Entecavir and Peginterferon Alfa-2a in Adults With Hepatitis B e Antigen-Positive Immune-Tolerant Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection.

Monotherapy with interferon or nucleoside analog is generally not recommended during the immune-tolerant (IT) phase of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Recognition that high HBV DNA levels are associated with hepatocellular carcinoma has increased interest in treating HBV in the IT phase. Small pediatric studies reported efficacy with combination nucleoside analog and interferon therapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of entecavir and peginterferon in adults in the IT phase of chronic HBV infection. Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive adults with HBV DNA > 107 IU/mL and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≤ 1.5 times the upper limit of normal (ULN) (male: ≤ 45, female: ≤ 30 U/L) received entecavir 0.5 mg daily for 8 weeks followed by the addition of peginterferon alfa-2a 180 µg/week to entecavir for an additional 40 weeks. The primary endpoint was HBeAg loss and HBV DNA ≤ 1,000 IU/mL 48 weeks after end of treatment (EOT). Among 28 participants from 11 sites, the median age was 37.2 (range: 22-61) years, 54% were male, and 96% were Asian. Nearly all were infected with genotype C (64%) or B (32%). Median baseline HBV DNA was 8.2 log10 IU/mL, and ALT was 0.9 times the ULN. Although one (4%) participant cleared HBeAg, none met the primary endpoint of both HBeAg loss AND HBV DNA ≤ 1,000 IU/mL 48 weeks post-EOT. ALT elevations > 5 times the ULN occurred in eight (29%) participants, and none were associated with icterus. Forty-eight weeks posttreatment, HBV DNA rebounded to baseline levels in all participants, including the participant who lost HBeAg, and ALT values returned to near baseline levels in all but four participants. Conclusion: A lead-in strategy of 8 weeks of entecavir followed by combination peginterferon and entecavir therapy for 40 weeks had limited efficacy in adults in the IT phase of chronic HBV infection and cannot be recommended.

JUMP-C: a randomized trial of mericitabine plus pegylated interferon alpha-2a/ribavirin for 24 weeks in treatment-naïve HCV genotype 1/4 patients.

UNLABELLED: Mericitabine is a selective nucleoside analog inhibitor of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5B RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, with activity across all HCV genotypes. Treatment-naïve patients infected with HCV genotype 1 or 4 were randomized to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with either mericitabine 1,000 mg (N = 81) or placebo (N = 85) twice-daily (BID) in combination with pegylated interferon alpha-2a (Peg-IFNα-2a)/ribavirin (RBV). Patients randomized to mericitabine with HCV RNA <15 IU/mL from week 4 to 22 (extended rapid virologic response; eRVR) stopped all treatment at week 24; all other patients continued Peg-IFNα-2a/RBV to complete 48 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response (SVR; HCV RNA <15 IU/mL after 24 weeks of treatment-free follow-up). SVR was achieved in 56.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.9-67.0) of mericitabine-treated patients and 36.5% (95% CI: 27.0-47.1) of placebo-treated patients (Δ = 20.3%; 95% CI 5.5-35.2). SVR rates were higher in mericitabine- than placebo-treated patients when subdivided by IL28B genotype (CC, 77.8% versus 56.0%; non-CC, 44.1% versus 16.2%) and hepatic fibrosis (noncirrhotic, 63.3% versus 41.9%; cirrhotic, 38.1% versus 21.7%). Overall relapse rates were 27.7% and 32.0% in mericitabine- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. No evidence of NS5B S282T-variant virus or phenotypic resistance to mericitabine was observed in the one patient who experienced partial response. No S282T variants were detected in any baseline samples. The safety profile of mericitabine was similar to that of, and fewer patients in the mericitabine than in the placebo group discontinued treatment for safety reasons. CONCLUSION: A 24-week response-guided combination regimen of mericitabine 1,000 mg BID plus Peg-IFNα-2a/RBV is well tolerated and more effective than a standard 48-week course of Peg-IFNα-2a/RBV.

New triple therapy for chronic hepatitis C: real life clinical experience in a community setting.

Recent advances in treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus have improved significantly due to the introduction of two new protease inhibitors-telaprevir and boceprevir. In combination with the previous standard of care, peginterferon and ribavirin, telaprevir and boceprevir have demonstrated improved sustained virologic response rates for HCV genotype 1 patients by approximately 30%. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of large clinical trial data with respect to efficacy and side effects in a community setting in Honolulu, Hawai'i. This retrospective study was performed by reviewing the charts of 59 chronic HCV patients who were started on triple therapy from July 1, 2011 to July 7, 2012. Sustained virologic response was attained by 73% of patients treated with telaprevir and 46% of patients treated with boceprevir respectively. Our clinical experience with telaprevir demonstrates that SVR rates are compatible with published literature values. Rates of SVR in our cohort were also similar to those reported in cirrhotic patients - about 50%. Due to small number of patients treated with a boceprevir-based regimen, it is difficult to compare our experience with pivotal trial experience. The side effect profiles for the two protease inhibitors were similar to the literature values except for more rectal irritation and a higher incidence and severity of anemia on telaprevir therapy in the clinical setting. While not intended to be conclusive, our study demonstrates that clinical trial data are largely compatible with the outcomes obtained in our community setting.

Chronic hepatitis B: a critical appraisal of current approaches to therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) involves a number of complex and controversial issues. Expert opinions may differ from those of practicing hepatologists and gastroenterologists. We aimed to explore this issue further after a critical review of the literature. METHODS: A panel of 14 international experts graded the strength of evidence for 16 statements addressing 3 content areas: patient selection, therapeutic end points, and treatment options. Available data relating to the statements were reviewed critically in 3 small work groups. After discussion of each statement with the entire panel, the experts voted anonymously to accept or reject statements based on the strength of evidence and their experience. A total of 241 members of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) responded to the same statements and their responses were compared with those of the experts. A discordant response was defined as a difference of more than 20% in any of the 5 graded levels of response (accept or reject) between the 2 groups. RESULTS: With the exception of 2 statements, the experts' responses were relatively uniform. However, the responses of the AASLD members were discordant from the experts in 12 statements, spanning all 3 content areas. CONCLUSIONS: Several areas of disagreement on the management of CHB exist between experts and AASLD members. Our results indicate a potential knowledge gap among practicing hepatologists. Better educational efforts are needed to meet the challenge of managing this complex disorder in which even expert opinion occasionally may disagree.