![Disclosures – Dr. J. Feld ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (20)
Semelhante a Palestra Novos Conceitos na Terapia com Inibidores de Protease - Dr. Jordan Feld
Semelhante a Palestra Novos Conceitos na Terapia com Inibidores de Protease - Dr. Jordan Feld (20)
Último
Último (20)
Palestra Novos Conceitos na Terapia com Inibidores de Protease - Dr. Jordan Feld
- 1. Protease Inhibitors for HCV: The devil is in the details Jordan J Feld MD MPH Assistant Professor of Medicine Toronto Western Hospital McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health
- 4. The Good News 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% IFN IFN IFN/R IFN/R PegIFN PegIFN/R Sustained Response 16% 55% 6% 34% 42% 39% 6 mo 12 mo 6 mo 12 mo 12 mo 1991 1995 1998 2002 2001 Ribavirin Peginterferon Standard Interferon 12 mo 6-12 mo 75% 2010 DAA PegIFN/R/DAA
- 5. Response-Guided Therapy 0 4 8 12 24 28 48 72 Wks Follow-up Wk 8-24 HCV-RNA Detectable PR + Placebo Wk 8-24 HCV-RNA <10 IU/mL Follow-up Peg2b/R + Boceprevir 800mg q8h PR lead-in BOC RGT N = 368 Peg 2a/R + TVR 750 q8h T12PR N = 363 Follow-up Peg 2a/R Peg 2a/R
- 7. RGT Allows for Shortening of Therapy 59/ 82 155/ 161 156/ 162 55/ 73 Poordad et al NEJM 2011 44% RVR8 28 wk of trt No consequence to shorter BOC
- 8. RGT works in treatment- experienced as well SVR (%) 64 74 7 7 74 84 BOC RGT BOC/PR48 PR48 29 72 8 65 30 70 Bacon et al NEJM 2011
- 9. Reduced exposure to PI with RGT = Reduced toxicity 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 16 20 24 30 34 42 54 Hemoglobin (g/dL) 6 8 10 12 14 16 Neutrophil (X10^9) 1 2 3 4 5 Weeks 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 16 20 24 30 36 42 48 52 60 72 Hgb (RGT) Neutrophil (RGT) Hgb (BOC/PR48) Neutrophil (BOC/PR48)
- 11. Lead-in vs No-Lead in
- 12. SPRINT1: Benefit to lead-in 38 P/R Control 48 wks P/R 4 wks P/R/B 24 wks N=104 Lead-in Lead-in Kwo et al Lancet 2010 Appeared to modest efficacy advantage to lead-in % SVR 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 54 56 P/R/B 28 wks N=107 N=103 67 P/R/B 48 wks P/R 4 wks P/R/B 44 wks 75 N=103 N=103
- 13. The Theory w r w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w r r r w w w w w w w w w w w w w LLD 0 virions per body Treatment Duration Start End w = wild-type virus r = PI resistant virus Peg/RBV/PI w w Peg/RBV Lower viral load before starting PI = less resistance
- 14. Let ’s do the math… Therefore… Average number of changes/genome = 0.096/replication cycle Conclusion: ALL single and ALL double mutants are produced everyday. Resistance associated variants (RAVS) all pre-exist. Unless 2-3 log drop in lead-in, no difference to resistance Rong et al Sci Transl Med 2010 # of nt changes Probability # of virions/d # of all possible mutants % of all possible mutants/d 0 0.91 9.1 x 10 11 1 0.087 8.7 x 10 10 2.9 x 10 4 100 2 0.0042 4.2 x 10 9 4.1 x 10 8 100 3 0.00013 1.3 x 10 8 1.0 x 10 12 3.4x10 -3
- 16. SVR by Week 4 PR Lead-in Response: RESPOND2 SVR (%) 15 46 0 12 15 44 BOC RGT BOC/PR48 PR48 80 110 17 67 90 114 BOC RGT BOC/PR48 PR48 Poor IFN Response 1 log 10 viral load decline at Treatment Week 4 Adequate IFN Response ≥ 1 log 10 viral load decline at Treatment Week 4 SVR (%) Bacon et al NEJM 2011
- 17. Real-Time Interferon response for trt-experienced Respond 2 26% null response despite at least partial historical response Esteban EASL 2011 % of Patients With Week 4 Response Historical Response Week 4 Response 10 10 56 140 84 140 46 253 207 253
- 19. Resistance… Are we doomed? If PI resistant virus pre-exists, why do PIs work at all?
