Abstract. Background. Conclusions. Aim. Patients and Methods. Acknowledgments. References. Results. Poster #905

Similar documents
HEPATITIS WEB STUDY. Treatment of Hepatitis C following Liver Transplantation

ةي : لآا ةرقبلا ةروس

RBV DR (n=249) EPO (n=251)

HCV Management in Decompensated Cirrhosis: Current Therapies

Hepatitis C: Management of Previous Non-responders with First Line Protease Inhibitors

Background: Narlaprevir (SCH )

Latest Treatment Updates for GT 2 and GT 3 Patients

SYNOPSIS Final Clinical Study Report for Study AI444031

Simeprevir + PEG + RBV in Treatment-Naïve Genotype 1 QUEST-1 Trial

Current Treatments for HCV

Patients with Cirrhosis: Managing the HCV Peri-Transplant Patient

Hepatitis C: Difficult-to-treat Patients 11th Paris Hepatology Conference 16th January 2018 Stefan Zeuzem, MD University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany

Follow-up 24 weeks. Follow-up 24 weeks. Follow-up 24 weeks

CASE STUDY. Adverse Events in treatment chronic hepatitis C patients with PegInterferon and Ribavirin What would your management decision be?

Express Scripts, Inc. monograph dated 5/25/2011; selected revision 6/1/2011

SOLAR-1 (Cohorts A and B)

Enrolled N = 687 SVR = 62.7% (431/687) Met Protocol-Defined Anemia Criteria n = 500 SVR = 71.2% (356/500)

ASSAYS UTILZIED TO MONITOR HCV AND ITS TREATMENT

SOLAR-1 (Cohorts A and B)

Emerging Therapies for HCV: Highlights from AASLD 2012 (Part 2)

Intron A Hepatitis C. Intron A (interferon alfa-2b) Description

Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir (Harvoni)

How do you optimize HCV Treatment for Cirrhotic Patients APASL STC Cebu

HCV Case Study. Treat Now or Wait for New Therapies

Infergen (interferon alfacon-1) with Ribavirin (Copegus, Rebetol, RibaPak, Ribasphere, RibaTab, ribavirin tablets/capsules - all strengths)

IL TRAPIANTO DI FEGATO: QUALE FUTURO CON LE NUOVE TERAPIE PER LE MALATTIE EPATICHE?

Antiviral treatment in HCV cirrhotic patients on waiting list

Glecaprevir-Pibrentasvir in Cirrhotic Genotype 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 EXPEDITION-1

HEPATITIS C TREATMENT GUIDANCE

Review Optimizing outcomes in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3

Phase 3. Treatment Experienced. Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir +/- Ribavirin in HCV Genotype 1 ION-2. Afdhal N, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:

29th Viral Hepatitis Prevention Board Meeting

Management of CHC G1 patients who are relapsers or non-responders to Peg IFN and RBV therapy: Wait or Triple Therapy?

The role of triple therapy with protease inhibitors in hepatitis C virus genotype 1na «ve patients

SECTION 1: OLYSIO with (PEGASYS) AND RIBAVIRIN SECTION 2: OLYSIO with (PEGINTRON) AND RIBAVIRIN RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION IN PA PROGRAM

Treatment guidance for Chronic Hepatitis C Infection

Update on Real-World Experience With HARVONI

Update on Real-World Experience With HARVONI

How to optimize current therapy for GT1 patients Shortened therapy with IFNa-based therapy

Future strategies with new DAAs

Intron A (interferon alfa-2b) with ribavirin, (Moderiba, Rebetol, Ribasphere, RibaTab, ribavirin tablets/capsules - all strengths)

Introduction. The ELECTRON Trial

Optimal ltherapy in non 1 genotypes:

Viral Hepatitis And Liver Transplantation

Hepatitis C: How sick can we treat? Robert S. Brown, Jr., MD, MPH Vice Chair, Transitions of Care Interim Chief, Division of

Expert Perspectives: Best of HCV from EASL 2015

Initial Treatment of HCV G Hugo E. Vargas, MD Professor of Medicine Medical, Director Office of Clinical Research Mayo Clinic Arizona

Scottish Medicines Consortium

Current therapy for hepatitis C: pegylated interferon and ribavirin

Infergen Monotherapy. Infergen (interferon alfacon-1) Description

MEDIC CENTER. Case 2

47 th Annual Meeting AISF

Pivotal New England Journal of Medicine papers 2014 Phase 3 Trial data

Emerging Therapies for HCV: Highlights from AASLD 2012 (Part 2)

Program Disclosure. Provider is approved by the California Board of Registered Nursing, Provider #13664, for 1.5 contact hours.

