patrick marcellin. the challenge of treating non responders patrick marcellin service...
TRANSCRIPT
Patrick MARCELLIN
THE CHALLENGE OF TREATING
NON RESPONDERS
Patrick Marcellin
Service d’Hépatologie and INSERM CRB3Hôpital Beaujon, Clichy
University of Paris
WHO TO RETREAT?
SIDE EFFECTSTOLERANCECOST
FIBROSIS 0-1
PROS CONS
SYMPTOMSGENOTYPEMOTIVATION
FIBROSIS 2-4
HOW TO TREAT A NON RESPONDER?
Two strategies
- Viral eradication
- Maintenance therapy
HOW TO TREAT A NON RESPONDER?
Two strategies
- Viral eradication
- Maintenance therapy
The probability of viral eradicationdepends on:
- Type of non response
- Previous therapy
- Cause(s) of non response
The probability of viral eradicationdepends on:
- Type of non response
- Previous therapy
- Cause(s) of non response
0 1 2 311
2
3
4
5
6
7
7 14 21 28
Limit of detection
Days
Ser
um
HC
V R
NA
1st phase
2nd phase
Partial non responder
Slow responder
Rapid responder
Null non responder
Neumann et al. 2000
Type of non response
0 1 2 311
2
3
4
5
6
7
7 14 21 28
Limit of detection
Days
Ser
um
HC
V R
NA
1st phase
2nd phase
Partial non responder
Slow responder
Rapid responder
Null non responder
Neumann et al. 2000
Type of non response
The probability of viral eradicationdepends on:
- Type of non response
- Previous therapy
- Cause(s) of non response
Previous therapy
- Conventional interferon
- Standard combination
- Pegylated combination
HALT-CSVR according to previous therapy
28%
12%
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
IFN (n=219)
IFN + RBV (n=385)
p<0.0001
Schiffman. Gastroenterology 2005
BEAUJON SVR according to previous therapy
35%
10%
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
IFN (n=49)
IFN + RBV (n=50)
Ripault et al. DDW 2003
SVR to PEG IFN+RBV in NRs to IFN+RBVAccording to Genotype
0%
37%
0
10
20
30
40
50
SVR
%
Genotype 2-3 Genotype 1
Moucari et al. J Hepatol in press
SVR to PEG IFN+RBV in NRs to IFN+RBVAccording to Cirrhosis
0%
32%
0
10
20
30
40
50
SVR
%
No cirrhosis Cirrhosis
Moucari et al. J Hepatol in press
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
W0 W4* W8* W12
SVR (+)SVR (-)
HC
V R
NA
(lo
g10
co
pie
s/m
l)
Treatment Week
RETREATMENT BY PEGYLATED COMBINATION OF 154 NON RESPONDERS TO STANDARD COMBINATION
Moucari et al. J Hepatol, in press
RETREATMENT FOR ERADICATION
Partial response Non response
Genotype 2-3 Genotype 1
No cirrhosis Cirrhosis
PROS CONS
PROBABILITY OF SVR TO RETREATMENT
P = P2 - P1
P is the probability of response to retreatment according to the probability of response to the new treatment (P2) minus the probability of response to the prior treatment (P1)
The probability of viral eradicationdepends on:
- Type of non response
- Previous therapy
- Cause(s) of non response
Cause(s) of non responserelated to the patient:
To manage before retreatment
- Alcool: stop - Overweight: weight loss- Insulin resistance treatment?- Iron overload: phlebotomy- Psychologic: prepare
Cause(s) of non responserelated to reduced dosing:
To manage during retreatment
- Anemia: EPO- Neutropenia: GCSF- Depression: anti-depressive- Others …
PERSPECTIVES
- Optimise current therapy
- New drugs
PERSPECTIVES
- Optimize current therapy
- New drugs
OPTIMIZE CURRENT THERAPY
- Increase dose of PEG IFN
- Increase duration of therapy
- Better adjust dose of RBV according to body weight
- Improve PEG IFN pharmacokinetic (2 injections/week for PEG IFN a2b?)
REPEATBackground
• Initial retreatment studies have suggested a benefit of induction doses and/or prolonged duration of treatment in previous non-responders
Jacobson. Hepatology 2005Strader. Hepatology 2004Diago. Hepatology 2003
REPEATPatients
• Non-responders to ≥12 weeks’ treatment with standard-dose PEG IFN alfa-2b plus ribavirin
Follow-up
Study Week0 4824 9612 36 60 72 84
Follow-up360 g Peg-IFN alpha2a + RBV
Follow-up360 g Peg-IFN alpha2a + RBV
180 g Peg-IFN alpha2a + RBV Follow-up
REPEAT study design950 patients randomized 2:1:1:2
A
B
C
D
180 g Peg-IFN alpha2a + RBV
Marcellin et al. AASLD 2005
Virological Response at Week 12P
atie
nts
(%
)
<600 IU/mL <50 IU/mL≥2-log10 drop
25
42*
1320*
45
62*
p<0.0001 180 g (n=469)360 g (n=473)
HCV RNA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
p<0.0001
p=0.0031
Marcellin et al. AASLD 2005
PERSPECTIVES
- Optimise current therapy
- New drugs
NEW DRUGS
• New “IFN”: Albuferon
Gene shuffled interferon
• New “ribavirins”: Levovirine
Merimepodib
Viramidine
• Enzyme inhibitors: Anti-polymerase
Anti-protease
Merimepodib (VX 497) in non responders (IFN+RBV)
Weeks
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Med
ian
HC
V R
NA
(lo
g 1
0)
PEG IFN + Riba PEG IFN + Riba + 25 mg VX 497
PEG IFN + Riba + 50 mg VX 497
Marcellin et al. EASL 2004
ViramidineAnemia
Viramidine
Hemoglobine <10 g/dL
%
%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
400 mg 600 mg 800 mg
Ribavirin1000/1200 mg
0%2%
11%
27%
Viramidine Phase 3 VISER 1 SVR
Viramidine 800mg Ribavirin 1000/1200 mg
52% 38%
.
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
%
%
ENZYME INHIBITORS
• Anti-polymerase• NM 283 (Idenix/Novartis)
• R1626 (Roche)
• HCV 796 (Wyeth)…
•Anti-protease• VX 950 (Vertex)
• Schering 503034
• Others...
Valopicitabine (NM283)
HCV RNA
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
1 3 5 8 11 1615 17 22
JDays
Placebo
50 mg x 1/j
100 mg x 1/j
200 mg x 1/j
400 mg x 1/j
200 mg x 2/j
Doses croissantes100-800 mg
Doses croissantes400-800 mg + anti-émetiqueTraitement
2 4
(Godofsky et al., DDW 2004)
R1626 (Roche)
(Roberts et al, AASLD 2006)(Roberts et al, AASLD 2006)
PlaceboPlacebo
500 mg x 2/j500 mg x 2/j
1500 mg x 2/j1500 mg x 2/j
3000 mg x 2/j3000 mg x 2/j
4500 mg x 2/j4500 mg x 2/j
TreatmentTreatment F-UF-U
DaysDays
00 55 1010 1515 2020 2525 3030
HC
V R
NA
HC
V R
NA
-5-5
-4-4
-3-3
-2-2
-1-1
00
11
-2,6 log-2,6 log1010
-3,7 log-3,7 log1010
-1,2 log-1,2 log1010
HCV 796 (Wyeth)
(Chandra et al, DDW 2006)(Chandra et al, DDW 2006)
--11 22 55 88 1111 1144 1177 2200 2233 2266 2299--33
--22
--11
00
11
PPllaacceebboo5500 mmgg110000 mmgg225500 mmgg550000 mmgg11000000 mmgg11550000 mmgg
DaysDays
HC
V R
NA
HC
V R
NA
TreatmentTreatment F-UF-U
PegIFN-Ribavirine-VX 950
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
HC
V R
NA
(L
og
10 I
U/m
L)
Study Time (in Days)
median
Limit of Quantitation
Limit of Detection
Lawitz et al., DDW 2006Lawitz et al., DDW 2006
SCH 503034 ± IFN PEG a2b 1.5g/kg HCV 1, IFN Non-Responders
-3
-2,5
-2
-1,5
-1
-0,5
0
0 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 10 12 13 Days
HC
V R
NA
Le
vel
s C
han
ge
PEG IFN PEG IFN +200 mg SCH PEG IFN + 400 mg SCH )
MAINTENANCE THERAPY
MAINTENANCE THERAPY
Reduce necro-inflam. Tolerability
Reduce HCC? Cost
Improve survival? Not proven
F3-F4 F1-F2
ALT decrease No ALT decrease
PROS CONS
- The probability of SVR to ReTX depends ontype of non response, previous therapy and characteristics of patients (genotype, cirrhosis)
-Viral eradication is rarely obtained (10%) with pegylated combination in NRs to optimal standard combination
- Viral eradication may be obtained in NRs to sub-optimal combination (correct causes of NR)
TREATMENT OF NON RESPONDERS
- The efficacy of new drugs(anti-protease, anti-polymerase…) remains to be demonstrated. Triple or double TX?- Maintenance therapy is justifiedIn patients with severe liver disease, if it induces a biochemical response (ALT<2N)- Its modalities and the patients who benefit need to be precised
TREATMENT OF NON RESPONDERS
IN PRACTICAL
Non Responder
Non Responder
False non Responder
Non Responder
False non Responder
Cause of non response?
Treat the cause
Non Responder
False non Responder
Cause of non response?
Treat the cause
ReTX
Response
Eradication
Non Responder
False non Responder
Cause of non response?
Treat the cause
ReTX
Response
Maintenance therapy- if F3 or F4- if biochemical response- if tolerance OK
Eradication
Non response
Non Responder
False non Responder True non Responder
Cause of non response?
Treat the cause
ReTX
Response
Maintenance therapy- if F3 or F4- if biochemical response- if tolerance OK
Eradication
Non response
Non Responder
False non Responder True non Responder
Cause of non response?
Treat the cause
ReTX
Response
Maintenance therapy- if F3 or F4- if biochemical response- if tolerance OK
Eradication
Non response
Trial