challenges in treating co-infected...
Post on 23-Aug-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Challenges in treating co-infected patients
Sanjay Bhagani Royal Free Hospital/UCL
London
D:A:D: LIVER-RELATED DEATH IS A FREQUENT CAUSE OF NON-AIDS DEATH IN HIV-INFECTED PATIENTS
• Analysis of 2,482 deaths in 180,176 person-years among 33,308 individuals • AIDS remains the primary cause of death amongst HIV-positive individuals
Adapted from D:A:D Study Group. AIDS 2010;24:1537–48.
Rate of death according to calendar year and specific cause of death
Rate
per
1,00
0 per
son
year
s
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1999–2000
2001–2002
2003–2004
2005–2006
2007–2008
OVERLAPPING HCV & HIV EPIDEMICS
33 million 170 million
9 million
HIV HCV
1. Adapted from UNAIDS Global View of HIV infection 2010. Available at http://www.unaids.org/documents/
20101123_2010_HIV_Prevalence_Map_em.pdf. Accessed September 2012; 2. Adapted from WHO Hepatitis C Guide 2002. Available at http://www.who.int/csr/disease/hepatitis/whocdscsrlyo2003/en/index.html.
Accessed September 2012
Predictors of HCV seroconversion in MSM1,2: • History of UAI, multiple partners, use of sex-
toys and fisting • STIs, especially syphilis and LGV
SWISS HIV COHORT STUDY: CHANGING PATTERNS OF HCV INCIDENCE
• HCV incidence in MSM: – Reached 4.1 cases per 100 PY in
2011 (18‐fold increase since 1998) • HCV incidence in IDU:
– Decreased from 13.9 to 2.2 cases per 100 PY
• HCV incidence in heterosexuals – Remained <1 per 100 PY throughout
the study period
1. Adapted from Wandeler G, et al. CROI 2012. Poster Q106 2. Van de Laar T, et al. JID 2007;196:230–8.
Swiss HIV Cohort Study: HCV yearly incidence rate by transmission group*
HET IDU MSM
2002 Calendar year
1998 2000 2004 2006 2008 2010
Incid
ence
rate
(per
100 p
y)
0.1
1
5 10 15 20
*Shaded: 95% confidence intervals PY, patient years; IDU, intravenous drug users; UAI, unprotected anal intercourse; STIs, sexually transmitted infections; LGV, lymphogranuloma venereum; HET, heterosexual
Changing epidemiology and pattern of transmission in Northern Europe
Vanhommerig JW, et al. CROI 2014. Poster #673.
Observed and fitted HCV incidence rate per 1000 person years of follow up
ACS: Amsterdam cohort study
HCV incidence rate among 761 HIV+ MSM participating in the ACS, 1984–
2011
HCV incidence rate by age, in 2008
Faster progression with age even when controlling for alcohol and other co-morbidities
Kirk D, et al. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:658–66.
Liver fibrosis and age among HIV/HCV co-infected patients and HCV mono-infection
30 35 40 50 60 55
Age, years
6
8
10
12
14
Pred
icte
d fib
rosis
scor
e, K
Pa
9.2 years
45
HIV/HCV
HCV
HIV/HCV COINFECTION MAY RESULT IN MULTI-SYSTEMIC DISORDERS
Adapted from Operskalski EA and Kovacs A. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2011;8:12–22.
Immune activation
Immune dysfunction
HIV/HCV Liver disease
HIV disease progression
Metabolic disorders
GI tract
Neurologic disease
Cardio-vascular
Kidney disease
Bone disorders
• CD4 apoptosis • Abnormal T-cell responses and cytokine production • Cytotoxic T-cell accumulation in liver • Impaired CD4 recovery post-HAART • Severe immunodeficiency
• Diabetes mellitus • Insulin resistance
• Microbial translocation
• Steatosis • Fibrosis • Cirrhosis • End-stage liver
disease • Liver-related death
• Global cognitive impairment • Cognitive-motor impairment • Dementia • Peripheral neuropathy
• Cerebrovascular disease
• Acute myocardial infarction
• Opportunistic infections
• Wasting syndrome
• Proteinuria • Acute renal failure • Chronic kidney
disease
• Osteonecrosis • Osteoporosis • Bone fracture
EuroSIDA: PREVALENCE OF HIV/HCV CO-INFECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF HCV GENOTYPES
Adapted from: 1. Rockstroh J, et al. J Infect Dis. 2005;192:992–1002 2. Soriano V, et al. J Infect Dis. 2008;198:1337–44
North: 18.3%
South: 35.5%
Central: 15.0% East: 31.3%
Map shows prevalence of HIV/HCV coinfection by region in N=5,957 HIV-infected patients with an HCV antibody test available1 Bar charts shows prevalence of HCV genotype in n=1,940 HIV/HCV-coinfected patients by region2
Central
Genotype
60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4
East
Genotype 1 2 3 4
60% 40% 20% 0%
North
Genotype
60% 40% 20% 0%
1 2 3 4
South
Genotype
60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4
Royal Free Hospital, London – genotypes, liver disease and therapy
52
13
8
25 G1a
G1b
G2
G3
G4
• >80% on ART
• TE assessed liver disease
• ~20% F3/F4 disease
• ~5% with hepatic decompensation
• 40% anti-HCV therapy
Increasing GT 4 infections GT 1a >> GT 1b
Bhagani S, personal communication TE: transient elastography
HCV/HIV TREATMENT OUTCOMES WITH pegIFN AND RIBAVIRIN
0
25
50
75
100
G1 G2/3
Monoinfection APRICOT ACTG RIBAVIC Laguno et al. PRESCO
Genotype 1 SVR 14–38%
Genotype 3 SVR 44–73%
Genotype
SVR
(%)
Adapted from: Fried et al, NEJM 2002;347:975-982, Torriani et al, NEJM 2004;351:438-50, Chung R, et al, NEJM 2004;351:451-9 Carrat F, et al, JAMA 2004;292:2839-42, Laguno et al, AIDS 2004;18:F27-F36, Nunez et al, JAIDS 2007;45:439-44
HIV/HCV co-infection burden: Increased morbidity if HCV is not controlled
Fernandez-Montero JV, et al. Clin Infect Dis 2014, Mar 14 [Epub ahead of print].
Time free from liver decompensation events or death in HIV-infected patients
100
90
80
Pat
ient
s (%
)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Months
HCV Life Cycle and DAA Targets – drugs
Adapted from Manns MP, et al. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:991-1000.
Receptor binding and endocytosis
Fusion and
uncoating
Transport and release
(+) RNA
Translation and polyprotein processing RNA replication
Virion assembly
Membranous web
ER lumen
LD
LD ER lumen
LD
NS3/4 protease inhibitors NS5B polymerase inhibitors
Nucleoside/nucleotide Nonnucleoside
*Role in HCV life cycle not well defined
NS5A* inhibitors
Telaprevir Boceprevir Faldaprevir Simeprevir ABT 450/r Asunaprevir MK-5172
Daclatasvir Ledipasvir Ombitasvir MK-8742 GS-5816
Sofosbuvir
Dasabuvir
HCV Rx landscape – the future..
2011 2013 2015 2018
•pIFN/R+PI for urgent Need •pIFN/R (g3/g2 + acute HCV)
Use of IL28B P/R lead-in phase Response guided therapy
First line PI + pIFN/R NS5a + pIFN/R Nuc + pIFN/R Nuc + R PI + NS5a + Non-nuc+R Second line Nuc + NS5a Nuc + PI
2012 2014 2016 2017
IFN-alpha Historical therapy!
•Monitor frequently •Early cART •Clinical Trials
SVR12 WITH TVR OR BOC + PEGYLATED INTERFERON AND RIBAVIRIN (PR) VS PR ALONE IN HIV/HCV COINFECTION
Adapted from: 1. Dieterich DT, et al. CROI 2012. Oral Presentation 46 2. Sulkowski MS, et al. CROI 2012. Oral Presentation 47.
HIV-1 RNA breakthrough observed in 7 patients
DC due to AEs
PR (n=34) 9%
BOC + PR (n=64) 20%
DC due to AEs
PR (n=22) 0%
TVR + PR (n=38) 8%
Primary endpoint=SVR at 12 weeks; interim analysis presented Primary endpoint=SVR at 44 weeks; interim analysis presented
0
20
40
60
80
100
BOC + PR Placebo + PR
71
33
69
50
80
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
TVR + PR Placebo + PR
No ART EFV-based ART ATV-based ART
Patie
nts w
ith S
VR12
(%)
5/7 11/ 16
12/ 15 2/6 4/8 4/8
60.7
26.5
37/61 9/34
Patie
nts w
ith S
VR12
(%)
SVR12: TVR + PR vs PR1* SVR12: BOC + PR vs PR2**
Rebound in HIV-1 RNA not observed in any patient
74
45
28/ 38
10/ 22
Total
*Pegylated interferon-α-2a; **Pegylated interferon-α-2b. TVR, telaprevir; BOC, bocepravir
Faldaprevir in co-infected patients
FDV 120 mg QD + PR
24 weeks
ARM A (N=123)a
PR, 12 weeks
FDV 240 mg QD + PR, 12 weeks ARM B
(N=187)a
PR 24 weeks
STOP TREATMENT
FDV 240 mg QD + PR
12 weeks ETS: YES
ETS: NO
PR 24 weeks
STOP TREATMENT
Re-randomisation (1:1) Primary endpoint: SVR12
aNumber randomized/allocated. ART, antiretroviral therapy; ETS, early treatment success; FDV, faldaprevir; PR, pegylated interferon α-2a and ribavirin; QD, once daily; SVR12, sustained virologic response (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL, not detected) 12 weeks after the planned end of treatment.
ETS: YES
ETS: NO
ETS: HCV RNA <25 IU/mL at week 4 and undetectable at week 8
FDV dose: randomization (1:1) or allocation according to ART
Day 1 Wk 12
Wk 12
Wk 24
Wk 24
Wk 48
STARTVerso4: SVR12 overall population
87/123 134/185 221/308 Pro
porti
on o
f pat
ient
s w
ith S
VR
12 (%
)
Adjusteda SVR12 (%)
HIV Co-infection
No (reference)
Yes
72.3
85.0
Genotype
1a (reference)
1b
74.2
83.2
FDV dose
120 mg (reference)
240 mg
79.0
78.3
Comparisons of SVR12 rates of interest adjusted for important predictors of response across the STARTVerso studies, excluding PI- and EFV-treated patients
from STARTVerso4
Adjusted difference in SVR12 (95% CI)
-20 -15 -10 0 10 15 20
12.6 (5.7, 19.5)
9.0 (4.2, 13.8)
30
5
-0.7 (-5.0, 3.6)
-5
a Adjusted for IL28B, race, fibrosis stage, baseline HCV RNA, age, baseline GGT and baseline platelet count.
C212 study design: Phase III, open-label, single-arm, international trial
• Primary endpoints: SVR12, safety and tolerability • Secondary endpoints: virologic response at other time points, meeting RGT criteria* for
shortened treatment to 24 weeks, on-treatment failure, relapse rate
+After PR treatment; *RGT criteria: HCV RNA <25 IU/mL (detectable or undetectable)
at Week 4 and undetectable at Week 12 (measured using Roche COBAS TaqMan HCV/HPS assay, v.2)
Follow-up
Follow-up
PR SMV 150 mg/PR
PR • HCV treatment-naïve • Prior relapse+
• Partial response+ • Null response+ • Cirrhotic patients (F4)
RGT*
Week 12
24 36
Primary analysis 60
SMV 150 mg/PR
PR SMV 150 mg/PR
Follow-up
48 72
PR, peginterferon-α2a + ribavirin; RGT, response-guided treatment; SMV, simeprevir; SVR12, sustained virologic response 12 weeks after end of treatment
Antiretrovirals permitted during SMV therapy: lamivudine, emtricitabine, tenofovir, abacavir, rilpivirine, enfuvirtide, raltegravir, maraviroc
C212: SVR12 by concomitant ART use (ITT population)
*0/1 patients; SVR12, sustained virologic response 12 weeks after end of treatment; n/a, not applicable
0
20
40
60
80
100
Overall Naïves Relapsers Partial Null
On ART Not on ART
81
70 62
75
87 78
70/93 8/13 7/10 1/2 15/26 7/9 13/15 35/43 n/a 0*
58 50
SVR
12 (%
)
Pilot study 1910: SOF + Peg-IFN/RBV in HCV/HIV co-infected adult patients
• Single-centre, open-label, single-arm trial to assess safety and efficacy of a 12-week course of SOF + PegIFN + RBV for the treatment of patients with chronic HCV, co-infected with HIV
• Primary endpoints: – Efficacy: proportion of patients with SVR12 – Safety and tolerability of treatment, including effects on HIV RNA and CD4 T-cell %
SOF + Peg-IFN + RBV, HCV GT 1–4 treatment-naïve or on stable HIV ARV (n=23)
Week 0 Week 12 Primary endpoint: Assess SVR12 Treatment regimen
Rodriguez-Torres M et al. IDWeek 2013, poster 714
Study 1910: SVR12
Rodriguez-Torres M et al. IDWeek 2013, poster 714
100
80
60
40
20
0
HC
V R
NA
<LLO
Q (%
)
89%
17/19
GT1
1/1
GT2
2/2
GT3
1/1
GT4
LLOQ: lower level of quantification
SVR12 HCV G1 Naive patients: HIV+ vs. HIV–
74 79
72
91
79 80 80 91
0
20
40
60
80
100
TVR + PR SMV + PR FDV + PR SOF + PR
HIV+HIV-
28/ 38 24 or 48 weeks 12 weeks 24 or 48 weeks 12 or 24 weeks
SVR1
2 (%
)
Similar response rates observed in HIV/HCV co-infected patients compared with HCV mono-infected patients1,2
GT1 SOF + RBV 24 weeks
GT2 SOF + RBV 12 weeks
GT3 SOF + RBV 24 weeks
SVR1
2 (%
)
68 76
0
20
40
60
80
100
SPARE1* PHOTON-12
SVR1
2 (%
)
93 88
0
20
40
60
80
100
VALENCE2 PHOTON-12
92
SVR1
2 (%
)
84
0
20
40
60
80
100
VALENCE2
1. Osinusi A et al. JAMA 2013; 1310:804–11; 2. SOVALDI SPC January 2014
PHOTON-1: SVR12 in HIV/HCV co-infected adult patients compared with HCV mono-infection
Treatment-naïve HCV mono-infected vs HCV/HIV co-infected
*Primary endpoint of SPARE was different to the core studies, namely the proportion of patients with undetectable HCV viral load 24 weeks after treatment completion (sustained virologic response at 24 weeks (SVR24))
PHOTON-12
17/25 87/114 68/73 23/26 210/250 12/13
SVR with IFN-free DAAs regimens in HIV/HCV co-infected patients
1. Naggie S, et al. CROI 2014. Oral #26; 2. Osinusi A, et al. EASL 2014. Oral #14; 3. Sulkowski M, et al EASL 2014. Oral #63.
0
20
40
60
80
100
NaïveExperienced
SOF + RBV1 LDV/SOF2
MK5172/ MK8742
+ RBV3 SOF + RBV1
HCV GT 1 HCV GT 2
HCV GT 3
N=12w E=24w
*SVR4 data *
PERTINENT cART ISSUES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF HIV/HCV CO-INFECTED PATIENTS
• Efficacy (especially with the exclusion of IFN-alpha) • Hepatic safety
– Liver Enzyme Elevations ‘hepatoxicity’ in co-infected patients – liver handling of drug in the presence of significant liver disease
• Drug-drug interactions with new DAAs • Ability to suppress HIV replication in the absence of pegIFN • ? Immune reconstitution – restoration of antiviral immune response
Personal communication from Sanjay Bhagani
DTG trials in treatment-naïve ADULT subjects with HIV
3TC, lamivudine; ABC, abacavir; BID, twice daily; DRV/r, darunavir/ritonavir; DTG, dolutegravir; EFV, efavirenz; FDC, fixed-dose combination; FTC, emtricitabine; NRTI, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor; RAL, raltegravir, isentress; TDF, tenofovir; QD, once daily
Phase IIb dose-ranging, randomised, partially blinded study of: •DTG 10 mg, 25 mg, 50 mg versus EFV 600 mg + 2 NRTIs
SPRING-11 N=205
Phase III non-inferiority, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study of: •DTG (50 mg QD) plus RAL placebo (BID) + 2 NRTIs •RAL (400 mg BID) plus DTG placebo (QD) + 2 NRTIs
SPRING-22 N=822
Phase III non-inferiority, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study of: •DTG (50 mg QD) with ABC/3TC FDC plus EFV/TDF/FTC
placebo •EFV/TDF/FTC (QD) plus DTG and ABC/3TC FDC placebos
SINGLE3 N=833
Phase IIIb non-inferiority, randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label study of: •DTG (50 mg QD) + 2 NRTIs •DRV/r (800/100 mg QD) + 2 NRTIs
FLAMINGO4 N=484
1. Stellbrink H-J, et al. AIDS 2013;27:1771–8 2. Raffi F, et al. Lancet 2013;381:735–43
3. Walmsley S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1807–18 4. Feinberg J, et al. ICAAC 2013. Abstract H-1464a
DTG trials in treatment-EXPERIENCED ADULT subjects with hiv
BID, twice daily; BR, background regimen QD, once daily; OBR, optimised background regimen
1. Cahn P, et al. Lancet 2013;382:700–8; 2. Eron JJ, et al. J Infect Dis 2013;207:740–8 3. Nichols G, et al. IAS 2013. Abstract TULBPE19
4. Akil B, et al. EACS 2013. Abstract PE7/3
Phase III, open-label, single-arm, multicentre study of: • DTG (50 mg BID) + OBR (not incl. RAL)
VIKING-33 INI-resistant
N=183
Phase III, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel group, non-inferiority, multicentre study of: • DTG (50 mg QD) + BR • RAL (400 mg BID) + BR
SAILING1 INI-naïve
N=715
Phase IIb open-label, single-arm multicentre study (Cohort I) of: • DTG 50 mg QD + OBR (not incl. RAL)
VIKING2 (Cohort I)
INI-resistant N=27
Phase IIb open-label, single arm multicentre study (Cohort II) of: • DTG (50 mg BID) + OBR (not incl. RAL) • subjects required to have ≥1 fully active ARV for
Day 11 optimisation (not required for Cohort I)
VIKING2 (Cohort II) INI-resistant
N=24
Phase III, open-label, placebo-controlled, multicentre study of: • DTG 50 mg BID vs placebo (both plus current failing regimen) • At Day 8, all subjects received DTG (50 mg BID) + OBR
(containing ≥1 fully active ARV)
VIKING-44 INI-resistant
N=30
Liver Stopping Criteria in DTG Phase III trials1–4
• ALT ≥3xULN and bilirubin ≥2xULN (>35% direct bilirubin) • ALT ≥8xULN • ALT ≥3xULN (if baseline ALT is <ULN) with symptoms • ALT ≥3 fold increase from baseline ALT with symptoms • ALT ≥5xULN and <8xULN that persists >2 weeks
– with bilirubin <2xULN and no signs or symptoms of acute hepatitis or hypersensitivity
• ALT ≥5xULN but <8xULN and cannot be monitored weekly for >2 weeks
ViiV Healthcare data on file
Hepatitis B and/or C co-infection in DTG Phase III Clinical trials
SPRING-21 DTG 50 mg QD (N=411)
RAL 400 mg BID (N=411)
HBV co-infected, n (%) 7 (2) 8 (2) HCV co-infected, n (%) 41 (10) 35 (9)
SINGLE2 DTG 50 mg + ABC/3TC QD (N=414)
EFV/TDF/FTC QD (N=419)
HCV co-infected, n (%) 27 (7) 29 (7)
FLAMINGO3 DTG 50 mg QD (N=242)
DRV/r 800/100 mg QD (N=242)
HBV co-infected, % 4 2 HCV co-infected, % 7 7
SAILING4 DTG 50 mg QD (N=354)
RAL 400 mg BID (N=361)
HBV co-infected, n (%) 17 (5) 16 (4) HCV co-infected, n (%) 31 (9) 48 (13)
VIKING-35 DTG 50 mg BID (N=183)
HBV and/or HCV co-infected, % 21 Adapted from: 1. Raffi F, et al. Lancet 2013;381:735–43; 2. Walmsley S, et al. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1807–18
(Appendix) 3. Feinberg J, et al. ICAAC 2013. Abstract H-1464a; 4. Cahn P, et al. Lancet 2013;382:700–8
5. Nichols G, et al. IAS 2013. Abstract TULBPE19
SELECT RATES OF ADVERSE EVENTS OVER 48 WEEKS
AEs, n (%) DTG 50 mg QD (N=411)
RAL 400 mg BID (N=411)
Grade 2–4 drug-related events 24 (6) 27 (7) AEs leading to withdrawal1 10 (2) 7 (2) Events leading to withdrawal in >1 subject1
Acute hepatitis C 2 (<1) 0 ALT increased 2 (<1) 1 (<1) AST increased 1 (<1) 1 (<1) Nausea 1 (<1) 1 (<1) Serious AEs1,3 29 (7) 31 (8) Drug related1,3 3
Arrhythmia, hypersensitivity, hepatitis 5
Convulsion (2), aphasia, hypersensitivity, hepatitis, CPK
increased3, diarrhoea Fatal AEs2 1 (<1)* 1 (<1)†
1. Adapted from Raffi F et al. IAS 2012. Abstract THLBB04 2. Raffi F et al. Lancet 2013;381:735–43
3. Raffi F et al. Appendix from Lancet 2013;381:735–43
*Homicide considered not related to DTG; †Suicide considered not related to RAL AST, aspartate amino transferase
CHANGES IN LIVER CHEMISTRIES AT WEEK 48
Parameter/Criteria, (%) DTG 50 mg + ABC/3TC QD (N=414)
EFV/TDF/FTC QD (N=419)
Subjects meeting ≥1 FDA stopping criteria 10 ( 2) 39 ( 9)
ALT ≥20xULN 0 0 ALT ≥5xULN 1 (<1) 2 (<1) ALT ≥3xULN 5 ( 1) 15 ( 4) Total bilirubin >1.5xULN 3 (<1) 2 (<1) Alkaline phosphatase >1.5xULN 1 (<1) 19 ( 5) ALT and/or AST >3xULN and total bilirubin >1.5xULN 0 0
ULN, upper limit of normal Adapted from Walmsley S, et al. ICAAC 2012. Abstract H-556b
SUMMARY OF SAFETY AT WEEK 24 DTG
50 mg QD (n=357)
RAL 400 mg BID
(n=362) Drug-related AEs (≥3% in either arm) 73 (20%) 85 (23%)
Diarrhoea 30 (8%) 22 (6%) Nausea 12 (3%) 16 (4%) Vomiting 7 (2%) 11 (3%) Fatigue 4 (1%) 10 (3%)
Serious – any event 28 (8%) 41 (11%) Serious drug-related – any event 2 (<1%)a 4 (1%)b
Fatal AEs 0 2 (<1%)c
Select Grade 3–4 laboratory abnormalities Creatine phosphokinase (CPK) 7 (1) 4 (<1) Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) 9 (3) 6 (2) Lipase 4 (1) 7 (2) Total bilirubind 19 (5) 12 (3) Creatinine 0 1 (<1)
a DTG: 1 hepatotoxicity, 1 myositis and renal failure acute b RAL: 1 oral mucosal blistering and rash pruritic, 1 pancreatitis, 1 hepatitis, 1 suicidal ideation c 1 adenocarcinoma, 1 acute hepatic and renal failure d 17/19 patients in the DTG arm and 10/12 in the RAL arm were receiving ATV or ATV/r Adapted from Cahn P, et al. Lancet 2013;382:700-08;
Pozniak A, et al. CROI 2013. Abstract 179LB
LIVER CHEMISTRIES • 7 subjects on DTG arm and 3 subjects on RAL arm met protocol-defined liver
chemistry criteria for stopping study drug
• 6/7 DTG and 1/3 RAL withdrawn from study
ViiV Healthcare data on file Cahn P, et al. Lancet 2013;382:700-08;
Pozniak A, et al. CROI 2013. Abstract 179LB
BR, background regimen; d/c, discontinuation; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; MVC, maraviroc; TPV/r, ritonavir boosted tipranavir; ZDV, zidovudine
Subjects with HBV and/or HCV were more likely to experience IRIS or hepatic flares on DTG than those on RAL; these were observed in conjunction with improved virologic and immunologic responses, particularly when HBV therapy was not co-administered or had been stopped
six subjects on DTG were classified by an IDMC as having IRIS (5/6 were considered HBV and/or HCV IRIS) three subjects on RAL were classified by an IDMC as having IRIS (1/3 considered possible HCV IRIS)
DTG IN SUBJECTS WITH MODERATE HEPATIC IMPAIRMENT
DTG is primarily metabolised by UGT1A1 with CYP3A4 as a minor route, thus hepatic impairment has the potential to affect DTG exposure DTG is highly bound (~ 99.3%) to human plasma proteins based on in vitro experiments HIV and hepatitis C virus co-infected subjects may have higher rates of hepatic impairment A recent study assessed the effect of moderate hepatic impairment on DTG PK
HIV-negative subjects with moderate hepatic impairment defined by a Child-Pugh score of 7–9 (N=8)
DTG 50 mg QD
(single dose)
Serial PK sampling
0 12 24 36 48 60 72
24 hours 3 hours
Matched healthy controls (N=8)
Adapted from Song I, et al. CROI 2012. Abstract 608
PLASMA DTG CONCENTRATION IN SUBJECTS WITH MODERATE HEPATIC IMPAIRMENT
VERSUS HEALTHY SUBJECTS
(n=8)
(n=8) Plas
ma
DTG
con
cent
ratio
n (µ
g/m
L) 2.0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 Hours
1.0
0
1.5
0.5
Moderate hepatic impairment Healthy subjects
Adapted from Song I, et al. CROI 2012. Abstract 608
TOLERABILITY OF DTG 50 MG IN SUBJECTS WITH MODERATE HEPATIC IMPAIRMENT
Most commonly reported AEs, n (%)
Moderate hepatic impairment (DTG 50 mg, N=8)
Healthy* (DTG 50 mg, N=8)
Subjects with any AE 4 (50) 2 (25) Headache 0 2 (25) Sensory disturbance 0 1 (13) Somnolence 1 (13) 0 Abdominal distension 1 (13) 0 Diarrhoea 1 (13) 0 Nasal congestion 1 (13) 0 Oropharyngeal pain 1 (13) 0 Ear pain 1 (13) 0
*Healthy control subjects were matched to the hepatically impaired subjects for gender, age (± 10 years) and body mass index (± 20%) Adapted from Song I, et al. CROI 2012. Abstract 608
CONCLUSIONS: DTG IN SUBJECTS WITH HEPATIC IMPAIRMENT
• DTG (mean fraction unbound) was higher in hepatically impaired subjects (0.41–0.5%) compared with healthy subjects (0.23%), primarily due to lower albumin concentrations • this finding is not thought to be clinically significant
• A single dose of DTG 50 mg QD was well tolerated in both hepatically impaired and healthy subjects in this study
• DTG can be taken without dose adjustment in subjects with mild to moderate hepatic impairment
The PK of plasma DTG was not affected by moderate hepatic impairment
Song I, et al. CROI 2012. Abstract 608
S.Khoo, 15th Intl. W’shop, 2014
DGV – Metabolism and potential for Drug-drug interactions
• DTG primarily metabolised via UGT1A1 with minor CYP3A4 component1, 2
• Renal elimination of unchanged DTG is low (<1% of dose)2
• DTG is the predominant circulating compound in plasma2
1.Reese MJ, et al. Drug Metab Dispos 2013;41:353–61; 2. Song I, et al. IWCP 2012. Abstract 007
• Extensive programme of in-vitro studies examining DTG and potential inhibition (or induction) of enzymes or transport proteins
• Based on these data, DTG is not expected to affect the PK of drugs that are substrates of key CYP enzymes or transport proteins
• DTG is metabolised by UGT1A1 with a small contribution from CYP3A
• Drugs that induce or inhibit these enzymes may decrease or increase DTG exposure
Tivicay SmPC, January 2014
S.Khoo, 15th Intl. W’shop, 2014
S.Khoo, 15th Intl. W’shop, 2014
S.Khoo, 15th Intl. W’shop, 2014
CONCLUSIONS
• HCV remains a significant issue in HIV-infected patients • The era of DAAs has arrived – IFN-free therapy will be a reality
in the next few years • Co-infected patients respond just as well (if not better) to DAA
based anti-HCV therapy • Effective, well-tolerated CART regimen required with
• Low propensity for hepatotoxicity • Low potential for significant DDIs
top related