Review article: Recommendations for detection, assessment and management of suspected drug-induced liver injury during clinical trials in oncology patients.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is a major concern for oncology drugs in clinical practice and under development. Monitoring cancer patients for hepatotoxicity is challenging as these patients may have abnormal liver tests pre-treatment or on-study for many reasons including liver injury due to past oncology treatments, hepatic metastases, medical co-morbidities such as heart failure, and concomitant medications. At present, there are no regulatory guidelines or position papers that systematically address best practices pertaining to DILI detection, assessment and management in oncology patients. AIMS: The goals of this review are (1) to examine and interpret the available evidence and (2) to make recommendations for detection, monitoring, adjudication, and management of suspected hepatocellular DILI during oncology clinical trials. METHODS: This manuscript was developed by the IQ Consortium (International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in pharmaceutical development) DILI Initiative that consists of members from 17 pharmaceutical companies, in collaboration with academic and regulatory DILI experts. The manuscript is based on extensive literature review, expert interpretation of the literature, and several rounds of consensus discussions. RESULTS: This review highlights recommendations for patient eligibility for clinical trials with or without primary/metastatic liver involvement, as well as changes in liver tests that should trigger increased monitoring and/or discontinuation of study drug. Guidance regarding causality assessment for suspected DILI events, rechallenge and dose-modification is provided. CONCLUSIONS: This review brings together evidence-based recommendations and expert opinion to provide the first dedicated consensus for best practices in detection, assessment, and management of DILI in oncology clinical trials.

Phase 1 study of safety and tolerability of an oral contraceptive containing low-dose ethinyl oestradiol combined with glecaprevir/pibrentasvir treatment in healthy premenopausal women.

Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) is an approved guideline-recommended chronic hepatitis C virus infection treatment. GLE/PIB coadministration with ethinyl oestradiol (EE) is not recommended in current labels owing to a Phase 1 study observing Grade ≥2 alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevation in 2 out of 12 healthy women cotreated for 11 days with GLE/PIB and oral contraceptive (OC) containing 35 µg/250 µg EE/norgestimate. No Grade ≥2 elevation was observed with low-dose (20 µg) EE (n = 14). This Phase 1 study examined safety/tolerability of GLE/PIB coadministered with an OC containing low-dose EE using a larger sample size and longer treatment duration. Healthy premenopausal women were treated with EE/levonorgestrel alone (20/100 µg, Cycles 1-2), followed by coadministration with GLE/PIB (300/120 mg; Cycles 3-4). A safety criterion of special interest was a confirmed Grade ≥2 ALT elevation (>3× upper normal limit). Adverse events (AEs) and study drugs concentrations were examined. Of 85 enrolled women, 72 initiated combined GLE/PIB + EE/levonorgestrel treatment, 66 completed the study and 19 discontinued prematurely (non-safety reason, n = 16; AE [deemed unelated to GLE/PIB], n = 3). No participant met the safety criterion of special interest of confirmed Grade ≥2 ALT elevation. No serious/Grade ≥3 AEs were reported. Study drug concentrations were within the expected ranges. GLE/PIB in combination with an OC containing low-dose EE was generally well tolerated with no confirmed Grade ≥2 ALT elevation and no evidence of drug-induced liver injury. No pattern to the reported AEs and no new safety issues were identified. This was a Phase 1 study of healthy volunteers, not a registered clinical trial.

Liver toxicity in oncology trials and beyond: a simplified concept for management of hepatocellular drug-induced liver injury in patients with abnormal baseline liver tests.

BACKGROUND: Management of side effects in clinical trials has to balance generation of meaningful data with risk for patients. A toxicity area requiring detailed management guidelines is drug-induced liver injury (DILI). In oncology trials, patients are often included despite baseline liver test abnormalities, for whom there is no consensus yet on levels of liver test changes that should trigger action, such as drug interruption or discontinuation. METHODS: We provide an innovative approach to manage hepatocellular DILI in oncology trials for patients with abnormal baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. The algorithm proposed is based on mathematical derivation of action thresholds from those generally accepted for patients with normal baselines. RESULTS: The resulting algorithm is grouped by level of baseline abnormality and avoids calculation of baseline multiples. Suggested layered action levels are 4, 6, and 11 × Upper Limit of Normal (ULN) for patients with baseline ALT between 1.5 and 3 × ULN, and 6, 8, and 12 × ULN for patients with baseline ALT between 3 and 5 × ULN, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our concept and resulting algorithm are consistent, transparent, and easy to follow, and the method for derivation from consensus-based thresholds may also be applicable to other drug toxicity areas.

