Download PDF
Z Gastroenterol 2015; 53(07): 644-654
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1399383
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Real-life experience with first generation HCV protease inhibitor therapy in Germany: The prospective, non-interventional PAN cohort

HCV-Proteaseinhibitoren der ersten Generation im Praxisalltag: Ergebnisse der prospektiven, nicht-interventionellen PAN Kohorte
S. Mauss
1   Center for HIV and Hepatogastroenterology, Duesseldorf, Germany
,
K. Böker
2   Center for Hepatology, Hannover, Germany
,
P. Buggisch
3   ifi -Institute for Interdisciplinary Medicine, Hamburg, Germany
,
S. Christensen
4   Center for Interdisciplinary Medicine, Muenster, Germany
,
W. P. Hofmann
5   Polikum Institute, Berlin, Germany
,
E. Schott
6   Department of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Charité, CVK, Berlin, Germany
,
H. Pfeiffer-Vornkahl
7   Institute for Clinical Research and Statistics, Offenbach, Germany
,
U. Alshuth
8   Roche Pharma AG, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany
,
D. Hüppe
9   Center of Gastroenterology, Herne, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

25 November 2014

08 March 2015

Publication Date:
13 July 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and Aims: The efficacy and safety of peginterferon alfa-2a (PEG-IFN) plus ribavirin (RBV) and either boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR), and physician adherence to treatment algorithms were evaluated in patients included in an ongoing non-interventional study (PAN) enrolling adults with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection managed in German office-based practices.

Methods: The analysis included HCV genotype 1-infected, treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients treated with BOC or TVR. Demographic, treatment history, virological response, safety, and patient management data were collected.

Results: Of a total 1087 patients, 58.1 % achieved sustained virological responses (SVR). Response rates were higher in treatment-naïve (BOC 55 %; TVR 63.4 %) and prior relapse patients (BOC 63.2 %; TVR 74.5 %) versus previous null-responders (BOC 14.3 %; TVR 25 %). The most commonly reported adverse event overall was fatigue (60.6 %); 45.8 % patients experienced hemoglobin < 10 g/dL. Patients with cirrhosis had lower rates of SVR versus those without (42.9 % vs. 60.7 %, respectively), and had a higher incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs) (16.7 % vs. 8.6 %, respectively) and treatment discontinuation (44.6 % vs. 25.2 %, respectively). According to recommended response-guided treatment algorithms, about 70 % of patients were managed appropriately, 11/10 % (BOC/TVR) received unnecessarily extended therapy, and 19/7 % (BOC/TVR) received inappropriately shortened therapy.

Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of BOC- and TVR-based triple therapy in this large, “real-world” cohort were largely comparable to that reported in pivotal clinical trials, although SVR rates were lower overall. Recommended futility or treatment extension rules were violated in a substantial proportion of patients with potential implications for response, adverse events and costs.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund und Zielsetzungen: In der nicht-interventionellen Studie PAN, an der Patienten mit chronischer Hepatitis-C-Virus (HCV)-Infektion teilnahmen, wurde die Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit von Peginterferon alfa-2a (PEG-IFN) in Kombination mit Ribavirin (RBV) und den Proteasehemmern Boceprevir (BOC) oder Telaprevir (TVR) sowie die Einhaltung von Therapiealgorithmen durch niedergelassene Ärzte in Deutschland untersucht.

Methoden: Die Analyse schloss Patienten mit HCV-Genotyp 1-Infektion ein, die therapienaiv oder vorbehandelt (BOC oder TVR) waren. Erhoben wurden Daten zur Demografie, Vorbehandlung, virologischem Ansprechen, Sicherheit und Management der Patienten.

Ergebnisse: Insgesamt erreichten 58,1 % der 1087 Patienten ein dauerhaftes virologisches Ansprechen (SVR). Die Ansprechraten waren bei therapienaiven Patienten (BOC 55 %; TVR 63,4 %) und Relapsern (BOC 63,2 %; TVR 74,5 %) höher als bei Patienten mit Null-Response auf eine vorangegangene Therapie (BOC 14,3 %; TVR 25 %). Das unerwünschte Ereignis, über das am häufigsten berichtet wurde, war Erschöpfung (60,6 %); 45,8 % der Patienten hatten Hämoglobinwerte < 10 g/dL. Die SVR-Raten waren bei Patienten mit Zirrhose niedriger als bei Patienten ohne Zirrhose (42,9 % vs. 60,7 %), die Raten schwerer unerwünschter Ereignisse (SUE) (16,7 % vs. 8,6 %) und Therapieabbruchraten höher (44,6 % vs. 25,2 %). Ungefähr 70 % der Patienten wurden gemäß den response-gesteuerten Therapiealgorithmen behandelt, bei 11 % bzw. 10 % der Patienten (BOC/TVR) wurde die Behandlung unnötig verlängert, bei 19 % bzw. 7 % (BOC/TVR) unangemessen verkürzt.

Schlussfolgerungen: Die Wirksamkeit und Sicherheit der BOC- und TVR-haltigen Triple-Therapie in dieser großen „Real-World“-Kohorte war weitgehend vergleichbar mit den Ergebnissen der Zulassungsstudien, obwohl die SVR-Raten insgesamt niedriger waren. Bei einem beträchtlichen Teil der Patienten wurden die empfohlenen Stoppregeln oder Kriterien für eine Therapieverlängerung nicht beachtet, was potenzielle Auswirkungen auf Therapieansprechen, unerwünschte Ereignisse und Behandlungskosten hat.

Schlüsselwörter

Virushepatitis - Hepatitis C - Leber - Telaprevir - Boceprevir - Peginterferon - Kohorte

Key words

viral hepatitis - hepatitis C - liver - telaprevir - boceprevir - peginterferon - cohort study
 

  • References

  • 1 Cornberg M, Razavi HA, Alberti A et al. A systematic review of hepatitis C virus epidemiology in Europe, Canada and Israel. Liver Int 2011; 31 (Suppl. 02) 30-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 975-982
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomised trial. Lancet 2001; 358: 958-965
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol 2014; 60: 392-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jacobson IM, McHutchison JG, Dusheiko G et al. Telaprevir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 2405-2416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Poordad F, McCone JJr, Bacon B et al. Boceprevir for untreated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1195-1206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bacon BR, Gordon SC, Lawitz E et al. Boceprevir for previously treated chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1207-1217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Zeuzem S, Andreone P, Pol S et al. Telaprevir for retreatment of HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 2417-2428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hézode C, Fontaine H, Dorival C et al. Effectiveness of telaprevir or boceprevir in treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and cirrhosis. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 132-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lawitz E, Mangia A, Wyles D et al. Sofosbuvir for previously untreated chronic hepatitis C infection. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 1878-1887
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Jacobson IM, Gordon SC, Kowdley KV et al. Sofosbuvir for hepatitis C genotype 2 or 3 in patients without treatment options. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 1867-1877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Afdhal N, Reddy KR, Nelson DR et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for previously treated HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1483-1493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Afdhal N, Zeuzem S, Kwo P et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for untreated HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1889-1898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zeuzem S, Berg T, Gane E et al. Simeprevir increases rate of sustained virologic response among treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype-1 infection: a phase IIb trial. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 430-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sulkowski MS, Gardiner DF, Rodriguez-Torres M et al. Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir for previously treated or untreated chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 211-221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 European Association for Study of Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol 2014; 60: 392-420
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sarrazin C, Berg T, Buggisch P et al. Aktuelle Empfehlung zur Therapie der chronischen Hepatitis C. Z Gastroenterol 2014; 52: 1185-1197
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sterling RK, Lissen E, Clumeck N et al. Development of a simple noninvasive index to predict significant fibrosis in patients with HIV/HCV coinfection. Hepatology 2006; 43: 1317-1325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Boceprevir Summary of Product Characteristics. Available: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002332/WC500109786.pdf Accessed February 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Telaprevir Summary of Product Characteristics. Available: http://www-ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/002313/WC500115529.pdf Accessed February 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gordon SC, Muir AJ, Lim JK et al. Safety profile of boceprevir and telaprevir in chronic hepatitis C: Real-world experience from HCV-TARGET. J Hepatol 2014; Epub ahead of print
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Price JC, Murphy RC, Shvachko VA et al. Effectiveness of telaprevir and boceprevir triple therapy for patients with hepatitis C virus infection in a large integrated care setting. Dig Dis Sci 2014; Epub ahead of print
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maasoumy B, Port K, Deterding K et al. Limited effectiveness and safety profile of protease inhibitor-based triple therapy against chronic hepatitis C in a real-world cohort with a high proportion of advanced liver disease. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 26: 836-845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ferreira PR, Colombo M, Urbanek P et al. Treatment of hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with severe fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis: efficacy results to week 16 on 1587 patients from the International Telaprevir Early Access Program. Hepatology 2013; 58: 1108A-1109A
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Mauss S, Hueppe D, Alshuth U. Renal impairment is frequent in chronic hepatitis C patients under triple therapy with telaprevir or boceprevir. Hepatology 2014; 59: 46-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Loustaud-Ratti V, Rousseau A, Carrier P et al. eGFR decrease during antiviral C therapy with first generation protease inhibitors: a clinical significance?. Liver Int 2015; 35: 71-78
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Colombo M, Fernández I, Abdurakhmanov D et al. Safety and on-treatment efficacy of telaprevir: the early access programme for patients with advanced hepatitis C. Gut 2014; 63: 1150-1158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Poordad F, Lawitz E, Reddy KR et al. Effects of ribavirin dose reduction vs erythropoietin for boceprevir-related anemia in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection – a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 1035-1044
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Di Bisceglie AM, Kuo A, Rustgi VK et al. Virologic outcomes and adherence to treatment algorithms in a longitudinal study of patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TVR) in the United States (HCV-TARGET). Hepatology 2013; 58: 227A
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Vallet-Pichard A, Mallet V, Nalpas B et al. FIB-4: an inexpensive and accurate marker of fibrosis in HCV infection: comparison with liver biopsy and fibrotest. Hepatology 2007; 46: 32-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar