Jeff Allen, MD, FAAFP Chief of Health Programs, FBOP Michelle Williams, PharmD Lieutenant, USPHS Hepatitis/HIV Program Manager, FBOP Newton Kendig, MD.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Preparing for Direct Acting Antivirals (DAAs) in PracticeNew Paradigms in the Management of HCV Sherilyn C. Brinkley, MSN, CRNP Nurse Practitioner/Program.
Advertisements

Slide 1 of 8 From DL Wyles, MD, at Atlanta, GA: April 10, 2013, IAS-USA. IAS–USA David L. Wyles, MD Associate Professor of Medicine University of California.
Edited by Morris Sherman MD BCh PhD FRCP(C) Associate Professor of Medicine University of Toronto Protease Inhibitors in Chronic Hepatitis C: An Update.
HCV: Treat now or Defer Todd Wills, MD ETAC Infectious Disease Specialist HEPATITIS C TREATMENT EXPANSION INITIATIVE MULTISITE CONFERENCE CALL JUNE 19,
How to manage non responders Lawrence Serfaty Service d’Hépatologie, UMR S 893 Hôpital Saint-Antoine, UPMC, Paris Clinical case 1.
Hepatitis web study Hepatitis web study Simeprevir + PEG + RBV in Treatment-Naïve Genotype 1 QUEST-1 Trial Phase 3 Treatment Naïve Jacobson IM, et al.
Hepatitis web study Hepatitis web study Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir in Treatment-Experienced GT1 with Cirrhosis SIRIUS Phase 2 Treatment Experienced Bourliere.
ALAN FRANCISCUS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEPATITIS C SUPPORT PROJECT EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, HCV ADVOCATE WEBSITE JOIN ME ON TWITTER & FACEBOOK – HCVADVOCATE BLOG:
Management of HCV in Co-Infected Patients Marie-Louise Vachon, MD, MSc Division of Infectious Diseases Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Québec.
Slide 1 of 8 From MG Peters, MD, at Los Angeles, CA: April 22, 2013, IAS-USA. IAS–USA Marion G. Peters, MD John V. Carbone, MD, Endowed Chair Professor.
Module 6: Treatment options. Module goal To enable participants understand the best current treatment options, factors that influence outcomes and potential.
Hepatitis web study H EPATITIS W EB S TUDY H EPATITIS C O NLINE Boceprevir (Victrelis) Prepared by: David Spach, MD & H. Nina Kim, MD Last Updated: March.
SPRINT-2/RESPOND-2 Boceprevir Plus Standard of Care Phase 3 Clinical Trials Analysis of Resistance Associated Variants by HCV Genotype 1 subtypes 1a and.
Managing Hepatitis C: An Unprecedented Correctional Healthcare Challenge ASCA/CCHA meeting Phoenix, AZ RADM Newton E. Kendig Assistant Director/Medical.
HCV EASL CPG 2011: what is (still) new? Antonio Craxì GI & Liver Unit, Di.Bi.M.I.S. University of Palermo, Italy
Predictors of response with boceprevir and telaprevir combined with pegylated interferon and ribavirin Paul Y Kwo, MD Professor of Medicine Medical Director,
Future Therapies of HCV Miranda Surjadi, NP San Francisco General Hospital Department of Gastroenterology/Hepatology.
VALENCE SOF + RBV Not randomised Open label* ≥ 18 years Chronic HCV infection Genotype 2 or 3 HCV RNA ≥ 10,000 IU/ml Treatment naïve or prior IFN-based.
ALAN FRANCISCUS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, HEPATITIS C SUPPORT PROJECT EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, HCV ADVOCATE WEBSITE JOIN ME ON TWITTER & FACEBOOK – HCVADVOCATE BLOG:
Update on the HCV Antiviral Pipeline Todd S. Wills, MD SPNS HCV Treatment Expansion Initiative Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center Infectious Disease.
Triple Therapy Today: Phase III Results in G1 Relapsers and Nonresponders Bruce R. Bacon, M.D. James F. King MD Endowed Chair in Gastroenterology Professor.
ATOMIC  Design  Objective –SVR 24 by ITT-analysis, detection of a 30% or 25% difference between two treatment groups, 2-sided significance level of 5%,
LDV/SOF 90/400 mg qd Non-randomised Open-label N = 21 W12 SVR 12 NIAID SYNERGY GT4 Kohli A. Lancet Infect Dis 2015; Juky 15, ePub ahead of print ≥ 18 years.
OBV/PTV/r + DSV + RBV Placebo Randomisation** 3 : 1 Double blind years Chronic HCV genotype 1 HCV RNA ≥ 10,000 IU/ml Failure to pre-treatment with.
OBV/PTV/r + DSV + RBV OBV/PTV/r + DSV Randomisation* 1 : 1 Open label years Chronic HCV infection Genotype 1b Prior failure to PEG-IFN + RBV HCV.
Response Guided Therapy Fabien Zoulim Hepatology Department & INSERM Unit 1052, Lyon University Lyon, France.
Maria Buti Hospital General Universitario Vall Hebron Barcelona-. Spain Relapser or Non Responder? Chronic Hepatitis C.
SMV + PEG-IFN + RBV Open-label W12 W24* or W48* N = years Chronic HCV infection Genotype 4 Treatment-naïve or experienced with relapse or partial.
How to optimize treatment of G1 patients? Prof. G. K. K. Lau 2012.
NS5A and polymerase inhibitors Mark Sulkowski, MD Professor of Medicine Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Maryland
