Omicron BA.1-containing mRNA-1273 boosters compared with the original COVID-19 vaccine in the UK: a randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The omicron BA.1 bivalent booster is used globally. Previous open-label studies of the omicron BA.1 (Moderna mRNA-1273.214) booster showed superior neutralising antibody responses against omicron BA.1 and other variants compared with the original mRNA-1273 booster. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters with the original mRNA-1273 vaccine in a large, randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In this large, randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial in the UK (28 hospital and vaccination clinic sites), individuals aged 16 years or older who had previously received two injections of any authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccine, with or without an mRNA vaccine booster (third dose), were randomly allocated (1:1) using interactive response technology to receive 50 µg omicron BA.1 monovalent or bivalent vaccines or 50 µg mRNA-1273 administered as boosters via deltoid intramuscular injection. The primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity at day 29, including prespecified non-inferiority and superiority of booster immune responses, based on the neutralising antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios of the monovalent and bivalent boosters compared with mRNA-1273. Safety was assessed in all participants who received first or second boosters, and primary immunogenicity outcomes were assessed in all participants who received the planned booster dose, had pre-booster and day 29 antibody data, had no major protocol deviations, and who were SARS-CoV-2-negative. The study is registered with EudraCT (2022-000063-51) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05249829) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 16 and March 24, 2022, 724 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 monovalent (n=366) or mRNA-1273 (n=357), and between April 2 and June 17, 2022, 2824 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 bivalent (n=1418) or mRNA-1273 (n=1395) vaccines as second boosters. Median durations (months) between the most recent COVID-19 vaccine and study boosters were similar for omicron BA.1 monovalent (4·0 months [IQR 3·6-4·7]) and mRNA-1273 (4·1 [3·5-4·7]), and for the omicron BA.1 bivalent (5·5 [4·8-6·2]) and mRNA-1273 (5·4 [4·8-6·2]) boosters. The omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters elicited superior neutralising GMCs against the omicron BA.1 variant compared with mRNA-1273, with GMC ratios of 1·68 (99% CI 1·45-1·95) and 1·53 (1·41-1·67) at day 29 post-booster doses in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both boosters induced non-inferior ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (Asp614Gly) immune responses with GMCs that were similar for the bivalent (2987·2 [95% CI 2814·9-3169·9]) versus mRNA-1273 (2911·3 [2750·9-3081·0]) and lower for the monovalent (2699·7 [2431·3-2997·7] vs 3020·6 [2776·5-3286·2]) boosters, with respective GMC ratios of 1·05 (99% CI 0·96-1·15) and 0·82 (95% CI 0·74-0·91). Results were comparable regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Incidences of solicited adverse reactions with the omicron BA.1 monovalent (335 [91·3%] of 367 participants) and omicron BA.1 bivalent (1285 [90·4%] of 1421 participants) boosters were similar to those observed previously for mRNA-1273, with no new safety concerns identified and no occurrences of fatal adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Omicron-containing booster vaccines generated superior immunogenicity against omicron BA.1 and comparable immunogenicity against the original strain with no new safety concerns. It remains important to continuously monitor the immune responses and real-world vaccine effectiveness as divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge. FUNDING: Moderna.

Safety, immunogenicity and antibody persistence of a bivalent Beta-containing booster vaccine against COVID-19: a phase 2/3 trial.

Updated immunization strategies are needed to address multiple severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. Here we report interim results from an ongoing, open-label phase 2/3 trial evaluating the safety and immunogenicity of the bivalent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine candidate mRNA-1273.211, which contains equal mRNA amounts encoding the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Beta variant spike proteins, as 50-µg (n = 300) and 100-µg (n = 595) first booster doses administered approximately 8.7-9.7 months after the mRNA-1273 primary vaccine series ( NCT04927065 ). The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of mRNA-1273.211 and to demonstrate non-inferior antibody responses compared to the mRNA-1273 100-µg primary series. Additionally, a pre-specified immunogenicity objective was to demonstrate superior antibody responses compared to the previously authorized mRNA-1273 50-µg booster. The mRNA-1273.211 booster doses (50-µg or 100-µg) 28 days after immunization elicited higher neutralizing antibody responses against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Beta variant than those elicited 28 days after the second mRNA­1273 dose of the primary series ( NCT04470427 ). Antibody responses 28 days and 180 days after the 50-µg mRNA-1273.211 booster dose were also higher than those after a 50-µg mRNA-1273 booster dose ( NCT04405076 ) against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 and Beta, Omicron BA.1 and Delta variants, and all pre-specified immunogenicity objectives were met. The safety and reactogenicity profile of the bivalent mRNA-1273.211 booster (50-µg) was similar to the booster dose of mRNA-1273 (50-µg). Immunization with the primary series does not set a ceiling to the neutralizing antibody response, and a booster dose of the bivalent vaccine elicits a robust response with titers that are likely to be protective against COVID-19. These results indicate that bivalent booster vaccines can induce potent, durable and broad antibody responses against multiple variants, providing a new tool in response to emerging variants.

Immune response to SARS-CoV-2 after a booster of mRNA-1273: an open-label phase 2 trial.

Rising breakthrough infections of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in previously immunized individuals have raised concerns for the need for a booster vaccine dose to combat waning antibody levels and new variants. Here we report the results of the open-label, non-randomized part B of a phase 2 trial in which we evaluated the safety and immunogenicity of a booster injection of 50 µg of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine mRNA-1273 in 344 adult participants immunized 6-8 months earlier with a primary series of two doses of 50 µg or 100 µg of mRNA-1273 ( NCT04405076 ). Neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 at 1 month after the booster were 1.7-fold (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 1.9) higher than those at 28 days after the second injection of the primary series, which met the pre-specified non-inferiority criterion (primary immunogenicity objective) and might indicate a memory B cell response. The nAb titers against the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) (exploratory objective) at 1 month after the booster were 2.1-fold (95% CI: 1.8, 2.4) higher than those at 28 days after the second injection of the primary series. The seroresponse rate (95% CI (four-fold rise from baseline)) was 100% (98.7, 100.0) at 28 days after the booster compared to 98.3% (96.0, 99.4) after the primary series. The higher antibody titers at 28 days after the booster dose compared to 28 days after the second dose in the phase 3 COVE study were also observed in two assays for anti-spike IgG antibody measured by ELISA and by Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) Multiplex. The frequency of solicited local and systemic adverse reactions after the booster dose was similar to that after the second dose in the primary two-dose series of mRNA-1273 (50 µg or 100 µg); no new signals were observed in the unsolicited adverse events; and no serious adverse events were reported in the 1-month follow-up period. These results show that a booster injection of mRNA-1273 more than 6 months after completing the primary two-dose series is safe and elicited nAb titers that were statistically significantly higher than the peak titers detected after the primary vaccination series, suggesting that a booster dose of mRNA-1273 might result in increased vaccine effectiveness against infection and disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Safety and Immunogenicity of a 100 µg mRNA-1273 Vaccine Booster for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2).

Importance: Due to the emergence of highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variants, evaluation of boosters is needed. Objectives: Evaluate safety and immunogenicity of 100-µg of mRNA-1273 booster dose in adults. Design: Open-label, Phase 2/3 study. Setting: Multicenter study at 8 sites in the U.S. Participants: The mRNA-1273 100-µg booster was administered to adults who previously received a two dose primary series of 100-µg mRNA-1273 in the phase 3 Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) trial, at least 6 months earlier. Intervention: Lipid nanoparticle containing 100-µg of mRNA encoding the spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 (Wuhan-HU-1). Main Outcomes and Measures: Solicited local and systemic adverse reactions, and unsolicited adverse events were collected after vaccination. Primary immunogenicity objectives were to demonstrate non-inferiority of the neutralizing antibody (nAb) response against SARS-CoV-2 based on the geometric mean titer (GMTs) and the seroresponse rates (SRRs) (booster dose vs. primary series in a historical control group). nAbs against SARS-CoV-2 variants were also evaluated. Results: The 100-µg booster dose had a greater incidence of local and systemic adverse reactions compared to the second dose of mRNA-1273 as well as the 50-µg mRNA-1273 booster in separate studies. The geometric mean titers (GMTs; 95% CI) of SARS-CoV-2 nAbs against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 at 28 days after the 100-µg booster dose were 4039.5 (3592.7,4541.8) and 1132.0 (1046.7,1224.2) at 28 days after the second dose in the historical control group [GMT ratio=3.6 (3.1,4.2)]. SRRs (95% CI) were 100% (98.6,100) at 28 days after the booster and 98.1% (96.7,99.1) 28 days after the second dose in the historical control group [percentage difference=1.9% (0.4,3.3)]. The GMT ratio (GMR) and SRR difference for the booster as compared to the primary series met the pre-specified non-inferiority criteria. Delta-specific nAbs also increased (GMT fold-rise=233.3) after the 100-µg booster of mRNA-1273. Conclusions and Relevance: The 100-µg mRNA-1273 booster induced a robust neutralizing antibody response against SARS-CoV-2, and reactogenicity was higher with the 100-µg booster dose compared to the authorized booster dose level in adults (50-µg). mRNA-1273 100-µg booster dose can be considered when eliciting an antibody response might be challenging such as in moderately or severely immunocompromised hosts. Trial Registration: NCT04927065.

Antiviral Activity, Safety, and Tolerability of Multiple Ascending Doses of Elbasvir or Grazoprevir in Participants Infected With Hepatitis C Virus Genotype-1 or -3.

PURPOSE: Elbasvir (MK-8742) and grazoprevir (MK-5172; Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey) are hepatitis C virus (HCV)-specific inhibitors of the nonstructural protein 5A phosphoprotein and the nonstructural protein 3/4A protease, respectively. The aims of these studies were to evaluate the antiviral activity and safety of different doses of elbasvir or grazoprevir each administered as monotherapy to participants infected with either HCV genotype (GT) 1 or GT3. METHODS: These 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, sequential-panel, multiple ascending dose studies were conducted to assess the safety and pharmacodynamics of 5 days of once-daily elbasvir or 7 days of once-daily grazoprevir in adult male participants chronically infected with either HCV GT1 or GT3. FINDINGS: Oral administration of elbasvir or grazoprevir once daily exhibited potent antiviral activity in participants with chronic GT1 or GT3 HCV infections. HCV RNA levels declined rapidly (within 1 day for elbasvir and 2 days for grazoprevir). At 50 mg of elbasvir once daily, the mean maximum reductions in HCV RNA from baseline were 5.21, 4.17, and 3.12 log10 IU/mL for GT1b-, GT1a-, and GT3-infected participants, respectively. At 100 mg of grazoprevir once daily, the mean maximum reductions in HCV RNA from baseline were 4.74 and 2.64 log10 IU/mL for GT1- and GT3-infected participants. IMPLICATIONS: The results in the elbasvir monotherapy study showed that 10 to 50 mg of elbasvir was associated with a rapid decline in HCV viral load; the results in the grazoprevir monotherapy study suggest that doses of 50 mg of grazoprevir and higher are on the maximum response plateau of the dose-response curve for GT1-infected participants. The results of these proof-of-concept studies provided preliminary data for the selection of the dosages of elbasvir and grazoprevir to test in Phase II and III clinical studies. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00998985 (Protocol 5172-004) and NCT01532973 (Protocol 8742-002).

Safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination regimen of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with or without ribavirin in participants with and without cirrhosis with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection (C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2, part B): two randomised, phase 2, open-label trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies with excellent efficacy across genotypes and in diverse populations. Part A of the C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2 trials led to the selection of a three-drug regimen of grazoprevir (MK-5172; an HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor; 100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (MK-8408; an NS5A inhibitor; 60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (MK-3682; an HCV NS5B polymerase inhibitor; 450 mg/day). Part B of the studies tested this combination as a single formulation in different treatment durations in a broader population. METHODS: Part B of these randomised, phase 2, open-label clinical trials enrolled individuals from 15 countries who were chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1-6 (HCV RNA ≥10 000 IU/mL) with or without compensated cirrhosis. Those with genotype 1, genotype 2, genotype 4, or genotype 6 were treatment-naive; those with genotype 3 could be treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Randomisation occurred centrally using an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system. Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment for 8, 12, or 16 weeks with a fixed-dose combination of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with or without ribavirin. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of all study therapy (SVR12), defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification (either target detected unquantifiable or target not detected [<15 IU/mL]). The trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02332707 and NCT02332720. FINDINGS: 676 participants were randomly assigned between Feb 18, 2015, and Aug 16, 2016. In all 675 participants who received at least one dose of study drug (full analysis set), SVR12 for the 8-week regimen of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with and without ribavirin was achieved in 39 (93% [95% CI 81-99]) of 42 participants with genotype 1a, 45 (98% [88-100]) of 46 with genotype 1b, 54 (86% [75-93]) of 63 with genotype 2, 98 (95% [89-98]) of 103 with genotype 3, and seven (100% [59-100]) of seven participants with genotype 4. SVR12 for the 12-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 87 (99% [95% CI 94-100]) of 88 participants with genotype 1, 61 (98% [91-100]) of 62 with genotype 2, and four (100% [40-100]) of four with genotype 6. Among participants with cirrhosis who were infected with genotype 3, SVR12 for the 12-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 28 (97% [95% CI 82-100]) of 29 of those who were treatment-naive and 29 (100% [88-100]) of 29 who were treatment-experienced. SVR12 for the 16-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 26 (100% [95% CI 87-100]) of 26 participants with genotype 2 infection and 72 (96% [89-99]) of 75 participants with genotype 3 infection. The most common adverse events were headache (143 [22%] of 664), fatigue (129 [19%] of 664), and nausea (83 [13%] of 664). 16 (2%) of 664 participants had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The combined regimen of grazoprevir (100 mg/day), ruzasvir (60 mg/day), and uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day) has the potential to provide a simplified treatment for HCV that is effective and well tolerated in most individuals infected with HCV, as well as a shorter duration of treatment in many individuals. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Safety and efficacy of an 8-week regimen of grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir compared with grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir in participants without cirrhosis infected with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1, 2, or 3 (C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2, part A): two randomised, phase 2, open-label trials.

BACKGROUND: New hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies with pan-genotypic efficacy are needed. The goals of part A of C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2 were to compare the efficacies of two doses (300 mg or 450 mg once daily) of uprifosbuvir (MK-3682; NS5B inhibitor) in an 8-week regimen combined with grazoprevir (NS3/4A inhibitor; 100 mg once daily) and an NS5A inhibitor, either elbasvir (50 mg once daily) or ruzasvir (MK-8408; 60 mg once daily), and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of these combination regimens in individuals infected with genotypes 1, 2, or 3. METHODS: Part A of these phase 2, randomised, multicentre, open-label, clinical trials enrolled participants from 11 countries, aged 18 years or older, chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1, 2, or 3, with HCV RNA of at least 10 000 IU/mL, without evidence of cirrhosis, who had not received previous treatment for HCV infection. Within each HCV genotype, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a block size of 4, to open-label treatment to one of four treatment groups: grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (300 mg/day); grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day); grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus elbasvir (50 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (300 mg/day); or grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus elbasvir (50 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day), according to a computer-generated allocation schedule. Randomisation was centrally implemented using an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12; HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantitation at 12 weeks after the end of all study therapy) in the per-protocol analysis set, which included all participants who were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02332707 and NCT02332720. FINDINGS: 241 participants were randomised between Feb 18, 2015, and March 16, 2015. 240 participants completed 8 weeks of treatment and reached follow-up 12 weeks after the end of treatment. Of the four regimens, grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg had the most consistently high SVR12 (>90%) for participants infected with genotype 1 (21 [91%] of 23), genotype 2 (15 [94%] of 16), and genotype 3 (20 [91%] of 22). In particular, among those with genotype 2 infection, the grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg regimen had a higher SVR12 (15 [94%] of 16) than the grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 300 mg regimen (ten [71%] of 14), grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir 300 mg regimen (11 [69%] of 16), or grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg regimen (nine [60%] of 15). Overall, the most common adverse events were headache (55 [23%] of 240), fatigue (47 [20%] of 240), and nausea (32 [13%] of 240). Two (<1%) of 240 participants had serious adverse events (pharyngeal abscess and keratitis), which were not considered drug related by the respective investigators. INTERPRETATION: These results support further evaluation of the three-drug direct-acting antiviral agent regimen of grazoprevir 100 mg plus ruzasvir 60 mg plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg among a more diverse HCV-infected population, including those with compensated cirrhosis, previous treatment with an interferon-containing regimen, and HCV-HIV co-infection. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Short-duration treatment with elbasvir/grazoprevir and sofosbuvir for hepatitis C: A randomized trial.

Direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) represent the standard of care for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Combining DAAs with different mechanisms may allow for shorter treatment durations that are effective across multiple genotypes. The aim of the C-SWIFT study was to identify the minimum effective treatment duration across multiple genotypes. C-SWIFT was an open-label, single-center trial in treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype (GT)1 or 3 infection. All patients received elbasvir (EBR) 50 mg/grazoprevir (GZR) 100 mg with sofosbuvir (SOF) 400 mg for 4-12 weeks. Patients with GT1 infection who failed therapy were eligible for retreatment with EBR/GZR+SOF and ribavirin for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virological response [SVR]12 (SVR of HCV RNA <15 IU/mL 12 weeks after the end of therapy). Rates of SVR12 were 32% (10 of 31) and 87% (26 of 30) in patients without cirrhosis with GT1 infection treated for 4 and 6 weeks and 80% (16 of 20) and 81% (17 of 21) in GT1-infected patients with cirrhosis treated for 6 and 8 weeks. Among GT3-infected patients without cirrhosis, SVR12 was 93% (14 of 15) and 100% (14 of 14) after 8 and 12 weeks. SVR12 in GT3-infected patients with cirrhosis was 83% (10 of 12) after 12 weeks of treatment. Twenty-three GT1-infected patients who relapsed following initial treatment completed retreatment; all achieved SVR12. In the initial treatment phase, there was one serious adverse event of pneumonia, which led to treatment discontinuation, and during retreatment, 1 patient discontinued ribavirin because of pruritus. CONCLUSION: Data from this study support the use of 8-week treatment regimens that maintain high efficacy, even for patients with HCV GT3 infection. Retreatment of patients who failed short-duration therapy was achieved through extended treatment duration and addition of ribavirin. (Hepatology 2017;65:439-450).

Effectiveness of Elbasvir and Grazoprevir Combination, With or Without Ribavirin, for Treatment-Experienced Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Infection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1, 4, or 6, with or without cirrhosis, previously treated with peg-interferon and ribavirin, are a challenge to treat. We performed a phase 3 randomized controlled open-label trial to assess the effects of 12 or 16 weeks of treatment with once-daily elbasvir (an HCV NS5A inhibitor, 50 mg) and grazoprevir (an HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor, 100 mg), in a fixed-dose combination tablet, with or without twice-daily ribavirin, in this patient population. METHODS: We analyzed data from 420 patients (35% with cirrhosis, 64% with a null or partial response to peg-interferon and ribavirin) who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to groups given elbasvir and grazoprevir once daily, with or without twice-daily ribavirin, for 12 or 16 weeks, at 65 study centers in 15 countries in Europe, Asia, and Central and North America. Randomization was stratified by cirrhosis status and type of peg-interferon and ribavirin treatment failure. HCV RNA was measured using COBAS TaqMan v2.0. The primary end point was HCV RNA <15 IU/mL, 12 weeks after completion of treatment (SVR12). We aimed to determine whether the proportion of patients achieving an SVR12 in any group was greater than the reference rate (58%). RESULTS: With 12 weeks of treatment, an SVR12 was achieved by 92.4% of patients given elbasvir and grazoprevir and 94.2% of patients given elbasvir and grazoprevir with ribavirin. With 16 weeks of treatment, an SVR12 was achieved by 92.4% of patients given elbasvir and grazoprevir and 98.1% of patients given elbasvir and grazoprevir with ribavirin. Among patients treated for 12 weeks without ribavirin, virologic failure occurred in 6.8%, 0%, and 12.5% of patients with HCV genotype 1a, 1b, or 4 infection, respectively. Among patients given elbasvir and grazoprevir for 12 weeks, virologic failure occurred in 0% of patients infected with HCV genotypes 1 and 4 who relapsed after completing peg-interferon and ribavirin, and 7.5% infected with HCV genotypes 1 and 4, respectively, with a null or partial response to peg-interferon and ribavirin. Among patients treated for 16 weeks who received ribavirin, there were no incidences of virologic failure. Common adverse events were fatigue (23.1%), headache (19.8%), and nausea (11.0%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination tablet of elbasvir and grazoprevir, with or without ribavirin, was highly efficacious in inducing an SVR12 in patients with HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection failed by previous treatment with peg-interferon and ribavirin, including patients with cirrhosis and/or a prior null response. The treatment was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT02105701.

Elbasvir-Grazoprevir to Treat Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Persons Receiving Opioid Agonist Therapy: A Randomized Trial.

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in persons who inject drugs (PWID). Objective: To evaluate elbasvir-grazoprevir in treating HCV infection in PWID. Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02105688). Setting: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Patients: 301 treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1, 4, or 6 infection who were at least 80% adherent to visits for opioid agonist therapy (OAT). Intervention: The immediate-treatment group (ITG) received elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks; the deferred-treatment group (DTG) received placebo for 12 weeks, no treatment for 4 weeks, then open-label elbasvir-grazoprevir for 12 weeks. Measurements: The primary outcome was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), evaluated separately in the ITG and DTG. Other outcomes included SVR24, viral recurrence or reinfection, and adverse events. Results: The SVR12 was 91.5% (95% CI, 86.8% to 95.0%) in the ITG and 89.5% (95% CI, 81.5% to 94.8%) in the active phase of the DTG. Drug use at baseline and during treatment did not affect SVR12 or adherence to HCV therapy. Among 18 patients with posttreatment viral recurrence through 24-week follow-up, 6 had probable reinfection. If the probable reinfections were assumed to be responses, SVR12 was 94.0% (CI, 89.8% to 96.9%) in the ITG. One patient in the ITG (1 of 201) and 1 in the placebo-phase DTG (1 of 100) discontinued treatment because of an adverse event. Limitation: These findings may not be generalizable to PWID who are not receiving OAT, nor do they apply to persons with genotype 3 infection, a common strain in PWID. Conclusion: Patients with HCV infection who were receiving OAT and treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir had high rates of SVR12, regardless of ongoing drug use. These results support the removal of drug use as a barrier to interferon-free HCV treatment for patients receiving OAT. Primary Funding Source: Merck & Co.

Safety and efficacy of boceprevir/peginterferon/ribavirin for HCV G1 compensated cirrhotics: meta-analysis of 5 trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: HCV-infected cirrhotics may urgently need therapy but are often under-represented in clinical trials resulting in limited data to guide their management. We performed a meta-analysis of well-compensated cirrhotic patients from five Phase 3 trials. METHODS: Patients received P/R (peginterferon/ribavirin; 4 weeks) followed by BOC (boceprevir)/P/R or P/R for 24, 32, or 44 weeks. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates were calculated by Metavir score. Multivariate logistic regression (MLR) models identified baseline and on-treatment predictors of SVR. Safety was evaluated by adverse-event (AE) reporting and laboratory monitoring. RESULTS: Pooled meta-estimates for SVR rates (95% confidence interval) in 212 F4 (cirrhotic) patients were 55% (43, 66) with BOC/P/R vs.17% (0, 41) with P/R. MLR identified 4 predictors of SVR in F3/F4 patients: undetectable HCV-RNA at treatment week (TW) 8; ⩾ 1 log10 decline in HCV-RNA from baseline at TW4; male; and baseline HCV-RNA ⩽ 800,000 IU/ml. SVR rate was 89% (65/73) in F4 patients who were HCV-RNA undetectable at TW8. No F3 (0/5) or F4 (0/17) patients with <3 log10 decline and detectable HCV-RNA at TW8 achieved SVR. Anemia and diarrhea occurred more frequently in cirrhotic than non-cirrhotic patients. Serious AEs, discontinuations due to an AE, interventions to manage anemia, infections, and thrombocytopenia occurred more frequently in cirrhotics with BOC/P/R than P/R. Potential hepatic decompensation and/or sepsis were identified in 2 P/R and 3 BOC/P/R recipients. CONCLUSIONS: BOC/P/R appears to have a generally favorable benefit-risk profile in compensated cirrhotic patients. SVR rates were particularly high in cirrhotic patients with undetectable HCV-RNA at TW8.

The combination of MK-5172, peginterferon, and ribavirin is effective in treatment-naive patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection without cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: MK-5172 is an inhibitor of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 3/4A protease; MK-5172 is taken once daily and has a higher potency and barrier to resistance than licensed protease inhibitors. We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of MK-5172 with peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) in treatment-naive patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection without cirrhosis. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, dose-ranging, response-guided therapy study. A total of 332 patients received MK-5172 (100, 200, 400, or 800 mg) once daily for 12 weeks in combination with PR. Patients in the MK-5172 groups received PR for an additional 12 or 36 weeks, based on response at week 4. Patients in the control group (n = 66) received a combination of boceprevir and PR, dosed in accordance with boceprevir's US product circular. RESULTS: At 24 weeks after the end of therapy, sustained virologic responses were achieved in 89%, 93%, 91%, and 86% of the patients in the groups given the combination of PR and MK-5172 (100, 200, 400, or 800 mg), respectively, vs 61% of controls. In the MK-5172 group receiving 100 mg, 91% of patients had undetectable levels of HCV RNA at week 4 and qualified for the short duration of therapy. The combination of MK-5172 and PR generally was well tolerated. Transient increases in transaminase levels were noted in the MK-5172 groups given 400 and 800 mg, at higher frequencies than in the MK-5172 groups given 100 or 200 mg, or control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily MK-5172 (100 mg) with PR for 24 or 48 weeks was highly effective and well tolerated among treatment-naive patients with HCV genotype 1 infection without cirrhosis. Studies are underway to evaluate interferon-free MK-5172-based regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01353911.

Effects of ribavirin dose reduction vs erythropoietin for boceprevir-related anemia in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection--a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with boceprevir, peginterferon, and ribavirin can lead to anemia, which has been managed by reducing ribavirin dose and/or erythropoietin therapy. We assessed the effects of these anemia management strategies on rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) and safety. METHODS: Patients (n = 687) received 4 weeks of peginterferon and ribavirin followed by 24 or 44 weeks of boceprevir (800 mg, 3 times each day) plus peginterferon and ribavirin. Patients who became anemic (levels of hemoglobin approximately ≤10 g/dL) during the study treatment period (n = 500) were assigned to groups that were managed by ribavirin dosage reduction (n = 249) or erythropoietin therapy (n = 251). RESULTS: Rates of SVR were comparable between patients whose anemia was managed by ribavirin dosage reduction (71.5%) vs erythropoietin therapy (70.9%), regardless of the timing of the first intervention to manage anemia or the magnitude of ribavirin dosage reduction. There was a threshold for the effect on rate of SVR: patients who received <50% of the total milligrams of ribavirin assigned by the protocol had a significantly lower rate of SVR (P < .0001) than those who received ≥50%. Among patients who did not develop anemia, the rate of SVR was 40.1%. Eleven thromboembolic adverse events were reported in 9 of 295 patients who received erythropoietin, compared with 1 of 392 patients who did not receive erythropoietin. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction of ribavirin dosage can be the primary approach for management of anemia in patients receiving peginterferon, ribavirin, and boceprevir for HCV infection. Reduction in ribavirin dosage throughout the course of triple therapy does not affect rates of SVR. However, it is important that the patient receives at least 50% of the total amount (milligrams) of ribavirin assigned by response-guided therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01023035.