cough while on therapy is frequently reported and is most probably due to edema of
the mucosa of the respiratory system. Therefore, advanced, not well-controlled
asthma bronchiale may be a contraindication for hepatitis C therapy. Dyspnea is
another frequent complaint with a more complex etiology involving mucosa
swelling, anemia and asthenia.
Disorders of the thyroid gland
Hypothyroidism while on interferon-based therapy is reported with an incidence of
3-10% (Bini 2004, Tran 2005). Hyperthyroidism is less frequently observed with an
incidence of 1-3% (Bini 2004, Tran 2005). Interferon-induced thyroiditis or the
induction of thyroid antibodies is reported as an underlying mechanism.
Hypothyroidism is treated via substitution of thyroid hormone whereas clinical
symptomatic hyperthyroidism may be treated with ß-blockers or carbimazole.
Premature termination of interferon-based therapy is usually not necessary. About
half of the cases of hypothyroidism are reversible upon discontinuation of
interferon-based therapy, although some cases may need prolonged periods of
thyroid hormone replacement therapy.
Psychiatric adverse events
Incidence and profile of psychiatric adverse events
The most commonly emerging IFN α-induced psychiatric adverse events are
outlined in Table 1. However, data on the frequency of psychiatric side effects
differs depending on the design of the trial. Most hepatological trials are only
monitored for depression as a single symptom without using depression scales or
diagnostic instruments, leading to an underreporting of mild to moderate depressive
episodes. Most psychiatric trials used self-rating scales (e.g., SDS-scale, BDI-Scale)
or monitor patients via expert rating scales (Hamilton Depression Scale [HAMDS]
or Montgomery Asperg Depression Scale [MADRS]) to detect depressive
syndromes and treatment-related mood changes even if total scores do not fulfil
DSM-IV criteria for major depression. Regarding these more sensitive psychiatric
rating methods, over 50% of patients suffer from sleep disorders, chronic fatigue,
irritability or cognitive disturbances (Schaefer 2007,  Schaefer 2002,  Dieperink
2000, Renault 1987). Anxiety occurs in 30-45%, especially during the first 2 months
Management of Adverse Drug Reactions  265
of treatment. Mild depression with symptoms like reduced self-esteem, anhedonia,
loss of interest, rumination, a diminished libido and spontaneous crying can be
observed in 30-60% of the patients. 20-30% of treated patients develop moderate to
severe depressive episodes (Bonnaccorso 2002,  Dieperink 2000,  Renault 1987,
Schaefer 2002, Malaguarnera 2002). Major depression has been reported in 15-55%
(Schäfer 2007). Suicidal ideation is seen in 5-6% of patients, while suicide attempts
have been reported in single cases (Janssen 1994, Sockalingam 2010). Mania has
been reported as a sporadically appearing side effect. Contrary to assumptions,
patients with pre-existing psychiatric disturbances do not appear to have a greater
risk for development of depression or attempting suicide (Schaefer 2007, Schaefer
2003, Pariante 2002). However, patients with intravenous drug abuse not stabilized
in a substitution treatment program (e.g., methadone) seem more likely to
discontinue treatment in the first three months compared to controls (Schaefer 2003,
Mauss 2004, Schaefer 2007).
Antidepressants frequently used in trials are selective serotonin re-uptake
inhibitors (SSRIs) such as citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine or sertraline. The
introduction of SSRIs and other current antidepressants has markedly improved the
adverse event profile of antidepressants. Therefore, depending on the major
symptoms, current sedating or activating antidepressants, especially SSRIs, are
treatment of choice for interferon-induced depressive mood disorders (Table 2). In
patients with predominantly agitation and aggression, other strategies, e.g., modern
antipsychotics, may be added.
The efficacy of antidepressants for the treatment of interferon α-induced
depression has been shown in several open uncontrolled cohorts (Farah 2002,
Gleason 2002, Kraus 2001, Schramm 2000, Hauser 2002, Gleason 2005). In a first
prospective randomized controlled trial an improvement of depressive symptoms
after treatment of IFN-associated depression was shown with citalopram compared
to placebo (Kraus 2008). In particular because of the favourable adverse event
profile, SSRIs seem to be most appropriate for treatment of IFN α-associated
depressive symptoms. However, antidepressants with different receptor profiles
(i.e., mirtazapine) and classic antidepressants (i.e., nortriptyline) are also effective
(Kraus 2001, Valentine 1995). Nevertheless, tricyclic antidepressants should be
used as second choice because of pharmacological interactions, anticholinergic side
effects, a higher risk for development of delirium, and liver or myocardial toxicity.
To reduce early occurring adverse events of SSRIs (headache, nausea, agitation),
treatment with antidepressants should be started at a low dose with subsequent dose
increase depending on the effect and tolerability. In general, a therapeutically
relevant antidepressive effect cannot be expected before day 8-14 of treatment. In
case of non-response, the dose can be escalated. Treatment adherence should be
assessed by monitoring serum levels before patients are switched to a different
antidepressant.
Benzodiazepines can be given for a short period in case of severe sleep
disturbances, irritability or depression. However, benzodiazepines should be
avoided in patients with a history of IV drug or alcohol over-use because of their
potential to induce addiction.
In the case of psychotic symptoms, antipsychotics (e.g., risperidone, olanzapine)
can be used at low doses, but patients should be monitored carefully by a

Book on hepatitis from page 204 to 223

Book on hepatitis from page 204 to 223

204  Hepatology 2012
Table 1. Relevant definitions for HCV treatment.
Abbreviation  Term  Description
SVR  Sustained Virological
Response
HCV RNA negative 6 months after the end of
therapy
SVR-12  Sustained Virological
Response
HCV RNA negative 12 weeks after the end of
therapy; FDA-accepted endpoint for future trials
RVR  Rapid Virological Response  HCV RNA negative after 4 weeks of therapy
eRVR (BOC)  Extended Rapid Virological
Response (for boceprevir)
HCV RNA negative (LLD not LLQ) between
week 8 and week 24 of BOC therapy: RGT
criterion for BOC
eRVR (TLV)  Extended Rapid Virological
Response (for telaprevir)
HCV RNA negative (LLD not LLQ) between
week 4 and week 12 of TLV therapy: RGT
criterion for TLV
EVR  Early Virological Response  HCV RNA decline ≥2 log10 at week 12
cEVR  Complete Early Virological
Response
HCV RNA negative at week 12
NR (BOC)  Nonresponse (boceprevir)  HCV RNA ≥100 IU/mL at week 12; or HCV
RNA positive at week 24; futility rule for BOC
NR (TLV)  Nonresponse (telaprevir)  HCV RNA ≥1000 IU/mL at week 4 or week 12;
or HCV RNA positive at week 12: Futility rule
for TLV
BT  Breakthrough  HCV RNA was LLD but increased to ≥100
IU/mL or increase of HCV RNA ≥ 1log10 during
therapy
RL  Relapse  HCV RNA negative at EOT and recurrence of
HCV RNA during the follow-up of 6 months.
