Simone I. Strasser

A Placebo-controlled trial of obeticholic acid in primary biliary cholangitis

BACKGROUND Primary biliary cholangitis (formerly called primary biliary cirrhosis) can progress to cirrhosis and death despite ursodiol therapy. Alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin levels correlate with the risk of liver transplantation or death. Obeticholic acid, a farnesoid X receptor agonist, has shown potential benefit in patients with this disease. METHODS In this 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 217 patients who had an inadequate response to ursodiol or who found the side effects of ursodiol unacceptable to receive obeticholic acid at a dose of 10 mg (the 10-mg group), obeticholic acid at a dose of 5 mg with adjustment to 10 mg if applicable (the 5-10-mg group), or placebo. The primary end point was an alkaline phosphatase level of less than 1.67 times the upper limit of the normal range, with a reduction of at least 15% from baseline, and a normal total bilirubin level. RESULTS Of 216 patients who underwent randomization and received at least one dose of obeticholic acid or placebo, 93% received ursodiol as background therapy. The primary end point occurred in more patients in the 5-10-mg group (46%) and the 10-mg group (47%) than in the placebo group (10%; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Patients in the 5-10-mg group and those in the 10-mg group had greater decreases than those in the placebo group in the alkaline phosphatase level (least-squares mean, -113 and -130 U per liter, respectively, vs. -14 U per liter; P<0.001 for both comparisons) and total bilirubin level (-0.02 and -0.05 mg per deciliter [-0.3 and -0.9 μmol per liter], respectively, vs. 0.12 mg per deciliter [2.0 μmol per liter]; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Changes in noninvasive measures of liver fibrosis did not differ significantly between either treatment group and the placebo group at 12 months. Pruritus was more common with obeticholic acid than with placebo (56% of patients in the 5-10-mg group and 68% of those in the 10-mg group vs. 38% in the placebo group). The rate of serious adverse events was 16% in the 5-10-mg group, 11% in the 10-mg group, and 4% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS Obeticholic acid administered with ursodiol or as monotherapy for 12 months in patients with primary biliary cholangitis resulted in decreases from baseline in alkaline phosphatase and total bilirubin levels that differed significantly from the changes observed with placebo. There were more serious adverse events with obeticholic acid. (Funded by Intercept Pharmaceuticals; POISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01473524; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN89514817.).

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate rescue therapy following failure of both lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil in chronic hepatitis B

Objective To determine the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in adults with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection who had previously failed lamivudine (LAM) and had significant viral replication (HBV DNA >105 copies/ml if HBeAg positive, >104 copies/ml if HBeAg negative) despite at least 24 weeks of treatment with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV). Design A prospective open-label study of TDF 300 mg daily. Patients receiving combination ADV/LAM prior to baseline were switched to TDF/LAM. Setting Multiple tertiary referral centres. Methods Sixty patients were enrolled. The median age was 48.5 years (range 21–80), 46 (77%) were male and 40 (67%) were HBeAg positive. Thirty-eight patients (63%) were switched from ADV to TDF, the remainder from ADV/LAM to TDF/LAM. At baseline, substitutions conferring resistance to LAM or ADV were present in 20 patients (33%) and 17 patients (28%), respectively. The median baseline viral load was 5.33 log10 IU/ml (range 2.81–8.04). Patients initially treated with TDF monotherapy with persistent viral replication at or after 24 weeks were switched to TDF/LAM. The main outcome measures were change in HBV viral load from baseline and percentage of patients achieving an undetectable viral load (<15 IU/ml). Results Results are reported at 96 weeks of treatment. One patient discontinued TDF at 10 days due to rash. The time-weighted change in viral load from baseline to week 12 was −2.19 log10 IU/ml overall. The median change in HBV DNA from baseline to weeks 12, 24, 48 and 96 was −2.86, −3.23, −3.75 and −4.03 log10 IU/ml, respectively. At 48 and 96 weeks, 27/59 (46%) and 38/59 (64%) patients achieved a HBV DNA <15 IU/ml. The response was independent of baseline LAM therapy or mutations conferring ADV resistance. Conclusions In heavily pretreated patients with a high rate of genotypic resistance, TDF retains significant activity against HBV although this appears diminished in comparison with studies of naïve patients.