- 20. Resistance: A new issue in HCV Multi-pronged attack No IFN resistance Effective against PI-resistant HCV Potent but uniform attack Rapid DAA resistance IFN Receptor IFN ISGs Jak- STAT DAA
- 21. Not just theory Keiffer Hepatology 2007
- 22. IFN response predicts resistance 0 100 50 25 75 4% 6% 52% 40% Boceprevir Resistance % RGT BOC48 RGT BOC48 >1 log decline during lead-in <1 log decline during lead-in SPRINT 2 Poordad et al NEJM 2011 Maximize Peg/RBV Response: - Obesity - Insulin resistance - Vit D - Coffee
- 24. Fitness is a moving target: Compensatory mutations Fitness No Drug PI Treatment Continued PI Treatment despite resistance WT PI-R WT PI-R WT PI-R x x x x x x x PI-resistant virus will become more fit over time if the PI is continued Therefore: Stop the PI as soon as resistance emerges Composition of viral pop’n
- 27. HCV has no reservoir for archiving HCV Pol x x RT CD4+ x x x HIV x HBV RT x x x cccDNA x pgRNA
- 28. What happens if treatment stops? Fitness No Drug PI Treatment Continued PI Treatment despite resistance WT PI-R WT PI-R WT PI-R x x x x x x x PI-resistant virus may persist even after drug withdrawal if fitness has improved significantly with compensatory mutations during treatment Composition of viral pop’n WT PI-R x x x x x ? Drug discontinuation
- 30. Population sequencing: Tip of the iceberg Even if undetectable by population sequencing…may be lots of resistant virus 0 1 5 20 40 60 80 100 - - - - - - - Population Sequencing Clonal Sequencing Deep Sequencing % threshold for detecting resistant virus Wild-type virus Resistant virus
- 32. No Inter-Class Cross Resistance PI= ‘Intra’ Class Pol= no ‘Intra’ Class
- 34. IFN-Lambda Mania IL28b SNP associated with SVR & spontaneous clearance
- 35. SVR according to IFN λ SNP Ge Nature 2009
- 36. Does IL28B help with PIs? SVR (%) Jacobson et al EASL 2011 IL28B tested in 454 (42%) of ADVANCE T12PR T8PR PR 48 CC CT TT TVR helps all IL28B genotypes ? T12 more important in non-CC 20/ 80 45/ 50 39/ 45 35/ 55 48/ 68 44/ 76 16/ 22 19/ 32 6/ 26
- 37. What about IL28B and BOC? SVR (%) Poordad et al EASL 2011 IL28B tested in 653 (62%) SPRINT-2 CC CT TT BOC helps only non-CCs…BUT 33/ 116 BOC/PR RGT BOC/PR 48 PR 48 63/ 77 44/ 55 50/ 64 67/ 103 82/ 115 23/ 42 26/ 44 10/ 37
- 39. IL28B in Trt-Experienced SVR (%) Pol et al EASL 2011 IL28B tested in 527 (80%) of REALIZE CC CT TT Rel Partial Null Rel Partial Null T12PR48 PR48 Prior response trumps IL28B
- 40. Lead-in trumps IL28B PR RGT BOC48 PR RGT BOC48 <1 log >1 log CC CT TT Poordad EASL 2011
- 42. Adverse Events No Free Lunch
- 46. Drug-Drug Interactions Put your pharmacist’s number on speed-dial! Farmacia 1 800 AJUDE-ME
- 50. Obrigado!
Notas do Editor
- This diagram illustrates what happens during successful therapy with a protease inhibitor combined with peginterferon and ribavirin. At baseline, the majority of the virions are wild-type (w) at the PI-active site although there is still variation among the wild-type viruses at other sites (different colour wild-type viruses). A small number of resistant variants (r) pre-exist. When treatment is started, the PI and Peg/RBV suppress the wild-type virus and the Peg/RBV suppress the PI-resistant virus. Provided that Peg/RBV work adequately, the viral level falls below the limit of detection and eventually goes below the threshold for cure – presumably meaning no virus left in the body and hence an SVR is achieved.