Efficacy and safety of protease inhibitors for sever hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation: a first multicentric experience

ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) Receipt Release Date: September 30, ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT

Hepatitis C Therapy Falk Symposium September 20, 2008

Ombitasvir-Paritaprevir-Ritonavir + Dasabuvir (Viekira Pak)

Evaluating HIV Patient for Liver Transplantation. Marion G. Peters, MD Professor of Medicine University of California San Francisco USA

Should Elderly CHC Patients (>70 years old) be Treated?

Intron A (interferon alfa-2b) with ribavirin, (Copegus, Moderiba, Rebetol, Ribapak, Ribasphere, RibaTab, ribavirin tablets/capsules - all strengths)

5/12/2016. Learning Objectives. Management of Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 2 or 3 Infected Treatment-Naive or Experienced Patients

Ribavirin (Medicare Prior Authorization)

DAAs in the era of decompensated liver disease. Piero L. Almasio University of Palermo

Highlights of AASLD 2012 CCO Official Conference Coverage of the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

Learning Objective. After completing this educational activity, participants should be able to:

ICVH 2016 Oral Presentation: 28

PHARMACY PRIOR AUTHORIZATION Hepatitis C Clinical Guideline

TREATMENT OF GENOTYPE 2

PEARL-I. Ombitasvir + Paritaprevir + Ritonavir +/- Ribavirin in HCV GT4. Treatment Naïve and Treatment Experienced

Interferon free therapy Are we getting there? Graham R Foster Queen Marys University of London

PHARMACY PRIOR AUTHORIZATION Hepatitis C Clinical Guideline

Treatment Options in HCV Relapsers and Nonresponders. Raymond T. Chung, M.D.

Topic: Sovaldi, sofosbuvir Date of Origin: March 14, Committee Approval Date: August 15, 2014 Next Review Date: March 2015

2017 UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc.

Hepatitis C: New Antivirals in the Liver Transplant Setting. Maria Carlota Londoño Liver Unit Hospital Clínic Barcelona

10/21/2016. Susanna Naggie, MD, MHS Associate Professor of Medicine Duke University Durham, North Carolina. Learning Objectives

Treatment with the New Direct Acting Antivirals for Hepatitis C

Protease inhibitor based triple therapy in treatment experienced patients

HCV In 2015: Maximizing SVR

4/30/2015. Interactive Case-Based Presentations and Audience Discussion. Debika Bhattacharya, MD, MSc. Learning Objectives

Tratamiento de la Hepatitis C Rafael Esteban Hospital General Universitario Valle de Hebrón Barcelona

Liver Transplantation: The End of the Road in Chronic Hepatitis C Infection

Treating now vs. post transplant

HCV TREATMENT PRE- AND POST TRANSPLANTATION

Genotype 1 HCV in 2016: Clinical Decision Making in a Time of Plenty

Treatment of Hepatitis C Recurrence after Liver Transplantation. Maria Carlota Londoño Liver Unit Hospital Clínic Barcelona

Liver transplantation and hepatitis C virus

Treatment strategies for recurrent hepatitis C after living donor liver transplantation (from Kyushu University experience)

Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C in HIV infection

1.0 Abstract. Title. Keywords

HCV: Racial Disparities. Charles D. Howell, M.D., A.G.A.F Professor of Medicine University of Maryland School of Medicine Baltimore, MD

VIRAL LIVER DISEASE. OAG Post DDW Course Westin Prince, Toronto, June 13-14, 2015

IFN-free for Genotype 1 HCV: the current landscape. Prof. Graham R Foster

Medical Policy An independent licensee of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Supplementary Material

Dr. Siddharth Srivastava

Strategies towards cure of HCV infection: a personalized approach. Heiner Wedemeyer Hannover Medical School Hannover, Germany

Treatment of Unique Populations Raymond T. Chung, MD

Transcription:

