Switching to tenofovir alafenamide in patients with virologically suppressed chronic hepatitis B and renal or hepatic impairment: final week 96 results from an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 studies in patients with chronic hepatitis B have shown tenofovir alafenamide to have non-inferior efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with improved renal and bone safety. We conducted this study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of switching to tenofovir alafenamide in participants with chronic hepatitis B and renal or hepatic impairment. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study was done in eight countries or territories at 30 sites. We recruited adults (≥18 years) with chronic hepatitis B who were virally suppressed on nucleoside or nucleotide analogues and had renal impairment (part A: moderate or severe in cohort 1 [estimated glomerular filtration rate by the Cockcroft-Gault formula (eGFRCG) 15-59 mL/min] or end-stage renal disease [eGFRCG <15 mL/min] on haemodialysis in cohort 2) or hepatic impairment including decompensation (part B: Child-Turcotte-Pugh score 7-12). Participants switched to 25 mg of tenofovir alafenamide given orally once daily for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with viral suppression (HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) at week 24 by missing-equals-failure analysis. Efficacy (full analysis set) and safety (safety analysis set) analyses included all enrolled participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. Week 96 safety was assessed, including renal and bone parameters. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180619, and is completed. FINDINGS: 124 participants (93 in part A [78 in cohort 1 and 15 in cohort 2] and 31 in part B) were enrolled between Aug 11, 2017, and Oct 17, 2018, and included in the full and safety analysis sets. 106 (85%) participants completed the study. There were 69 (74%) men and 24 (26%) women in part A and 21 (68%) men and ten (32%) women in part B. At week 24, 91 (97·8%, 95% CI 92·4 to 99·7) of 93 individuals in part A (76 [97·4%, 91·0 to 99·7] of 78 in cohort 1 and 15 [100·0%, 78·2 to 100·0] of 15 in cohort 2) and 31 (100·0%, 88·8 to 100·0) in part B had HBV DNA of less than 20 IU/mL. By week 96, the most common adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection, which occurred in 14 (15%) participants in part A and in six (19%) participants in part B. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (22%) part A participants and in ten (32%) part B participants; none were related to treatment. No treatment-related deaths occurred. At week 96, median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (Cockcroft-Gault method) was 1·0 mL/min (IQR -2·8 to 4·5) in cohort 1 and -2·4 mL/min (-11·4 to 10·7) in part B. Mean changes in spine and hip bone mineral density were 1·02% (SD 4·44) and 0·20% (3·25) in part A and -0·25% (3·91) and 0·28% (3·25) in part B. INTERPRETATION: Tenofovir alafenamide might offer continued antiviral efficacy and a favourable safety profile for patients with renal or hepatic impairment and chronic hepatitis B switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or other antivirals. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: .22-.68, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.

Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel prodrug formulated to deliver the active metabolite to target cells more efficiently than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate at a lower dose, thereby reducing systemic exposure. In patients with HIV, tenofovir alafenamide was as efficacious as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with reduced bone and renal toxic effects. We compared the efficacy and safety of the two drugs in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in a non-inferiority study. METHODS: We did this ongoing double-blind, non-inferiority study in 161 outpatient centres in 19 countries. Patients with chronic HBV infection who were positive for the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either 25 mg tenofovir alafenamide or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size six) stratified by plasma HBV DNA concentration and previous treatment experience. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL at week 48 in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug using a missing-equals-failed approach. The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 10%. Key prespecified safety endpoints were bone and renal parameters at week 48. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01940471. FINDINGS: Of the 1473 patients screened from Sept 11, 2013, to Dec 20, 2014, 875 eligible patients were randomly assigned and 873 received treatment (581 with tenofovir alafenamide and 292 with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). 371 (64%) patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide had HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL at week 48, which was non-inferior to the 195 (67%) of patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate who had HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL (adjusted difference -3·6% [95% CI -9·8 to 2·6]; p=0·25). Patients given tenofovir alafenamide had a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at hip (mean change -0·10% [95% CI -0·29 to 0·09] vs -1·72% [-2·02 to -1·41]; adjusted difference 1·62 [1·27 to 1·96]; p<0·0001) and at spine (mean change -0·42% [-0·66 to -0·17] vs -2·29% [-2·67 to -1·92]; adjusted difference 1·88 [1·44 to 2·31]; p<0·0001) as well as smaller mean increases in serum creatinine at week 48 (0·01 mg/dL [0·00-0·02] vs 0·03 mg/dL [0·02-0·04]; p=0·02). The most common adverse events overall were upper respiratory tract infection (51 [9%] of 581 patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide vs 22 [8%] of 292 patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate), nasopharyngitis (56 [10%] vs 16 [5%]), and headache (42 [7%] vs 22 [8%]). 22 (4%) patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide and 12 (4%) patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate experienced serious adverse events, none of which was deemed by the investigator to be related to study treatment. 187 (32%) of 581 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 96 (33%) of 292 patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group had grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, the most common of which were elevations in ALT (62 [11%] of 577 patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide and 36 [13%] of 288 patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) and AST (20 [3%] of 577 patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide and 19 [7%] of 288 patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). INTERPRETATION: In patients with HBeAg-positive HBV infection, tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and had improved bone and renal effects. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.