Tag Archives: sofusbuvir

The Future is Now (for Hepatitis C)

Posted on by

Three more impressive hepatitis C (HCV) studies have been published (in print):

  1. NEJM 2014; 370: 1973-82
  2. NEJM 2014; 370: 1983-92
  3. NEJM 2014; 370: 1993-2001

In the commentary on these three studies (pages 2043-47), the authors note that only a year ago, they had “speculated that highly effective interferon-free regimens would be available and should revolutionize the treatment of HCV infection…Now, we would have to say that the future is here.”

In the first study, “TURQUOISE-II,” 380 patients with Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis received either 12 weeks or 24 weeks of ritonavir (ABT-450/r), ombitasvir (ABT-267), dasabuvir (ABT-333) and ribavirin.  In the 12 week group, the sustained virologic response (SVR) was 91.8% whereas the 24 week group had an SVR of 95.9%.

In the second study, “PEARL-III and PEARL-IV,” 419 patients with genotype Ib and 305 patients with genotype 1a received 12 weeks of ritonavir, ombitasvir, dasavuvir, and ribavirin (or placebo) for 12 weeks.  For genotype 1b, SVR were 99.5% with ribavirin and 99% without ribavirin.  For genotype 1a, SVR were 97% and 90.2% respectively.

In the third study, “VALENCE,” among 419 patients with genotype 2 or 3 (21% with cirrhosis, and 58% previous interferon-based treatment), patients were treated with sofusbuvir-ribavirin or placebo for 12 weeks; the genotype 3 patients treatment was extended to 24 weeks (unblinded) after data emerged indicating a need for longer treatment course.  For the genotype 2 patients, SVR was met in 93%.  For genotype 3 patients, 85% who received a 24 week course had an SVR.

Key Points (from editorial):

  • In the first two studies, SVR was approximately 96% in untreated and treated patients without cirrhosis.
  • Patients with cirrhosis had a response rate of approximately 90%.
  • Ethnicity, IL28B, and baseline HCV RNA were not important factors in predicting response.
  • “In the era of potent DAA (direct-acting antivirals), …response-guided therapy is no longer necessary” because by week 4 of treatment, 99% of patients had non-quantifiable HCV RNA.
  • Drug resistance against these DAAs is common in preclinical studies; therefore, combination regimens are important.  “In the case of sofosbuvir and ledipasvir, a two-drug combination is sufficient…Sofosbuvir seems to have a high genetic barrier to resistance.”
  • “Perhaps the more important achievement of these interferon-free regimens is the lower rate and severity of side effects.”

Related (recent) blog posts:

HCV Treatments: “Sticker Shock” or “Low Value”

Posted on by

Two more commentaries/articles on hepatitis C virus treatments help with the perspective of cost.

In the first (Hepatology 2014; 59: 1246-49), the authors note that costs with HCV treatment have escalated along with improvements in SVR rates.  And, though the new 12-week therapy costs will exceed $84,000, they point out that current total cost of “therapy to achieve SVR…including management of complications, the price of treatment actually increases to $172,889 to $188,859 per SVR.”  They also note that HIV therapy averages $2000-$5000 a month and due to lifelong need, this exceeds more than one-half million dollars in treatment cost.  In addition, they note that gents like interferon have side effects that can be life-threatening. “Still, it remains unanswered if the new [HCV] agents are worth their price.”

In the second from GI Hep News, Panel calls new hepatitis C drug ‘low value.’

Here is an excerpt:

A panel of California medical experts says two new, once-daily drugs for hepatitis C represent low-value treatment alternatives for the condition because of their high price tags.

The drugs, Gilead Sciences’ sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) and Johnson & Johnson’s simeprevir (Olysio), cost more than $1,000 per pill, pushing the price for the recommended 12-week course of treatment of sofosbuvir to close to $90,000 and treatment with simeprevir to around $66,000, according to the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), an independent group originally convened by the insurance industry to evaluate costs and benefits of treatments….

Replacing current care with sofosbuvir-based regimens would increase drug expenditures by $18-$29 billion per year in California alone, the report estimated. Gilead Sciences has maintained that the drug’s up-front costs are justified given that it could decrease the number of patients who ultimately suffer liver failure and need transplants. However, CTAF said it would take 20 years for payers to recoup two-thirds of the drug’s cost.

Take-home message: The newest and best HCV treatments are costly.  These drugs may really boost medical tourism where these drugs will be sold a lot more cheaply.

Related blog posts:

 

 

It is Hard to Keep Track…

Posted on by

of all the new Hepatitis C virus (HCV) studies that are being published.  A recent study shows that the combination of sofusbuvir with either ledipasvir or GS-9669 was effective for HCV genotype 1 infections (Gastroenterol 2014; 146: 736-43).