Poster #95 Baseline, Donor, and On-treatment Predictors of Sustained Virologic Response in Treated for Recurrent Hepatitis C Following Orthotopic Liver Transplant: Subanalysis of the PROTECT Study F. D. Gordon, F. Poordad, 2 G. Neff, 3 S. Mukherjee, 4 G. Barnard, 5 D. Barnes, 6 A. Koch, 7 P. Hayashi, 8 M. R. Lucey, 9 L. Kulik, A. D. Smith, M. S. Olyaee, 2 P. Mantry, E. Chaudhri, 4 L. D. Pedicone 4 Lahey Clinic Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA; 2 Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 3 University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 4 University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA; 5 University of Massachusetts, Worcester, MA, USA; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; 7 University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; 8 University of rth Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 9 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA; rthwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA; Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 2 University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; The Liver Institute at Methodist Dallas Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; 4 Schering-Plough Research Institute, now Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA Abstract Aim: To identify baseline, donor, and on-treatment predictors of sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients (pts) receiving therapy for recurrent hepatitis C following orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). Methods: Phase 3, single-arm, multicenter, open-label study. Adult pts with recurrent hepatitis C infection post-olt received peginterferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2b (.5 µg/kg/wk) plus ribavirin (RBV, 4- mg/day) for up to 48 weeks; then were followed for an additional weeks. Primary end point was SVR (LLQ <25 IU/mL). This subanalysis examined baseline, donor, and on-treatment factors affecting SVR. Results: pts were enrolled at US centers. Overall SVR was 28.8%. 8/8/8 adherent pts (8% of the assigned PEG-IFN dose, 8% of assigned RBV dose, and 8% of assigned treatment duration) were more likely to attain SVR than pts unable to maintain adequate dosing (odds ratio [OR] = 9.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4., 23.9, P <.). Pts attaining complete EVR (undetectable HCV RNA at week 2) were more likely to attain SVR than those failing to attain EVR (OR =., 95% CI 6.4, 7.7; P <.). The likelihood of SVR was also significantly higher in pts with partial EVR ( 2 log decline yet detectable HCV RNA at week 2) compared with those with no EVR (OR = 3., 95% CI = 4.8, 95.3, P <.). Conclusion: Dosing of at least 8/8/8, pevr, and cevr are significant positive predictors of SVR in pts receiving PEG-IFN alfa- 2b plus RBV for recurrent hepatitis C post-olt. Discontinuation of treatment may be considered in pts who fail to attain EVR. te: This abstract has been modified since submission. Background Reinfection of liver allografts in hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected transplant recipients begins immediately after transplantation in almost all patients -2 Cirrhosis develops within 5 years in % to 3% of these patients, and the probability of decompensation within 2 months is 42% once cirrhosis is established 3 In the PROTECT study, sustained virologic response (SVR) was attained by 28.8% of post orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) patients receiving peginterferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2b plus ribavirin for 48 weeks 4 Aim To identify baseline, donor, and on-treatment predictors of SVR in patients receiving therapy for recurrent hepatitis C following OLT and Methods Adult patients with a diagnosis of recurrent hepatitis C (any genotype) who had received a primary OLT from either a deceased or live donor All patients had end-stage hepatitis C prior to transplantation and had persistent HCV viremia after OLT Liver transplants were performed 3 months, but 3 years prior to screening were required to have been receiving stable doses of immunosuppressive therapy for at least month All patients had compensated liver disease with hemoglobin g/dl; neutrophil count /mm 3 ; platelets 6,/mm 3 ; direct, indirect, and total bilirubin 3 times the upper limit of normal; albumin 3. mg/dl; creatinine clearance >5 ml/min; and alpha-fetoprotein 25 ng/ml with evidence of decompensated liver disease; coinfection with hepatitis B virus and/or human immunodeficiency virus; body weight >5 kg; or any cause of liver disease other than chronic hepatitis C were excluded were not required to show any degree of fibrosis Study Design This was a phase 3, single-arm, multicenter, open-label study All patients received PEG-IFN alfa-2b (.5 µg/kg/week) plus ribavirin (4- mg/day) for 48 weeks (Figure ) All patients received ribavirin 4 mg/day during weeks and 2 and 8 mg/day during weeks 3 and 4 Thereafter, among patients who tolerated treatment, ribavirin was administered according to body weight Immunosuppressive therapy was administered according to the protocols at each center Growth factors were permitted at the discretion of the treating physician Primary end point was SVR, defined as undetectable HCV RNA weeks after completing treatment (lower limit of quantitation <25 IU/mL) Relapse was defined as detectable HCV RNA during -week follow-up in patients with undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment Figure. PROTECT study design. Screening EVR HCV RNA HCV RNA HCV RNA HCV RNA HCV RNA Day Baseline 4 Treatment week 2: Treatment week 3 4: Treatment week 5 48: PEG-IFN alfa-2b.5 µg/kg/week + Ribavirin 4- mg/day 48 weeks 2 48 Follow-up weeks RBV 4 mg/day RBV 8 mg/day RBV dose increased to max of mg/day (weight-based) if well tolerated EVR = early virologic response; HCV = hepatitis C virus; PEG-IFN = peginterferon; RBV = ribavirin; = rapid virologic response. Results Most patients were white and male ( Table ) Tacrolimus and mycophenolate were the most frequently used immunosuppressive agents Table. Patient Characteristics (N = ) Genotype 2/3 (n = ) Male, n (%) 6 (85) 92 (88) 4 (7) Race, n (%) White (8) 82 (78) 9 (95) Black 4 () 4 () Age, mean, y 54.2 54.5 52.2 Weight, mean, kg 86.5 86. 