- If 10 12 virions are produced every day and an error occurs every 10 5 nucleotides copied, with a genome of 9600 nucleotides, there will be about 0.1 errors per replication cycle or about 10% of the time. This means that the virus will reproduce itself ‘accurately’ about 91% of the time. When errors occur, the majority will be a single error in a given genome. Of the 9% with errors, 8.7% will have just one error. Because of the huge production rate of viruses, there will be 8.7x10 10 viruses with a single mutation made every day. Since there are only about 10 4 places for errors to occur, this means that every possible single mutant will be made every single day. If you apply the math similarly to double mutants (ie virions with any 2 individual mutations), you see that all double mutants are also made every single day. Once you get down to triple mutants, the number of combinations is enormous (~10 12 ) and therefore even with the huge rates of viral production, only a small percentage of triple mutants will be produced every day. The consequence of these calculations is that every single and double mutant is made everyday meaning that any variants that lead to resistance with a single or double mutant will exist before starting therapy. This may mean that a combination of at least 3 DAAs will be required to eliminate interferon from HCV treatment. Notably, a lead-in phase will lower the viral level before starting the PI and theoretically lower the risk of selecting for PI-resistant virus. However, unless there is a very significant (>3 log) decline in HCV RNA during the lead-in phase, the numbers in the graph above do not change appreciably and all possibly single and double mutants will still pre-exist at the time the PI is introduced.
- In these 4 patients treated with telaprevir monotherapy, all 4 started out with predominantly wild-type HCV (purple). Despite a very effective drop in viral load with telaprevir treatment, telalprevir-resistant variants started to emerge very quickly. By the end of the 2 week dosing period, the wild-type virus had been entirely replaced by various telaprevir-resistant variants. Fortunately, as shown in patient 1, the PI-resistant variants are still effectively suppressed by peginterferon and ribavirin.
- As shown in the previous slides, the response to Peg/RBV is critical to controlling the emergence of resistance associated variants (RAVS). In patients treated in the SPRINT-2 trial, those with a poor response to Peg/RBV during the lead-in phase (<1 log decline in HCV RNA) had a much greater chance of developing resistance to boceprevir. This concept extends to the treatment-experiences population and explains the difference in rates of resistance and response seen in different groups of treatment-experienced patients: prior null responders (the worst Peg/RBV responders) have a lower response rate and a much higher rate of PI resistance than relapsers (the best Peg/RBV responders) when treated with a PI plus Peg/RBV.
- In the absence of drug (left panel), the wild-type (wt) virus is more fit than the PI-resistant (PI-R) virus and will be the dominant virus in the population with only a few PI-R viruses present (circles at the top). When PI treatment starts, wt virus is suppressed and it has a major loss in fitness. At this point, PI-R virus does not gain fitness per se, it just gains a fitness advantage over wt virus. In fact, as shown here, PI-R virus may be slightly less fit in the presence of a PI than in the absence of a PI because drug resistance is not an all or none phenomenon. Most drug-resistant variants are still partially sensitive to the drug. However, the PI-R virus does gain a significant advantage over wt virus in the presence of a PI and hence it will emerge as the dominant virus in the population (circle at the top). If the PI is continued despite the presence of a majority PI-R viral population, the PI-R virus will start to gain fitness. Just like wt virus, the PI-R virus continues to mutate over time. Just by random chance, some of the mutations that occur with time will enhance the growth of the PI-R virus. Such beneficial mutations are called compensatory mutations because they compensate for the fitness loss of the initial resistance mutation. Over time, with multiple compensatory mutations (shown as x’s in genome below graph) the fitness of the PI-R virus will improve – it will remain the dominant viral species (circle at the top) and the viral load will likely increase to close to baseline levels. Whether this more fit resistant virus will be more difficult to treat in the future is unknown.
- The genetic barrier to resistance refers to the ‘difficulty’ for a given a virus to develop resistance to an antiviral. Although there are other factors, the major issue driving genetic barrier is the number of mutations necessary for resistance to occur. For PIs, this is an important issue. With Peg/RBV treatment, genotype 1 subtyping is not very important. However when PIs are added, the risk of resistance varies significantly between genotype 1a and b. For genotype 1a, only 1 nucleotide substitution is necessary to confer resistance to PIs. For genotype 1b, (the ‘ B ’ etter subtype), 2 substitutions are necessary. As a result, baseline resistance to PIs is detected frequently in patients with genotype 1a infection whereas it is not described in patients with genotype 1b infection. As shown in the figure, in patients treated with boceprevir/Peg/RBV who do not achieve SVR, RAVS (resistance associated variants) are detected with much greater frequency in those with genotype 1a than genotype 1b infection.