PR  Partial Response  HCV RNA decline ≥2 log10 at week 12 but
positive at week 24 during PEG-IFN/RBV
NULR  Null response  HCV RNA decline <2 log10 at week 12 during
PEG-IFN/RBV
LI  Lead-In  4 weeks PEG-IFN/RBV before adding a PI
LLD, lower limit of detection (<10-15 IU/mL; here indicated as negative); LLQ, lower limit of
quantification; EOT, end of treatment; RGT, response-guided therapy
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  205
Figure 1. Development of chronic hepatitis C therapy. The sustained virologic response
rates have improved from around 5% with interferon monotherapy in the early 90s to >70%
today with triple therapy of PEG-IFN + ribavirin + PI.
Table 2. Approved drugs for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C (2011).
Medication  Dosing
Type I interferons  Subcutaneous injection
Pegylated Interferon α-2a
(Pegasys®)
180 µg once weekly
Pegylated Interferon α-2b (PEG-Intron®)
1.5 µg/kg once weekly
Interferon α-2a (Roferon®)  3 - 4.5 Mill I.U. three times weekly
Interferon α-2b (Intron A®)  3 Mill I.U. three times weekly
Consensus Interferon (Infergen®)  9 µg three times weekly
Ribavirin  Oral tablets or capsules
Ribavirin (Copegus®)  800 - 1200 mg daily (200 mg or 400 mg tablets)
Ribavirin (Rebetol®)  600 - 1400 mg daily (200 mg capsules or solution)
HCV protease inhibitors  Oral tablets or capsules
Boceprevir (Victrelis®)  800 mg (4 x 200 mg capsules) every 7-9 hours
Telaprevir (Incivek®, Incivo®)  750 mg (2 x 375 mg tablets) every 7-9 hours
206  Hepatology 2012
Predictors of treatment response
During the last decade, tailoring treatment duration and dosing according to
individual parameters associated with response have improved SVR. Predicting
SVR before the start of antiviral treatment helps in making treatment decisions.
Important baseline factors associated with SVR to PEG-IFN/RBV are the HCV
genotype, the degree of liver fibrosis and steatosis, baseline viral load, presence of
insulin resistance, age, gender, body mass index, ethnicity, and HIV co-infection
(Berg 2011, McHutchison 2009b). Many of these factors may have less relevance
for triple therapy, i.e., insulin resistance seems not to impact SVR to PEG-IFN/RBV/PI (Berg 2011, Serfaty 2010) whereas low-density lipoprotein (LDL) was
associated with SVR (at least for TLV) (Berg 2011).
On the other hand, new parameters seem to be more important such as HCV
subtype 1a and 1b. Patients with HCV G1a have a higher risk of developing
resistance during PI-based therapy compared to HCV G1b because HCV G1a
requires an exchange of only one nucleotide versus two for HCV G1b in position
155 to develop resistance (reviewed in Sarrazin and Zeuzem 2010b).
During treatment, the kinetics of the HCV RNA decline is a strong predictor of
response. HCV RNA measurements at week 4, 12 and 24 are important for a
response-guided treatment approach for PEG-IFN/RBV but also for the new triple
therapy including BOC and TLV. Definitions of response and futility rules are
summarized in Table 1. (Futility rules means that if at these time points, the viral
load threshold is exceeded or detected in serum, therapy should be stopped.)
Recently, genome-wide association studies have identified host genetic
polymorphisms (i.e., rs12979860, rs8099917) located on chromosome 19 located
upstream to the region coding for IL28B (or IFN λ3) associated with SVR to
treatment with PEG-IFN/RBV in HCV G1 patients (Ge 2009, Rauch 2010, Suppiah
2009, Tanaka 2009) but also to a lesser extent for HCV G2/3 (Mangia 2010c,
Sarrazin 2011b). Data on IL28B explain the different responses to PEG-IFN/RBV
between different ethnic groups, i.e., low SVR in African Americans and high SVR
in Asian patients. However, the negative predictive value is not strong enough to
recommend general testing (EASL 2011). Viral kinetics, especially response at
week 4, have a higher predictive value (Sarrazin 2011a) and the relevance of IL28B
as a predictive marker for the success of triple therapy with PEG-IFN/RBV/PI is
less significant (Jacobson 2011a, Pol 2011a, Poordad 2011a). However, IL28B
testing may be useful to determine the IFN responsiveness and the likelihood of
achieving RVR with PEG-IFN/RBV before starting triple therapy. It may be of
relevance to discuss treatment options with the individual patient (see below).
Additional predictive markers are being evaluated. For example, low serum levels
of interferon γ inducible protein 10 (IP 10) are associated with SVR and may
improve the predictive value for discrimination between SVR and nonresponse
(Darling 2011, Fattovich 2011).
Antiviral resistance
The development of direct antiviral agents leads to the emerging problem of drug
resistance due to so-called resistant-associated amino acid variants (RAVs) of the
virus. Patients who received monotherapy with BOC or TLV develop resistance
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  207
within a few days (Sarrazin 2007). RAVs associated with resistance to BOC and
TLV are listed in Table 3. Due to their overlapping resistance profiles, one PI
cannot substitute the other in the case of viral breakthrough. Also, a combination of
the two PIs is not rationale. As mentioned above, combination with PEG-IFN/RBV
is mandatory for the usage of BOC or TLV and RAVs to BOC and TLV have not
been associated with less sensitivity to PEG-IFN/RBV (Kieffer 2007). Importantly,
if patients have a decreased PEG-IFN/RBV response, the risk of developing
significant RAVs is higher. Measures for the prevention of drug resistance are
adherence to the dose of the medications (most importantly to the PI) and
compliance with the futility rules (see below). If RAVs emerge, it is not completely
known for how long they persist and if this has any significant consequences for
future therapies. Some studies suggest that the majority of resistant variants revert to
wild type 1-2 years after the end of therapy (Sarrazin 2007, Sherman 2011b). At this
stage there is no rationale to routinely analyse HCV sequences either before therapy
or during treatment because it has no practical consequence. Dominant RAVs
before treatment have been documented (Kuntzen 2008) but the influence of
treatment response is not well characterised.
Table 3. Resistant-associated amino acid variants of HCV NS3 protease to
boceprevir and telaprevir (adapted from Sarrazin 2012).
V36A
/M
T54S
/A
V55A  Q80R
/K
R155K
/T/Q
A156S  A156T
/V
D168A
/E/G/H
/T/Y
V170A
/T
BOC  X  X  X    X  X  X    X
TLV  X  X      X  X  X
Treatment of HCV genotype 1
Treatment of naïve patients
Untreated patients with HCV genotype 1 (HCV G1) have various treatment options.
Triple therapy with PEG-IFN+RBV+PI increases the overall SVR by 25-31%
(Table 4). Many patients qualify for response-guided therapy (RGT) based on viral
kinetics. In 44-65% of patients with eRVR treatment duration can be reduced to 24-28 weeks (Figures 2A, 2B), some 4-6 times more than with PEG-IFN/RBV.
