Resistance with treatment failure Treating now vs. post transplant Pros (for treating pre transplant) If SVR efficacy means Better quality of life Removal from waiting list No post transplant recurrence Few drug drug interactions Cons if treated pre transplant Progression despite SVR Decreased response rates in advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis Longer duration for some Toxicity? Risk of decompensation Sudden progression Health costs advanced disease? Post transplant recurrent disease easily treated
Scrutinising results in cirrhosis Comparative results in patients with advanced cirrhosis Safety Resistance Retreatment options Pharmacokinetics Overall evidence decision
SVR12: Absence of Cirrhosis vs Cirrhosis GT 1 Treatment-Experienced (ION-2) Afdhal et al NEJM 2014 Absence of Cirrhosis Cirrhosis SVR12 (%) 83/87 19/22 89/89 18/22 86/87 22/22 88/89 22/22 LDV/SOF LDV/SOF + RBV LDV/SOF LDV/SOF + RBV 12 Weeks 24 Weeks Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. 4
ALLY-1: DCV, SOF + RBV combination for HCV patients with advanced cirrhosis or post-transplant recurrence SVR12 by Child-Pugh class: Advanced cirrhosis cohort, all genotypes SVR12 (%) 11/ 12 30/ 32 9/ 16 A B C 21/ 29/ 22/ 28/ 10/ 30/ 10/ 23 37 23 37 11 31 18 No Yes No Yes >3.5 <2.8 2.8 3.5 41/ 6/ 3/ 33/ 9/ 8/ 49 8 18 37 12 11 <1.7 >2.3 <2.0 >3.0 1.7 2.3 2.0 3.0 Child-Pugh class Ascites HE Albumin g/dl Post-transplant results similar to SOLAR trials CP C patients have reduced SVR secondary to relapse of unclear mechanism Effect on long-term outcomes critical to make decision of whether to treat CP C Poordad F, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #LO8 INR Total bilirubin mg/dl
LDV/SOF + RBV for the treatment of HCV in patients with decompensated cirrhosis: preliminary results of a prospective, multicenter study Flamm SL, et al. AASLD 2014, Boston. #239 Charlton Gastroenterology 2015 Wk 0 Wk 12 Wk 24 Wk 36 LDV/SOF + RBV SVR12 LDV/SOF + RBV SVR12 SVR12 G1 and 4, CPT Class B and C 108 patients randomized 1:1 to 12 or 24 weeks of treatment G1 or 4 tx-naïve or experienced patients with decompensated cirrhosis CPT class B (7 9) or C (score 10 12) SVR12 (%) 3 relapses 1 relapse 1 death 2 deaths 1 relapse 1 death 1 relapse 1 LTFU 1 death 45/52 42/47 Overall 26/30 24/27 19/22 18/20 CPT B CPT C LDV/SOF + RBV 12 wks LDV/SOF + RBV 24 wks
DCV + SOF in G1 monoinfected patients from French observational cohort ANRS CO22 HEPATHER Real-world French database 409 pts treated with DCV + SOF ± RBV RBV n=92; no RBV n=317 78% cirrhosis; 75% TE SVR4 (%) 27/ 31 19/ 23 47/ 53 203/ 210 4/ 4 8/ 8 14/ 14 65/ 66 Pts (%) 46/ 54 45/ 53 250/ 263 172/ 184 12/ 12 11/ 11 79/ 80 61/ 62 SVR4 (%) 20/ 20 26/ 34 47/ 47 203/ 216 3/ 3 9/ 9 18/ 18 59/ 60 Factors associated with failure: No RBV 12-week duration Cirrhosis Pol S, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #LO3 100% SVR for non-cirrhotics with all regimens Without RBV, 24 weeks better than 12 for cirrhotics RBV may eliminate need for extra 12 wks (as for LDV/SOF) Authors recommended 12 wks DCV + SOF + RBV
regimens containing SOF ± SMV in the TRIO network: Academic and community treatment of a real-world, heterogeneous population VR12 G1, ITT population All Treatment-naive Treatment-experienced Cirrhotic G1 (All) 273/353 263/317 164/205 126/151 109/147 137/166 54/79 110/144 G1a 186/240 163/200 117/147 79/98 69/92 84/102 35/53 67/92 G1b 64/84 77/88 37/45 39/42 27/39 38/46 17/21 31/37 SOF + PEG + RBV SMV + SOF ± RBV Dieterich D, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #P0775 Both regimens performed less well than in clinical trials in cirrhosis pts G1a performed less well than G1b PR/SOF performed well in treatment failure non-cirrhotic at 74% as predicted by FDA
SVR12 (%) BOSON: SOF + PEG-IFN/RBV for 12 weeks vs SOF + RBV for 16 or 24 weeks in G3 HCV-infected patients and treatmentexperienced cirrhotic G2 patients SVR12 in G3 by treatment history and cirrhosis status 58/70 65/72 68/71 12/21 18/2294/112 21/2 83/100 41/54 44/54 49/52 10/11 17/36 26/34 30/35 3 No cirrhosis Cirrhosis No cirrhosis Cirrhosis Treatment-naive Treatment-experienced SOF + RBV 16 weeks SOF + RBV 24 weeks SOF + PEG/RBV 12 weeks SOF treatment emergent variants L159F and V321A were observed in 9/78 (12%) pts: Peg-IFN RBV with SOF still a treatment L159F was present at baseline and at the option for G3 time of virologic failure in 1 patient, and only 16 week SOF + RBV for G3 did not at the time of virologic failure in 6 patients meet expectation Newer DAAs with activity against G3 still a necessity V321A emerged at the time of Foster virologic GR, et al. EASL failure 2015, in Vienna. 2 patients #LO5
Daclatasvir (DCV) + sofosbuvir (SOF) ± ribavirin (RBV) in G3 patients: Interim analysis of a French multicenter compassionate use program 601 G3 pts received: DCV + SOF for 12 wks (4%) DCV + SOF + RBV for 12 wks (17%) DCV + SOF for 24 wks (15%) DCV + SOF + RBV for 24 wks (64%) Patients: F3 / extrahepatic manifestations / post-lt HCV recurrence / indication for liver or kidney transplant Mostly male (75%), mono-infected (83%), cirrhotic (77%), treatment-experienced (73%) Median BL platelets 118.5 x 109/L Median BL albumin 39.0 g/l Hezode C, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #LP05 Patients (%) SVR4 11/12 5/6 22/29 52/59 d/c related to AEs (1 pt), death (2 pts), patient decision (1 pt) 12-week regimen effective for non-cirrhotic G3 pts Cirrhotics appear to benefit from 24 weeks Effect of RBV not included in analysis
Treatment of decompensated HCV cirrhosis in patients with diverse genotypes: 12 weeks SOF + NS5A inhibitors ± RBV is effective in HCV G1 and G3 SVR12 rate % (ITT) Age <65 100 80 60 40 20 0 80 71 74 73 Harmed SAE/MELD worse by Age 2 >65 Helped Foster GR, et al. MELD EASL 2015, improved Vienna. by #O002 2 SVR12 by genotype and regimen p<0.05 86 81 82 70 71 60 59 43 252 28 172 15 164 21 45 5 All G1 Risk:Benefit N (%) Albumin >35 Albumin <35 Harmed SAE/MELD worse by 14 (14%) 94 (33%) 2 Helped MELD improved by 2 29 (28%) 53 (18%) Total 102 288 9 (32%) 14 (33%) 4 (14%) 6 (14%) Total 28 43 61 7 114 7 G3 89 SOF/LDV/RBV SOF/LDV 85 100 27 13 3 Others SOF/DCV/RBV SOF/DCV Restricted regimen: 12 weeks SOF only Encouraging results in G1 somewhat concerning G3 G3 SVR favored by SOF + DCV vs SOF + LDV, compared with EC 50 s Estimates of risk benefit may
Safety and effectiveness of SOF-based regimens for the treatment of HCV G3 and 4 infections: Interim analysis of a prospective, observational study SVR12 SVR12 among G3, SOF/R 16/ 18 87/ 113 19/ 22 3/7 12/ 12 4/4 22/ 50 17/ 23 18/ 23 30/ 37 G3 G4 G4 is more effectively treated with 2 oral DAAs G3 treatment with SOF/RBV was less effective in real-world TE cirrhosis only 44% SVR Markers of advanced liver disease (MELD, albumin, platelet count) predictive of SVR Alqahtani S, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #P0840 Relapse among G3, SOF/R 26/ 50 4/23 4/23 6/37
Integrated safety analysis of SOLAR 1 and 2: LDV/SOF + RBV in >600 decompensated and post-lt patients with HCV infection Pretransplant CP B + C n=215 20 (9%) d/c treatment 9 adverse events 4 deaths 7 liver transplants 195 completed treatment Randomized N=660 F0 F3 and CP A n=330 11 (3%) d/c treatment 5 adverse events 1 death 1 investigator discretion 2 non-compliance 1 lost to follow-up 1 withdrew consent 319 completed treatment Samuel D, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #P0774 Post-transplant CP B and C* n=114 11 (10%) d/c treatment 5 adverse events 3 deaths 2 investigator discretions 1 protocol violation 103 completed treatment Treatment-emergent deaths Populatio n Did not complete treatment Septic shock Pre CP B Cardiac arrest in setting of sepsis Pre CP B Oliguric renal failure Pre CP C Septic shock Pre CP C GI bleeding and liver failure Pre CP C Multi-organ failure and septic shock Pre CP C Cardiac arrest due to ischemic heart disease Pre CP C Staphylococcus aureus sepsis Pre CP C GI bleeding & liver failure Post CP A Progressive multifocal leukoencephalitis Post CP A Thoracic aorta aneurysm dissection Post CP B Internal bleeding Post CP B Multi-organ failure with sepsis Post CP B Multi-organ failure due to decompensated cirrhosis Post CP B Infiltrative multifocal hepatocarcinoma Post CP C Intestinal ischemia Post CP C Died 30 days after completing treatment Sepsis and multi-organ failure Pre CP B Liver failure due to chronic liver F0 Post rejection F3 Myocardial infarction Post CP A