Two years ago publication of this study would have been met with incredible enthusiasm.  However, now this study, while important, is part of a big trend showing that oral HCV therapies are going to make the treatment of HCV easier, safer, and expensive.  Ledipasvir (LDV) is a NS5A inhibitor and  GS-9669 is a NS5B non-nucleoside inhibitor.

The particulars of this study:  113 patients were enrolled.  All patients received sofusbuvir (400 mg daily).  LDV was dosed at 90 mg daily and GS-9669 at 500 mg daily.  Three of the four treatment arms used ribavirin (RBV) with 1000 mg for those patients <75 kg and 1200 mg for those patients >75 kg.

Four arms:

  1. SOF/LDV/RBV 12 weeks–n=25 treatment-naive (TN)/n=9 null responders (NR)
  2. SOF/GS-9669/RBV 12 weeks –n=25 TN/10 NR
  3. SOF/LDV or SOF/LDV/RBV 12 weeks–n=19 NR with cirrhosis
  4. SOF/LDV/RBV for 6 weeks –n=25 TN (noncirrhotic)

Key Results:

  • Group 1 had SVR12 of 100%, group 2 had SVR 12 of 92%, and group 4 (6 week Rx) had SVR12 of 68%.
  • Among cirrhotic NR, SVR12 was achieved in 9 (100%) of those with triple therapy (SOF/LDV/RBV) and 7 (70%) of those with SOF/LDV dual therapy.

Take home message: Oral direct-acting agents in combination are effective in all groups of patients affected by HCV, included those with cirrhosis and prior null responders.

An editorial (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 533-36) titled “The End of Hepatitis C” indicates that “interferon-free treatment is likely to become the new standard of care within the next 12-18 months.”  However, the potential price tag for treating 3.2 million infected individuals in the U.S. would be about $270 billion in drug costs alone.

A related NEJM article: (link) “Curing Chronic Hepatitis C –The Arc of a Medical Triumph.”  And another study, (link) Sapphire II, showed the effectiveness of other oral agents for HCV.  This study examined ombitasvir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir in 394 patients.

More HCV study results will be reviewed later this week on this blog.

Related blog posts:

 

HCV Website -No “Cat on The Roof”

Posted on by

A joke I heard a long time ago:

A guy asks his friend to check up on his cat while he is away on a trip.  He calls to see how kitty is doing.  His friend says, “Sorry but she died.”  In response, he tells his friend, “you should have broken me the news a lot more gently.  Maybe you could have said she was up on the roof and the next time I called it would have been easier to accept the news.”  A few years pass and he again asks his friend for a favor, this time to check up on his grandmother while he is away on a trip.  He calls to see how granny is doing.  His friend says, “Oh, she is up on the roof.”

The AASLD and “the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), in collaboration with the International Antiviral Society-USA (IAS-USA), announced the launch of a new website,HCVguidelines.org, that offers up-to-date recommendations for testing, managing, and treating hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.”

The website clearly dismisses the previous established breakthrough treatments of telaprevir and boceprevir “because they are markedly inferior.”

For anyone who has been confused with the onslaught of new work on HCV, the website spells out in clear detail the best regimens for HCV treatment now that both sofusbuvir and simeprevir are available.

Bottomline: The website makes it clear that both telaprevir and boceprevir are up on the roof.

Related blog posts:

Moving to All Oral Therapy for Hepatitis C

Posted on by

Two more studies show the promise of all oral treatment for Hepatitis C virus:

  • NEJM 2014; 370: 211-21.
  • NEJM 2014; 370: 222-32.

A summary of these articles is available at the following link: http://t.co/Z8jMPKoLGz.

Here is an excerpt:

Hepatitis C treatment isn’t pretty, but the dark days of weekly injections, rough side effects and no guarantee of full recovery from the liver-damaging disease may soon be over, researchers report.

Two studies, both published in the Jan. 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, involved giving various combinations of antiviral pill cocktails to patients with hepatitis C. Some had failed to respond to standard treatments, and some had not received treatment yet. Yet, the cocktails cleared the virus in both studies for between 93 percent and 98 percent of the patients…

The first study, conducted by Johns Hopkins researchers, included 211 men and women with hepatitis C who took two pill-form antiviral medications, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir. The patients were treated at 18 medical centers in the United States and Puerto Rico. They took 60 milligrams of daclatasvir and 400 milligrams of sofosbuvir for either 12 or 24 weeks, with or without a third drug, ribavirin….

98 percent of the 126 previously untreated patients and 98 percent of 41 patients whose infections had not cleared despite treatment with standard hepatitis C therapy, were considered cured. “There was no detectable virus in their blood three months after the treatment stopped,” he noted.