- With drug discontinuation (right panel), the fitness of the WT virus will markedly improve, returning to pre-treatment levels. However, PI-R virus with compensatory mutations may actually be quite fit. This ‘improved’ PI-R virus will almost certainly still have reduced fitness compared to WT but it will likely be more fit than PI-R virus in scenario 1, prior to any drug exposure. The balance of WT to PI-R virus (circle on the top) will depend on how fit the PI-R virus becomes and therefore how well it competes with WT virus. Over time, even a small advantage for WT virus will lead it to become the dominant species but if the fitness difference is small, return to a predominant WT viral population may take a long time. To prevent compensatory mutations, it is critical to stop the PI (or any DAA) in the setting of established drug resistance.
- Of 56 people with documented telaprevir-resistant HCV at the end of unsuccessful therapy, only 11% (6/56) had resistant virus as the dominant viral species 2 years after stopping telaprevir. On the surface this would appear to support the concept that resistance is not archived in HCV and after stopping treatment, resistant virus will revert back to wild-type virus. Although it is theoretically possible that this is true, it is important to pay close attention to the methods used in this (and most) studies. On the next slide the sequencing methods will be compared. The real test of whether resistant virus has truly disappeared will be retreatment of patients who had documented PI resistance with another or the same PI. To date there are no such reported data.
- Detection of resistant virus is only as good as the sequencing method used to detect it. In the figure above, the threshold of detection of resistant virus is shown for 3 methods of sequencing. Population sequencing determines the most common sequence among the quasispecies in a viral population. In general, population sequencing has a sensitivity down to about 20% meaning that any viral quasispecies that represent less than 20% of the total viral population will go undetected. As shown in this example, if 19% of the virions in a given patient harboured a PI resistance mutation, using this methodology, sequencing would report wild-type virus for this individual. Given the very high viral loads, even a very low percentage of resistant variants represents a lot of resistant virus. Clonal sequencing involves sequencing of individual viral clones (individual virions) from an individual. This method is effective but very labour intensive and relatively costly. In general, the sensitivity of clonal sequencing to detect resistant virus is about 5%. Deep sequencing uses modern so-called ‘Next Gen’ sequencing approaches. Although the technique is extremely powerful, the sensitivity of this method is limited by the need to convert the RNA into cDNA using reverse transcription, which has an intrinsic error rate. As a result, the sensitivity of this method is 0.5-1%. It is also extremely costly and generates a huge amount of data, which requires specialized expertise for analysis. If we now go back to the Extend data from the last slide, the results are less compelling. The data show that 11% of the patients had at least 20% resistant virus because resistance was detected using population sequencing. This is despite the fact that patients were off telaprevir for 2 years. In the other patients, although population sequencing showed them to be ‘wild-type’, they could have had up to 20% resistance virus with the methods used in the study. Ultimately we will only know whether resistance reverts to wild-type when we retreat patients. Unfortunately with population sequencing, the only practical way to sequencing on a large scale, we are just seeing the tip of the quasispecies iceberg.
- Some measures can be taken to reduce the likelihood of emergence of resistance. Sub-optimal drug levels increase the risk of resistance. PIs must be taken every 8 hours (window of 7-9 hours), which is difficult, particularly given the need for twice daily ribavirin. Compliance will be a major issue for patients and must be stressed and monitored to reduce the risk of resistance. The pre-existing PI-resistant virus is suppressed by Peg/RBV. The probability of resistance is much higher in patients with poor Peg/RBV responses. Any strategies to improve Peg/RBV responsiveness will lower the chance of resistance. Such strategies include: weight loss, adequate dosing (especially ribavirin), compliance and possibly novel approaches such as vitamin D, coffee or SAMe supplementation. Because the Peg/RBV is a critical determinant of the risk of resistance, in patients with features predicting a poor Peg/RBV response, treatment with a PI should be carefully considered. Certainly patients with advanced liver disease need therapy, however patients with minimal or no fibrosis may not need therapy urgently. For such patients, it may be worthwhile to try to optimize factors associated with Peg/RBV responsiveness (eg. obesity, insulin resistance) or consider waiting for combination therapy. If patients develop resistance, it is very important to stop the PI promptly to avoid the development of compensatory mutations which will improve the fitness of PI-resistant virus, which will allow the resistant virus to persist even once the PI is stopped. The stopping rules outlined in the product monographs were developed to avoid continued exposure to the PI once resistance is likely present. The stopping rules should be followed.
- Fortunately DAAs of different classes do not have overlapping resistance profiles meaning that resistance to one class (eg PIs) does not confer resistance to another class (eg polymerase inhibitors). However, within some classes, particularly PIs, there is intra-class cross resistance. Virus resistant to telaprevir will be resistant to boceprevir and vice versa. There is some overlap of resistance profiles between first and second generation PIs.