HCV-TARGET: Safety and efficacy of SOF-containing regimens in HCV-infected patients with reduced renal function Dichotomous = n (%) Continuous = mean (range) Early High treatment rates discontinuation of SVR independent of baseline renal AEfunction In patients with egfr <30 worsening renal function Saxena V, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #LP08 Safety outcomes by baseline egfr egfr 30 n=17 egfr 31 45 n=56 egfr 46 60 n=157 egfr >60 n=1559 Common AEs Fatigue 3 (18) 19 (34) 56 (36) 543 (35) Headache 1 (6) 9 (16) 19 (12) 274 (18) Nausea 3 (18) 8 (14) 33 (21) 247 (16) Anemia AE 6 (35) 16 (29) 37 (24) 246 (16) Required transfusion(s) 2 (12) 5 (9) 3 (2) 31 (2) Erythropoietin start on 1 (6) 8 (14) 14 (9) 50 (3) treatment RBV Reduction in RBV due to 3 (38) 8 (30) 33 (42) 185 (19) anemia RBV discontinuation 0 (0) 4 (15) 1 (1) 12 (1) Worsening renal function 5 (29) 6 (11) 4 (3) 14 (1) Renal or urinary system AEs 5 (29) 6 (11) 13 (8) 84 (5) Any serious AEs 3 (18) 13 (23) 8 (5) 100 (6) Cardiac serious AEs 1 (6) 2 (4) 8 (5) 53 (3) Early treatment discontinuation 1 (6) 4 (6) 6 (4) 68 (4) More anemia and more monitoring with SOFcontaining regimen 1 (6) 2 (3) 4 (2) 39 (3) Death 1 (6) 0 (0) Does not validate 2 (1) safety of DAA utilization 10 (1)
hepatic venous pressure gradient in HCV-infected patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension Median total albumin and bilirubin at baseline and follow-up Week 4 (all pts, N=96) (12.4) p<0.0001 p<0.0001 Median total albumin (g/dl) Normal range total albumin: 3.3 4.9 g/dl Median total bilirubin (mg/dl) Normal range total bilirubin: 0.2 1.2 mg/dl 0 Baseline f/u 4 Baseline f/u 4 Arms 1 and 2: HVPG change over observation and 48-week treatment periods Arm 1 Wk/ Arm 2 Wk Observation /0 Start treatment 0/24 End treatment 48/72 Observation period (Arm 2; n=18) Afdhal N, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #LP13 Treatment period (n=37) Baseline (n=37) EOT (n=37)
hepatic venous pressure gradient in HCV-infected patients with cirrhosis and portal hypertension ms 1 and 2: HVPG % change after treatment in subset of patients with baseline HVPG 12 mm H Patients with >20% decrease (8/33) * * * * n=2 Baseline MELD score <10 10 *Patients with HVPG 12 mm Hg at end of treatmen SOF + RBV for 48 weeks: SVR rate of 72% Clinical improvement occurs after viral suppression more rapidly than remodeling of fibrosis and reduction in HVPG Effect of SVR12 and long-term viral suppression/cure on HVPG may manifest later, and is being explored in these patients 1 year post-treatment Afdhal N, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #LP13
PK and safety of co-administered ABT-450/r, ABT-267 and ABT-333 as a single dose in subjects with normal hepatic function and in subjects with mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment Mild impairment: ABT-450, -333 and -267 exposures not clinically significantly different (AUCs up to ±30% different) Moderate impairment: ABT-333 and -267 exposures not clinically significantly different (AUCs 30% lower), ABT-450 exposures moderately higher (AUC 62% higher) Severe impairment: ABT-450 and -333 exposures significantly higher ABT-450 ABT-333 ABT-267 Ritonavir
The prevalence and effect of HCV NS5A resistanceassociated variants in subjects with compensated cirrhosis treated with LDV/SOF ± RBV SVR12 rates by resistance level of baseline NS5A RAVs Treatment-naive G1a Treatment-experienced SVR12 (%) 11/12 3/3 70/70 10/15 11/11 187/193 Treatment-naive G1b Treatment-experienced 15/16 5/5 54/54 19/20 11/11 96/100 Sarrazin C, et al. EASL 2015, Vienna. #P0773 NS5A RAVs important in G1 treatment-failure cirrhotics RBV, not duration, overcomes effective NS5A RAVs on
Urgent lessons to be learned from DAA IFN free therapy in decompensated cirrhosis What degrees of cirrhosis impair response? What is the optimal duration of therapy for different stages of cirrhosis? Is mortality less than expected in this population Is the long term outcome better in Child Pugh C when treated pre transplant? What are the consequences of relapse? Are pre-existent resistant variants more critical in this group? Are there higher rates of adverse events in patients with decompensated cirrhosis? To what degree is disease reversible? Is the natural history of the disease altered? Is mortality lessened in this group