89.2 Baseline viral load >6, IU/mL, n (%) (89) 95 (9) 6 (8) Donor age, mean, y 4.4 39.4 45.2 Donor deceased, n (%) 8 (86) 9 (86) 8 (9) Transplant treatment interval, mean ± SD, days 477.6 ± 467. ± 235 533.7 ± 266 Primary immunosuppressive therapy, n (%) Tacrolimus 4 (83) 87 (83) 7 (85) Cyclosporine 8 (4) 6 (5) 2 () Sirolimus 9 (7) 8 (8) (5) Mycophenolate 7 (56) 6 (57) (5) Prednisone 6 () 5 (4) (5) Methylprednisolone 2 (2) () (5) Antithymocyte immunoglobulin () () Virologic Response In total, 29% of patients attained SVR ( Figure 2) 52 of (4.6%) patients discontinued treatment early Reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (n = 38), treatment failure (n = 7), did not wish to continue (n = 5), noncompliant (n = 2) Figure 2. Virologic response rates in the PROTECT study. Virologic Response, % 8 6 4 4 5/ EOT 8 8/ 44 29 36/ Relapse* 35 37/ 9 6/ 3 SVR 25/ 7 4/ 5 2/ 55 / Genotype 2/3 *Relapse rate calculation includes patients with undetectable HCV RNA at EOT who were not missing follow-up visit data. EOT = end of treatment; SVR = sustained virologic response. Predictors of SVR: 8/8/8-adherent patients were more likely to attain SVR than patients unable to maintain adequate dosing (odds ratio [OR] 9.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.-23.9, P <.) (Table 2) Early virologic response (EVR) was a significant predictor of SVR attaining complete EVR (undetectable HCV RNA at week 2) were more likely to attain SVR than those failing to attain EVR (OR., 95% CI 6.4-7.7, P <.) attaining partial EVR ( 2-log decline yet detectable HCV RNA at week 2) were also significantly more likely to attain SVR than those with no EVR (OR 3., 95% CI 4.8-95.3, P <.) Table 2. SVR in Patient Subgroups Variables, % (n/n) (N = ) Genotype 2/3 (n = ) Patient Genotype 28.8 (36/) 23.8 (25/) 55. (/) Gender Male Female 33. (35/6) 27.2 (25/92) 5.3 (/9) (/) 7.4 (/4) 6.7 (/6) Race White 29.7 (3/).4 (/82) 52.6 (/9) n-white 25. (6/) 2.7 (5/23) (/) Age, y <5 5 42.3 (/26) 25.3 (25/99) 3.6 (6/9) 22. (9/86) 46.2 (6/) Bodyweight, kg <75 75 9.2 (5/26) 3.3 (3/99) 22.7 (5/22). (/83) (/4) 68.8 (/6) Baseline viral load, IU/mL 6, >6, 46.2 (6/) 44.4 (4/9) 27. (3/) 22. (2/95) 5. (2/4) 56.3 (9/6) Baseline hemoglobin, g/dl 4 >4.6 (9/66) 45.8 (27/59).3 (6/58) 4.4 (9/47) 37.5 (3/8) 66.7 (8/2) Baseline serum glucose, mmol/l <5.6 5.6 3. (9/6) 26.6 (7/64) 26.9 (4/52).8 (/53) 55.6 (5/9) 54.5 (6/) Donor Status Deceased Living 32.4 (35/8) 27.8 (25/9). (/9) (/8) 55.6 (/8) (/) Donor age, y 5 >5 32.9 (26/79) 3.4 (2/69). (3/23) 5. (5/) 62.5 (5/8) On-treatment 83.3 (5/6) (3/3) 66.7 (2/3) 25.7 (29/).8 (/96) 52.9 (9/7) EVR a cevr 66.7 (22/33) 6. (2/) 76.9 (/) pevr 36. (/36) 37.5 (2/32) 25. (/4) EVR.8 (/56).9 (/53) (/3) Nadir hemoglobin, g/dl < 26.4 (23/87) 34.2 (/38) 23. (7/74) 46.2 (6/) Cyclosporine use b 29.4 (5/7) 33.3 (5/5) 28.7 (3/8) 22.2 (/9) (/2) 6. (/8) Tacrolimus use b 3.4 (3/2) 23.5 (/85) 2.7 (5/23) 25. (5/) 64.7 (/7) (/3) 8:8:8 compliant a 6.5 (/39) 4. (2/86) 57. (6/28).7 (9/77) 72.7 (8/) 33.3 (3/9) a Highlighting denotes variables that were significantly associated with SVR (cevr, pevr, vs no EVR; 8:8:8 vs no 8:8:8; P <. for all comparisons). All other variables failed to show a significant association with SVR (P >.5). Analysis was performed only for the all-patient population. b Use of immunosuppressive agent during screening and/or treatment. cevr = complete early virologic response; EVR = early virologic response; pevr = partial early virologic response; = rapid virologic response. Conclusions Dosing of at least 8/8/8 and partial and complete EVR are significant positive predictors of SVR in patients receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b plus ribavirin for recurrent hepatitis C post-olt Discontinuation of treatment may be considered in patients who fail to attain EVR Acknowledgments Study investigators: Graham Barnard, David Barnes, Kim Brown, Robert Brown, Jeffrey Crippin, Reem Ghalib, Fred Gordon, Paul Hayashi, Alvaro Koch, Laura Kulik, Paul Kwo, Michael Lucey, Parvez Mantry, Sandeep Mukherjee, Guy Neff, Mojtaba Olyaee, Fred Poordad, Nikolaos Pyrsopolous, Thomas Schiano, Alastair Smith, Lewis Teperman, Hugo Vargas. References. Ballardini G, et al. Liver Transpl. 2;8():-. 2. Guerrero RB, et al. Mod Pathol. ;(3):229-37. 3. Berenguer M. Liver Transpl. 2;8():S4-8. 4. Gordon FD, et al. Presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver; April 4 8, ; Vienna, Austria. Disclosures F. Poordad has been an advisor/consultant and has received research grants from Abbott, Genentech, Gilead, Idenix, Merck, Salix, and Vertex and has also received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pharmassett plus speaker honoraria from Genentech, Gilead, and Salix. G. Neff has served on speaker bureaus for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Salix, and 3-Rivers and as consultant to Genentech and Salix. S. Mukherjee is on the speaker bureau for Merck. D. Barnes is an investigator for Centocor, Eisai, Hyperion Therapeutics, Hoffman-LaRoche, Ikaria, and Merck. M. R. Lucey receives grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hyperion, Salix, and Vertex. F. D. Gordon, G. Barnard, A. Koch, P. Hayashi, L. Kulik, A. D. Smith, and M. S. Olyaee have nothing to disclose. E. Chaudhri and L. D. Pedicone are employees of, and hold stock in Schering-Plough, now Merck and Co. Presented at the 6st Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, October 29 vember 2,, Boston, MA. Supported by Schering-Plough Corporation, now Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA.