However, in patients with favourable predictors for SVR (low baseline HCV RNA,
IL28CC, no advanced fibrosis), dual therapy with PEG-IFN/RBV may still be an
option. In those patients, a lead-in of 4 weeks PEG-IFN/RBV can identify patients
with RVR who achieve high SVR without adding a PI. Patients with low viral load
at baseline who achieve RVR have demonstrated 78-100% SVR with 24 weeks
PEG-IFN/RBV dual therapy alone (Berg 2009, Ferenci 2008, Jensen 2006, Sarrazin
2011a, Zeuzem 2006) (Table 5). Not adding BOC or TLV will reduce costs and
adverse events, two factors that can lead to treatment discontinuation. The number
of patients who qualify for dual therapy may vary depending on the distribution of
IL28B polymorphisms. On the other hand, a lead-in therapy may identify patients
with a poor response to IFN with a high chance of developing resistance. Only 29-31% of patients who have <1 log10 reduction of HCV RNA after 4 weeks PEG-IFN/RBV go on to achieve SVR when they add BOC. Other negative predictors
208  Hepatology 2012
(HCV G1a, cirrhosis) together with the lead-in concept may increase the negative
predictive value of achieving SVR. In that case a wait-and-see strategy may be
considered. The 4-week lead-in strategy also proved useful in assessing compliance,
tolerability and safety before initiating the PI. The lead-in concept was developed in
the BOC studies with the hypothesis of reducing resistance and improving SVR
(Kwo 2010). However, the lead-in phase seems to have no significant effect on the
SVR or on the development of antiviral resistance (Kwo 2010, Zeuzem 2011).
Lead-in has also been evaluated for TLV but only in treatment-experienced patients
(Zeuzem 2011). It is recommended to discuss the lead-in option and the
consequences with the patient before initiation of treatment.
Table 4. Phase III studies with BOC or TLV treatment regimens in treatment naïve
patients with HCV genotype 1. Studies are no head-to-head studies and SVR between
different studies are difficult to compare because they had significant differences in
genetic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Study  Dosing  eRVR, SVR
SPRINT-2
(Poordad 2011b)
N=938 nonblack
(NB)
N=159 black
*28 weeks if
eRVR BOC
a)  1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b, 600-1400 mg
RBV 48 weeks
44 weeks Placebo (wk 4-48)
b)  1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b, 600-1400 mg
RBV 28*-48 weeks
24 weeks 800 mg tid BOC (wk 4-28)
c)  1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b, 600-1400 mg
RBV 48 weeks
44 weeks 800 mg tid BOC (wk 4-48)
a)  eRVR: 40/363 (11%) / NB: 12%
SVR: 137/363 (38%) / NB: 40%
b)  eRVR: 156/368 (42%) / NB: 45%
SVR: 233/368 (63%) / NB: 67%
c)  eRVR: 155/366 (42%) / NB: 44%
SVR: 242/366 (66%) / NB: 68%
ADVANCE
(Jacobson 2011b)
N=1088
*24 weeks if
eRVR TLV
a)  180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg
RBV 24*-48 weeks,
12 weeks 750 mg tid TLV (wk 0-12)
(T12PR)
b)  180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg
RBV 24*-48 weeks,
8 weeks 750 mg tid TLV, 4 weeks
Placebo (wk 0-12)
c)  180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg
RBV 48 weeks,
12 weeks Placebo (wk 0-12)
a)  eRVR: 210/363 (58%)
SVR: 271/363 (75%)**
b)  eRVR: 207/363 (57%)
SVR: 250/364 (69%)
c)  SVR: 158/361 (44%)
ILLUMINATE
(Sherman 2011a)
N=540
N=352 (65%)
eRVR
N=322
randomised
a)  eRVR: 180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg RBV 24 weeks, 12 weeks 750
mg tid TLV (wk 0-12)
b)  eRVR: 180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg RBV 48 weeks, 12 weeks 750
mg tid TLV (wk 0-12)
c)  no eRVR: 180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg RBV 48 weeks, 12 weeks 750
mg tid TLV (wk 0-12)
a)  SVR: 149/162 (92%)
b)  SVR: 140/160 (88%)
c)  SVR: 76/118 (64%)
** numbers from the published data are different from the numbers accepted by the FDA, i.e. 79% SVR for
telaprevir 12 weeks, PEG-IFN/RBV
Treatment regimens with boceprevir
Boceprevir (BOC) is a linear peptidomimetic ketoamide serine protease inhibitor
that binds reversibly to the HCV nonstructural 3 (NS3) active site. BOC results in a
significant decline of HCV RNA but given as monotherapy it leads to rapid
emergence of viral resistance (Sarrazin and Zeuzem 2010b). Thus, combination
with PEG-IFN/RBV is still necessary (Mederacke 2009). 800 mg BOC is given as
200 mg capsules every 7-9 hours together with food in combination with the
optimal dose of PEG-IFN/RBV (Table 2). In all Phase III trials BOC was added
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  209
after the 4-week lead-in period as described above. In SPRINT-2 (serine protease
inhibitor therapy 2), the Phase III study with 1097 treatment-naïve HCV G1
patients, safety and efficacy of two regimens of BOC added to PEG-IFN α-2b/RBV
after a 4-week lead-in with PEG-IFN/RBV were compared to PEG-IFN/RBV/placebo (Table 4) for 44 weeks. The two groups receiving BOC were
treated with an RGT concept or a fixed duration of BOC. Patients in the RGT group
received 24 weeks triple combination after the lead-in period. Treatment with PEG-IFN/RBV was continued through week 48 only if the criteria for eRVR were not
met (HCV RNA levels undetectable from week 8 through week 24). Patients in the
fixed therapy duration group received PEG-IFN/RBV/BOC for 44 weeks following
the 4-week lead-in phase. Based on published data for response rates being lower
for African-American patients, black and non-black patients were analysed as two
different pre-defined cohorts of the SPRINT-2 study. Overall, adding BOC to PEG-IFN/RBV could significantly improve SVR in previously untreated patients with
HCV genotype 1 leading to approval in 2011 (FDA: May; EMA: July). Non-black
patients achieved 27-28% higher SVR, black patients increased SVR by 19-30%.
Table 5. High SVR in naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 and low baseline viral
load treated with 24 weeks of PEG-IFN/RBV.
Study  Treatment  Subgroups
(fast responder)
Weeks  SVR
(Zeuzem
2006)
N=235
1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
800-1400 mg ribavirin
<600,000 IU/ml TW0
<600,000 IU/ml TW0 &
<29 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)
24
24
50%
89%
(Berg
2009)
N=433
1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
800-1400 mg ribavirin
<5.3 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)
<800,000 IU/ml TW0 &
<5.3 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)
18-24
18-24
80%
100%
(Sarrazin
2011a)
N=398
1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
800-1400 mg ribavirin
<800,000 IU/ml TW0 &
<5-10 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)
24 88%
(Jensen
2006)
N=216
180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a or
800 mg or 1000-1200 mg
ribavirin
<50 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)
>50 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)
24
24
89%
19%
(Ferenci
2008)
N=120
180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a or
1000-1200 mg ribavirin
<50 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)  24  74% ITT
79% PP
* SVR, sustained viral response; RVR, rapid virologic response.