A randomized study of adefovir dipivoxil in place of HBIG in combination with lamivudine as post–liver transplantation hepatitis B prophylaxis†

Prior to effective prophylaxis, liver transplantation for hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐related disease was frequently complicated by recurrence, which could be severe and rapidly progressive. Combination hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and lamivudine prophylaxis reduces this rate of recurrence to <5% at 5 years; however, HBIG administration is costly and inconvenient. We conducted a multicenter randomized study of adefovir dipivoxil substitution for low‐dose intramuscular (IM) HBIG in patients without HBV recurrence at least 12 months posttransplantation for HBV‐related disease. Thirty‐four patients were randomized, 16 to adefovir (1 patient withdrew consent at 3 months and is not considered in the results) and 18 to continue HBIG. All continued lamivudine. Groups were well matched by age, sex, and time since transplantation (median, 4.5 years), and background virological risk for HBV recurrence (30% of patients in the adefovir group, 24% in the HBIG group having detectable HBV DNA at transplantation). All patients were alive at study completion without recurrence. One patient in the adefovir group became hepatitis B surface antigen–positive at 5 months but was persistently HBV DNA undetectable via polymerase chain reaction (sensitivity 14 IU/mL) over the following 20 months. Median creatinine was not significantly changed over the course of the study in either group. One patient in the adefovir group with a background of diabetic and hypertensive nephropathy (baseline creatinine 150 μmol/L) developed increased creatinine leading to dose reduction and ultimately cessation of adefovir at 15 months. Yearly cost of combination adefovir/lamivudine prophylaxis was

A prospective randomised, open-labeled, trial comparing sirolimus-containing versus mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppression in patients undergoing liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma

8,290 versus

Sofosbuvir, Velpatasvir, and Voxilaprevir for Previously Treated HCV Infection

13,718 IM HBIG/lamivudine. Conclusion: Compared with combination HBIG plus lamivudine prophylaxis, combination adefovir plus lamivudine provides equivalent protection against recurrent HBV infection but with better tolerability and less cost. (HEPATOLOGY 2008.)

Sirolimus Use in Liver Transplant Recipients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Phase 3 Trial.

BackgroundThe potential anti-cancer effects of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors are being intensively studied. To date, however, few randomised clinical trials (RCT) have been performed to demonstrate anti-neoplastic effects in the pure oncology setting, and at present, no oncology endpoint-directed RCT has been reported in the high-malignancy risk population of immunosuppressed transplant recipients. Interestingly, since mTOR inhibitors have both immunosuppressive and anti-cancer effects, they have the potential to simultaneously protect against immunologic graft loss and tumour development. Therefore, we designed a prospective RCT to determine if the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus can improve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-free patient survival in liver transplant (LT) recipients with a pre-transplant diagnosis of HCC.Methods/DesignThe study is an open-labelled, randomised, RCT comparing sirolimus-containing versus mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppression in patients undergoing LT for HCC. Patients with a histologically confirmed HCC diagnosis are randomised into 2 groups within 4-6 weeks after LT; one arm is maintained on a centre-specific mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppressive protocol and the second arm is maintained on a centre-specific mTOR-inhibitor-free immunosuppressive protocol for the first 4-6 weeks, at which time sirolimus is initiated. A 21/2 -year recruitment phase is planned with a 5-year follow-up, testing HCC-free survival as the primary endpoint. Our hypothesis is that sirolimus use in the second arm of the study will improve HCC-free survival. The study is a non-commercial investigator-initiated trial (IIT) sponsored by the University Hospital Regensburg and is endorsed by the European Liver and Intestine Transplant Association; 13 countries within Europe, Canada and Australia are participating.DiscussionIf our hypothesis is correct that mTOR inhibition can reduce HCC tumour growth while simultaneously providing immunosuppression to protect the liver allograft from rejection, patients should experience less post-transplant problems with HCC recurrence, and therefore could expect a longer and better quality of life. A positive outcome will likely change the standard of posttransplant immunosuppressive care for LT patients with HCC.Trial RegisterTrial registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00355862(EudraCT Number: 2005-005362-36)

Feasibility of conducting a randomized control trial for liver cancer screening: Is a randomized controlled trial for liver cancer screening feasible or still needed?