Poster #95 Baseline, Donor, and Recurrent Hepatiti F. D. Gordon, F. Poordad, 2 G. Neff, 3 S. Mu Lahey Clinic Medical Center, Burlington, MA, USA; 2 Cedars-Sinai Med 7 University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA; 8 University of Abstract Aim: To identify baseline, donor, and on-treatment predictors of sustained virologic response (SVR) in patients (pts) receiving therapy for recurrent hepatitis C following orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). Methods: Phase 3, single-arm, multicenter, open-label study. Adult pts with recurrent hepatitis C infection post-olt received peginterferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2b (.5 µg/kg/wk) plus ribavirin (RBV, 4- mg/day) for up to 48 weeks; then were followed for an additional weeks. Primary end point was SVR (LLQ <25 IU/mL). This subanalysis examined baseline, donor, and on-treatment factors affecting SVR. Results: pts were enrolled at US centers. Overall SVR was 28.8%. 8/8/8 adherent pts (8% of the assigned PEG-IFN dose, 8% of assigned RBV dose, and 8% of assigned treatment duration) were more likely to attain SVR than pts unable to maintain adequate dosing (odds ratio [OR] = 9.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4., 23.9, P <.). Pts attaining complete EVR (undetectable HCV RNA at week 2) were more likely to attain SVR than those failing to attain EVR (OR =., 95% CI 6.4, 7.7; P <.). The likelihood of SVR was also significantly higher in pts with partial EVR ( 2 log decline yet detectable HCV RNA at week 2) compared with those with no EVR (OR = 3., 95% CI = 4.8, 95.3, P <.). Conclusion: Dosing of at least 8/8/8, pevr, and cevr are significant positive predictors of SVR in pts receiving PEG-IFN alfa- 2b plus RBV for recurrent hepatitis C post-olt. Discontinuation of treatment may be considered in pts who fail to attain EVR. te: This abstract has been modified since submission. Background Reinfection of liver allografts in hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected transplant recipients begins immediately after transplantation in almost all patients -2 Cirrhosis develops within 5 years in % to 3% of these patients, and the probability of decompensation within 2 months is 42% once cirrhosis is established 3 In the PROTECT study, sustained virologic response (SVR) was attained by 28.8% of post orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) patients receiving peginterferon (PEG-IFN) alfa-2b plus ribavirin for 48 weeks 4 Aim To identify baseline, donor, and on-treatment predictors of SVR in patients receiving therapy for recurrent hepatitis C following OLT and Methods Adult patients with a diagnosis of recurrent hepatitis C (any genotype) who had received a primary OLT from either a deceased or live donor All patients had end-stage hepatitis C prior to transplantation and had persistent HCV viremia after OLT Liver transplants were performed 3 months, but 3 years prior to screening were required to have been receiving stable doses of immunosuppressive therapy for at least month Presented at the 6st Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, Oc

