Retreating chronic hepatitis C

Hepatology June 6 2009.

Retreating chronic hepatitis C with daily interferon alfacon-1/ribavirin after nonresponse to pegylated interferon/ribavirin:

DIRECT results

Bruce R. Bacon 1 *, Mitchell L. Shiffman 2, Flavia Mendes 3, Reem Ghalib 4, Tarek Hassanein 5, Giuseppe Morelli 6, Shobha Joshi 7, Kenneth Rothstein 8, Paul Kwo 9, Norman Gitlin 10
1Saint Louis University Liver Center, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO
2Hepatology Section, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, VA
3Division of Hepatology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL
4Liver Institute at Methodist Hospital, Dallas, TX
5Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA
6Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
7Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tulane University Hospital and Clinic, New Orleans, LA
8Albert Einstein Center for Liver Disease, Philadelphia, PA
9Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis IN
10Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Emory Crawford Long Hospital, Atlanta, GA

email: Bruce R. Bacon (baconbr@slu.edu)

*Correspondence to Bruce R. Bacon, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, 3635 Vista Avenue at Grand Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63110-0250

Potential conflict of interest: Nothing to report.
fax: 314-577-8125

Funded by:
InterMune, Inc.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International
Three Rivers Pharmaceuticals


ABSTRACT

Up to 50% of patients with chronic hepatitis C fail to respond to initial therapy with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV). With unsuccessful viral eradication, these patients remain at risk for developing progression of their liver disease. Retreatment with PEG-IFN/RBV yields sustained virologic response (SVR) rates that are under 10%. A wholly synthetic interferon, interferon alfacon-1 or consensus interferon (CIFN) given with RBV, was evaluated in patients who failed initial PEG-IFN/RBV therapy. The intent-to-treat analysis included 487 patients; 245 received CIFN 9 g/day and RBV, and 242 received CIFN 15 g/day and RBV. Within this group of patients, 59.3% had documented advanced fibrosis at baseline liver biopsy (stage F3 or F4). SVR rates were 6.9% (17/245 patients) in the 9 g group and 10.7% (26/242) in the 15 g group. In the intent-to-treat analysis, SVR rates were higher among patients with a >2-log10 decrease in hepatitis C virus RNA during prior PEG-IFN/RBV therapy: 11% (4/38) in the 9 g group and 23% (7/31) in the 15 g group. Among patients with lower baseline fibrosis scores (F0-F3), SVR rates were 7.8% (15/192) in the 9g group and 13.1% (23/175) in the 15 g group. In this same group of patients (F0-F3), if a >2-log10 decrease in hepatitis C virus RNA with previous PEG-IFN/RBV treatment was achieved, SVR rates improved to 10.7% and 31.6% in the 9 g and 15 g groups, respectively. CIFN/RBV combination retreatment was safe and well tolerated. Conclusion: Retreatment of PEG-IFN and RBV nonresponders with CIFN and RBV is safe and efficacious and can be considered a retreatment strategy for patients failing previous therapy with PEG-IFN/RBV, especially in interferon-sensitive patients with lower baseline fibrosis scores. (HEPATOLOGY 2009.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 21 August 2008; Accepted: 24 January 2009

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)

10.1002/hep.22871 About DOI


ARTICLE TEXT


Since 2001, the standard of care for patients with chronic hepatitis C has been the combination of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV).[1][2] This combination has produced sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of 50%-60% in patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 who adhere to their therapeutic regimens and 40% in intention-to-treat populations.[1][2] However, because only about 65% of patients become HCV RNA-undetectable when treated with this regimen, more than one-third of all patients are classified as nonresponders. Some of these patients have relatively mild liver disease but may have symptoms of HCV viremia, while other patients have advanced fibrosis and are at risk for developing complications of chronic liver disease, including decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, and may require liver transplantation.[3-5]

The optimal approach to PEG-IFN/RBV nonresponders has not been well defined. Some clinicians have used the watchful waitingapproach[6] and are anticipating new antiviral therapies with either protease inhibitors or polymerase inhibitors. However, it remains to be determined just how effective these new agents will be when combined with PEG-IFN and RBV in the retreatment of PEG-IFN/RBV nonresponders.[7]

Alternative therapies have included retreatment with the alternative brand of PEG-IFN not used in the initial therapy, although most results with this approach have been disappointing. Other approaches have included prolonged treatment with PEG-IFN, maintenance therapy, or the use of higher dosages of either PEG-IFN and/or RBV.[8-12] The strategy studied in the current investigation included high doses of daily consensus interferon (CIFN) (Infergen; interferon alfacon-1) 9 or 15 g/day given with RBV.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abbreviations

AE, adverse event; bDNA, branched DNA; CIFN, consensus interferon; DIRECT, Daily-Dose Consensus Interferon and Ribavirin: Efficacy of Combined Therapy; Hb, hemoglobin; HCV, hepatitis C virus; ITT, intention to treat; PEG-IFN, pegylated interferon; RBV, ribavirin; REPEAT, REtreatment with PEgasys in PATients Not Responding to Peg-Intron Therapy; SVR, sustained virologic response; TMA, transcription-mediated amplification.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Patients and Methods


This study, referred to as the DIRECT (Daily-Dose Consensus Interferon and Ribavirin: Efficacy of Combined Therapy) trial, was designed by the sponsor and by several of the academic investigators. The data were managed by the sponsor and the academic investigators. The sponsor performed the statistical analysis. The academic investigators were responsible for the development of the final manuscript and had unrestricted access to the data. An author involved with the design or execution of this study either wrote or edited every section of the manuscript. Both an academic author (B. R. B.) and an industry representative (Michael Beckloff, Three Rivers Pharmaceuticals, Cranberry Township, PA) attest to the completeness and accuracy of the data.


Study Design.
This was a phase 3, randomized, open-label, multicenter, U.S.-based registration trial conducted to investigate the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of daily CIFN at dosages of 9 and 15 g/day (interferon alfacon-1, Infergen; Three Rivers Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Cranberry Township, PA) administered with daily RBV (Ribasphere, Three Rivers Pharmaceuticals, LLC) compared with no treatment in patients who did not respond to prior therapy with either PEG-IFN alfa-2a or alfa-2b and RBV. The trial was divided into 2 sections: DIRECT-001 and DIRECT-002 (Fig. 1).


Figure 1. DIRECT study design: a randomized, open-label study of CIFN and RBV in patients who did not respond to previous combination therapy with PEG-IFN and ribavirin.
[Normal View 33K | Magnified View 66K]


Patients were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio into three study groups: CIFN 9 g/day (group 1), 15 g/day (group 2) plus oral RBV 1,000-1,200 mg/day (based on body weight), or a control, no-treatment group (group 3). The no-treatment group was mandated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in order to provide a comparison of safety for the two treatment groups. It was not anticipated that any of the patients randomized to the control group would have a spontaneous response. After 24 weeks of observation, all patients in the control group of DIRECT-001 were offered randomization into DIRECT-002 to receive CIFN 9 or 15 g/day plus RBV.

At week 24, patients who had undetectable plasma HCV RNA by branched DNA (bDNA) assay, confirmed by transcription-mediated amplification (TMA) assay, or who had a 2-log10 decrease from baseline in HCV RNA were assigned to continue therapy to week 48. Patients with a <2-log10 decrease from baseline in plasma HCV RNA (bDNA assay) were considered nonresponders and were withdrawn from treatment. At week 48, patients with undetectable plasma HCV RNA (by bDNA and TMA assays) were assigned to return for regular visits in the follow-up period (weeks 52, 60, 68, and 72) until 24 weeks after their last dose of study drug (week 72). Patients with detectable plasma HCV RNA (bDNA or TMA assay) at any time between weeks 48 and 72 were classified as relapsers.

All patients who discontinued therapy early at any time were instructed to return for a single follow-up visit 30 days after their last dose of study drug to complete early termination/discontinuation assessments. Patients who had undetectable plasma HCV RNA by bDNA and TMA assays at the time of stopping therapy or at the early termination/discontinuation visit were to return for follow-up plasma HCV RNA assessments through week 72, as long as their plasma HCV RNA levels remained undetectable by both bDNA and TMA assays. Patients who discontinued for nonresponse at weeks 12 or 24 did not undergo a follow-up HCV RNA measurement.

Patients in the no-treatment group in DIRECT-001 were given the option to enroll in DIRECT-002 under the following conditions: if they achieved a <2-log10 decrease in plasma HCV RNA at week 24 compared with baseline or if they had detectable plasma HCV RNA by bDNA or by TMA at week 48. These patients were then treated according to the same protocol followed in DIRECT-001. The results of DIRECT-001 and DIRECT-002 were pooled for the purpose of this analysis.


Patients.
Men and women were eligible for enrollment if they were chronically infected with HCV of any genotype. Chronic infection was identified based on a history of being positive for serum anti-HCV and/or HCV RNA. A liver biopsy performed within 3 years of screening must have demonstrated evidence of chronic HCV infection. Hepatic fibrosis was interpreted by local pathologists based upon the Metavir scoring system. Patients with advanced liver disease, including bridging fibrosis (F3) and cirrhosis (F4), were eligible for the study as long as they had normal liver function as evidenced by serum albumin >3.5 mg/dL, platelet count >75,000/mm3, and no prior episode of hepatic decompensation (variceal hemorrhage, hepatic encephalopathy, ascites, or hepatocellular carcinoma).

Prior nonresponse and adherence after initial therapy with PEG-IFN alfa-2a (180 g/week) or PEG-IFN alfa-2b (1.5 g/kg/week) plus RBV was determined via careful chart review completed by the study site principal investigator and confirmed by an external study monitor. Nonresponders had to have had a <2-log10 decrease in HCV RNA between weeks 12 and 24 or detectable HCV RNA at weeks 24 or 48. Patients were required to have had completed a minimum of 90 days between discontinuation of their prior regimen and the start of the current study medication. All patients had to have received at least 80% of the cumulative standard dosages of PEG-IFN and RBV for at least 38 weeks (80% of the planned treatment duration). Patients were excluded if this previous treatment was prematurely discontinued, dosing was interrupted, or if the dose of PEG-IFN was reduced because of noncompliance, safety, or tolerability issues (including hematologic or psychiatric side effects).

Patients were also excluded if they were pregnant or lactating women or male partners of pregnant women, or if they were not suitable candidates for enrollment or unlikely to comply with the requirements of the study in the opinion of the investigator or sponsor.


Treatment and Assessments.
Screening took place between 8 weeks and 1 day before the first day of treatment. After providing informed consent, patients were screened for inclusion criteria, underwent a physical examination, provided a baseline medical history, and had blood drawn for laboratory testing. After screening, eligible patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive CIFN 9 or 15 g/day plus RBV 1,000 mg/day (body weight <75 kg) or 1,200 mg/day (body weight >75 kg) or no treatment (Fig. 1). RBV was provided as capsules containing 200 mg of active drug. An independent data monitoring committee conducted regular interim safety assessments throughout the study.

Plasma HCV RNA levels were determined first using the bDNA quantitative assay, which has a sensitivity of detection of 615 IU/mL and a reportable range of 615 to 6,920,000 IU/mL. The Bayer TMA assay, with a sensitivity of detection of 5 IU/mL, was used whenever HCV RNA levels were undetectable via bDNA assay.

Patients developing anemia, defined as hemoglobin (Hb) <10 g/dL, were managed by reducing the dose of RBV to 600 mg/day. The use of growth factors was not permitted. If the Hb increased to >10 g/dL, the RBV dose could be increased in 200-mg/day increments as tolerated according to the discretion of the site principal investigator. RBV dose was not increased after being reduced to 600 mg/day for patients with a history of cardiovascular disease whose Hb decreased by 2 g/dL or more during any 4-week period. RBV was permanently discontinued in patients whose Hb dropped below 8.5 g/dL. In those patients with a history of cardiac or cerebrovascular disease, Hb remaining below 12 g/dL after 4 weeks on a reduced dose required permanent discontinuation of RBV. Neutropenia was managed by CIFN dose reduction; in patients whose absolute neutrophil count fell to <0.75 × 109/L, starting doses of 15 g were lowered to 9 g and then to 6 g, and starting doses of 9 g were lowered to 6 g.


Efficacy Variables.
The primary efficacy variable was the proportion of patients with SVR, defined as undetectable plasma HCV RNA by both bDNA and TMA assays at 24 weeks after the last dose of study drug. In addition, SVR was further explored for the effect of race, genotype, sex, age, baseline HCV RNA, presence/absence of cirrhosis, body weight, and previous response to PEG-IFN/RBV.


Safety and Tolerability.
All adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs were recorded for patients who received at least 1 dose of study medication (active-treatment groups) or who completed baseline assessments (no-treatment group). AEs were recorded until either 30 days after the last dose of study medication (active-treatment groups) or until the last study visit (no-treatment group). AEs were graded from 1 to 5 (1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe; 4, life-threatening or disabling; 5, death) based on the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v3.0. An AE was considered a serious AE if it resulted in death, was life-threatening, required inpatient hospitalization, or resulted in persistent or significant disability or incapacity.


Statistical Methods.
At least 170 patients were needed in each of the three study groups (for a total of 510 patients) to provide an approximately 91% power to detect a difference in SVR between each of the active treatment groups and the no-treatment group. This analysis was performed using a two-sided Fisher's exact test at = 0.05 significance level, with adjustment for multiple comparisons, and assumed an SVR rate of 10% for either of the active treatment groups and 1.2% for the no-treatment group. The study was not powered to detect differences between the 9 g and the 15 g arms.

Data were summarized and analyzed for two patient populations: the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and patients who did not receive any dose modifications. The ITT group consisted of all patients who were randomized to receive CIFN in DIRECT-001, as well as all patients from the no-treatment group in DIRECT-001 who went on to receive at least 1 dose of CIFN in DIRECT-002. Data from the ITT population were used in all efficacy and safety analyses.

Descriptive statistics were determined for continuous variables (patient counts, mean, standard deviation, median, minimum, and maximum) and categorical variables (number and percentage of patients for each category). Percentages were calculated using the number of patients without missing data as the denominator unless otherwise indicated. Calculations of virologic response (both sustained and at specific visits) used the number of ITT patients as the denominator. All statistical testing was conducted at the 0.05 level of significance using SAS software, version 8.2.


Results



Patients and Disposition.
Five hundred fifteen patients were randomized at 44 sites in the United States and Puerto Rico to receive CIFN 9 g/day plus RBV 1,000 or 1,200 mg/day (n = 171), CIFN 15 g/day plus RBV (n = 172), or no treatment (n = 172). Of the 172 patients in the no-treatment group in DIRECT-001, 144 continued on to DIRECT-002. Of these, 74 received CIFN 9 g/day plus RBV 1,000 or 1,200 mg/day, and 70 received CIFN 15 g/day plus RBV 1,000 or 1,200 mg/day. The final ITT population included 487 patients (245 who received CIFN 9 g/day and 242 who received CIFN 15 g/day).

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of the two CIFN treatment groups are presented in Table 1. The majority of patients were male (70%) and Caucasian (64%). Of the enrolled patients, 59.3% had advanced liver disease on biopsy, including bridging fibrosis (F3; 35%) or cirrhosis (F4; 25%). In addition, 52% of patients had hepatic steatosis. The average time between biopsy sampling and study day 1 was 1.6 years. Patients included in the DIRECT trial were required to be off PEG-IFN/RBV therapy for at least 3 months prior to starting CIFN therapy. The median washout period between previous treatment and day 1 of CIFN therapy was 448 days (15 months) and 506 days (16.8 months) for the 9 g and 15 g groups, respectively. Sixty-eight percent of the patients had high baseline HCV RNA levels of >850,000 IU/mL. The majority of patients (79%) failed to achieve an early virologic response (at least a 2-log10 drop in HCV RNA from the pretreatment baseline) to previous PEG-IFN therapy.


Table 1. DIRECT-001 and DIRECT-002: Baseline Characteristics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIFN 9 g/day + RBV (n = 245) CIFN 15 g/day + RBV (n = 242)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mean age ± SD, years 51 ± 6.65 50 ± 6.59
Male 68% 72%
HCV genotype 1 95% 96%
High viral load
850,000 IU/mL 68% 68%
Mean weight ± SD, kg 89.1 ± 18.64 89.4 ± 17.59
Mean body mass index ± SD, kg/m2 29.3 ± 5.20 29.6 ± 5.02
Race
Caucasian 64% 65%
African American 21% 17%
Liver biopsy results
Cirrhosis (F4) 22% 28%
Bridging fibrosis (F3) 36% 34%
(F0-F2) 42% 38%
Steatosis* 52% 51%
Response to prior therapy
<2-log10 drop 78% 80%
>2-log10 drop 15% 12%
Unknown 7% 8%
Washout interval, days
Mean ± SD 453 ± 345 594 ± 372
Median 448 506


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
* Steatosis defined as present or absent.




Antiviral Efficacy.
By ITT analysis, pooled end-of-treatment response via TMA assay in the pooled 9 g arm was 14.7% (36/245), with a subsequent SVR of 6.9% (17/245). In the 15 g arm, pooled end-of-treatment response via TMA assay was 18.5% (45/242), with an SVR rate of 10.7% (26/242). Relapse rates pooled for both arms were 52% (19/36) and 42% (19/45) for the 9 g and 15 g groups, respectively. Post hoc analysis revealed steatosis and time to viral negativity had the most impact on relapse rates.[13] As expected, in DIRECT 001, patients in the no-treatment arm achieved a 0% SVR. In patients who did not have dose modifications, overall SVR rates were 7% in the CIFN 9 g group and 17% in the 15 g group (Fig. 2A,B). The SVR rates were not significantly different between the 001 and 002 arms (P = 0.818). Although the study was not powered to detect differences between the 9 g and 15 g groups, a post hoc analysis revealed no difference in SVR rates between the two (P = 0.141, 95% CI -8.8%-1.2%).


Figure 2. Rates of SVR, defined as undetectable viral levels at least 24 weeks after the end of treatment with CIFN and RBV, in (A) the ITT population (n = 487) and (B) patients who did not receive dose modifications (n = 281). Active versus no treatment (n = 172).
[Normal View 22K | Magnified View 42K]


Patients who achieved a complete early virologic response (defined as viral negativity at week 12 via TMA assay) were more likely to demonstrate an SVR than the general study population. In the 9 g group, 81.3% (13/16) of patients with complete early virologic response achieved SVR, whereas in the 15 g group, 63.6% (14/22) of patients with complete early virologic response demonstrated SVR. In patients deemed slow responders (>2-log drop at week 12, viral-negative at week 24), SVR rates were 11.7% (2/17) and 35.4% (11/31) in the 9 g and 15 g groups, respectively. Two patients in the 9 g arm and one patient in the 15 g arm achieved SVR despite being viral-positive at week 24.

Patients achieving the greatest log reduction in terms of viral response to initial PEG-IFN/RBV therapy had the best likelihood of responding to retreatment with CIFN and RBV (Fig. 3A,B). Among F0-F2 patients with >2-log10 decreases in HCV RNA during their prior PEG-IFN/RBV therapy, SVR rates were 13.3% (2/15) and 30.0% (3/10) in the 9 g and 15 g groups, respectively. A similar trend was seen in the 15 g arm in patients with bridging fibrosis (F3). SVR for the F0-F2 group of patients was 8.7% (9/104) in the 9g group and 14.9% (14/94) in the 15 g group. With patients displaying bridging fibrosis only on biopsy, overall SVR was 6.8% (6/88) and 11.1% (9/81) in the 9 and 15 g groups, respectively. Complete SVR for noncirrhotics (F0-F3) was 7.8% (15/192) in the 9 g group versus 13.1% (23/175) in the 15 g group, whereas cirrhotics achieved SVR rates of 3.8% (2/53) and 4.5% (3/67) in the 9 g and 15 g groups, respectively. In the cirrhotic cohort, patients required at least a 1-log drop on prior therapy to benefit from retreatment with CIFN and RBV. African American patients achieved lower SVR rates than Caucasians (4.2% versus 11%, respectively). In this population, pooled analysis between the two dosage arms revealed that 35.4% of the patients had failed at least two or more prior treatment regimens, with 52.7% having obtained a <1-log drop on prior PEG-IFN/RBV therapy. In addition to this, 60.2% had dose reductions while on CIFN/RBV therapy. Finally, non-genotype 1 patients (genotype 2/3) achieved an overall SVR rate of 23.1% (3/13) and 88.8% (8/9) in the 9 g and 15 g groups, respectively. Further univariate predictors of response are discussed in Table 2.


Figure 3. Rates of SVR, defined as undetectable viral levels at 24 weeks after the end of treatment, in the ITT analysis by known previous response to therapy among patients without F0-F2 fibrosis, F3, and with cirrhosis (F4) in the (A) 9 g and (B) 15 g treatment groups. One patient in the 9 g group and two patients in the 15 g group achieving SVR had unknown prior response to PEG-IFN/RBV therapy.
[Normal View 25K | Magnified View 52K]


Table 2. Univariate Predictors of SVR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n (% SVR) P Value

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment group
9 g/day (n = 245) 17 (6.9) NS
15 g/day (n = 242) 26 (10.7)
Sex
Male (n = 342) 30 (8.8) NS
Female (n = 145) 13 (9.0)
Fibrosis scores
F0-F2 (n = 198) 23 (11.6) NS
F3-F4 (n = 289) 20 (6.9)
Genotype
1 (n = 464) 32 (6.9) <0.001
Non-genotype 1 (n = 23) 11 (47.8)
Viral load
<850,000 IU/mL (n = 155) 25 (16.1) <0.001
>850,000 IU/mL (n = 331) 18 (5.4)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Abbreviation: NS, not significant.




Safety and Tolerability.
A total of 83.6% of patients in the 9 g group and 71.7% of patients in the 15 g group received at least 80% of their cumulative CIFN dose. The most common reason for early termination was treatment failure. Discontinuation due to not achieving a >2-log drop at week 24 was similar between the pooled dosage arms of 001 and 002 (32.3% versus 28.4%, P value not significant). Other reasons for treatment discontinuation are listed in Table 3.


Table 3. Early Treatment Discontinuation: ITT Population

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Patients, n (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIFN 9 g/day + RBV (n = 245) CIFN 15 g/day + RBV (n = 242) Total (N = 487)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Treatment failure 127 (51.8) 107 (44.2) 234 (48.0)
<2-log10 reduction in HCV RNA at week 24 96 (39.2) 64 (26.4) 160 (32.9)
Detectable HCV RNA at week 48 31 (12.7) 43 (17.8) 74 (15.2)
Adverse events 35 (14.3) 51 (21.1) 86 (17.7)
Withdrawal of consent 20 (8.2) 18 (7.4) 38 (7.8)
Decision by principal investigator or sponsor 3 (1.2) 9 (3.7) 12 (2.5)
Lost to follow-up 9 (3.7) 9 (3.7) 18 (3.7)
Other 15 (6.1) 7 (2.9) 2 (4.5)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Table 4 summarizes the most common AEs experienced by patients in the pooled 001 and 002 arms of the DIRECT trial. Most AEs were grade 2 or 3 and were more commonly related to administration of both CIFN and RBV than either drug alone. Most patients experienced at least one AE in the study. Individual AEs resulting from treatment with CIFN were typical of those reported with IFN-based therapy. All AEs were more common in the CIFN 9 and 15 g groups than in the no-treatment group. RBV-induced hemolytic anemia occurred in 6.4% of patients. In general, most AEs were either not drug-related based on the opinion of the study site principal investigator or were thought to be related to the combination of study drugs rather than to either CIFN or RBV alone. The most common AEs leading to dose modifications in both CIFN treatment groups included neutropenia, fatigue, leukopenia, depression, nausea, myalgia, lymphopenia, and anemia. Overall, discontinuations for AEs occurred in 14% of the 9 g group and 21% of the 15 g group in the pooled ITT analysis.