The second study, headed up by researchers at Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, involved more than eight medical centers in the United States and internationally. It included 571 patients with hepatitis C, some of whom had not received treatment previously and others who had previously received standard treatments with interferon injections and ribavirin — an antiviral drug that when given reduces relapses — but had not responded to them.

The participants were randomly assigned to take any of three combinations of antiviral pills — medications called ABT-450, ABT-267, and ABT-333 — for eight, 12 or 24 weeks…

Almost all of the patients (more than 93 percent in both groups) saw the virus cleared from their systems within 24 weeks.

Bottomline: Once daily treatment with a combination of medicines will be an effective and safe cure for more than 90% of individuals with HCV. Whether these agents will be affordable remains in doubt.

Related blog posts:

 

More Cents in Value-Added Care

Posted on by

While health policy experts of all political backgrounds agree that moving to a value-based (rather than volume-based) payment is worthwhile, there are many problems with this that were alluded to in the previous post. As an aside, I would like to see sports teams move to a value-based system so that I don’t have to hear that my team is paying its worst-performing players gobs of money.

Due to the potential pitfalls in transitioning to a value-based care system, an alternative strategy of working on the relative-value units (RVUs) has been advocated (NEJM 2013; 369: 2176-79).  RVUs has provided a “uniform, formulaic metric for myriad clinical services” and serve as the method for setting fee-for-service payments for both Medicare and private insurance.

“Ideally, physicians’ work would be reimbursed on the basis of metrics that signal whether their clinical services efficiently improve patient outcomes and that use effective clinical risk adjustment. In reality, using patient outcomes as a basis for payment can work well at the health-system level, but small samples and inadequate risk adjustment limit their use for individual physicians and many group practices.”

Advantages of using an RVU-based system over other pay-for-performance benchmarks:

  • Long experience with RVUs (developed in 1988)
  • RVUs influence care delivery.  “RVU distortions drove the development of …(ambulatory) procedural centers and the movement of cardiac imaging from physicians’ offices to hospital outpatient units.” This was “associated with a tripling of the proportion of cardiologists employed by hospitals.”
  • RVUs can be weighted towards activities that improve patient outcomes and high-value clinical services.  Proposed examples: increased RVUs for smoking cessation counseling, and increased RVUs for stenting within 60 minutes for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction
  • To start, “RVU levels for cognitive clinical work could be increased and those for procedural work could be decrease to create incentives for primary care services.”

Disadvantages of RVUs:

  • RVU levels are set  by the American Medical Association’s Relative Value Update Committee; the process for setting RVUs is secretive and proprietary (though these can be modified by Medicare or other insurance companies)
  • RVU levels are not designed for team-based care

Bottomline: “Ultimately, refining this durable, well-entrenched system may be preferable to replacing it with unproven alternatives.”

Update -Last week I overestimated cost of sofusbuvir for hepatitis C (only $84,000 rather than $90,000), each pill is $1000, nyti.ms/1d6YxNk :

Gilead said the wholesale cost of Sovaldi, which is known generically as sofosbuvir, would be $28,000 for four weeks — or $1,000 per daily pill. That translates to $84,000 for the 12 weeks of treatment recommended for most patients, and $168,000 for the 24 weeks needed for a hard-to-treat strain of the virus.

Better HCV Treatments Approved

Posted on by

Both Simeprevir and Sofusbuvir have been approved unanimously by FDA panel.

Excerpt from AP report on simeprevir  (full link: ow.ly/qarKM from AGA twitter feed):

All 19 members of the Food and Drug Administration’s panel of virus experts voted in favor of approving J&J’s simeprevir, a daily pill designed to eliminate the most common form of hepatitis C.  The FDA is not required to follow the group’s recommendations, though it often does. A decision on the drug is expected next month.

Roughly 3.2 million people in the U.S. have hepatitis C, a blood-borne disease that causes liver damage and is blamed for 15,000 deaths a year…

New Brunswick, N.J.-based J&J is seeking approval to combine its pill with the long-established drug cocktail used to treat the most common form of the virus.

Despite the unanimous vote Thursday, the panel’s endorsement came with a number of conditions.

The panelists stressed that the drug is less effective in patients with a common genetic mutation called Q80K, and that people with the abnormality should be screened out so they can receive other drugs. The group also said the drug’s label should warn patients and doctors that sunburn is a common side effect. Finally, panelists said that the FDA should require J&J to conduct additional studies of the drug’s effectiveness in minorities, especially African-Americans who are disproportionately infected…

The FDA meeting comes as federal health officials urge all baby boomers to get tested for the virus…

J&J’s simeprevir appears to be slightly more effective than the standard of care, curing 80 percent of patients who had not previously been treated for the disease, according to studies submitted to the FDA. More significantly, the drug helped most patients cut the amount of time they had to take the traditional drug cocktail, with its unpleasant side effects, to six months rather than one year. Additionally, panelists said the drug’s once-a-day dosage should be far more manageable for patients than the current drugs from Merck and Vertex, which require taking 12 pills or six pills a day, respectively.

