Search

Background: Seladelpar is a potent and selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-δ agonist that targets multiple cell types involved in primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), leading to anti-cholestatic, anti-inflammatory and anti-pruritic effects., Aims: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of seladelpar in patients with PBC., Methods: In an open-label, international, long-term extension study, patients with PBC completing seladelpar lead-in studies continued treatment. Seladelpar was taken orally once daily at doses of 5 or 10 mg with dose adjustment permitted for safety or tolerability. The primary analysis was for safety and the secondary efficacy analysis examined biochemical markers of cholestasis and liver injury. The study was terminated early due to the unexpected histological findings in a concurrent study for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, which were subsequently found to predate treatment. Safety and efficacy data were analysed through 2 years., Results: There were no serious treatment-related adverse events observed among 106 patients treated with seladelpar for up to 2 years. There were four discontinuations for safety, one possibly related to seladelpar. Among 53 patients who completed 2 years of seladelpar, response rates increased from years 1 to 2 for the composite endpoint (alkaline phosphatase [ALP] <1.67 × ULN, ≥15% decrease in ALP, and total bilirubin ≤ULN) and ALP normalisation from 66% to 79% and from 26% to 42%, respectively. In those with elevated bilirubin at baseline, 43% achieved normalisation at year 2., Conclusions: Seladelpar was safe, and markedly improved biochemical markers of cholestasis and liver injury in patients with PBC. These effects were maintained or improved throughout the second year., Clinicaltrials: gov: NCT03301506; Clinicaltrialsregister.eu: 2017-003910-16., (© 2023 CymaBay Therapeutics, Inc and The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: High-quality data on the management of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) are scarce. Despite published guidelines, management of AIH is still expert based rather than evidence based., Aim: To survey expert hepatologists, asking each to describe their practices in the management of patients with AIH., Methods: A survey questionnaire was distributed to members of the International AIH Group. The questionnaire consisted of four clinical scenarios on different presentations of AIH., Results: Sixty surveys were sent, out of which 37 were returned. None reported budesonide as a first line induction agent for the acute presentation of AIH. Five (14%) participants reported using thiopurine S-methyltransferase measurements before commencement of thiopurine maintenance therapy. Thirteen (35%) routinely perform liver biopsy at 2 years of biochemical remission. If histological inflammatory activity is absent, four (11%) participants reduced azathioprine, whereas 10 (27%) attempted withdrawal altogether. Regarding the management of difficult-to-treat patients, mycophenolate mofetil is the most widely used second-line agent (n = ~450 in 28 centres), whereas tacrolimus (n = ~115 in 21 centres) and ciclosporin (n = ~112 in 18 centres) are less often reported. One centre reported considerable experience with infliximab, while rescue therapy with rituximab has been tried in seven centres., Conclusions: There is a wide variation in the management of patients with autoimmune hepatitis even among the most expert in the field. Although good quality evidence is lacking, there is considerable experience with second-line therapies. Future prospective studies should address these issues, so that we move from an expert- to an evidence- and personalised-based care in autoimmune hepatitis., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Alisporivir (ALV) is an oral, host-targeting agent with pangenotypic anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) activity and a high barrier to resistance., Aim: To evaluate efficacy and safety of ALV plus peginterferon-α2a and ribavirin (PR) in treatment-naïve patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection., Methods: Double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study evaluating ALV 600 mg once daily [response-guided therapy (RGT) for 24 or 48 weeks or 48 weeks fixed duration] or ALV 400 mg twice daily RGT with PR, compared to PR alone. Following a Food and Drug Administration partial clinical hold, ALV/placebo was discontinued and patients completed treatment with PR only. At that time, 87% of patients had received ≥12 weeks and 20% had received ≥24 weeks of ALV/PR triple therapy., Results: A total of 1081 patients were randomised (12% cirrhosis, 55% CT/TT IL28B). Addition of ALV to PR improved virological response in a dose-dependent fashion. Overall, sustained virological response (SVR12; primary endpoint) was 69% in all ALV groups vs. 53% in PR control. Highest SVR12 (90%) was achieved in patients treated with ALV 400 mg twice daily and PR for >24 weeks. Seven cases of pancreatitis were reported, with similar frequency between ALV/PR and PR control groups (0.6% vs. 0.8% respectively). Adverse events seen more frequently with ALV/PR than with PR alone were anaemia, thrombocytopenia, hyperbilirubinaemia and hypertension., Conclusions: Alisporivir, especially the 400 mg twice daily regimen, increased efficacy of PR therapy in treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. The mechanism of action and pangenotypic activity suggest that alisporivir could be useful in interferon-free combination regimens., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background & Aims: Triple therapy with peginterferon/ribavirin (PR) plus an NS3 protease inhibitor has emerged as the standard-of-care for patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype-1. We provide a detailed safety analysis comparing PR to boceprevir plus PR (BOC/PR) across three phase 2/3 studies., Methods: SPRINT-1 was an open-label phase 2 study in 595 treatment-naive patients. In the two phase 3 studies, 1500 patients (1097 treatment-naive, SPRINT-2; 403 treatment-failure, RESPOND-2) were randomized to receive PR alone, or one of two regimens where BOC was added to PR after a 4-wk PR lead-in. In this analysis, the respective BOC/PR and PR arms were combined for all three trials. The benefit of shortened duration of treatment using response-guided therapy (RGT) was also explored in the SPRINT-2 trial., Results: Only two adverse events, anaemia and dysgeusia, occurred 20% more often with the BOC-containing regimens compared with PR. Nausea, diarrhoea and neutropenia were the only other common events with an incidence of at least 5% greater when BOC was added to the PR backbone. The proportions of patients reporting serious adverse events (AE), life-threatening AEs, and study drug discontinuation because of an AE were similar in the PR and BOC/PR arms. In treatment-naive patients, RGT generally did not result in a lower frequency of common AEs; however, RGT led to decreased exposure to all 3 study drugs and to a decrease in the mean duration of several clinically relevant AEs such as anaemia, neutropenia, fatigue and depression, as well as earlier normalization of haemoglobin and neutrophil counts., Conclusions: The safety profile of BOC combination therapy largely reflects the known profile of peginterferon and ribavirin, with incremental haematolgical effects and dysgeusia. Shorter treatment duration with RGT significantly reduced the duration of AEs., (© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Sirolimus is a potent immunosuppressive medication that acts by inhibiting T-cell proliferation. It has been used in kidney transplantation because of its lack of nephrotoxicity. It is now being investigated in liver transplantation, but there are concerns about safety and long-term side effects such as dyslipidaemia. Hypertriglyceridaemia is a common adverse event seen with sirolimus use, and often does not respond to dose reduction or anti-lipemic drugs., Method: We report six patients who have developed significant hyperlipidaemia while receiving sirolimus, in spite of therapeutic trough levels., Conclusion: All six patients showed either resolution or improvement in lipid levels with discontinuation of sirolimus.