Industry Review of Best Practices for Risk Management of Drug-Induced Liver Injury from Development to Real-World Use.

The relative treatment benefit of a drug for patients during development, marketing authorization review, or after approval includes an assessment of the risk of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). In this article, the Pharmacovigilance and Risk Mitigation Working Group of the IQ-DILI Initiative launched in June 2016 within the International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development presents and reviews three key topics for essential risk management activities to identify, characterize, monitor, mitigate, and communicate DILI risk associated with small molecules during drug development. The three topics are: (1) Current best practices for characterizing the DILI phenotype and the severity and incidence of DILI in the treatment population, including DILI identification, prediction and recovery. (2) Characterization of the relative treatment benefit for patients who will be exposed to a drug and the attendant risk of DILI in conjunction with existing global risk mitigation strategies. (3) Implementation of risk mitigation strategies during drug development highlighting patient factors, healthcare settings and site of product administration, and prescriber and healthcare provider factors. Industry guidance is provided for assessing whether the product labeling is sufficient to minimize the risk of DILI or whether a United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) Risk Management Plan (RMP) with additional Risk Minimization Measures (aRMM) is needed.

The relative treatment benefit of a drug for patients during development, marketing authorization review or after approval includes an assessment of the risk of drug-induced liver injury (DILI). Reported incidences of DILI range from 0.74 to 19 per 100,000, and laboratory criteria and/or clinical outcome determine the severity of DILI. At least 10% of patients who develop jaundice caused by DILI (Hy's Law cases) develop liver failure (i.e., severe DILI). A drug's liver safety profile can be assessed using Evaluation of Drug-Induced Serious Hepatotoxicity Plots. Specific recommendations for monitoring DILI in the post-marketing setting depend on characterization of the phenotype during drug development. Risk mitigation tools include additional educational mechanisms, and risk minimization measures include Elements To Assure Safe Use (ETASU) for healthcare professionals, administration sites, and patients. The overall aim of risk management is to ensure that the benefit of a particular product exceeds the risks as far as possible for the individual patient and for the target population.

Reported adverse events related to use of hepatitis C virus direct-acting antivirals with opioids: 2017-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Due to concerns over potential interactions between some hepatitis C direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) and opioids, we describe adverse event (AE) reports of concomitant use of opioids and DAAs. METHODS: AEs reported (July 28, 2017-December 31, 2021) with the administration of the DAAs glecaprevir/pibrentasvir, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir, and elbasvir/grazoprevir as suspect products were downloaded from the US Food and Drug Administration AE Reporting System Public Dashboard. The number of AE reports containing opioids (fentanyl, hydrocodone, oxycodone) as co-suspect products/concomitant products were counted and summarized by severity, reporting country and whether an outcome of death was reported. Overdose AEs were counted irrespective of opioid use, and changes over time were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 40 AEs were reported for DAAs and concomitant fentanyl use, 25 (62.5%) were in the USA, 35 (87.5%) were considered serious, and 14 (35.0%) resulted in death; and 626 were reported with concomitant oxycodone/hydrocodone use, 596 (95.2%) were in the USA, 296 (47.3%) were considered serious, and 28 (4.5%) resulted in death. There were 196 overdose AEs (32 [16%] deaths) declining from 2018 (N = 56) to 2021 (N = 29). CONCLUSIONS: Treating people with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who use drugs is key to achieving HCV elimination. Low numbers of DAA AE reports with opioids may provide reassurance to prioritize HCV treatment in this population. These data contribute to evidence supporting the continued scale-up of DAA treatment among people who use drugs to achieve HCV elimination goals.