The responsiveness to PEG-IFN/RBV is very important for the success of
treatment with BOC. This is emphasized by the fact that the HCV RNA decline at
week 4 is highly predictive of SVR. Patients with more than 1 log10 HCV RNA
decrease after the 4-week lead-in phase demonstrated an SVR of about 80% if
treated with BOC but only 28-38% responded if HCV RNA declined less than 1
log10. Thus, the lead-in phase can be valuable to predict the responsiveness to PEG-IFN/RBV for further individualization of therapy as discussed above (Figure 3).
Importantly, the overall SVR rates between the RGT group and the fixed 48-week
therapy group were comparable (Table 4). Patients achieving eRVR were eligible
210  Hepatology 2012
for a 28-week total therapy duration and almost all patients (96%) went on to
achieve SVR (Poordad 2011b). Of note, HCV RNA negative means below the limit
of detection (LLD) and not below limit of quantification (LLQ). This is important
because SVR is diminished in patients with LLQ at weeks 8-24 who were treated
for a shorter duration (Harrington 2011).
FDA and EMA have approved RGT for treatment naïve patients except for
patients with liver cirrhosis (Figure 2A) but the accepted treatment duration for
BOC-RGT is different to the study design of the Phase III study (32 vs 24 weeks
BOC for patients without eRVR) (Figure 2A). In addition, a retrospective analysis
led to the futility rule of HCV RNA >100 IU/mL at week 12. The predictive value
for nonresponse was 100%. BOC was initially combined with PEG-IFN α-2b.
Recently, a study in therapy-experienced patients including relapsers and partial
responders showed similar results with PEG-IFN α-2a/RBV (Flamm 2011). Thus,
both PEG-IFNs can be combined with BOC.
Treatment regimens with telaprevir
Telaprevir  (TLV) is also an orally administered reversible, selective,
peptidomimetic NS3/4A serine protease inhibitor, which leads to a significant
decline of HCV RNA although viral resistance emerges rapidly if given as
monotherapy (Sarrazin 2007). Thus, 750 mg TLV given as 375 mg tablets every 7-9
hours together with food (ideally >20 g fat) requires combination with optimal
PEG-IFN/RBV. Telaprevir was administered for a maximum of 12 weeks in the
Phase III trials; longer treatment duration is associated with increasing adverse
events (McHutchison 2010). Two large Phase III studies (ADVANCE and
ILLUMINATE) with a total of 1628 treatment-naïve HCV G1 patients showed that
PEG-IFN/RBV/TLV significantly improved SVR compared to PEG-IFN/RBV and
RGT is possible (Jacobson 2011b, Sherman 2011a). TLV was approved for the
treatment of HCV G1 in 2011 (FDA: May; EMA: September). In the ADVANCE
trial, 3 treatment groups were assessed for efficacy and safety  using  RGT in
treatment-naïve patients (Jacobson 2011b). 12 weeks of TLV versus 8 weeks of
TLV in combination with 24-48 weeks PEG-IFN/RBV were compared to 48 weeks
PEG-IFN/RBV dual therapy. Patients who achieved eRVR qualified for 24 weeks
of therapy (Table 4). SVR was significantly higher among those receiving TLV
compared to the placebo group; 12 weeks TLV resulted in the highest SVR (Table
4). In all treatment groups, more than 80% of patients who achieved eRVR had
SVR (89%, 83%, and 97%, respectively) (Jacobson 2011b).
To validate RGT, telaprevir 750 mg every 8 hours for 12 weeks was evaluated in
an open-label study (ILLUMINATE trial) to prospectively assess 24 vs 48 weeks of
treatment for HCV G1 patients who achieved eRVR. If HCV RNA levels were
undetectable at weeks 4 and 12, patients were randomly assigned to continue with
PEG-IFN/RBV for an additional 24 or 48 weeks. If eRVR was not attained, patients
received PEG-IFN/RBV for up to 48 weeks. Of the 540 subjects, 389 (72%)
achieved HCV RNA levels LLD at week 4 and 352 (65%) achieved eRVR. Patients
who achieved eRVR and were randomized to the 24-week cohort experienced 92%
SVR versus 88% who were treated for 48 weeks (Table 4) (Sherman 2011a).
Importantly, patients with liver cirrhosis showed higher relapse rates with shorter
treatment, therefore RGT for TLV has only been approved for naïve HCV G1
patients without liver cirrhosis. Also, retrospective analysis of the data showed that
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  211
early HCV RNA measurement at week 4 is predictive of nonresponse to TLV.
Patients with HCV RNA values >1000 IU/mL after 4 weeks PEG-IFN/RBV/TLV
did not achieve SVR. Therefore, therapy must be stopped.
Figure 2A. Treatment with BOC/PEG-IFN/RBV: Approved treatment algorithm for HCV G1
patients. *, RGT if eRVR (HCV RNA LLD week 8-24); #, EMA did not approve RGT for BOC
regimens in previously treated patients.
Figure 2B. Treatment with TLV/PEG-IFN/RBV: Approved treatment algorithm for HCV G1
patients. *RGT if eRVR (HCV RNA LLD week 4-12).
*** If patients have contraindications for BOC or TLV, dual therapy with PEG-IFN/RBV should
be given for 24-72 weeks according to the HCV RNA decline at week 4 and week 12 (Sarrazin,
Berg, Cornberg 2010 S3-Leitlinie). The treatment algorithm is similar to Figure 6.
212  Hepatology 2012
Figure 3. Suggestion to use the lead-in strategy for individualisation of treatment in
patients with HCV genotype 1. **The number of patients with low baseline HCV RNA and
RVR may vary between different countries due to IL28B differences.
Treatment of patients with prior antiviral treatment failure
As more patients have been treated, the size of the population of patients who have
failed to achieve SVR with PEG-IFN/RBV has expanded. Many nonresponder
patients have advanced liver disease and successful treatment may extend life
expectancy (Backus 2011,  Veldt 2007). Retreatment of patients with previous
treatment failure is one of the most important current topics in the treatment of
chronic hepatitis C.
Definition of treatment failure
Definition of response to or failure on antiviral therapy is very important when
considering retreating patients with chronic hepatitis C because the success of BOC-or TLV-based regimens depends on the IFN responsiveness. Patients may have been
treated with different treatment regimens and compliance during the previous
therapy was probably very varied. Most importantly, HCV RNA kinetics and the
response profile during the previous therapy have to be taken into account before
starting a new treatment. It is crucial to screen the patient’s records and check
treatment duration, drug dosing and HCV RNA of the previous therapy. Non-response is the failure of a patient to clear HCV RNA at any point during treatment.
Definitions used for trials assessing novel therapy approaches have generally
defined non-response as the failure to achieve EVR, which is ≥2 log10 reduction of
HCV RNA after 12 weeks. Classifications of non-response include null response,
partial response, relapse, and breakthrough (see Table 1, Figure 4).
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  213
Figure 4. Different scenarios of treatment failure to antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis
C.