Table 4. Adverse Events Reactions Occurring Regardless of Attribution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Body System/Preferred Term (MedDRA) Retreatment*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIFN 9 g/day for 48 weeks (n = 244) CIFN 15 g/day for 48 weeks (n = 242)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blood and lymphatic disorders
Anemia 13 12
Hemolytic anemia 16 19
Leukopenia 24 34
Lymphopenia 7 14
Neutropenia 36 44
Thrombocytopenia 3 5
Eye disorders
Vision blurred 8 7
Gastrointestinal disorders
Abdominal pain 7 7
Abdominal pain upper 8 7
Constipation 9 10
Diarrhea 18 19
Dry mouth (saliva decreased) 3 5
Dyspepsia 6 7
Nausea 45 45
Vomiting 12 19
General disorders and administration site conditions (or body as a whole)
Asthenia 6 9
Fatigue 75 77
Influenza-like illness (or symptoms) 40 42
Injection site erythema 16 16
Injection site pain 3 5
Injection site reaction 15 12
Injection site rash 2 5
Pain (or body pain) 5 6
Pyrexia (or fever) 13 17
Rigors 19 22
Infections
Sinusitis 7 6
Upper respiratory tract infection 5 6
Investigations
Blood ALT increased 4 6
Blood AST increased 6 10
Blood phosphorus decreased 7 5
Blood uric acid increased 3 5
Lymphocyte count decreased 3 5
Neutrophil count decreased 5 4
WBC count decreased 6 5
Weight decrease 16 22
Metabolism and nutrition disorders
Anorexia 15 21
Decreased appetite 17 18
Hyperglycemia 3 7
Hypertriglyceridemia 7 7
Hyperuricemia 8 10
Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders
Arthralgia 31 31
Back pain 12 9
Muscle cramp 5 6
Myalgia 24 34
Nervous system disorders
Dizziness 14 19
Dysgeusia 6 95
Headache 46 39
Memory impairment 5 6
Syncope 2 5
Psychiatric disorder
Agitation 6 2
Anxiety 12 11
State of confusion 4 5
Depression 27 25
Insomnia 39 38
Irritability 21 17
Respiratory, thoracic, and mediastinal disorders
Cough 14 17
Dyspnea 15 20
Dyspnea exertional 10 9
Epistaxis 1 5
Pharyngolaryngeal pain 5 6
Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders
Alopecia 10 10
Dry skin 9 8
Hyperhidrosis (or sweating increased) 2 5
Pruritus 15 11
Rash 17 12


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Only events that occurred at a frequency of 5% in any treatment group of both IRHC-001 and IRHC-002 studies combined are included. Patients can appear more than once in Table 5. All values are percentages.
Abbreviations: ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; WBC, white blood cell.
* Adverse events reported in patients during treatment or posttreatment observation are listed regardless of attribution to treatment.




Discussion


Retreatment of PEG-IFN/RBV nonresponders with daily CIFN/RBV resulted in an SVR rate of 6.9% with 9 g/day CIFN and 10.7% with 15 g/day CIFN. Patients whose doses were not reduced achieved SVR rates of 7% in the 9 g group and 17% in the 15 g group. These findings are consistent with a previous clinical trial demonstrating encouraging SVR rates with this higher dose of CIFN, 15 g/day.[14] The best response rate, 31.6%, was observed in noncirrhotic patients (F0-F3) who had a partial virologic response with a >2-log10 decline in HCV RNA during their previous course of PEG-IFN treatment.

These results were achieved even though the patients in the DIRECT trial had numerous poor prognostic factors for a successful response. Approximately 95% had HCV genotype 1, about 20% were African American, 68% had a high baseline HCV RNA level of >850,000 IU/mL, and almost 90% had a baseline HCV RNA level of >400,000 IU/mL. Approximately 80% had a <2-log10 decline in HCV RNA during prior treatment. Sixty percent of patients had advanced liver disease, including cirrhosis (25%) and bridging fibrosis (35%), and 52% had steatosis on biopsy. All of these factors have been shown to significantly reduce rates of SVR.

Overall, the alternative strategies for improving SVR in PEG-IFN/RBV nonresponders have not met with success. Two trials of maintenance IFN therapy were evaluated in PEG-IFN/RBV nonresponders with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis to determine if this strategy can reduce progression to cirrhosis, complications of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, the need for liver transplantation, and death.[8][15] The Hepatitis C Antiviral Long-Term Treatment Against Cirrhosis trial demonstrated that maintenance PEG-IFN alfa-2a therapy at a dose of 90 g/week over 3.5 years provided no overall benefit compared with no treatment.[8] Similar results were observed in the Colchicine versus PEG-Intron Long Term study, which compared PEG-IFN alfa-2b 0.5 g/kg/week to colchicine over 3.5 years.[15]

In the recently completed REtreatment with PEgasys in PATients Not Responding to Peg-Intron Therapy (REPEAT) trial, nonresponders and relapsers to previous PEG-IFN alfa-2b and RBV were retreated with either a standard dose of PEG-IFN alfa-2a 180 g/week or a higher dose of 360 g/week for 12 weeks, after which the dose was reduced to the standard dose.[16] Patients who became HCV RNA undetectable by week 24 were treated for either 48 or 72 weeks. In a protocol-defined primary analysis, SVR rates after retreatment with PEG-IFN alfa-2a and RBV were only 7% to 9% with 48 weeks of treatment but increased to 14% to 16% in those patients treated for 72 weeks. This increase in SVR resulted from a decline in relapse with the prolonged course of treatment. The use of the higher induction dose of PEG-IFN alfa-2a, 360 g/week, did not impact SVR rates. The SVR results of this study, using 72 weeks of PEG-IFN alfa-2a are comparable with those achieved with 48 weeks of treatment with CIFN/RBV in the DIRECT trial. Several differences exist between the REPEAT and DIRECT trials that confound direct comparison of the results. It is not known what proportion of patients in the REPEAT trial were treatment-compliant, and the number of relapse patients included in the trial is not clear.[17] Furthermore, the patients enrolled in the DIRECT trial had more advanced liver disease than those in REPEAT (60% versus 27% with stage F3-F4) and contained a higher percentage of African American patients (20% versus 10%).

Recent studies of CIFN and RBV have demonstrated a favorable response in the retreatment of PEG-IFN/RBV nonresponders.[14][18][19] Two open-label trials demonstrated SVR rates ranging from 10% to 37%, with varying CIFN regimens.[17][19] In a third study, 137 consecutive patients who did not become HCV RNA-undetectable during treatment with PEG-IFN alfa-2b with RBV were switched to CIFN 15 g/day for 12 weeks, followed by CIFN three times weekly for an additional 36 weeks with weight-based doses of RBV.[14] SVR rates were noted in 37% of patients who remained on their full doses of therapy. The SVR rate was 27% in African Americans and 41% in Caucasian patients.

Several other new and promising therapies are under development for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. These include RBV-like molecules, polymerase and protease inhibitors, and novel IFN formulations.[7][20] Two protease inhibitors, Boceprevir and Telaprevir, are the furthest along in development. Phase III studies are in the midst of enrollment, and these agents may gain U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval in 2 to 3 years. In addition, it has already been demonstrated that both protease and polymerase inhibitors will require the use of both IFN and RBV to achieve an SVR in treatment-naïve or treatment-experienced patients.

In conclusion, the current study shows the benefit CIFN holds for difficult-to-treat patients with chronic hepatitis C who have failed to respond to previous treatment with PEG-IFN and RBV. The present study demonstrated that some patients with chronic hepatitis C who have failed to respond to treatment with PEG-IFN and RBV can be successfully retreated with daily CIFN and RBV. The greatest SVR rate during retreatment in the present study was observed in F0-F3 patients who had a partial virologic response during their prior course of treatment. Therefore, once-daily CIFN in combination with RBV can be considered for select patients with chronic HCV who have failed to respond to prior treatment with PEG-IFN and RBV.


Acknowledgements


The authors would like to thank the DIRECT-001 and DIRECT-002 study investigators (Bashar Aqel, Sanjeev Arora, Carl Berg, David Bernstein, Edmund Bini, Scott Cotler, Michael Fallon, Kenneth Flora, Steven-Huy Bui Han, Joanne Imperial, Mark Jonas, Gerond Lake-Bakaar, Anne Larson, Eric Lawitz, Edward Lebovics, Michael Lyons, Gary Matusow, Douglas Meyer, Abdul Nadir, Robert Reindollar, Adrian Reuben, Maribel Rodriguez-Torres, Vinod Rustgi, Michael Ryan, John Santoro, Muhammad Sheikh, Robert Sjogren, Mark Swaim, Helen Te, Tram Tran, Andrzej Triebling, Harlan Wright, and Nizar Zein) for their participation in the studies. Dr. John Kincaid is also acknowledged for his assistance in the preparation of the first draft of the manuscript. All subsequent revisions of this manuscript were made by Bruce R. Bacon and Mitchell L. Shiffman with some input from the authors on the masthead.


