-
JAMA Aug 2014Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects more than 185 million individuals worldwide. Twenty percent of patients chronically infected with HCV progress to cirrhosis. New, simpler... (Review)
Review
IMPORTANCE
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects more than 185 million individuals worldwide. Twenty percent of patients chronically infected with HCV progress to cirrhosis. New, simpler therapeutics using direct-acting antivirals that target various stages of the HCV life cycle are in development to eradicate HCV without concomitant interferon.
OBJECTIVES
To summarize published evidence on safety, efficacy (measured by a sustained virologic response [SVR], which is the treatment goal of undetectable plasma HCV RNA 12 or 24 weeks after therapy completion), and tolerability of current US Food and Drug Administration-approved interferon-based regimens and oral interferon-free regimens used for treating HCV infection and coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and HCV; to provide treatment recommendations for specialists and generalists based on published evidence.
EVIDENCE REVIEW
A literature search of Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Agricola, Cochrane Library, Cinahl Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Conference Papers Index, Gideon, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Oaister was conducted from January 1, 2009, to May 30, 2014. Publications describing phase 2, 3, and 4 studies evaluating the treatment of HCV were included. Forty-one studies involving 19,063 adult patients were included. Strength of clinical data and subsequent HCV treatment recommendations were graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.
FINDINGS
Patients infected with HCV genotype 1 represent 60% to 75% of HCV infections in the United States. Hepatitis C virus genotype 1 is more difficult to cure than genotype 2 or genotype 3. Patients with HCV genotype 1 should receive treatment with sofosbuvir + pegylated interferon + ribavirin because of the shorter duration of therapy and high rates of SVR (89%-90%). Simeprevir + pegylated interferon + ribavirin is an alternative for patients with HCV genotype 1 (SVR, 79%-86%). Patients with HCV genotypes 2 and 3, representing 20% to 29% of US HCV infections, should receive therapy with sofosbuvir + ribavirin alone (SVR for genotype 2, 12 weeks' duration: 82%-93%; SVR for genotype 3, 24 weeks' duration, 80%-95%). Patients with HIV-HCV coinfection and patients with compensated cirrhosis (ie, cirrhosis but preserved synthetic liver function) should receive the same treatment as HCV-monoinfected patients.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
New, short-duration, simpler therapies result in high SVR rates for HCV-infected patients. In conjunction with increased screening for HCV as suggested by recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines, availability of new therapies may lead to the treatment of many more people with chronic HCV infection.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Coinfection; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; HIV Infections; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Life Cycle Stages; Liver Cirrhosis; Prevalence; United States
PubMed: 25117132
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.7085 -
Journal of Medical Economics 2015To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy and safety of simeprevir, a second generation oral protease inhibitor (PI), compared to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
A network meta-analysis to compare simeprevir with boceprevir and telaprevir in combination with peginterferon-α and ribavirin in patients infected with genotype 1 Hepatitis C virus.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the relative efficacy and safety of simeprevir, a second generation oral protease inhibitor (PI), compared to telaprevir and boceprevir in combination with pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin (PR) in patients with chronic hepatitis C.
METHODS
A systematic literature review and NMA of randomized controlled trials involving anti-virals added to PR were conducted. Electronic database searches and hand searches were conducted to identify relevant publications. Outcomes of interest included sustained virologic response (SVR), incidence of adverse events (AEs), and discontinuation due to AEs. Networks were based on treatment-, dose-, and duration-specific nodes. Sub-group analyses were conducted to investigate heterogeneity, based on Metavir scores, sub-genotypes 1a/1b, and prior response.
RESULTS
A total of 15 publications were considered for the base case of the meta-analysis. Simeprevir was associated with higher SVR rates than PR alone. Compared to telaprevir and boceprevir, SVR rates tended to be higher for simeprevir, with odds ratios ranging from 1.27 [0.81-2.00] to 2.61 [1.44-4.74] in treatment-naïve and from 1.04 [0.78-1.38] to 1.74 [0.84-3.61] in treatment-experienced patients, respectively. In terms of safety, the risks of anemia and discontinuations due to AEs were lower for simeprevir compared to PR alone, telaprevir, and boceprevir. The risk of rash was lower for simeprevir compared to telaprevir, and similar compared to PR alone and boceprevir.
CONCLUSION
This NMA in genotype 1 HCV patients suggests a similar or better efficacy and tolerability profile for simeprevir compared to telaprevir and boceprevir.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Databases, Bibliographic; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Immunologic Factors; Interferon-alpha; Oligopeptides; Proline; Protease Inhibitors; Ribavirin; Simeprevir; Viral Load
PubMed: 25934147
DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1046880 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2017Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cause of Death; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; Placebos; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Simeprevir
PubMed: 28585310
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2017Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Cause of Death; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Nucleic Acid Synthesis Inhibitors; Placebos; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety-Based Drug Withdrawals; Simeprevir
PubMed: 28922704
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012143.pub3 -
Medicine Mar 2016All possible direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA) regimens for treatment-naive hepatitis C genotype 1 were evaluated by many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents for Treatment-Naive Hepatitis C Genotype 1.
All possible direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA) regimens for treatment-naive hepatitis C genotype 1 were evaluated by many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the optimum regimen remains inconclusive. We aim to compare interventions in terms of sustained virological response at 12 (SVR12) and 24 (SVR24) weeks after the end of treatment and adverse effects (AEs) (fatigue, headache, nausea, insomnia). PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs until July 31, 2015. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) between treatments on clinical outcomes. Twenty-two eligible RCTs were included. Compared with peginterferon-ribavirin (PR), daclatasvir plus PR (OR 8.90, P < 0.001), faldaprevir plus PR (OR 3.72, P < 0.001), simeprevir plus PR (OR 3.59, P < 0.001), sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 4.69, P < 0.001) yield a significant effect in improving SVR12. Consistently, simeprevir plus PR (OR 3.49, P < 0.001), sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 4.51, P < 0.001), daclatasvir plus PR (OR 4.77, P < 0.001) also improved the rates of SVR24 significantly compared with PR. With respect to AEs, compared with PR, ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 2.13, P < 0.001) confer a significant AE in nausea, whereas daclatasvir plus PR (OR 0.20, P < 0.001 and OR 0.18, P < 0.001, respectively) lowered the incidence of fatigue and nausea significantly when compared with ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir plus PR. Daclatasvir plus PR was the most effective in SVR12 and SVR24, but caused an increased AEs profile (headache and insomnia). Combined ledipasvir with sofosbuvir or combination of PR was associated with higher incidence of fatigue and nausea.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Odds Ratio; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26945424
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000003004 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Jun 2016The burden of HCV cirrhosis is high and projected to increase significantly over the next decade. While interferon therapy is problematic in HCV cirrhosis, the era of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The burden of HCV cirrhosis is high and projected to increase significantly over the next decade. While interferon therapy is problematic in HCV cirrhosis, the era of direct-acting anti-viral (DAA) therapy provides effective treatment for patients with cirrhosis.
AIM
To systematically review the results of DAA therapy to date in patients with HCV cirrhosis, and highlight the ongoing challenges for DAA therapy in this population.
METHODS
A structured Medline search was conducted to obtain phase II and III HCV trials in patients with cirrhosis. Citations from review articles were cross-referenced and conference abstracts from EASL and AASLD liver meetings for the preceding 3 years were reviewed manually. Keywords used included hepatitis C, cirrhosis and the DAA's: sofosbuvir, ledipasvir, velpatasvir, grazoprevir, elbasvir, daclatasvir, beclabuvir, asunaprevir, simeprevir, paritaprevir, ombitasvir and dasabuvir.
RESULTS
Successful direct-acting anti-viral treatment is now possible in patients with HCV-related cirrhosis including those with liver decompensation with several regimens now offering sustained virological response (SVR) of 90-95%. Overall success rates in GT1 cirrhosis are excellent while GT3-infected patients with cirrhosis remain hard to cure. The pangenotypic combination of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir holds promise for GT3 cirrhosis achieving SVR of ~90%.
CONCLUSIONS
Potent DAA therapies provide much needed, safe and highly effective treatment options for persons with HCV cirrhosis including those previously deemed unsuitable for treatment. Combination therapy with two or more classes of drug is essential to achieve high efficacy and minimise viral resistance, with the role of ribavirin still under evaluation. However, several challenges remain including the hard-to-cure groups of GT3 cirrhosis and direct-acting anti-viral failures, and managing drug-drug interactions.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C; Humans; Interferons; Liver Cirrhosis
PubMed: 27087015
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13633 -
Hepatitis Monthly Sep 2016Direct acting antivirals (DAAs) have recently emerged as a promising therapeutic regimen for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, which is a major public... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Direct acting antivirals (DAAs) have recently emerged as a promising therapeutic regimen for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, which is a major public health problem. Among the known DAAs, daclatasvir (DCV), an inhibitor of the non-structural 5A protein, has been used in combination with several drugs for treatment of infection with HCV of different genotypes under different conditions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of combination therapy with DCV.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct and Web of Science with appropriate keywords for DCV. Studies that evaluated any regimen containing DCV and reported the sustained virological response (SVR) 12 weeks after therapy based on the HCV genotype, treatment duration and use of ribavirin (RBV) were included. The selected studies were considered for meta-analysis using STATA 11.0.
RESULTS
We found six different regimens containing DCV: DCV/asunaprevir (ASV), DCV/ASV/beclubavir, DCV/pegylated interferon lambda or alpha/RBV with or without ASV, DCV/simeprevir, DCV/VX-135 and DCV/sofosbuvir (SOF). Most of these regimens were used for the treatment of HCV genotype 1 infections, and in most cases, treatment failure was noted in subtype 1a infections. Among all these regimens, DCV/SOF with or without RBV for 12 or 24 weeks was found to be an efficacious approach for treatment of different types of patients with infections with different HCV genotypes.
CONCLUSIONS
Among the treatment regimens containing DCV, DCV/SOF has the highest SVR rate for the treatment of infection with different HCV genotypes in different patient contexts; thus, this regimen shows promise for the treatment of HCV infections.
PubMed: 27826322
DOI: 10.5812/hepatmon.41077 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics May 2017It is unclear whether the efficacy and long-term outcome of treating patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive cirrhosis with the new protease inhibitors will... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
It is unclear whether the efficacy and long-term outcome of treating patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive cirrhosis with the new protease inhibitors will extend to those with Child C cirrhosis.
AIM
To assess the effectiveness of the interferon-free regimens in Child C cirrhotic patients with HCV infection.
METHODS
A systematic Medline search was conducted to retrieve studies describing the treatment of Child C patients with direct-acting agents. Citations from identified studies were cross-referenced and abstracts from European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) meetings were checked. Extracted data were evaluated using a meta-analysis to calculate a weighted response rate.
RESULTS
Seven full-text records and two conference abstracts were retained for analysis from the 649 records identified. Data from an Italian real-life trial were also interrogated. Information on treatment outcome was available for 228 of the 240 Child C patients evaluated in the 10 trials. Overall, the weighted mean sustained virological response (SVR12) was 74.9% (95% CI: 65.6-82.4%). Neither duration of treatment (24 or 12 weeks), nor addition of ribavirin influenced these rates. The weighted SVR12 was 65.4% (95% CI: 46.8-80.2) after sofosbuvir/simeprevir, 76.0% (95% CI: 54.4-89.3%) after sofosbuvir/daclatasvir and 83.0% (95% CI: 73.4-89.6) after sofosbuvir/ledipasvir. Some studies did not provide information on the rate of post-treatment relapse or functional improvement. However, in those studies that did provide such data, a relapse was documented in 12.1% of patients and an improvement of ≥2 points on the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score in 61.1% of patients.
CONCLUSION
The improvement in MELD scores strongly suggests HCV-positive patients with Child C cirrhosis should be treated with these agents.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C; Humans; Interferons; Liver Cirrhosis; Protease Inhibitors
PubMed: 28261822
DOI: 10.1111/apt.14017 -
Bioorganic Chemistry Jan 2021Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease outbreak, there has been an increasing interest in finding a potential therapeutic agent for the...
BACKGROUND
Since the beginning of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) disease outbreak, there has been an increasing interest in finding a potential therapeutic agent for the disease. Considering the matter of time, the computational methods of drug repurposing offer the best chance of selecting one drug from a list of approved drugs for the life-threatening condition of COVID-19. The present systematic review aims to provide an overview of studies that have used computational methods for drug repurposing in COVID-19.
METHODS
We undertook a systematic search in five databases and included original articles in English that applied computational methods for drug repurposing in COVID-19.
RESULTS
Twenty-one original articles utilizing computational drug methods for COVID-19 drug repurposing were included in the systematic review. Regarding the quality of eligible studies, high-quality items including the use of two or more approved drug databases, analysis of molecular dynamic simulation, multi-target assessment, the use of crystal structure for the generation of the target sequence, and the use of AutoDock Vina combined with other docking tools occurred in about 52%, 38%, 24%, 48%, and 19% of included studies. Studies included repurposed drugs mainly against non-structural proteins of SARS-CoV2: the main 3C-like protease (Lopinavir, Ritonavir, Indinavir, Atazanavir, Nelfinavir, and Clocortolone), RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (Remdesivir and Ribavirin), and the papain-like protease (Mycophenolic acid, Telaprevir, Boceprevir, Grazoprevir, Darunavir, Chloroquine, and Formoterol). The review revealed the best-documented multi-target drugs repurposed by computational methods for COVID-19 therapy as follows: antiviral drugs commonly used to treat AIDS/HIV (Atazanavir, Efavirenz, and Dolutegravir Ritonavir, Raltegravir, and Darunavir, Lopinavir, Saquinavir, Nelfinavir, and Indinavir), HCV (Grazoprevir, Lomibuvir, Asunaprevir, Ribavirin, and Simeprevir), HBV (Entecavir), HSV (Penciclovir), CMV (Ganciclovir), and Ebola (Remdesivir), anticoagulant drug (Dabigatran), and an antifungal drug (Itraconazole).
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review provides a list of existing drugs that have the potential to influence SARS-CoV2 through different mechanisms of action. For the majority of these drugs, direct clinical evidence on their efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19 is lacking. Future clinical studies examining these drugs might come to conclude, which can be more useful to inhibit COVID-19 progression.
Topics: Animals; Antiviral Agents; Cell Line, Tumor; Computational Chemistry; Drug Discovery; Drug Repositioning; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33261845
DOI: 10.1016/j.bioorg.2020.104490 -
Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and... Jan 2016Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are known to present with additional dermatological events over pegylated-interferon/ribavirin (Peg-IFN/RBV). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are known to present with additional dermatological events over pegylated-interferon/ribavirin (Peg-IFN/RBV).
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the incidence/risk of cutaneous adverse events (AEs) for simeprevir, sofosbuvir, ABT450/r-ombitasvir, dasabuvir, ledipasvir, daclatasvir, and asunaprevir.
METHODS
The databases searched included PubMed, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Clinicaloptions.com. Data on telaprevir and boceprevir were obtained from a previous study.
RESULTS
The incidences of cutaneous AEs were 34.3% (95% CI 18.4%-54.8%) for the old DAAs + Peg-IFN/RBV, 22.0% (95% CI 17.9%-26.8%) for the new DAAs + Peg-IFN/RBV, 9.8% (95% CI 8.6%-11.2%) for the DAAs + RBV, and 3.8% (95% CI 2.4%-6.1%) for DAAs only. Simeprevir + Peg-IFN/RBV was associated with an increased relative risk over Peg-IFN/RBV; RR = 1.319 (95% CI 1.026-1.697).
CONCLUSION
Dermatological events are still an important issue for many of the new DAAs. Appropriate monitoring, management, and patient education are needed to minimize AEs and achieve HCV cure.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 26162860
DOI: 10.1177/1203475415595775