Retreatment of HCV G1 patients with relapse after PEG-IFN/RBV
Retreatment with PEG-IFN/RBV of relapse patients after IFN- or PEG-IFN-based
combination therapy with ribavirin resulted in an SVR of 24-34% (Bacon 2011,
Poynard 2009, Zeuzem 2011). Triple therapy with PEG-IFN/RBV/PI increases SVR
dramatically to 69-88% (Bacon 2011, Zeuzem 2011) (Table 6). Relapse patients are
the ideal patients for retreatment with a triple therapy regimen. Patients have already
proven to respond to PEG-IFN and RBV. Thus, the backbone to prevent PI
resistance is effective and a lead-in strategy may not be as important as in other
situations. Although RGT was not evaluated in the Phase III REALIZE trial with
TLV, a rollover study including relapse patients from Phase II studies has
demonstrated that shorter treatment is effective in patients with eRVR (Muir 2011).
Therefore, RGT is possible with BOC and TLV regimes (Figures 2A, 2B) if
cirrhosis is excluded (Ghany 2011, Sarrazin 2012). In contrast, BOC RGT has only
been approved by the FDA and not by the EMA because SVR was slightly lower in
the RESPOND-2 RGT group (Table 6).
Retreatment of HCV G1 patients with partial response to PEG-IFN/RBV
Patients who are partial responders (PR) to standard PEG-IFN/RBV combination
therapy have demonstrated SVRs ranging between 7% and 15% with a standard
PEG-IFN/RBV retreatment (Bacon 2011, Zeuzem 2011). Retreatment with triple
therapy increases SVR to 40%-59% (Bacon 2011, Zeuzem 2011) (Table 6). FDA
but not EMA approved RGT for BOC (Figures 2A, 2B). Treatment duration for
PEG-IFN/RBV/TLV is 48 weeks for all PR patients (Figure 2B). The 4-7-fold
increase justifies retreatment. However, SVR decreases significantly in patients with
cirrhosis (34% with TLV) and other negative response factors (Pol 2011b).
214  Hepatology 2012
Retreatment of HCV G1 patients with null response to PEG-IFN/RBV
Patients who are null responders (NULR) to standard PEG-IFN/RBV combination
therapy have demonstrated SVRs ranging between 5% and 16% with an optimised
PEG-IFN/RBV retreatment (Jensen 2009, Poynard 2009,  Zeuzem 2011).
Retreatment with PEG-IFN/RBV/PI did increase SVR more than 6-fold in the
REALIZE trial (Zeuzem 2011). However, overall SVR with triple therapy is limited
to 29-38% (Vierling 2011, Zeuzem 2011) (Table 6). If further negative predictive
factors are present, SVR decreases to 27% in HCV G1a patients and to 14% in
cirrhotic patients (not significantly different from PEG-IFN/RBV) (Figure 7A). This
may justify the lead-in concept to decide if treatment with a PI is beneficial. Patients
who do not acheive a 1 log10 decline of HCV RNA after 4 weeks demonstrate only
15% SVR (Zeuzem 2011). Futility rules are the same for treatment-experienced
patients as for treatment-naïve patients (Figures 2A, 2B).
Table 6. Phase III studies with BOC or TLV treatment regimens in treatment-experienced patients infected with HCV genotype 1. Studies are not head-to-head and
SVR between studies are difficult to compare because they had significant differences in
genetic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Study  Dosing  SVR
RESPOND-2
(Bacon 2011)
n=403
*36 weeks
if eRVR BOC
a)  1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b, 600-1400 mg
RBV 48 weeks
44 weeks Placebo (wk 4-48)
b)  1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b, 600-1400 mg
RBV 36*-48 weeks
32 weeks 800 mg tid BOC (wk 4-36)
c)  1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b, 600-1400 mg
RBV 48 weeks
44 weeks 800 mg tid BOC (wk 4-48)
a)  REL: 29%  All: 21%
PR: 7%
b)  REL: 69%  All: 59%
PR: 40%
c)  REL: 75%  All: 66%
PR: 52%
(Flamm 2011)
n=201
a)  180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg
RBV 48 weeks
44 weeks Placebo (wk 4-48)
b)  180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg
RBV 48 weeks
44 weeks 800 mg tid BOC (wk 4-48)
a)  REL, PR: 21%
b)  REL, PR: 64%
PROVIDE
(Vierling 2011)
n=48
(42 available)
1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b, 600-1400 mg
RBV 48 weeks
44 weeks 800 mg tid BOC (wk 4-48)
38% (16/42)
REALIZE
(Zeuzem 2011)
n=663
a)  180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg
RBV 48 weeks,
12 weeks Placebo (wk 0-12)
b)  180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg
RBV 48 weeks,
4 weeks Placebo (wk 0-4), 12 weeks 750
mg tid TLV (wk 4-16)
 Lead-in cohort
c)  180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a, 1000-1200 mg
RBV 48 weeks,
12 weeks 750 mg tid TLV (wk 0-12), 4
weeks Placebo (wk 12-16),
a)  REL: 24%
PR: 15%
NULR: 5%
b)  REL: 88%
PR: 54%
NULR: 33%
c)  REL: 83%
PR: 59%
NULR: 29%
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  215
PEG-IFN maintenance therapy
There has been much interest concerning the use of low-dose PEG-IFN maintenance
therapy in patients with a null response since data has suggested that IFN may halt
progression of liver disease (Nishiguchi 1995). There are two major published trials
that have analysed if maintenance treatment with IFN alters the natural course of
chronic hepatitis C. In the EPIC
3
trial, nonresponders to IFN/RBV with
compensated cirrhosis and no evidence of HCC received 0.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
or no treatment for a maximum period of 5 years or until patients developed clinical
events (hepatic decompensation, HCC, death, or liver transplantation). The study
revealed no significant difference in time to first clinical event among patients who
received PEG-IFN compared with controls (Bruix 2011).
The HALT-C trial, a long-term maintenance study supported by the National
Institutes of Health evaluated a large cohort of chronic HCV-infected patients who
had failed previous IFN-based therapy and had METAVIR stage F2-F4. Patients
received 90 µg PEG-IFN α-2a maintenance treatment if they did not respond during
the first 20 weeks with standard therapy. Despite the fact that there were greater
reductions in viremia, decreases in alanine aminotransferase, and
necroinflammation in the patients who received PEG-IFN, none of the important
clinical outcomes (rates of death, decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, and
increase in fibrosis) were favourably affected by PEG-IFN therapy (Di Bisceglie
2008). In conclusion, long-term treatment with low-dose PEG-IFN cannot be
recommended (Sarrazin 2010a).