On-treatment Predictors of S is C Following Orthotopic Live kherjee, 4 G. Barnard, 5 D. Barnes, 6 A. Koch, 7 P. Hayashi dical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 3 University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA orth Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA; 9 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA; The Liver Institute at Methodist Dallas Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; 4 Scher All patients had compensated liver disease with hemoglobin g/dl; neutrophil count /mm 3 ; platelets 6,/mm 3 ; direct, indirect, and total bilirubin 3 times the upper limit of normal; albumin 3. mg/dl; creatinine clearance >5 ml/min; and alpha-fetoprotein 25 ng/ml with evidence of decompensated liver disease; coinfection with hepatitis B virus and/or human immunodeficiency virus; body weight >5 kg; or any cause of liver disease other than chronic hepatitis C were excluded were not required to show any degree of fibrosis Study Design This was a phase 3, single-arm, multicenter, open-label study All patients received PEG-IFN alfa-2b (.5 µg/kg/week) plus ribavirin (4- mg/day) for 48 weeks (Figure ) All patients received ribavirin 4 mg/day during weeks and 2 and 8 mg/day during weeks 3 and 4 Thereafter, among patients who tolerated treatment, ribavirin was administered according to body weight Immunosuppressive therapy was administered according to the protocols at each center Growth factors were permitted at the discretion of the treating physician Primary end point was SVR, defined as undetectable HCV RNA weeks after completing treatment (lower limit of quantitation <25 IU/mL) Relapse was defined as detectable HCV RNA during -week follow-up in patients with undetectable HCV RNA at the end of treatment Figure. PROTECT study design. EVR HCV RNA HCV RNA HCV RNA HCV RNA HCV RNA Day Screening Baseline 4 PEG-IFN alfa-2b.5 µg/kg/week + Ribavirin 4- mg/day 48 weeks 2 48 Follow-up weeks Treatment week 2: Treatment week 3 4: Treatment week 5 48: RBV 4 mg/day RBV 8 mg/day RBV dose increased to max of mg/day (weight-based) if well tolerated EVR = early virologic response; HCV = hepatitis C virus; PEG-IFN = peginterferon; RBV = ribavirin; = rapid virologic response. Results Most patients were white and male ( Table ) Tacrolimus and mycophenolate were the most frequently used immunosuppressive agents ctober 29 vember 2,, Boston, MA.