Randomisation* 2 : 1 Double blind *Randomisation was stratified on genotype (1a or 1b or other) and IL28B genotype (CC, CT or TT) N = 133 N = 260 W24W48.
Predictors of treatment response, baseline and on-treatment A case study of telaprevir therapy Alex Thompson.
How to manage G1 relapsers and non-responders George V. Papatheodoridis, MD Associate Professor in Medicine & Gastroenterology 2nd Department of Internal.
FISSION  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of SOF + RBV : SVR 12 (2-sided significance level of 5%, lower margin of the 95% CI for the difference =
AI Study  Design SOF 1W then DCV + SOF 23W DVC + SOF Randomisation* 1 : 1 : 1 Open-label AI Study: DCV + SOF + RBV for genotypes 1, 2 and.
SMV 150 mg QD + SOF 400 mg QD Randomisation 1 : years HCV genotype 1 Naïve or pre-treated with IFN-based regimen No cirrhosis HCV RNA ≥
Response Guided Vs.Response Unguided Therapy K.Rajender Reddy M.D Professor of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, USA.
UNITY-1 DCV/ASV/BCB No randomisation Open-label UNITY-1 Study: daclatasvir/asunaprevir/beclabuvir in genotype 1 without cirrhosis  Design W12 ≥ 18 years.
Reddy KR. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15:27-35 ATTAIN SMV + TVR placebo + PEG-IFN + RBV TVR + SMV placebo + PEG-IFN + RBV Randomisation* 1 : 1 Double-blind.
Placebo + PR W48 Placebo + PR Yes Hezode C. Gut 2015;64: COMMAND-1 COMMAND-1 Study: daclatasvir + PEG-IFN + RBV for genotype 1 or 4 DCV60 + PEG-IFN.
ION-1  Design LDV/SOF LDV/SOF + RBV Randomisation* 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 Open-label ION-1 Study: LDV/SOF + RBV for genotype 1 W24W12 ≥ 18 years Chronic HCV infection.
Hepatitis C Nonresponders
Triple Therapy Today Phase III Results in G1 Relapsers and Non Responders – Telaprevir 5 th Paris Hepatitis Conference Paris, 30. January 2012 Stefan Zeuzem.
Asselah T. AASLD 2015, Abs OSIRIS  Design SMV + PEG-IFN + RBV Open label Chronic HCV infection Genotype 4 Treatment-naïve Mild to moderate fibrosis.
SAPPHIRE-I Feld JJ. NEJM 2014;370: SAPPHIRE-I Study: ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir + ribavirin for genotype 1  Treatment regimens.
Placebo + PR W24 DCV + PR Placebo + PR Yes Dore GJ. Gastroenterology 2015;148: COMMAND GT2/3 COMMAND GT2/3 Study: daclatasvir + PEG-IFN + RBV for.
Dore G. J Hepatol 2016; 64:19-28 MALACHITE TVR + PEG-IFN + RBV Randomisation Open-label years HCV genotype 1 HCV RNA > 10,000 IU/ml Naïve (MALACHITE-I)
 Design Randomisation* 2 : 1 Double blind *Randomisation was stratified on genotype (1a vs 1b) and ILB28 genotype (CC or non-CC) N = 134 N = 257 W24W48.
 Design Open-label years Chronic HCV infection Genotype 1 HCV RNA > 10,000 IU/mL HIV co-infection Stable ART* with HIV RNA < 50 c/mL ≥ 24 weeks.
36 year old HCV+ woman, Risk factor: occasional IVDU 15 years ago First treatment with PEG-IFN/RBV in 2002 –only qualitative PCR available : positive at.
Trends in Treatment of Recurrent Hepatitis C After Liver Transplantation Kate Forgan-Smith KA Stuart 1,4, C Tallis 1,4 GA Macdonald 1,3,4, J Fawcett 2,3.
R2. 임형석 / Pf. 김병호. I NTRODUCTION Chronic hepatitis C infection 130~150 million worldwide 7 genotypes genotype 1 predominates(about 70% in USA): most difficult.
LDV/SOF Randomisation * 1:1 Open-label ≥ 20 years, Japanese Chronic HCV infection Genotype 1 HCV RNA ≥ IU/ml Treatment-naive, or pre-treated Compensated.
Epclusa® sofosbuvir/velpatasvir
Treatment Outcomes for Chronic Hepatitis C Infection with Direct Acting Antivirals among Inmates in Federal Corrections Smith JM, Boudreau H, Kom E, Tremblay.
CONCERTO-2 Study: SMV + PEG-IFNa-2a + RBV for genotype 1
No cirrhosis or compensated cirrhosis** No HBV or HIV co-infection
Failure to achieve SVR on No HBV or HIV co-infection
ARV-trial.com RUBY-I Study, cohort 2: ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir + RBV for HCV genotype 1 with renal impairment Design Open label W12.
Future Trials of Hepatitis C Therapy in the HIV Co-infected
DAA’s in the treatment of HCV: The Beginning of the end or the end of the beginning for HCV?
LEAGUE-1 study: daclatasvir + SMV + RBV for genotype 1
Resistance to Direct Acting Antiviral Therapy
Elbasvir + Grazoprevir + Ribavirin in PI-experienced HCV GT1 C-SALVAGE
No HBV or HIV co-infection
HCV Protease Inhibitors in Clinical Practice
Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir +/- Ribavirin in HCV Genotype 1 ION-2
ASPIRE Study: SMV + PEG-IFN + RBV for genotype 1 experienced patients
HCV Protease Inhibitors in Clinical Practice
CONCERTO-4 Study: SMV + PEG-IFNa-2b + RBV for genotype 1
Presentation transcript:

Jeff Allen, MD, FAAFP Chief of Health Programs, FBOP Michelle Williams, PharmD Lieutenant, USPHS Hepatitis/HIV Program Manager, FBOP Newton Kendig, MD RADM, Assistant Surgeon General, USPHS Assistant Director Health Services Division, FBOP

“We do not have any relevant financial relationships with any commercial interests.”

At the end of this presentation, participants will be able to:  Discuss the Federal Bureau of Prisons Guidelines for the treatment of HCV with protease inhibitors.  Describe barriers to effective HCV treatment in the correctional setting.  Outline key decisions needed to implement an effective HCV treatment program in the correctional setting.

 HCV identified late 1980’s. 3.2 million Americans with chronic infx. Genotypes identified 1994 – 1,2,3, (4,5,6-less common)  Genotype 1 most common in US (⅔ to ¾ of cases)  Natural history 1/5 resolve spontaneously 3/5 develop chronic infx but no sequelae 1/5 with chronic infx develop cirrhosis / complications  More die from HCV now than from HIV (15,000 + / yr)  ½ of HCC deaths / yr) from HCV  Most common reason for liver transplant  Direct medical costs > $6.7 billion ( )

 1991 – IFN alfa approved < 10% SVR  1998 – IFN alfa + RBV approved  PegIFN introduced Significant improvement in SVR rates combined with RBV SVR for genotype 2 or 3=70-80%; for genotype 1 = %. Less effective in high viral loads, African Americans, cirrhosis, HIV or HBV co-infx, IL28B genotype C/T or T/T, prior treatment failures.

 FDA approved May 2011 Boceprevir (Victrelis TM ) and Telaprevir (Incivek TM ) AASLD published updated guideline November 2011 BOP Guideline issued March 2012  Mechanism of action: Direct Acting Antiviral Agent inhibits HCV viral replication Binds to protease enzyme and inhibits cleavage into mature viral forms Similar mechanism to HIV protease inhibitors but different spectrum of antiviral activity and NOT interchangeable.

 Treatment of chronic HCV, genotype 1 - Not approved for tx of other HCV genotypes  In combination with pegIFN + RBV - Not approved for monotherapy  Treatment naïve or prior tx failures with pegIFN/RBV - Relapse, partial or null response. -Re-tx of null responders not studied with BOC - SVR rates for prior null responders < 30% to 40%

 SVR rates ↑ 20 to 40% compared to pegIFN + RBV! Overall (70-80%) Treatment naïve (67-75%) African-American (62%) Advanced fibrosis (62%) High viral load (74%) Relapser (69 -88%) Partial responder (40-59%) Null responder (23-38% with telaprevir based tx)  HCV Protease Inhibitor Trials Boceprevir – SPRINT 1/2; RESPOND 2 Telaprevir – ADVANCE, ILLUMINATE, PROVE 1/2; REALIZE

 Viral Resistance IFN / RBV do not produce resistance. Viral mutations → Resistance to HCV PIs Treatment failure = viral resistance.  80% to 90% correlation. Non-adherence → viral resistance. Viral resistance appears to be class effect - Cannot switch from one HCV PI to another for tx failure.

 Complex Medication Regimens / Decision Points Duration of treatment determined by 4 variables  HCV treatment history - Tx naïve vs. relapser vs. partial responder vs. null responder  Fibrosis stage - Compensated cirrhosis treated for 48 weeks  Which HCV PI is prescribed - Tx algorithm is different for each HCV PI  Response to treatment - a.k.a. Response Guided Therapy (RGT)

 28 wks (total) 4 weeks pegIFN+ RBV (DT) followed by 24 weeks of BOC + pegIFN + RBV (TT) If tx naïve & RNA undetectable (-) at 8 & 24 wks  36 weeks (total) 4 wks DT + 32 wks TT If prior relapser / partial responder & RNA (-) at 8 & 24 wks  48 wks (total) 4 wks DT + 32 wks TT + 12 wks DT If tx naïve, prior relapser or partial responder AND RNA (+) after week 8 but (-) after TW 24 If & RNA (+) at 8 but (-) at 24 wks  48 wks (total) – 4 wks DT + 44 wks TT If compensated cirrhosis

 Stop all HCV meds if HCV RNA is ≥ 100 IU/ml at 12 wks or detectable (+) at 24 wks or ↑ by > 1 log 10 above treatment nadir *a.k.a. – “Futility Rules”

 First 12 weeks Triple Therapy with TVR + pegIFN + RBV  TVR dose = 750 mg (two 375 mg tabs) PO q 8 hr (+/- 1hr)  Each dose must be taken with 20 gm fat snack  pegIFN + RBV, standard dosing. D/C all meds if RNA > 1,000 IU/ml at 4 or 12 weeks or > 1 log increase from treatment nadir  Continue pegIFN + RBV for 24 or 48 weeks (total) 24 wks total if  Tx naïve or relapser AND  RNA undetectable at 4 & 12wks. 48 wks total if  Treatment naïve or relapser AND  HCV RNA (+) but ≤ 1,000 at 4 and 12 wks & undetectable at 24 wks  Compensated cirrhosis or prior partial responder AND  HCV RNA ≤ 1,000 at 4 and 12 wks & undetectable at 24 wks

D/C all meds if HCV RNA is > 1000 IU/ml at 4 or 12 weeks or Detectable at 24 weeks or Increased by > 1 log 10 above treatment nadir. *a.k.a. – “Futility Rules”

 Medication side effects PegIFN and RBV side effects Boceprevir (BOC)  Anemia  Dysgeusia Telaprevir (TVR)  Anemia  Rash / Pruritus  GI / anorectal  Dysgeusia  Hyperuricemia

 Cost (FSS or FSR) Boceprevir + pegIFN/RBV (PR)  PR 28 / BOC 24 = $23,000  PR 36 / BOC 32 = $30,400  PR 48 / BOC 32 = $32,500  PR 48 / BOC 44 = $41,537 Telaprevir + PR  TPV 12 / PR 24 = $39,400  TPV 12 / PR 48 = $43,700

 HCV Genotype 1 with ≥ stage 2 fibrosis on liver biopsy Prioritize higher stages of fibrosis, e.g. stages 3 & 4 Consider / discuss deferring tx for lower stages of fibrosis, e.g. stage 2 – newer agents likely in 2 to 5 yrs. No contraindications /exclusions. Highly motivated and compliant.  Continuity of care for new intakes on triple tx. With appropriate assessment following intake.  Prior null responders to DT considered on case- by-case basis.

 Comorbid medical conditions Cardiovascular or metabolic conditions  E.g. known coronary heart disease, DM, hyperlipidemia, or hyperuricemia/gout  Telaprevir requires 20 gm fat snack 3x/day and increases uric acid levels; Anorectal conditions  E.g. hemorrhoids, proctitis, diarrhea  increased incidence of anorectal symptoms with telaprevir Dermatologic conditions  E.g. eczema, psoriasis  Increased incidence of rash with telaprevir.  Lower fibrosis score E.g. stage 2/4 – more likely to meet criteria for shorter course of therapy BOC is cheaper / more cost effective with shorter treatment durations.  Medication contraindications (CI) with telaprevir e.g. atorvastatin is CI with telaprevir but “use with caution” in BOC.

 Short Course of BOC not indicated Compensated cirrhosis or prior treatment failures with pegIFN/RBV  Prior null responders not studied in BOC trials. Simpler TVR regimen could improve adherence; Cost advantage with BOC is lost with longer BOC tx course.  Medication contraindications with BOC e.g. carbamazepine, phenobarbital, and phenytoin are CI with BOC but labeled as “use with caution” with TVR.  Borderline acceptable hemoglobin levels Hgb decreased but not at contraindicated levels  BOC studies used ESAs (erythropoietin stimulating agents) in up to 50% of cases whereas TVR studies did not use ESAs and discontinuation rates were similar).

 HCV PIs must be taken q 8 hr (+/- 1 hr) with food Continue BID pill line for RBV and weekly pegIFN injx as per current local procedures. Dispense weekly supply of HCV PI  Inmate must return empty bottles / blisters each wk.  Remote fill – requested 1 week prior. Treating clinician sends request for supplemental feeding (3 times / day) to FSA.  TVR – 20 gm fat snack (3 TBSP peanut butter or 2 slices cheese with bread or crackers)  BOC – taken with a meal or light snack, per policy.

Sample Lab Planner which can auto- populate dates due for labs based on treatment start date

 HCV RNA schedule Baseline, end of tx, & 24 wks after ETR BOC – treatment weeks 4, 8, 12, 24 TVR – treatment wks 4, 12, 24  Report interpretation Futility: > 1000 IU/ml wk 4 or wk 12 (TVR); or ≥ 100 IU/ml wk 12 (BOC). Detectable vs. Undetectable  Timely drawing and result reporting is essential

 Transfer issues Place medical hold on patients during treatment to prevent treatment interruptions.  Patient education is essential Treatment regimen and adherence Side effects Medication interactions / pregnancy issues Option to postpone therapy if stage 2 fibrosis Cannot transfer or release during treatment Have patient sign Hep C tx consent form

 Utilizing a multidisciplinary team helps navigate the complexities of HCV treatment  BOP is utilizing Regional HCV Clinical Pharmacist Consultants to work in conjunction with health services staff at the local level to provide guidance on the new HCV protease inhibitors and optimize patient outcomes, while promoting cost efficiencies.

 Non-formulary requests approved for tx – for boceprevir 61 for telaprevir  130 started on treatment; 98 active on tx; 17 completed tx (16 with ETR, 1 relapse)  28 d/c’d; 8 due to virologic failure; 10 due to patient non-compliance or refusal; 10 due to hematologic factors (anemia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) despite INF/RBV dose adjustment  Too early to assess overall efficacy

 ETRs: BOC – 10/TVR – 11  Virologic failures: BOC – 6/TVR – 5  Discontinuance: BOC – 17/TVR - 13 Hematologic - BOC – 8/TVR - 4

 Patient education / informed consent is critical  Tracking snack intake is important  Telaprevir requires uric acid monitoring  Lack of timely laboratory monitoring can be dangerous for the patient and costly when treatment fails  Major side effects noted: anemia, neutropenia, and rash  Quality control is absolutely critical as there are multiple ways of making mistakes in treatment regimen / monitoring.

Treatment is very expensive – ensure guidelines and administrative controls are in place Treatment is extraordinarily complicated – consolidate treatment centers where feasible, implement algorithms/monitoring tools, and adopt quality control measures Await newer treatment options to include simpler, possible all oral regimens in the future Anticipate more personalized approach to treatment based on genetic host factors

?