Safety analysis of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients with markers of advanced liver disease in clinical and real-world cohorts.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has the greatest health impact in patients with advanced liver disease. The direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimen glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (G/P) is approved for treatment of HCV-infected patients without cirrhosis and with compensated cirrhosis. However, events of liver decompensation/failure have been reported in patients treated with protease-inhibitor-containing DAA regimens, often in patients with advanced liver disease. This study examines the safety of on-label G/P treatment in patients with compensated cirrhosis (F4 at baseline) with markers of advanced liver disease. Patients with cirrhosis were categorized into 4 subgroups, based on different noninvasive markers of advanced liver disease identified using laboratory measures: platelet count < or ≥ 100 × 109 /L, and Child-Pugh score 5 or 6. Separate analyses were performed using pooled data from clinical trials and from real-world post-marketing observational studies. G/P was well tolerated in patients with platelet count ≥100 × 109 /L (n = 800), platelet count <100 × 109 /L (n = 215), a Child-Pugh score of 5 (n = 915) and a Child-Pugh score of 6 (n = 95). In the clinical trial and real-world cohorts two patients and no patients experienced a serious adverse event (AE) possibly related to study drug, respectively; three patients and no patients experienced an AE of special interest for hepatic decompensation and hepatic failure. This analysis reaffirms G/P's safety profile in indicated patients with compensated cirrhosis, including those with markers of more advanced liver disease. Increasing the number of patients treated with short-duration G/P therapy may contribute to meeting HCV elimination targets.

Real-World Outcomes in Historically Underserved Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C Infection Treated with Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir.

INTRODUCTION: Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is approved for treating chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes (GT) 1-6. We evaluated real-world effectiveness, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in underserved patient populations, focusing on persons who use drugs infected with HCV. METHODS: Data were pooled from nine countries (13 November 2017-31 January 2020). Patients had HCV GT1-6, with or without compensated cirrhosis, with or without prior HCV treatment and received glecaprevir/pibrentasvir consistent with local label at their physician's discretion. Patients with prior direct-acting antiviral exposure were excluded from efficacy and quality-of-life analyses. The percentage of patients achieving sustained virologic response at post-treatment week 12 (SVR12) was assessed. Mean changes from baseline to SVR12 visit in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey mental and physical component summary scores were reported. Safety was assessed in patients receiving at least one dose of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. RESULTS: Of 2036 patients, 1701 (83.5%) received 8-week glecaprevir/pibrentasvir. In 1684 patients with sufficient follow-up, SVR12 rates were 98.0% (1651/1684) overall, 98.1% (1432/1459) in 8-week treated patients, 97.0% (519/535) in persons who use drugs, and greater than 95% across subgroups. Mean changes from baseline in mental and physical component summary scores were 3.7 and 2.4, respectively. One glecaprevir/pibrentasvir-related serious adverse event was reported; six glecaprevir/pibrentasvir-related adverse events led to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir was highly effective, well tolerated, and improved quality of life in HCV-infected persons who use drugs and other underserved patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: These multinational post-marketing observational studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03303599.

Safety of Patients with Hepatitis C Virus Treated with Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir from Clinical Trials and Real-World Cohorts.

INTRODUCTION: More than 70 million people are estimated to be infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) globally. If left untreated, HCV infection can lead to complications such as extensive liver fibrosis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Evolution of treatments has resulted in highly effective and well-tolerated all-oral direct-acting antivirals. The pangenotypic regimen of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is approved for treating HCV for patients without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis (CC). Guidelines have evolved to simplify treatment to enable non-specialists to manage and treat HCV-infected patients. Simultaneously, such treatment algorithms provide guidance on the pretreatment identification of small subsets of patients who may require specialist treatment and long-term follow-up for advanced liver disease, including those at risk of developing HCC. This study describes the safety profile of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients identified using previously described noninvasive laboratory measures who may be eligible for treatment by non-liver specialists. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in patients, identified by noninvasive laboratory measures, intended to exclude patients with advanced liver disease and severe renal impairment, who can be managed within non-liver specialist settings. Patients were included from clinical trials and real-world studies of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir for HCV treatment. Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and safety assessments, including adverse events and laboratory abnormalities, were summarized. RESULTS: Data across these large-scale studies confirm that glecaprevir/pibrentasvir is well tolerated across different patient populations, with fewer than 0.1% of patients experiencing a serious adverse event related to treatment drugs, and few patients developing HCC during or after treatment. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir enhances the confidence of non-liver specialists to treat the majority of HCV-infected patients, and provides an opportunity to expand the treater pool, potentially increasing diagnosis and treatment rates for HCV, contributing to elimination of HCV.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Efficacy of Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir in Children With Chronic HCV: Part 2 of the DORA Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) has shown high efficacy and safety in chronic HCV-infected adults and adolescents; data in children were limited. DORA part 2 is a phase 2/3, nonrandomized, open-label study evaluating the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of a pediatric formulation of GLE and PIB in children ages 3 to < 12 years. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Children with chronic HCV infection, genotype 1-6, with or without compensated cirrhosis, were divided into three cohorts by age-cohort 2 (9 to < 12 years), cohort 3 (6 to < 9 years), and cohort 4 (3 to < 6 years)-and given weight-based doses of GLE and PIB for 8, 12, or 16 weeks. Primary endpoints were sustained virologic response at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12) and steady-state exposure; secondary endpoints were rates of persistent viremia, relapse, and reinfection. Safety and laboratory abnormalities were assessed. Final pediatric dosages determined to be efficacious were 250 mg GLE + 100 mg PIB (in children weighing ≥ 30 to < 45 kg), 200 mg GLE + 80 mg PIB (≥ 20 to < 30 kg), and 150 mg GLE + 60 mg PIB (12 to < 20 kg). Of 80 participants enrolled and dosed, 96% (77/80) achieved SVR12. One participant, on the initial dose ratio, relapsed by posttreatment week 4; no participants had virologic failures on the final dose ratio of GLE 50 mg/PIB 20 mg. Two nonresponders prematurely discontinued the study. Most adverse events (AEs) were mild; no drug-related serious AEs occurred. Pharmacokinetic exposures were comparable to those of adults. CONCLUSIONS: A pediatric formulation of GLE/PIB was highly efficacious and well tolerated in chronic HCV-infected children 3 to < 12 years old.

Consensus Guidelines: Best Practices for Detection, Assessment and Management of Suspected Acute Drug-Induced Liver Injury During Clinical Trials in Adults with Chronic Viral Hepatitis and Adults with Cirrhosis Secondary to Hepatitis B, C and Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.

With the widespread development of new drugs to treat chronic liver diseases (CLDs), including viral hepatitis and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), more patients are entering trials with abnormal baseline liver tests and with advanced liver injury, including cirrhosis. The current regulatory guidelines addressing the monitoring, diagnosis, and management of suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) during clinical trials primarily address individuals entering with normal baseline liver tests. Using the same laboratory criteria cited as signals of potential DILI in studies involving patients with no underlying liver disease and normal baseline liver tests may result in premature and unnecessary cessation of a study drug in a clinical trial population whose abnormal and fluctuating liver tests are actually due to their underlying CLD. This position paper focuses on defining best practices for the detection, monitoring, diagnosis, and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in patients with CLD, including hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV), both with and without cirrhosis and NASH with cirrhosis. This is one of several position papers developed by the IQ DILI Initiative, comprising members from 16 pharmaceutical companies in collaboration with DILI experts from academia and regulatory agencies. It is based on an extensive literature review and discussions between industry members and experts from outside industry to achieve consensus regarding the recommendations. Key conclusions and recommendations include (1) the importance of establishing laboratory criteria that signal potential DILI events and that fit the disease indication being studied in the clinical trial based on knowledge of the natural history of test fluctuations in that disease; (2) establishing a pretreatment value that is based on more than one screening determination, and revising that baseline during the trial if a new nadir is achieved during treatment; (3) basing rules for increased monitoring and for stopping drug for potential DILI on multiples of baseline liver test values and/or a threshold value rather than multiples of the upper limit of normal (ULN) for that test; (4) making use of more sensitive tests of liver function, including direct bilirubin (DB) or combined parameters such as aspartate transaminase:alanine transaminase (AST:ALT) ratio or model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) to signal potential DILI, especially in studies of patients with cirrhosis; and (5) being aware of potential confounders related to complications of the disease being studied that may masquerade as DILI events.

Next-Generation DILI Biomarkers: Prioritization of Biomarkers for Qualification and Best Practices for Biospecimen Collection in Drug Development.

The diagnosis and management of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) remains a challenge in clinical trials in drug development. The qualification of emerging biomarkers capable of predicting DILI soon after the initiation of treatment, differentiating DILI from underlying liver disease, identifying the causal entity, and assigning appropriate treatment options after DILI is diagnosed are needed. Qualification efforts have been hindered by lack of properly stored and consented biospecimens that are linked to clinical data relevant to a specific context of use. Recommendations are made for biospecimen collection procedures, with the focus on clinical trials, and for specific emerging biomarkers to focus qualification efforts.

Consensus guidelines: best practices for detection, assessment and management of suspected acute drug-induced liver injury occurring during clinical trials in adults with chronic cholestatic liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Improved knowledge of the molecular pathophysiology and immunopathogenesis of cholestatic liver diseases in recent years has led to an increased interest in developing novel therapies. Patients with cholestatic liver disease often require different approaches to assessment and management of suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) compared to those with healthy livers and those with parenchymal liver diseases. At present, there are no regulatory guidelines or society position papers, that systematically address best practices pertaining to detection of DILI in these patients. AIMS: To outline best practices for detection, assessment and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in adults with the cholestatic liver diseases - Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC). METHODS: This is one of the several papers developed by the IQ DILI Initiative, which is comprised of members from 16 pharmaceutical companies, in collaboration with DILI experts from academia and regulatory agencies. The contents are the result of an extensive literature review, as well as in-depth discussions among industry, regulatory and academic DILI experts, to achieve consensus recommendations on DILI-related issues occurring during clinical trials for cholestatic liver diseases. RESULTS: Recommended best practices are outlined pertaining to hepatic eligibility criteria, monitoring of liver tests, approach to a suspected DILI signal, and hepatic discontinuation rules. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a framework for the approach to detection, assessment and management of suspected acute DILI occurring during clinical trials in adults with cholestatic liver disease.

Consensus: guidelines: best practices for detection, assessment and management of suspected acute drug-induced liver injury during clinical trials in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen a rapid growth in the number of clinical trials enrolling patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Due to the underlying chronic liver disease, patients with NASH often require different approaches to the assessment and management of suspected drug-induced liver injury (DILI) compared to patients with healthy livers. However, currently no regulatory guidelines or position papers systematically address best practices pertaining to DILI in NASH clinical trials. AIMS: This publication focuses on best practices concerning the detection, monitoring, diagnosis and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in patients with NASH. METHODS: This is one of several papers developed by the IQ DILI Initiative, comprised of members from 15 pharmaceutical companies, in collaboration with DILI experts from academia and regulatory agencies. This paper is based on extensive literature review, and discussions between industry members with expertise in drug safety and DILI experts from outside industry to achieve consensus on common questions related to this topic. RESULTS: Recommended best practices are outlined pertaining to hepatic inclusion and exclusion criteria, monitoring of liver tests, DILI detection, approach to a suspected DILI signal, causality assessment and hepatic discontinuation rules. CONCLUSIONS: This paper provides a framework for the approach to assessment and management of suspected acute DILI during clinical trials in patients with NASH.

Candidate biomarkers for the diagnosis and prognosis of drug-induced liver injury: An international collaborative effort.

Current blood biomarkers are suboptimal in detecting drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and predicting its outcome. We sought to characterize the natural variabilty and performance characteristics of 14 promising DILI biomarker candidates. Serum or plasma from multiple cohorts of healthy volunteers (n = 192 and n = 81), subjects who safely took potentially hepatotoxic drugs without adverse effects (n = 55 and n = 92) and DILI patients (n = 98, n = 28, and n = 143) were assayed for microRNA-122 (miR-122), glutamate dehydrogenase (GLDH), total cytokeratin 18 (K18), caspase cleaved K18, glutathione S-transferase α, alpha-fetoprotein, arginase-1, osteopontin (OPN), sorbitol dehydrogenase, fatty acid binding protein, cadherin-5, macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor (MCSFR), paraoxonase 1 (normalized to prothrombin protein), and leukocyte cell-derived chemotaxin-2. Most candidate biomarkers were significantly altered in DILI cases compared with healthy volunteers. GLDH correlated more closely with gold standard alanine aminotransferase than miR-122, and there was a surprisingly wide inter- and intra-individual variability of miR-122 levels among healthy volunteers. Serum K18, OPN, and MCSFR levels were most strongly associated with liver-related death or transplantation within 6 months of DILI onset. Prediction of prognosis among DILI patients using the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease was improved by incorporation of K18 and MCSFR levels. Conclusion: GLDH appears to be more useful than miR-122 in identifying DILI patients, and K18, OPN, and MCSFR are promising candidates for prediction of prognosis during an acute DILI event. Serial assessment of these biomarkers in large prospective studies will help further delineate their role in DILI diagnosis and management.

Fasiglifam-Induced Liver Injury in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Results of a Randomized Controlled Cardiovascular Outcomes Safety Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cardiovascular (CV) safety of fasiglifam, a first-in-man G-protein-coupled receptor 40 (GPR40) agonist, in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A phase 3 multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled two-arm trial was intended to randomize 5,000 participants with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk to fasiglifam or placebo. The primary objective of the trial was to rule out an upper noninferiority bound >1.3 for a one-sided 97.5% confidence limit of the hazard ratio (HR) for CV composite events during treatment with fasiglifam compared with placebo. The primary outcome was the time to first occurrence of any component of the major adverse CV event composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: The study enrolled 3,207 participants but was terminated because of liver safety concerns. Increased rates of liver enzyme elevation (AST/ALT ≥3-5 × upper limit of normal [ULN]) with fasiglifam were observed. The incidence of ALT or AST ≥3 × ULN with fasiglifam compared with placebo was 2.1% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001, and the incidence for ≥10 × ULN was 0.31% vs. 0.06%, P < 0.001. A primary CV composite outcome occurred in 40 participants, 2.5% each in the fasiglifam and placebo arms at 12 months (HR 1.05; 95% CI 0.67, 1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Development of fasiglifam was terminated due to concerns of drug-induced liver injury. Performance of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-mandated CV outcomes trial supported the termination of the fasiglifam clinical program.

Correction to: Liver Safety of Fasiglifam (TAK-875) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Review of the Global Clinical Trial Experience.

In the original publication of the article, the ALT and AST values in Fig. 5a-e were capped at 10× ULN, which did not accurately reflect the narrative provided for each case. In this correction, the original Fig. 5a-e (Fig. 1a-e) and the correct Fig. 5a-5e (Fig. 2a-e) are published.

Evaluation of the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of a Single Oral Dose of Fasiglifam in Subjects with Mild or Moderate Hepatic Impairment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Fasiglifam, a potent, selective novel agonist of G protein-coupled receptor 40, stimulates insulin secretion at elevated blood glucose levels in a glucose-dependent manner. This study evaluated the potential effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics and safety of a single dose of fasiglifam and its metabolite M-I. Fasiglifam's clinical development was halted due to liver safety concerns. METHODS: In this phase I, open-label study, subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, along with matched controls (gender, weight, age, and smoking status), received a single, 25-mg oral dose of fasiglifam. Blood samples were collected through 336 h post-dose for pharmacokinetic evaluation. RESULTS: Overall, 73% of subjects were male with a mean age of 54 years. Compared with normal hepatic function subjects (n = 14), mean systemic fasiglifam exposure (Cmax and AUC∞) was reduced in mild (n = 8) and moderate (n = 8) hepatic impairment subjects by approximately 20-40%. However, the observed percent unbound drug plasma concentration appeared comparable across all groups. Mean oral clearance was higher and terminal half-life lower in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment compared with normal hepatic function subjects. Fasiglifam M-I systemic exposure increased by approximately twofold in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment compared with those with normal hepatic function. Fasiglifam was well tolerated, and there were no reports of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: Hepatic status did not significantly impact systemic exposure of fasiglifam in this study, in fact, a decrease was observed, suggesting no dose reduction would be required for patients with hepatic impairment.

Liver Safety of Fasiglifam (TAK-875) in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Review of the Global Clinical Trial Experience.

INTRODUCTION: Fasiglifam (TAK-875) is a G protein-coupled receptor 40 agonist that was being investigated for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A development program was terminated late in phase III clinical trials due to liver safety concerns. METHODS: The liver safety of fasiglifam was assessed from data based on six phase II and nine phase III double-blind studies and two open-label studies with emphasis on pooled data from 15 double-blind studies from both global and Japanese development programs. Taking into consideration different daily doses of fasiglifam administered in clinical studies, the primary comparisons were between all patients exposed to fasiglifam (any dose) versus placebo, and, where applicable, versus the two active comparators, sitagliptin or glimepiride. A Liver Safety Evaluation Committee consisting of hepatologists blinded to treatment assignments evaluated hepatic adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs (SAEs) for causal relationship to study drug. RESULTS: The analysis included data from 9139 patients with T2DM in 15 double-blind controlled studies who received either fasiglifam (n = 5359, fasiglifam group), fasiglifam and sitagliptin (n = 123), or a comparator agent (n = 3657, non-exposed group consisting of placebo and other antidiabetic agents). Exposure to treatment for more than 1 year ranged from 249 patients in the placebo arm, to 370 patients in the glimepiride arm and 617 patients in the fasiglifam 50 mg arm. The primary focus of the analysis was on the hepatic safety of fasiglifam. The overall safety profile based on treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), SAEs, deaths, and withdrawal due to AEs was similar between fasiglifam and placebo (excluding liver test abnormalities). However, there was an increased incidence rate of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations > 3 × upper limit of normal (ULN), 5 × ULN, and 10 × ULN in fasiglifam-treated patients compared with those treated with placebo or active comparators. ALT elevations > 3 × ULN for fasiglifam were 2.7% compared with 0.8 and 0.5% for the active comparators and placebo. There did not appear to be a clear dose response in incidence of ALT elevations between patients receiving 25 or 50 mg daily. The cumulative incidence of elevations in serum ALT > 3 × ULN was higher in the first 6 months of treatment with fasiglifam compared with both placebo and the active comparators, but the rate of new ALT elevations appeared to be similar across all treatment groups thereafter. No demographic or baseline patient characteristics were identified to predict elevations exceeding ALT > 3 × ULN in fasiglifam-treated patients. The pattern of liver injury with fasiglifam was hepatocellular, and there were no reports of liver-related deaths, liver failure or life-threatening liver injury. Most fasiglifam-associated ALT elevations were asymptomatic and resolved promptly upon discontinuing treatment, but in two patients the recovery was prolonged. Importantly, three important serious liver injury cases were identified among fasiglifam-treated patients; one case was adjudicated to be a clear Hy's Law case and the two remaining cases were considered to closely approximate Hy's Law cases. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of overall AEs, SAEs, and deaths was similar between fasiglifam and placebo, a liver signal was identified based primarily on the difference in liver chemistry values in the fasiglifam group compared with the placebo and active comparator groups. Three serious liver injuries were attributed to fasiglifam treatment. Clinical development of fasiglifam was halted due to these liver safety concerns.

Fasiglifam for glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, placebo-controlled study.

AIM: To investigate the effect of fasiglifam on glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: In total, 421 people with T2DM and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥7.0% and ≤10.5% who had received only diet and exercise treatment for ≥12 weeks prior to screening were randomized to receive fasiglifam 25 or 50 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in HbA1c at week 24. RESULTS: The mean participant age was 53.5 years, mean baseline body mass index 32.3 kg/m2 , and mean baseline HbA1c level 8.05%. Least squares mean changes in HbA1c from baseline to week 24 were: -0.93% (fasiglifam 50 mg), -0.65% (fasiglifam 25 mg) and -0.17% (placebo). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurred in 53.3%, 48.2% and 39.9% of participants receiving fasiglifam 25 mg, fasiglifam 50 mg, and placebo, respectively. Three participants in each group experienced a serious adverse event (AE). Nine participants had alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations >3× upper limit of normal: 5 (3.6%) in the fasiglifam 25-mg group, 4 (2.8%) in the fasiglifam 50-mg group, and none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate that fasiglifam effectively reduced HbA1c from baseline for 24 weeks in participants with T2DM. The incidence of TEAEs was higher in the fasiglifam groups; however, the incidence of serious AEs was low overall and similar between groups. ALT elevations were observed only in the fasiglifam groups, which contributed to the decision to terminate the fasiglifam programme after completion of the present study.