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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Combining the G-protein-coupled receptor 40 agonist fasiglifam with sitagliptin improves glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes with or without metformin: A randomized, 12-week trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fasiglifam, an orally active G-protein-coupled receptor 40 agonist, in combination with the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with diet/exercise (± metformin). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase II study, 368 patients received once-daily placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg, fasiglifam 25 or 50 mg, or the combination of sitagliptin 100 mg plus fasiglifam 25 or 50 mg. The primary endpoint was change from baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 12 weeks; a key secondary endpoint was change in fasting plasma glucose (FPG). RESULTS: The fasiglifam 25 and 50 mg combination regimens produced significantly greater HbA1c reductions than sitagliptin (treatment differences of -0.45% and -0.61%; P < .01, respectively) or respective doses of fasiglifam monotherapy (-0.43% and -0.48%; P < .01) and significantly greater FPG reductions than sitagliptin (-1.1 mmol/L for both combination regimens; P < .01). Improved glycaemic control occurred by week 1 for FPG and week 4 for HbA1c in all groups. Hypoglycaemia rates were low (≤3.3%) and similar across treatments. Liver enzymes >3 × upper limit of normal occurred in four patients (fasiglifam 25 mg, n = 1; fasiglifam 50 mg, n = 2; 1 fasiglifam/sitagliptin 50/100 mg, n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Combination of fasiglifam and sitagliptin provided significant additional effects on glycaemic control, with hypoglycaemia rates similar to placebo with or without metformin. This study provides supportive clinical evidence for the complementary mechanism of actions of this GPR40 agonist and DPP-4 inhibitor.

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.

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.