REFERENCES

1 Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR, Smith C, Marinos G, Gonçales FL Jr, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 975-982. Links
2 Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC, Rustgi VK, Shiffman M, Reindollar R, 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. Links
3 Fartoux L, Degos F, Trepo C, Goria O, Cales P, Tran A, et al. Effect of prolonged interferon therapy on the outcome of hepatitis C virus-related cirrhosis: a randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 5: 502-507. Links
4 Helbling B, Jochum W, Stamenic I, Knopfli M, Cerny A, Borovicka J, et al. HCV-related advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis: randomized controlled trial of pegylated interferon alpha-2a and ribavirin. J Viral Hepat 2006; 13: 762-769. Links
5 Kobayashi S, Takeda T, Enomoto M, Tamori A, Kawada N, Habu D, et al. Development of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis C who had a sustained virological response to interferon therapy: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 1124 patients. Liver Int 2007;27: 186-191. Links
6 Shiffman ML. Chronic hepatitis C: treatment of pegylated interferon/ribavirin nonresponders. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2006; 8: 46-52. Links
7 Keeffe EB. Future treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Antivir Ther 2007; 12: 1015-1025. Links
8 DiBisceglie A., Shiffman ML, Everson GT, Lindsay KL, Everhart JE, Wright EC, et al. Prolonged therapy of advanced chronic hepatitis C with low-dose peginterferon. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 2429-2441. Links
9 Jensen DB, Freilich B, Andreone P, DiBisceglie A, Brandão-Mello CE, Reddy KR, et al. Pegylated interferon alfa-2a (40kD) plus ribavirin (RBV) in prior non-responders to pegylated interferon alfa-2b (12kD)/RBV: final efficacy and safety outcomes of the REPEAT study [abstract LB4].HEPATOLOGY 2007; 46(Suppl): 291A-292A. Links
10 Kaiser S, Hass H, Gregor M. Successful retreatment of peginterferon nonresponder patients with chronic hepatitis C with high dose consensus interferon induction therapy [Abstract 125]. Gastroenterology 2004; 126(Suppl 2): A-668. Links
11 Kaiser S, Hass HG, Bissinger L, Gregor M. Comparison of daily consensus interferon versus peginterferon alfa 2a extended therapy of 72 weeks for peginterferon/ribavirin relapse patients with chronic hepatitis C [Abstract S1060]. Gastroenterology 2006; 130(Suppl 2): A-784. Links
12 Rustgi VK, Esposito S, Hamzeh FM, Shiffman ML. Peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin in hepatitis C virus patients nontolerant or nonresponsive to peginterferon alfa-2b/ribavirin. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008; 27: 433-440. Links
13 Hassanein T, Ghalib R, Zein N, Rothstein KD, Joshi SN, Kwo PY, et al. Analysis of relapse rates in pegylated interferon and ribavirin non-responders treated with daily consensus interferon and ribavirin [Abstract 1319]. HEPATOLOGY 2007; 46: A1319. Links
14 Leevy CB. Consensus interferon and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C who were nonresponders to pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin. Dig Dis Sci 2008; 53: 1961-1966. Links
15 Afdhal NH, Levine R, Brown RJ, Freilich B, O'Brien M, Brass C. Colchicine versus peg-interferon alfa 2b long term therapy: results of the 4 year COPILOT trial [Abstract 3]. J Hepatol 2008; 48(Suppl): S4. Links
16 Jensen D, Di Bisceglie A, Gitlin N, Freilich B, Reddy K, Feinman V, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a (40KD) plus ribavirin (RBV) in pegylated interferon alfa-2b (12KD)/ribavirin non-responders: week 12 efficacy and safety outcomes of the REPEAT study. Gastroenterology 2006; 130; T1800. Links
17 Jensen D, Di Bisceglie A, Gitlin N, Freilich B, Reddy K, Feinman V, et al. Type of response to prior pegylated interferon alfa-2b (12kd)/rbv predicts subsequent response to retreatment with peginterferon alfa-2a (40KD)/RBV. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: S1937. Links
18 Kaiser S, Boecher W, Lutze B, Sauter B, Bissinger L, Werner C, et al. Treatment of peginterferon/ribavirin nonresponders with daily dosing of consensus interferon and ribavirin: preliminary results of the German Consensus Interferon Multicenter Study [Abstract 1306]. HEPATOLOGY2007; 46 Suppl:817A. Links
19 Ghalib RH, Levine CD, Friedman DA, Rashdan S, Schwartz AG, Weinstein J. Consensus interferon plus ribavirin therapy in patients who are nonresponders or relapsers to prior PEG IFN plus ribavirin. Gastroenterology 2007; 46: M1874. Links
20 Harrison SA. Small molecules and novel treatment for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2332-2338.