stained Virologic Response in r Transplant: Subanalysis of th 8 M. R. Lucey, 9 L. Kulik, A. D. Smith, M. S. Olyaee, 2 P ; 4 University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA; 5 University of Massach rthwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA; Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; ng-plough Research Institute, now Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA Table. Patient Characteristics (N = ) Genotype 2/3 (n = ) Male, n (%) 6 (85) 92 (88) 4 (7) Race, n (%) White (8) 82 (78) 9 (95) Black 4 () 4 () Age, mean, y 54.2 54.5 52.2 Weight, mean, kg 86.5 86. 89.2 Baseline viral load >6, IU/mL, n (%) (89) 95 (9) 6 (8) Donor age, mean, y 4.4 39.4 45.2 Donor deceased, n (%) 8 (86) 9 (86) 8 (9) Transplant treatment interval, mean ± SD, days 477.6 ± 467. ± 235 533.7 ± 266 Primary immunosuppressive therapy, n (%) Tacrolimus 4 (83) 87 (83) 7 (85) Cyclosporine 8 (4) 6 (5) 2 () Sirolimus 9 (7) 8 (8) (5) Mycophenolate 7 (56) 6 (57) (5) Prednisone 6 () 5 (4) (5) Methylprednisolone 2 (2) () (5) Antithymocyte immunoglobulin () () Virologic Response In total, 29% of patients attained SVR ( Figure 2) 52 of (4.6%) patients discontinued treatment early Reasons for discontinuation were adverse events (n = 38), treatment failure (n = 7), did not wish to continue (n = 5), noncompliant (n = 2) Figure 2. Virologic response rates in the PROTECT study. 8 EOT Relapse* SVR 7 Virologic Response, % 6 4 4 5/ 8 8/ 44 29 36/ 35 37/ 9 6/ 3 25/ 4/ 5 2/ 55 / Genotype 2/3 *Relapse rate calculation includes patients with undetectable HCV RNA at EOT who were not missing follow-up visit data. EOT = end of treatment; SVR = sustained virologic response. Predictors of SVR: 8/8/8-adherent patients were more likely to attain SVR than patients unable to maintain adequate dosing (odds ratio [OR] 9.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.-23.9, P <.) (Table 2) Early virologic response (EVR) was a significant predictor of SVR attaining complete EVR (undetectable HCV RNA at week 2) were more likely to attain SVR than those failing to attain EVR (OR., 95% CI 6.4-7.7, P <.) attaining partial EVR ( 2-log decline yet detectable HCV RNA at week 2) were also significantly more likely to attain SVR than those with no EVR (OR 3., 95% CI 4.8-95.3, P <.)

n Treated for he PROTECT Study P. Mantry, E. Chaudhri, 4 L. D. Pedicone 4 achusetts, Worcester, MA, USA; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; A; 2 University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA; SA Table 2. SVR in Patient Subgroups Variables, % (n/n) (N = ) Genotype 2/3 (n = ) Patient Genotype 28.8 (36/) 23.8 (25/) 55. (/) Gender Male Female 33. (35/6) 27.2 (25/92) 5.3 (/9) (/) 7.4 (/4) 6.7 (/6) Race White 29.7 (3/).4 (/82) 52.6 (/9) n-white 25. (6/) 2.7 (5/23) (/) Age, y <5 5 42.3 (/26) 25.3 (25/99) 3.6 (6/9) 22. (9/86) 46.2 (6/) Bodyweight, kg <75 75 9.2 (5/26) 3.3 (3/99) 22.7 (5/22). (/83) (/4) 68.8 (/6) Baseline viral load, IU/mL 6, >6, 46.2 (6/) 44.4 (4/9) 27. (3/) 22. (2/95) 5. (2/4) 56.3 (9/6) Baseline hemoglobin, g/dl 4 >4.6 (9/66) 45.8 (27/59).3 (6/58) 4.4 (9/47) 37.5 (3/8) 66.7 (8/2) Baseline serum glucose, mmol/l <5.6 5.6 3. (9/6) 26.6 (7/64) 26.9 (4/52).8 (/53) 55.6 (5/9) 54.5 (6/) Donor Status Deceased Living 32.4 (35/8) 27.8 (25/9). (/9) (/8) 55.6 (/8) (/) Donor age, y 5 >5 32.9 (26/79) 3.4 (2/69). (3/23) 5. (5/) 62.5 (5/8) On-treatment 83.3 (5/6) (3/3) 66.7 (2/3) 25.7 (29/).8 (/96) 52.9 (9/7) EVR a cevr 66.7 (22/33) 6. (2/) 76.9 (/) pevr 36. (/36) 37.5 (2/32) 25. (/4) EVR.8 (/56).9 (/53) (/3) Nadir hemoglobin, g/dl < 26.4 (23/87) 34.2 (/38) 23. (7/74) 46.2 (6/) Cyclosporine use b 29.4 (5/7) 33.3 (5/5) 28.7 (3/8) 22.2 (/9) (/2) 6. (/8) Tacrolimus use b 3.4 (3/2) 23.5 (/85) 2.7 (5/23) 25. (5/) 64.7 (/7) (/3) 8:8:8 compliant a 6.5 (/39) 4. (2/86) 57. (6/28).7 (9/77) 72.7 (8/) 33.3 (3/9) a Highlighting denotes variables that were significantly associated with SVR (cevr, pevr, vs no EVR; 8:8:8 vs no 8:8:8; P <. for all comparisons). All other variables failed to show a significant association with SVR (P >.5). Analysis was performed only for the all-patient population. b Use of immunosuppressive agent during screening and/or treatment. cevr = complete early virologic response; EVR = early virologic response; pevr = partial early virologic response; = rapid virologic response. Conclusions Dosing of at least 8/8/8 and partial and complete EVR are significant positive predictors of SVR in patients receiving PEG-IFN alfa-2b plus ribavirin for recurrent hepatitis C post-olt Discontinuation of treatment may be considered in patients who fail to attain EVR Acknowledgments Study investigators: Graham Barnard, David Barnes, Kim Brown, Robert Brown, Jeffrey Crippin, Reem Ghalib, Fred Gordon, Paul Hayashi, Alvaro Koch, Laura Kulik, Paul Kwo, Michael Lucey, Parvez Mantry, Sandeep Mukherjee, Guy Neff, Mojtaba Olyaee, Fred Poordad, Nikolaos Pyrsopolous, Thomas Schiano, Alastair Smith, Lewis Teperman, Hugo Vargas. References. Ballardini G, et al. Liver Transpl. 2;8():-. 2. Guerrero RB, et al. Mod Pathol. ;(3):229-37. 3. Berenguer M. Liver Transpl. 2;8():S4-8. 4. Gordon FD, et al. Presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of the Liver; April 4 8, ; Vienna, Austria. Disclosures F. Poordad has been an advisor/consultant and has received research grants from Abbott, Genentech, Gilead, Idenix, Merck, Salix, and Vertex and has also received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pharmassett plus speaker honoraria from Genentech, Gilead, and Salix. G. Neff has served on speaker bureaus for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, Salix, and 3-Rivers and as consultant to Genentech and Salix. S. Mukherjee is on the speaker bureau for Merck. D. Barnes is an investigator for Centocor, Eisai, Hyperion Therapeutics, Hoffman-LaRoche, Ikaria, and Merck. M. R. Lucey receives grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Hyperion, Salix, and Vertex. F. D. Gordon, G. Barnard, A. Koch, P. Hayashi, L. Kulik, A. D. Smith, and M. S. Olyaee have nothing to disclose. E. Chaudhri and L. D. Pedicone are employees of, and hold stock in Schering-Plough, now Merck and Co. Supported by Schering-Plough Corporation, now Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA.