-
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 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Nov 2020Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and/or P-glycoprotein, are susceptible to drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Hepatitis C...
BACKGROUND
Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and/or P-glycoprotein, are susceptible to drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Hepatitis C direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs), via P-glycoprotein or CYP3A4 inhibition, may increase DOAC exposure with relevant bleeding risk. We performed a systematic review on DDIs between DOACs and DAAs.
METHODS
Two reviewers independently identified studies through electronic databases, until 7 July 2020, supplementing the search by reviewing conference abstracts and the ClinicalTrials.gov website.
RESULTS
Of 1386 identified references, four articles were finally included after applying the exclusion criteria. Three phase I clinical studies in healthy volunteers assessed interactions between dabigatran and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir, odalasvir/simeprevir, or sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir, showing an increase in the dabigatran area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) by 138%, 103%, and 161%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
DOACs and DAAs are under-investigated for DDI risk. Real-world studies are needed to assess the clinical relevance of the pharmacokinetic interactions with dabigatran and describe the actual spectrum of possible DDIs between DAAs and other DOACs.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Antiviral Agents; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A; Cytochrome P-450 CYP3A Inhibitors; Drug Interactions; Hepatitis C; Humans
PubMed: 32809123
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-020-00962-y -
Transplant Infectious Disease : An... Apr 2019Comprehensive evaluation of safety and efficacy of different combinations of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in liver transplant recipients with genotype 1 (GT1)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive evaluation of safety and efficacy of different combinations of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in liver transplant recipients with genotype 1 (GT1) hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence remains limited. Therefore, we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis in order to evaluate the clinical outcome of DAA treatment in liver transplant patients with HCV GT1 recurrence.
METHODS
Studies were included if they contained information of 12 weeks sustained virologic response (SVR12) after DAA treatment completion as well as treatment related complications for liver transplant recipients with GT1 HCV recurrence.
RESULTS
We identified 16 studies comprising 885 patients. The overall pooled estimate proportion of SVR12 was 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89, 0.96), with moderate heterogeneity observed (τ = 0.01, P < 0.01, I =75%). High tolerability was observed in liver transplant recipients reflected by serious adverse events (sAEs) with pooled estimate proportion of 4% (95% CI: 0.01, 0.07; τ = 0.02, P < 0.01, I = 81%). For subgroup analysis, a total of five different DAA regimens were applied for treating these patients. Sofosbuvir/Ledipasvir (SOF/LDV) led the highest pooled estimate SVR12 proportion, followed by Paritaprevir/Ritonavir/Ombitasivir/Dasabuvir (PrOD), Daclatasvir (DCV)/Simeprevir (SMV) ± Ribavirin (RBV), and SOF/SMV ± RBV, Asunaprevir (ASV)/DCV. There was a tendency for favoring a higher pooled SVR12 proportion in patients with METAVIR Stage F0-F2 of 97% (95% CI: 0.93, 0.99) compared to 85% (95% CI: 0.79, 0.90) for stage F3-F4 (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between LT recipients treated with or without RBV (P = 0.23).
CONCLUSIONS
Direct-acting antiviral treatment is highly effective and well-tolerated in liver transplant recipients with recurrent GT1 HCV infection.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Humans; Liver Transplantation; Recurrence; Sustained Virologic Response; Transplant Recipients; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30615227
DOI: 10.1111/tid.13047 -
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 -
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 -
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 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 -
BMJ Open Gastroenterology 2016Outcome data on simeprevir and sofosbuvir (SMV+SOF) in patients with liver transplantation (LT) with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 (HCV-1) are limited with individual...
BACKGROUND
Outcome data on simeprevir and sofosbuvir (SMV+SOF) in patients with liver transplantation (LT) with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 (HCV-1) are limited with individual studies having a small sample size and limited SVR12 (sustained virological response) data. Our goal was to perform a meta-analysis to study the outcome of SMV+SOF±ribavirin (RBV) in recipients with LT.
METHODS
In April 2015, we conducted a literature search for 'simeprevir' in MEDLINE/EMBASE and five major liver meetings. We included studies with SVR12 data in ≥5 post-LT mono-infected HCV-1 patients treated with SMV+SOF±RBV. We used random-effects models to estimate effect sizes, and the Cochrane Q-test (p value <0.10) with I(2) (>50%) to assess study heterogeneity.
RESULTS
We included nine studies with a total of 325 patients with post-LT. Studies included mostly men (59-81%). Pooled SVR12 was 88.0% (95% CI 83.4% to 91.5%). In two studies, HCV-1a patients with mild fibrosis (n=108) had an SVR12 rate of 95.0% (95% CI 82.4% to 98.7%), which was significantly higher than that of HCV-1a patients with advanced fibrosis (n=49) with an SVR12 rate of 81.7% (95% CI 69.8% to 89.5%), OR 4.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 16.1, p=0.03). The most common pooled side effects were: fatigue 21% (n=48/237), headache 9% (n=23/254), dermatological symptoms 15% (n=38/254), and gastrointestinal symptoms 6% (12/193).
CONCLUSIONS
SMV+SOF±RBV is safe and effective in recipients with LT with HCV-1 infection.
PubMed: 26966549
DOI: 10.1136/bmjgast-2015-000066 -
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 -
PloS One 2015The treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) infections has significantly changed in the past few years due to the introduction of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs). DAAs... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment of hepatitis C (HCV) infections has significantly changed in the past few years due to the introduction of direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs). DAAs could improve the sustained virological response compared to pegylated interferon with ribavirin (PR). However, there has been no evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compare the efficacy among the different regimens of DAAs.
AIM
Therefore, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis aiming to compare the treatment efficacy between different DAA regimens for treatment naïve HCV genotype 1.
METHODS
Medline and Scopus were searched up to 25th May 2015. RCTs investigating the efficacy of second generation DAA regimens for treatment naïve HCV genotype 1 were eligible for the review. Due to the lower efficacy and more side effects of first generation DAAs, this review included only second generation DAAs approved by the US or EU Food and Drug Administration, that comprised of simeprevir (SMV), sofosbuvir (SOF), daclatasvir (DCV), ledipasvir (LDV), and paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir plus dasabuvir (PrOD). Primary outcomes were sustained virological response at weeks 12 (SVR12) and 24 (SVR24) after the end of treatment and adverse drug events (i.e. serious adverse events, anemia, and fatigue). Efficacy of all treatment regimens were compared by applying a multivariate random effect meta-analysis. Incidence rates of SVR12 and SVR24, and adverse drug events of each treatment regimen were pooled using 'pmeta' command in STATA program.
RESULTS
Overall, 869 studies were reviewed and 16 studies were eligible for this study. Compared with the PR regimen, SOF plus PR, SMV plus PR, and DVC plus PR regimens yielded significantly higher probability of having SVR24 with pooled risk ratios (RR) of 1.98 (95% CI 1.24, 3.14), 1.46 (95% CI: 1.22, 1.75), and 1.68 (95% CI: 1.14, 2.46), respectively. Pooled incidence rates of SVR12 and SVR24 in all treatment regimens without PR, i.e. SOF plus LDV with/without ribavirin, SOF plus SMV with/without ribavirin, SOF plus DCV with/without ribavirin, and PrOD with/without ribavirin, (pooled incidence of SVR12 ranging from 93% to 100%, and pooled incidence of SVR24 ranging from 89% to 96%) were much higher than the pooled incidence rates of SVR12 (51%) and SVR24 (48%) in PR alone. In comparing SOF plus LDV with ribavirin and SOF plus LDV without ribavirin, the chance of having SVR12 was not significantly different between these two regimens, with the pooled RR of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.01). Regarding adverse drug events, risk of serious adverse drug events, anemia and fatigue were relatively higher in treatment regimens with PR than the treatment regimens without PR. The main limitation of our study is that a subgroup analysis according to dosages and duration of treatment could not be performed. Therefore, the dose and duration of recommended treatment have been suggested in range and not in definite value.
CONCLUSIONS
Both DAA plus PR and dual DAA regimens should be included in the first line drug for treatment naïve HCV genotype 1 because of the significant clinical benefits over PR alone. However, due to high drug costs, an economic evaluation should be conducted in order to assess the value of the investment when making coverage decisions.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fatigue; Genotype; Hepacivirus; Hepatitis C; Humans; Odds Ratio; Publication Bias; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Viral Load
PubMed: 26720298
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145953