Treatment of HCV genotypes 2 and 3
Naïve patients
TLV shows antiviral efficacy against HCV G2 but is not effective against HCV G3
(Foster 2011). Data for BOC have only been presented in abstract form for 400 mg
TID in a small number of patients (Silva 2011). Importantly, both PIs are approved
only for the treatment of HCV G1. Thus, SOC for HCV G2/3 infection remains the
combination of PEG-IFN/RBV. Although a fixed duration of treatment (24 weeks)
has been advocated, the optimal results are likely to be achieved when the duration
of therapy is adjusted based on viral kinetics. Many studies have investigated the
reduction of treatment duration for HCV G2/3 to 16, 14, or even 12 weeks. Overall,
reducing the treatment duration to less than 24 weeks increases the number of
relapses (Andriulli 2008, Dalgard 2008, Mangia 2005, Manns 2011a, Shiffman
2007b). However, some HCV G2/3 patients may indeed be treatable for 12-16
weeks if certain prerequisites are fulfilled, especially the rapid virologic response
(RVR) by week 4 of therapy (Slavenburg 2009). Only patients with RVR have high
SVR rates after 16 weeks (Manns 2011a, von Wagner 2005), 14 weeks (Dalgard
2008), or even 12 weeks of therapy (Mangia 2005) (Table 7).
In addition to the RVR, the specific HCV genotype and the baseline viral load are
associated with response. Patients with HCV G2 respond better to PEG-IFN/RBV
therapy than those infected with HCV G3 (Zeuzem 2004b). Furthermore, the shorter
treatment schedules reveal that HCV G3 patients with low baseline viremia (<400-800,000 IU/ml) had a much better chance of responding than those with high viral
load (>400-800,000 IU/ml) (Shiffman 2007b,  von Wagner 2005). Patients with
216  Hepatology 2012
HCV G3 plus low viral load who achieve RVR can be treated for less than 24
weeks. However, reducing treatment duration is not recommended in patients with
advanced liver fibrosis or cirrhosis, insulin resistance, diabetes mellitus, hepatic
steatosis or BMI >30 kg/m
2
(Aghemo 2006,  Sarrazin 2010a, Sarrazin 2011).
Patients treated with a response-guided approach should be started on high-dose
ribavirin, which appears to increase the rate of RVR in patients with HCV G2/3
undergoing short treatment (Mangia 2010b).
In contrast, HCV G2/3 patients who do not achieve RVR (especially HCV G3 and
high viral load) may be treated for longer than 24 weeks (i.e., 36-48 weeks) (Figure
5). However, most data are retrospective (Willems 2007). A prospective study from
Italy showed a numerically significant benefit of 36 weeks versus 24 weeks (75%
vs. 62%) (Mangia 2010a). Further prospective studies investigating treatment
extension to 36 or 48 weeks are ongoing. Depending on the assay used to determine
RVR, around 25-30% of HCV G2/3 patients belong to this difficult-to-treat
population not achieving RVR (Table 8). Tailoring treatments individually for
patients with HCV G2/3 will reduce costs and side effects and further optimise the
response rates.
Figure 5. Recommendation for treatment of HCV genotypes 2 and 3. Sensitive HCV RNA
assays (limit of detection 12-15 IU/ml or 50 IU/ml) at weeks 4 and 12 may determine treatment
duration. Reducing treatment duration is not recommended in patients with liver cirrhosis,
insulin resistance, diabetes mellitus or hepatic steatosis.
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  217
Table 7. Response-guided therapy for patients with HCV genotypes 2 and 3.
Study  Treatment  Subgroups  Therapy
weeks
SVR*
(von Wagner
2005)
n=153
180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a
800-1200 mg ribavirin
>600 IU/ml TW4
<600 IU/ml TW4
24
24
36%
80%, 84% if HCV
RNA<800,000 IU/ml
<600 IU/ml TW4  16  82%, 93% if HCV
RNA<800,000 IU/ml
(Shiffman
2007b)
n=1469
180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a
800 mg ribavirin
All patients
All patients
<50IU/ml TW4 (RVR)
<50IU/ml TW4 (RVR)
<400,000IU/ml TW0
(LVL)
<400,000IU/ml TW0
(LVL)
24
16
24
16
24
16
70%
62%
85%
79%
81%
82%
(Mangia
2005)
n=283
1.0 µg PEG-IFN α-2b
1000-1200 mg ribavirin
Standard group 24 76%
Standard group 24 91% if TW4 HCV RNA
<50 IU/ml
>50 IU/ml TW4 (no RVR) 24 64%
<50 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)  12  85%
(Dalgard
2008)
n=428
1.5 µg PEG-IFN α-2b
800-1400 mg ribavirin
<50 IU/ml TW4 (RVR) 24 91% ITT, 93% with F24
HCV RNA test
<50 IU/ml TW4 (RVR)  14  81% ITT, 86% with F24
HCV RNA test
>50 IU/ml TW4 (no-RVR)  24  55% ITT, 59% with F24
HCV RNA test
(Manns
2011a)
n=682
1.0 µg PEG-IFN α-2b
1.5 µg PEG-IFN α-2b
800-1400 mg ribavirin
All patients 24 (1.5)67% ITT, 82% as treated
All patients 24 (1.0) 64% ITT, 80% as treated
All patients  16 (1.5) 57% ITT, 68% as treated
* SVR, sustained viral response; RVR, rapid virologic response; LVL, low baseline viral
load.
218  Hepatology 2012
Table 8. SVR of patients with HCV genotypes 2 or 3 not achieving RVR.
Study  Frequency of patients
without RVR
SVR without RVR
(24 wks therapy)
(von Wagner 2005)
180 µg PEG-IFN
α-2a 800-1200 mg ribavirin
7%
(HCV RNA >600 IU/ml TW4)
36%
(Shiffman 2007b)
180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a
800 mg ribavirin
36%
(HCV RNA >50 IU/ml TW4) (24 wk group)
45%
(Mangia 2005)
1.0 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
1000-1200 mg ribavirin
36%-38%
(HCV RNA >50 IU/ml TW4)
48%-64%
(Dalgard 2004)
1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
800-1400 mg ribavirin
22%
(HCV RNA >50 IU/ml TW4/TW8)
56%
(Dalgard 2008)
1.5 µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
800-1400 mg ribavirin
29%
(HCV RNA >50 IU/ml TW4)
55%
Treatment of HCV G2/3 patients with prior antiviral
treatment failure
Patients with relapse after a short course of PEG-IFN/RBV show adequate SVR
after retreatment for 24 weeks (Mangia 2009). In patients with unfavourable
predictors,  longer treatment duration for 48 weeks is advisable  (EASL 2011).
Nonresponders can be retreated with an additional course of PEG-IFN/RBV. It is
important to optimise dose and duration of treatment. HCV G2 nonresponders may
benefit from retreatment with PEG-IFN/RBV/PI (so far only data for TLV). Triple
therapy is off-label but may be considered in difficult to treat HCV G2 patients with
an urgent treatment indication. Future DAAs will be pan-genotypic and therefore
also effective for HCV G3 (see Chapter 14). Nonresponder patients with mild
fibrosis may therefore wait for new treatment options, but  it is important to
understand that fibrosis progression is faster in patients with HCV G3 (Bochud
2009).