And for Sofusbuvir from Reuters (FDA panel backs Gilead hepatitis C drug sofosbuvir)

The FDA advisory panel voted 15 to 0 in favor of approval of the drug in patients with two variants of the liver-damaging disease – genotype 2 and genotype 3 – in combination with an existing treatment, ribavirin.

If approved, it will be the first all-oral treatment for genotypes 2 and 3, obviating the need for the injectable drug interferon, which can cause debilitating side effects. Panelists called the vote “historic” and a “game-changer.”

“Our patients have been waiting for this for a long time,” said Dr. Curt Hagedorn, chief of medicine service at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare Service.

The panel also voted unanimously to approve the drug in patients with genotype 1 and genotype 4 variants in combination with ribavirin and interferon in patients who have not received prior therapy.

Related blog posts:

Emerging Targets for Hepatitis C -Part 1

Posted on by

The latest advances in hepatitis C are related in several recent publications:

  1. Hepatology 2013; 57: 2143-54.
  2. Hepatology 2013; 57: 2155-63.
  3. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 612-619.

The first two studies provide specific information about the effectiveness of Faldaprevir combined with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin (PEG/RBV) in treatment-naive patients and patients with prior nonresponse respectively.  The third reference provides the big picture regarding all of the emerging treatments.

In the first study, the “SILEN-C1” phase 2 trial, 429 patients without cirrhosis were randomized to several treatment arms.  423 of the 429 patients were genotype 1.  This large study involved 89 centers in 15 countries.  All of the treatment groups received PEG/RBV along with either placebo, faldaprevir 120 mg with lead-in (LI), faldaprevir 240 mg LI and faldaprevir 240 mg without LI.   Faldaprevir is a NS3/4A protease inhibitor which can be administered orally once a day.  Results: SVR achieved in 56% (placebo), 72% (faldaprevir 120mg LI), 72% (faldaprevir 240 mg LI), and 84% (faldaprevir 240 mg without LI).  Discontinuation rates were 1%, 4%, 11%, and 5% for the aforementioned treatment groups.

In the second study, the “SILEN-C2” trial, 290 non cirrhotic genotype 1 patients with either no response or partial response to previous treatment underwent a 48 week treatment trial with a similar design as the SILEN-C1. Results: SVR rates among partial responders were 32% (faldaprevir 240 mg LI), 50% (faldaprevir 240 mg without LI), and 42%(faldaprevir 240 mg BID/LI).  Among null responders, SVR rates were 21% (faldaprevir 240 mg LI), 35% (faldaprevir 240 mg without LI), and 29% (faldaprevir 240 mg BID/LI).  Adverse reactions were higher in those on higher doses and included anemia, rash, indirect hyperbilirubinemia, and nausea. Discontinuation rates were 6%, 4%, and 23% for the aforementioned treatment groups.

The third study provides a landscape of current treatment and emerging treatments.  Given the improvement in SVR among genotype 1 patients, the use of either telaprevir or boceprevir in combination with PEG/RBV is the “new standard of care” among adult patients with HCV.  Studies supporting telaprevir include the ADVANCE study, the REALIZE trial, and the OPTIMIZE study.  For boceprevir, its effectiveness was demonstrated with SPRINT-2, and RESPOND-2.

Both boceprevir and telaprevir, are NS3/4A serine protease inhibitors and are considered direct acting antivirals (DAAs). On the horizon:

  • Simeprevir -NS3/4A protease inhibitor.  Studies: PILLAR, ASPIRE.  SVR: 75-86% in treatment-naive patients. Once daily, no rash or increased anemia.  Hyperbilirubinemia can occur.
  • Faldaprevir -see above studies.
  • Danoprevir -NS3/4A protease inhibitor. Study: DAUPHINE. For genotypes 1 and 4. 100% SVR in genotype 4.  Rates of withdrawal with danoprevir were similar to placebo.
  • Daclatasvir -NS5A replication inhibitor. Study: COMMAND-1. For genotypes 1 and 4.
  • Sofosbuvir -NS5B polymerase inhibitor. Studies: PROTON, ATOMIC. For genotypes 1, 4, and 6.
  • Multiple DAAs in combination. Studies: MATTERHORN, INFORM-SVR, AVIATOR, ELECTRON, SOUND-2

Related blog posts: