Virologic response and haematologic toxicity of boceprevir- and telaprevir-containing regimens in actual clinical settings

Summary Effectiveness, safety and tolerability of boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TPV) in actual clinical settings remain unknown. We determined rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) and haematologic adverse effects among persons treated with BOC‐ or TPV‐containing regimens, compared with peg...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of viral hepatitis Vol. 22; no. 9; pp. 691 - 700
Main Authors Butt, A. A., Yan, P., Shaikh, O. S., Freiberg, M. S., Lo Re III, V., Justice, A. C., Sherman, K. E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.09.2015
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Summary Effectiveness, safety and tolerability of boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TPV) in actual clinical settings remain unknown. We determined rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) and haematologic adverse effects among persons treated with BOC‐ or TPV‐containing regimens, compared with pegylated interferon/ribavirin (PEG/RBV). Using an established cohort of hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐infected persons, Electronically Retrieved Cohort of HCV Infected Veterans (ERCHIVES), we identified those treated with a BOC‐ or TPV‐containing regimen and HCV genotype 1‐infected controls treated with PEG/RBV. We excluded those with HIV coinfection and missing HCV RNA values to determine SVR. Primary endpoints were SVR (undetectable HCV RNA ≥12 weeks after treatment completion) and haematologic toxicity (grade 3/4 anaemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia). We evaluated 2288 persons on BOC‐, 409 on TPV‐containing regimen and 6308 on PEG/RBV. Among these groups, respectively, 31%, 43% and 9% were treatment‐experienced; 17%, 37% and 14% had baseline cirrhosis; 63%, 54% and 48% were genotype 1a. SVR rates among noncirrhotics were as follows: treatment naïve: 65% (BOC), 67% (TPV) and 31% (PEG/RBV); treatment experienced: 57% (BOC), 54% (TPV) and 13% (PEG/RBV); (P‐value not significant for BOC vs TPV; P < 0.0001 for BOC or TPV vs PEG/RBV). Haematologic toxicities among BOC‐, TPV‐ and PEG/RBV‐treated groups were as follows: grade 3/4 anaemia 7%, 11% and 3%; grade 4 thrombocytopenia 2.2%, 5.4% and 1.7%; grade 4 neutropenia 8.2%, 5.6% and 3.4%. SVR rates are higher and closer to those reported in pivotal clinical trials among BOC‐ and TPV‐treated persons compared with PEG/RBV‐treated persons. Haematologic adverse events are frequent, but severe toxicity is uncommon.
Bibliography:NIAID - No. 2 U01-A1069918
NIMH - No. 2P30MH062294
NIDA - No. R01DA035616
istex:99DAE11A38E9C8C9E8D290C44F8C2442E00EFFE5
AHRQ - No. R01HS018372
ArticleID:JVH12375
Table S1 Virologic response in HCV genotype 1 infected persons treated with boceprevir or telaprevir based regimens compared with historic controls treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin: results overall and by prior treatment status using an "intent-to-treat" type analysis where all missing SVR values are treated as non-SVR. Table S2 Virologic response by in HCV genotype 1infected persons treated with boceprevir or telaprevir based regimens compared with historic controls treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin: results by prior treatment status and presence of cirrhosis at baseline using an "intent-to-treat" type analysis where all missing SVR values are treated as non-SVR.
NCI - No. R01 CA173754
National Institutes of Health
NIAAA - No. 1U24AA020794; No. 1U01AA020790; No. U24AA022001
ark:/67375/WNG-Q9R6C9LX-V
ISSN:1352-0504
1365-2893
DOI:10.1111/jvh.12375