Treatment of HCV genotypes 4, 5, and 6
BOC and TLV have hardly been tested in patients with HCV G4, 5, or 6. Neither PI
is approved for the treatment of HCV G4, 5, or 6. Thus, SOC remains the
combination of PEG-IFN/RBV. In general, treatment duration of 48 weeks is
recommended based on the results of the large, randomized Phase III trials (Fried
2002, Hadziyannis 2004, Manns 2001). However, these trials included few patients
with HCV G4, 5, and 6 and further large, prospective randomized studies with RGT
are rare. Importantly, HCV G4, 5, and 6 are very common in areas where chronic
hepatitis C is highly prevalent. For example, HCV G4 is most prevalent in the
Middle East and Egypt where it accounts for >80% of all HCV cases
(approximately 34 million patients) (Khattab 2011). HCV G5 is most prevalent in
South Africa, and genotype 6 in Southeast Asia (Nguyen 2005). The available study
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  219
results, although limited, suggest that patients with HCV G4, 5 and 6 may show
different clinical courses and treatment outcomes. Ethnicity-related factors (i.e.,
IL28B, regional aspects) may contribute to these findings. Overall, data from
smaller studies suggest that HCV G4, 5 and 6 appear easier-to-treat compared to
HCV G1 but the optimal treatment duration is not clear (Antaki 2010, Nguyen
2005) (Table 9). Although some studies show SVR on the same order as for HCV
G2/3 patients, a fixed duration of 24 weeks of treatment as for HCV G2/3 is not
advisable, even for patients with HCV G6, which appears to show the best SVR
(Lam 2010, Nguyen 2008). RGT based on early viral kinetics should be possible.
Patients who achieve RVR are candidates for a short treatment regimen of 24 weeks
if they don’t have predictors of poor response (see above). Based on data for HCV
G1 (Berg 2006,  Sanchez-Tapias 2006), patients without RVR and/or partial
response may be considered for 72 weeks. This has been proposed for HCV G4 by
an international expert panel (Khattab 2011), but the evidence is limited. The
proposed algorithm is shown in Figure 6. We suggest treating HCV G5 and 6 also
according to this algorithm. Patients with treatment failure may be considered for
retreatment, especially if the previous therapy was suboptimal. It is important to
optimise dose and duration of treatment during retreatment.
Figure 6. Suggestion for treatment of HCV genotypes 4, 5, and 6. This algorithm was
initially proposed for HCV G4 (adapted Khattab 2011). Sensitive HCV RNA assays (limit of
detection 12-15 IU/ml or 50 IU/ml) at weeks 4 and 12 may determine treatment duration.
Reducing treatment duration is not recommended in patients with predictors of poor response
(liver cirrhosis, insulin resistance, diabetes mellitus or hepatic steatosis, high baseline viral load
>800,000 IU/mL).
220  Hepatology 2012
Table 9. Efficacy of antiviral treatment with PEG-IFN plus ribavirin in patients with
chronic hepatitis C infected with genotypes 4, 5, and 6. Selected trials.
Study  Treatment  HCV genotype/Duration  SVR
(Diago 2004)
n=49
180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a
800/1000/1200 mg ribavirin
G4  24 weeks
24 weeks
48 weeks
48 weeks
0% (if low RBV)
67% (if high RBV)
63% (if low RBV)
79% (if high RBV)
(Hasan 2004)
n=66
1.5µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
1000/1200 mg ribavirin
G4  48 weeks
48 weeks
48 weeks
68%
55% (if HVL)
86% (if LVL)
(Kamal 2005)
n=287
1.5µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
1000/1200 mg ribavirin
G4  24 weeks
36 weeks
48 weeks
29%
66%
69%
(Kamal 2007)
n=358
1.5µg/kg PEG-IFN α-2b
10.6 mg/kg ribavirin
RGT
G4  24 weeks RGT
36 weeks RGT
48 weeks RGT
48 weeks
86% (if RVR)
76% (if cEVR)
56% (if EVR)
58%
(Ferenci
2008)
n=66
180 µg PEG-IFN α-2a
1000/1200 mg ribavirin
RGT
G4  24 weeks RGT  87% (if RVR)
(Bonny 2006)
n=59
PEG-IFN α-2a or b
800-1200 mg ribavirin
G5  48 weeks  58%
(Lam 2010)
n=60
PEG-IFN α-2a
800-1200 mg ribavirin
G6  24 weeks
48 weeks
70%
79%
(Nguyen
2008)
n=35
PEG-IFN α-2a or b
800-1200 mg ribavirin
G6  24 weeks
48 weeks
39%
75%
RBV, ribavirin; LVL, low baseline viral load; HVL, high baseline viral load; RGT, response-guided therapy
Optimisation of HCV treatment
Adherence to therapy
Adherence to therapy is one of the most important factors associated with the
success of antiviral treatment (McHutchison 2002). The definition of adherence
used here is the “80/80 rule”, that is, patients who receive more than 80% of the
medication and are treated for more than 80% of the planned duration of treatment
are considered adherent. One of the first studies investigating the effect of
adherence in PEG-IFN/RBV treatment demonstrated that patients who fulfilled the
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  221
80/80 rule had a 63% SVR compared to 52% of those with less than 80% adherence
(McHutchison 2002). Another study showed that a cumulative ribavirin dose of
more than 60% is important to achieve an SVR (Reddy 2007). For the new triple
therapy, adherence to the PI becomes even more important as mentioned above. The
three-times-daily regimen necessitates highly motivated and compliant patients.
BOC and TLV have to be taken every 7-9 hours together with food. Reduction of
the PI or irregular intake bears the risk for rapid emergence of drug resistance. Dose
reduction of the PI is associated with significantly diminished SVR (Gordon 2011)
and is therefore not an option to manage side effects. An optimal management of
PEG-IFN/RBV side effects therefore is essential in order to optimise treatment
responses. In the case of anemia, dose reduction of ribavirin is possible and not
associated with impaired SVR to triple therapy (Roberts 2011). Another important
and new issue is drug interactions that can diminish the effectiveness of the PI or
induce toxicity of concomitant medications, which may lead to discontinuation of
all drugs. Knowledge about drug interactions is therefore important for the optimal
management of patients receiving PEG-IFN/RBV/PI.
Management of side effects and complications
Severe side effects may reduce adherence to therapy and may result in dose
modifications that result in a less-than-optimal response. IFN, ribavirin and the new
protease inhibitors induce side effects that have to be managed with the patient
(Table 10). The IFN-related side effects can be divided into IFN-induced bone
marrow suppression, flu-like symptoms, neuropsychiatric disorders, and
autoimmune syndromes. The main problem of ribavirin is hemolytic anemia.
Boceprevir and telaprevir are associated with additional side effects such as rash or
dysgeusia and additionally an increase of anemia (Table 10) (Jacobson 2011b,
Manns 2011b, Vertex 2011, Zeuzem 2011). Overall, side effects result in premature
withdrawals from therapy (5-17% during triple therapy depending on the duration of
therapy (Jacobson 2011b)) and additional patients require dose modifications during
treatment. The frequency of treatment discontinuations and dose modifications are
lower in recent studies, suggesting an improved understanding and management of
adverse events (Manns 2006). Similar developments are expected also for treatment
with PIs. For example, the reported cases of rash decreased from 60% in Phase II
(McHutchison 2009a) to 36% in the Phase III trial (Jacobson 2011b). However, the
frequency of adverse events that occurred in registration trials with carefully
selected patients may differ from general clinical practice, where patients with, e.g.,
history of psychiatric disorders or advanced liver disease are being treated. For
example, factors significantly associated with developing anemia on TVR were
older age and advanced fibrosis (Roberts 2011).
IFN side effects
The effect of IFN on bone marrow results in decreased granulocytes and
thrombocytes during treatment. These are usually moderate if normal counts are
initially present. However, dose modifications are necessary, especially in patients
with initially low counts (Manns 2006). This limits the use of IFN in patients with
advanced liver cirrhosis who often have low platelets and are also more vulnerable
to infections. Therapeutic concepts in order to raise platelet levels safely would have
222  Hepatology 2012
a significant effect on the effective management of patients, especially those with
advanced liver disease.
A promising novel agent is the oral thrombopoietin receptor agonist eltrombopag
that has been tested in patients with chronic hepatitis C and liver cirrhosis
(McHutchison 2007). Eltrombopag was able to increase platelet levels in 75-95% of
patients depending on the dose, and antiviral therapy was then initiated. Twelve
weeks of antiviral therapy were then taken by 36-65% of patients receiving 30-75
mg of eltrombopag vs only 6% of patients in the placebo group (McHutchison
2007). A recent Phase III study including patients with platelets <75 K/µl has shown
that eltrombopag pretreatment for 9 weeks and later combination with PEG-IFN/RBV could significantly increase SVR in comparison to eltrombopag
pretreatment and later PEG-IFN/RBV/placebo (Afdhal 2011). Neutropenia is
another of the most common reasons for dose modification.
Granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF, Filgrastim) could
potentially be used to stabilize neutrophil counts during IFN therapy (Shiffman
1998, Younossi 2008). While administration of GM-CSF may enable patients to
remain on treatment, a systematic review documented only weak evidence that this
improves the likelihood of SVR compared to dose reduction (Tandon 2011). The
economic evaluation was inconclusive, therefore further cost-benefit analyses and
trials are required to recommend routine use of these agents. However, IFN-induced
neutropenia is generally not associated with a significant increased risk for bacterial
infections (Soza 2002).
Flu-like symptoms usually occur during the first weeks of treatment and severity
declines over time. These symptoms include fever, chills, headache, arthralgia, and
myalgia. Antipyretic drugs such as paracetamol can help to prevent or reduce these
side effects (Manns 2006).
Neuropsychiatric side effects such as irritability, severe fatigue, and apathy are
frequent (>50%) and pose a great problem for many patients and their family
members. Severe depression can occur and suicide has been reported (Janssen
1994). Psychiatric care and the use of antidepressants, especially serotonin uptake
inhibitors (SSRIs) may help reduce IFN-induced depression and consequently
improve adherence to hepatitis C therapy. A double-blind placebo-controlled study
in 100 patients with chronic hepatitis C was terminated prematurely due to
significant superiority of SSRIs over placebo in terms of decreasing scores on the
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). All SSRI-treated patients were
able to complete IFN treatment (Kraus 2008). SSRI treatment is highly effective in
HCV patients during IFN-based therapies, when starting early after the onset of
clinically relevant depression. Of note, citalopram should no longer be used at doses
greater than 40 mg per day because it can cause prolongation of the QT interval on
the electrocardiogram. This may be of relevance during triple therapy.
IFN has immunomodulatory properties, and treatment can induce autoimmune
phenomena (Wesche 2001). The most frequent problem is the development of
autoimmune thyroiditis. In most cases thyroiditis starts with hyperthyroidism that
later turns into hypothyroidism. Autoimmune thyroiditis has been reported in up to
20% of patients during IFN-based therapies (Costelloe 2010). However, only a few
patients develop thyroid disease that requires ongoing therapy (Costelloe 2010, Tran
2011). Patients with preexisting thyroid antibodies may have a higher risk and it is
Standard Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection  223
possible that hepatitis C itself may be a cause of autoimmune thyroiditis (Ganne-Carrie 2000).
Other autoimmune diseases can also be aggravated by IFN therapy (e.g., diabetes
or autoimmune hepatitis). Patients with documented HCV infection may get worse
during IFN treatment if an underlying autoimmune hepatitis is present. This has
been observed particularly in LKM antibody-positive individuals. These patients
require careful monitoring if IFN is considered as first-line treatment. However, IFN
therapy seems to be safe in most HCV/anti-LKM-1-positive patients (Dalekos 1999,
Todros 1995).
Ribavirin side effects
The main side effect of ribavirin is hemolytic anemia that frequently results in
ribavirin dose reduction or even discontinuation, which may significantly affect the
SVR with PEG-IFN/RBV alone (Reddy 2007). Treatment with erythropoietin
(EPO) can reverse ribavirin-associated anemia and allow full adherence to ribavirin
therapy (Afdhal 2004). Although the use of EPO can reduce the incidence and
severity of ribavirin induced anemia, there is limited evidence that EPO has an
effect on SVR. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial has evaluated the effect
of EPO on SVR. Patients receiving PEG-IFN α-2b plus 13.3 mg/kg/day ribavirin
were compared to patients receiving PEG-IFN α-2b, 13.3 mg/kg/day ribavirin and
40,000 U/week EPO. Although there were significantly fewer ribavirin dose
reductions in those patients who received EPO, no improvement in SVR  was
shown. A third group received a higher starting dose of 15.2 mg/kg/day in
combination with EPO and they did show a significantly higher SVR but there was
no control group in this trial (Shiffman 2007a).  A placebo-  controlled trial
investigated the use of 30,000 U/week EPO or placebo in addition  to PEG-IFN/RBV when hemoglobin reduced to ≤12 g/dL in men and ≤11 g/dL in women.
SVR was not significantly improved with EPO. Overall, EPO may improve quality
of life, and in some individuals it may also improve the chance of achieving an SVR
(in those requiring high doses of RBV). However, EPO use is off-label. Alternative
ribavirin-like drugs with less toxicity and/or higher antiviral efficacy have failed
(Benhamou 2009, Marcellin 2010). Drug monitoring of ribavirin could be an option
to optimise the ribavirin dose without losing efficacy (Svensson 2000). The
pharmacokinetics of ribavirin suggests that not only body weight but also renal
function (glomerular filtration rate) should be considered when selecting the
ribavirin dose (Bruchfeld 2002). Importantly, RBV is considered as teratogenic and
therefore contraindicated during and 6 months after pregnancy. Effective birth
control measures are necessary (Sarrazin 2010a).
Protease inhibitor side effects
Both BOC and TLV were associated with more frequent and severe anemia.
Approximately 1-1.5 g/dL additional decrease of hemoglobin can be expected. The
different treatment duration of both drugs results in different grades and duration of
anemia.  In the BOC trials, approximately 50% of patients receiving BOC
experienced anemia, compared to 29% of participants who did not receive the drug
(Poordad 2011b). Of note, treatment with EPO was allowed in the BOC trials.
Participants in the TLV trial were not permitted to receive EPO and anemia rates
were 36% and 17% for patients who did or did not receive the drug, respectively

.

Powered By Blogger

Search This Blog