BACKGROUND Patients who are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and who do not have a sustained virologic response after treatment with regimens containing direct‐acting antiviral agents (DAAs) have limited retreatment options. METHODS We conducted two phase 3 trials involving patients who had been previously treated with a DAA‐containing regimen. In POLARIS‐1, patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who had previously received a regimen containing an NS5A inhibitor were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir, the NS5A inhibitor velpatasvir, and the protease inhibitor voxilaprevir (150 patients) or matching placebo (150 patients) once daily for 12 weeks. Patients who were infected with HCV of other genotypes (114 patients) were enrolled in the sofosbuvir‐velpatasvir‐voxilaprevir group. In POLARIS‐4, patients with HCV genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection who had previously received a DAA regimen but not an NS5A inhibitor were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sofosbuvir‐velpatasvir‐voxilaprevir (163 patients) or sofosbuvir‐velpatasvir (151 patients) for 12 weeks. An additional 19 patients with HCV genotype 4 infection were enrolled in the sofosbuvir‐velpatasvir‐voxilaprevir group. RESULTS In the three active‐treatment groups, 46% of the patients had compensated cirrhosis. In POLARIS‐1, the rate of sustained virologic response was 96% with sofosbuvir‐velpatasvir‐voxilaprevir, as compared with 0% with placebo. In POLARIS‐4, the rate of response was 98% with sofosbuvir‐velpatasvir‐voxilaprevir and 90% with sofosbuvir‐velpatasvir. The most common adverse events were headache, fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea. In the active‐treatment groups in both trials, the percentage of patients who discontinued treatment owing to adverse events was 1% or lower. CONCLUSIONS Sofosbuvir‐velpatasvir‐voxilaprevir taken for 12 weeks provided high rates of sustained virologic response among patients across HCV genotypes in whom treatment with a DAA regimen had previously failed. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; POLARIS‐1 and POLARIS‐4 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02607735 and NCT02639247.)

Grade of deceased donor liver macrovesicular steatosis impacts graft and recipient outcomes more than the Donor Risk Index.

Background We investigated whether sirolimus-based immunosuppression improves outcomes in liver transplantation (LTx) candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods In a prospective-randomized open-label international trial, 525 LTx recipients with HCC initially receiving mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor–free immunosuppression were randomized 4 to 6 weeks after transplantation into a group on mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor–free immunosuppression (group A: 264 patients) or a group incorporating sirolimus (group B: 261). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS); intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was conducted after 8 years. Overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Results Recurrence-free survival was 64.5% in group A and 70.2% in group B at study end, this difference was not significant (P = 0.28; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.62; 1.15). In a planned analysis of RFS rates at yearly intervals, group B showed better outcomes 3 years after transplantation (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.48-1.00). Similarly, OS (P = 0.21; HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.58-1.13) was not statistically better in group B at study end, but yearly analyses showed improvement out to 5 years (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.49-1.00). Interestingly, subgroup (Milan Criteria-based) analyses revealed that low-risk, rather than high-risk, patients benefited most from sirolimus; furthermore, younger recipients (age ⩽60) also benefited, as well sirolimus monotherapy patients. Serious adverse event numbers were alike in groups A (860) and B (874). Conclusions Sirolimus in LTx recipients with HCC does not improve long-term RFS beyond 5 years. However, a RFS and OS benefit is evident in the first 3 to 5 years, especially in low-risk patients. This trial provides the first high-level evidence base for selecting immunosuppression in LTx recipients with HCC.

Tenofovir-associated Fanconi syndrome in patients with chronic hepatitis B monoinfection.

Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is commonly practiced and recommended in published guidelines, but evidence for its efficacy has been controversial. We tested the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HCC surveillance in patients with cirrhosis and followed up those offered screening to detect clinical outcomes. Participation was offered to patients with cirrhosis attending liver clinics at three university hospitals. Following discussion, patients received a decision aid (DA) that outlined the risks and benefits of surveillance. The proposed screening program comprised ultrasonography 6‐monthly and serum alpha‐fetoprotein every 3 months. We envisaged five groups of patients: those who agreed to randomization, those choosing nonrandomized screening, those wanting continuation of usual care, those who were undecided, and those refusing participation. Among 205 patients, 204 (99.5%) declined randomization. Of these, 181 (88%) elected for a nonrandomized screening program, 10% chose usual care (which typically included ad hoc screening), and two were undecided. Among 176 patients fluent in English communication skills, 160 (91%) preferred nonrandomized screening compared with 22/29 (76%) patients needing an interpreter (P < 0.026). Of 173 patients in nonrandomized screening followed up for a mean 13.5 ± 6.04 months, three developed HCC, two died from nonliver‐related causes, and one underwent liver transplantation for liver failure. Eighteen of 21 patients in “usual care” received ad hoc screening. A simultaneous survey on the quality of the DA showed that the majority of participants believed that the information provided was unbiased. Conclusion: Although an RCT is theoretically ideal for determining the efficacy, efficiency, and cost‐effectiveness of HCC screening, informed patients prefer surveillance. A randomized study of HCC screening is not feasible when informed consent is imparted. (HEPATOLOGY 2011;)

Vitamin D replacement for cirrhosis-related bone disease

Background and Aim:  Donor liver steatosis can impact on liver allograft outcomes. The aim of the present study was to comprehensively report on the impact of type and grade of donor steatosis, as well as donor and recipient factors, including the reported Donor Risk Index (DRI), on liver allograft outcomes.