A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase IIa trial of efruxifermin for patients with compensated NASH cirrhosis.

Background & Aims: Efruxifermin has shown clinical efficacy in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and F1-F3 fibrosis. The primary objective of the BALANCED Cohort C was to assess the safety and tolerability of efruxifermin in patients with compensated NASH cirrhosis. Methods: Patients with NASH and stage 4 fibrosis (n = 30) were randomized 2:1 to receive efruxifermin 50 mg (n = 20) or placebo (n = 10) once-weekly for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability of efruxifermin. Secondary and exploratory endpoints included evaluation of non-invasive markers of liver injury and fibrosis, glucose and lipid metabolism, and changes in histology in a subset of patients who consented to end-of-study liver biopsy. Results: Efruxifermin was safe and well-tolerated; most adverse events (AEs) were grade 1 (n = 7, 23.3%) or grade 2 (n = 19, 63.3%). The most frequent AEs were gastrointestinal, including transient, mild to moderate diarrhea, and/or nausea. Significant improvements were noted in key markers of liver injury (alanine aminotransferase) and glucose and lipid metabolism. Sixteen-week treatment with efruxifermin was associated with significant reductions in non-invasive markers of fibrosis including Pro-C3 (least squares mean change from baseline [LSMCFB] -9 µg/L efruxifermin vs. -3.4 µg/L placebo; p = 0.0130) and ELF score (-0.4 efruxifermin vs. +0.4 placebo; p = 0.0036), with a trend towards reduced liver stiffness (LSMCFB -5.7 kPa efruxifermin vs. -1.1 kPa placebo; n.s.). Of 12 efruxifermin-treated patients with liver biopsy after 16 weeks, 4 (33%) achieved fibrosis improvement of at least one stage without worsening of NASH, while an additional 3 (25%) achieved resolution of NASH, compared to 0 of 5 placebo-treated patients. Conclusions: Efruxifermin appeared safe and well-tolerated with encouraging improvements in markers of liver injury, fibrosis, and glucose and lipid metabolism following 16 weeks of treatment, warranting confirmation in larger and longer term studies. Lay summary: Cirrhosis resulting from non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), the progressive form of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, represents a major unmet medical need. Currently there are no approved drugs for the treatment of NASH. This proof-of-concept randomized, double-blind clinical trial demonstrated the potential therapeutic benefit of efruxifermin treatment compared to placebo in patients with cirrhosis due to NASH. Clinical Trial Number: NCT03976401.

Aldafermin in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (ALPINE 2/3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is characterised by hepatic steatosis, inflammation, and injury, and is associated with an increased risk of liver transplantation and death. NASH affects more than 16 million people in the USA, and there is no approved therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of aldafermin, an engineered analogue of the gut hormone fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19). METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b study (ALPINE 2/3) in patients with biopsy-confirmed NASH and stage 2 or 3 fibrosis, we randomly assigned patients stratified by fibrosis stage in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive placebo, aldafermin 0·3 mg, 1·0 mg, or 3·0 mg once daily for 24 weeks at 30 study sites in the USA. Patients, investigators, the funder, and all other staff, were masked to treatment assignment throughout the study. The primary endpoint was an improvement in liver fibrosis of at least one stage with no worsening of NASH at week 24. Analyses were done by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03912532, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between May 16, 2019, and Sept 4, 2020, 786 patients were screened, of whom 171 were randomly assigned to a treatment group and included in the intention-to-treat population: 43 in the 0·3 mg aldafermin group, 42 in the 1·0 mg group, 43 in the 3·0 mg group, and 43 in the placebo group. In total, 145 (85%) of patients completed treatment. At week 24, among patients with biopsies at both baseline and week 24, was seven (19%) of 36 patients in the placebo group, 11 (31%) of 36 in the 0·3 mg aldafermin group (difference 90% CI 12% [-9 to 33]; p=0·11), five (15%) of 34 patients in the 1·0 mg group (difference -5% [-24 to 13]; p=0·80), and 11 (30%) of 37 patients in the 3·0 mg group (difference 10% [-9 to 30]; p=0·12) had an improvement in liver fibrosis of at least one stage with no worsening of NASH, without meeting the prespecified significance for dose response (p=0·55). Adverse events were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Diarrhoea occurred in six (14%) of 43 patients in the placebo group, three (7%) of 43 patients in the 0·3 mg aldafermin group, five (12%) of 41 patients in the 1·0 mg group, and ten (23%) of 43 patients in the 3·0 mg group. Incidences of serious adverse events and discontinuations owing to adverse events were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION: Aldafermin was generally well tolerated but did not produce a significant dose response on fibrosis improvement of at least one stage with no worsening of NASH, despite positive effects on a number of secondary endpoints. The findings of this trial may have implications for the design of future NASH trials. FUNDING: NGM Biopharmaceuticals.

Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir in patients with chronic HCV genotype 3 infection: An integrated phase 2/3 analysis.

Glecaprevir coformulated with pibrentasvir (G/P) is approved to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and was highly efficacious in phase 2 and 3 studies. Treating HCV genotype (GT) 3 infection remains a priority, as these patients are harder to cure and at a greater risk for liver steatosis, fibrosis progression and hepatocellular carcinoma. Data were pooled from five phase 2 or 3 trials that evaluated 8-, 12- and 16-week G/P in patients with chronic HCV GT3 infection. Patients without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis were either treatment-naïve or experienced with interferon- or sofosbuvir-based regimens. Safety and sustained virologic response 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12) were assessed. The analysis included 693 patients with GT3 infection. SVR12 was achieved by 95% of treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis receiving 8-week (198/208) and 12-week (280/294) G/P. Treatment-naïve patients with cirrhosis had a 97% (67/69) SVR12 rate with 12-week G/P. Treatment-experienced, noncirrhotic patients had SVR12 rates of 90% (44/49) and 95% (21/22) with 12- and 16-week G/P, respectively; 94% (48/51) of treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis treated for 16 weeks achieved SVR12. No serious adverse events (AEs) were attributed to G/P; AEs leading to study drug discontinuation were rare (<1%). G/P was well-tolerated and efficacious for patients with chronic HCV GT3 infection, regardless of cirrhosis status or prior treatment experience. Eight- and 12-week durations were efficacious for treatment-naïve patients without cirrhosis and with compensated cirrhosis, respectively; 16-week G/P was efficacious in patients with prior treatment experience irrespective of cirrhosis status.

What's next? Treatment options when the first antiretroviral regimen fails virologically or is not tolerated, Part 2.

As outlined in Part 1 of this 2-part review, there are many choices for the initial treatment of HIV infection. The Department of Health and Human Services HIV treatment guidelines include regimens that are "preferred" or "alternative" for initial therapy. In Part 2 of this review, we discuss those regimens that are considered alternatives, as well as emerging combinations that may be considered for inclusion in future treatment guidelines. With any of these treatments, a change in therapy may be required if drug resistance or intolerance occurs. An initial regimen is important because of its immediate effects and potential influence on the utility of subsequent treatment options. HIV clinicians should be aware of the resistance and safety profiles of all of the various regimens they may prescribe as initial therapy and should be ready to employ a strategy for subsequent treatment in the event of virologic failure or the development of drug toxicity. This article builds on Part 1 by suggesting treatment algorithms for those experiencing adverse events or the emergence of drug resistance when using recommended or common alternative and emerging anti-HIV regimens.