A Practical Review of Encorafenib and Binimetinib Therapy Management in Patients with BRAF V600E-Mutant Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

According to current guidelines, targeted therapy with a combination of BRAF plus MEK inhibitors is the preferred first-line treatment for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the open-label, single-arm, phase 2 PHAROS trial (NCT03915951), the combination of encorafenib, a potent BRAF inhibitor, and binimetinib, a potent MEK inhibitor, demonstrated durable antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in this patient population. On the basis of the results of this study, the combination of encorafenib plus binimetinib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on October 11, 2023, for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. In this review, we summarize the efficacy and safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib from the PHAROS study. In addition, we discuss strategies to manage adverse reactions with this combination therapy with the intent of minimizing unnecessary treatment discontinuations in these patients.

COLUMBUS 7-year update: A randomized, open-label, phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib versus vemurafenib or encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with encorafenib plus binimetinib and encorafenib monotherapy is associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with vemurafenib in patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. We report results from the 7-year analysis of COLUMBUS part 1 (NCT01909453) at 99.7 months (median duration between randomization and data cutoff). METHODS: 577 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who were treatment-naive or progressed after first-line immunotherapy were randomized 1:1:1 to encorafenib 450 mg once daily (QD) plus binimetinib 45 mg twice daily (BID) (n = 192), vemurafenib 960 mg BID (n = 191), or encorafenib monotherapy 300 mg QD (n = 194). No prior BRAF/MEK inhibitor was allowed. RESULTS: Seven-year PFS and OS rates (95 % CI) were 21.2 % (14.7-28.4 %) and 27.4 % (21.2-33.9%) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 6.4 % (2.1-14.0 %) and 18.2 % (12.8-24.3 %) in the vemurafenib arm, respectively. Median melanoma-specific survival (95 % CI) was 36.8 months (27.7-51.5 months) in the encorafenib plus binimetinib arm and 19.3 months (14.8-25.9 months) in the vemurafenib arm. Thirty-four long-term responders (complete/partial response ongoing at 7 years) were identified across arms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the longest follow-up from a phase III trial of BRAF/MEK inhibitor combination in BRAF V600E/K-mutant metastatic melanoma. Safety results were consistent with the known tolerability profile of encorafenib plus binimetinib. Results support the long-term efficacy and known safety of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this population and provide new insights on long-term responders. Interactive data visualization is available at the COLUMBUS dashboard (https://clinical-trials.dimensions.ai/columbus7/).

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate based on patient etiology: Post-hoc analysis of YKP3089C017 randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Adjunctive cenobamate was effective and safe for the treatment of uncontrolled focal onset seizures in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study (YKP3089C017; NCT01866111). This post-hoc analysis assessed the efficacy of adjunctive cenobamate in the treatment of patients with different epileptic etiologies during the study. METHODS: Adult patients with uncontrolled focal seizures who previously received 1 to 3 antiseizure medications (ASMs) were randomly assigned in a ratio of 1:1:1:1 to receive placebo or cenobamate 100, 200 or 400 mg/day. Patients were further stratified based on their etiologic causes as genetic/presumed genetic, unknown cause, structural cause, and not reported (NR) groups. The frequency per 28 days for an 18-week double-blind treatment period, responder rates (≥50 %, ≥75 %, ≥90 %, and 100 %) during the maintenance phase (12 weeks), and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 394 patients were categorized into the genetic/presumed genetic (n = 9; 2.28 %), unknown cause (n = 199; 50.51 %), structural cause (n = 177; 44.92 %), and NR (n = 13; 3.30 %) groups, with 4 patients were classified into either of the two etiological causes each. The baseline characteristics were comparable. The percentage of reduction in seizure frequency per 28 days was significantly higher in the cenobamate-treated structural (p = 0.01) and unknown cause (p = 0.0003) groups compared with the placebo group. Responder rates of ≥50 %, ≥75 %, ≥90 %, and 100 % were also higher with cenobamate therapy. Notably, no serious treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were observed in the genetic/presumed genetic group treated with cenobamate. The most common TEAEs (≥10 %) occurring in patients treated with cenobamate were nervous system disorders by system organ class, and somnolence was the most commonly reported TEAE. CONCLUSION: Cenobamate reduces seizures in adult patients previously treated with ASMs, with high responder rates and acceptable safety, regardless of underlying causes.

Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir in children 3-17 years old with hepatitis C virus infection.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir in children aged 3-17 years with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection of any genotype were evaluated. METHODS: In this Phase 2, multicenter, open-label study, patients received once daily for 12 weeks either sofosbuvir-velpatasvir 400/100 mg tablet (12-17 years), 200/50 mg low dose tablet or oral granules (3-11 years and ≥17 kg), or 150/37.5 mg oral granules (3-5 years and <17 kg). The efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response 12 weeks after therapy (SVR12). Dose appropriateness was confirmed by intensive pharmacokinetics in each age group. FINDINGS: Among 216 patients treated, 76% had HCV genotype 1% and 12% had genotype 3. Rates of SVR12 were 83% (34/41) among 3-5-year-olds, 93% (68/73) among 6-11-year-olds, and 95% (97/102) among 12-17-year-olds. Only two patients experienced virologic failure. The most common adverse events were headache, fatigue, and nausea in 12-17-year-olds; vomiting, cough, and headache in 6-11-year-olds; and vomiting in 3-5-year-olds. Three patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. Four patients had serious adverse events; all except auditory hallucination (n = 1) were considered unrelated to study drug. Exposures of sofosbuvir, its metabolite GS-331007, and velpatasvir were comparable to those in adults in prior Phase 2/3 studies. Population pharmacokinetic simulations supported weight-based dosing for children in this age range. INTERPRETATION: The pangenotypic regimen of sofosbuvir-velpatasvir is highly effective and safe in treating children 3-17 years with chronic HCV infection.

Safety and Efficacy of Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab for BRAFV600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of the Japanese Expanded Access Program.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 BEACON CRC study demonstrated the survival benefits of encorafenib and cetuximab, with or without binimetinib (the BEACON triplet or doublet regimen), for BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This expanded access program (EAP) and subsequent follow-up study assessed the efficacy and safety of the BEACON triplet regimen in Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The EAP was an open-label, single-arm study including Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC whose disease progressed after 1 to 2 prior regimens. The patients received the BEACON triplet regimen with 28-day cycles. The subsequent follow-up study assessed the survival outcomes following EAP completion. Safety was assessed only during the EAP. RESULTS: Among the 86 enrolled patients, 81 received the BEACON triplet regimen. The objective response rate and median progression-free survival were 27.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.0%-39.1%) and 5.26 (95% CI, 4.14-5.52) months, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events and treatment-related adverse events occurred in 43.2% and 28.4% of patients, respectively. No new safety signals were observed during the EAP. Among 58 patients with confirmed survival at EAP completion, 57 were included in the follow-up study. With a median observation period of 9.17 months through the EAP and follow-up study, the median overall survival was 10.38 (95% CI, 9.00-16.16) months. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of the BEACON triplet regimen in Japanese patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC were consistent with those reported in the BEACON CRC trial, supporting its use as a standard treatment for pretreated patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC.

Safety and efficacy of givinostat in boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (EPIDYS): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Duchenne muscular dystrophy, the most common childhood muscular dystrophy, is caused by dystrophin deficiency. Preclinical and phase 2 study data have suggested that givinostat, a histone deacetylase inhibitor, might help to counteract the effects of this deficiency. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of givinostat in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial was done at 41 tertiary care sites in 11 countries. Eligible participants were ambulant, male, and aged at least 6 years, had a genetically confirmed diagnosis of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, completed two four-stair climb assessments with a mean of 8 s or less (≤1 s variance), had a time-to-rise of at least 3 s but less than 10 s, and had received systemic corticosteroids for at least 6 months. Participating boys were randomly assigned (2:1, allocated according to a list generated by the interactive response technology provider) to receive either oral givinostat or matching placebo twice a day for 72 weeks, stratified by concomitant steroid use. Boys, investigators, and site and sponsor staff were masked to treatment assignment. The dose was flexible, based on weight, and was reduced if not tolerated. Boys were divided into two groups on the basis of their baseline vastus lateralis fat fraction (VLFF; measured by magnetic resonance spectroscopy): group A comprised boys with a VLFF of more than 5% but no more than 30%, whereas group B comprised boys with a VLFF of 5% or less, or more than 30%. The primary endpoint compared the effects of givinostat and placebo on the change in results of the four-stair climb assessment between baseline and 72 weeks, in the intention-to-treat, group A population. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned boys who received at least one dose of study drug. When the first 50 boys in group A completed 12 months of treatment, an interim futility assessment was conducted, after which the sample size was adapted using masked data from the four-stair climb assessments. Furthermore, the starting dose of givinostat was reduced following a protocol amendment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02851797, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2017, and Feb 22, 2022, 359 boys were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 179 were enrolled into the study (median age 9·8 years [IQR 8·1-11·0]), all of whom were randomly assigned (118 to receive givinostat and 61 to receive placebo); 170 (95%) boys completed the study. Of the 179 boys enrolled, 120 (67%) were in group A (81 givinostat and 39 placebo); of these, 114 (95%) completed the study. For participants in group A, comparing the results of the four-stair climb assessment at 72 weeks and baseline, the geometric least squares mean ratio was 1·27 (95% CI 1·17-1·37) for boys receiving givinostat and 1·48 (1·32-1·66) for those receiving placebo (ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·745-0·989; p=0·035). The most common adverse events in the givinostat group were diarrhoea (43 [36%] of 118 boys vs 11 [18%] of 61 receiving placebo) and vomiting (34 [29%] vs 8 [13%]); no treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Among ambulant boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, results of the four-stair climb assessment worsened in both groups over the study period; however, the decline was significantly smaller with givinostat than with placebo. The dose of givinostat was reduced after an interim safety analysis, but no new safety signals were reported. An ongoing extension study is evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of givinostat in patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. FUNDING: Italfarmaco.

A plain language summary of the PHAROS study: the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib for people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of the results of a study called PHAROS. This study looked at combination treatment with encorafenib (BRAFTOVI®) and binimetinib (MEKTOVI®). This combination of medicines was studied in people with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). NSCLC is the most common type of lung cancer. Metastatic means that the cancer has spread to other parts of the body. All people in this study had a type of NSCLC that has a change in a gene called BRAF termed a BRAF V600E mutation. A gene is a part of the DNA that has instructions for making things that your body needs to work, and the BRAF V600E mutation contributes to the growth of the lung cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?: In this study, 98 people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC were treated with the combination of encorafenib and binimetinib (called encorafenib plus binimetinib in this summary). Before starting the study, 59 people had not received any treatment for their metastatic NSCLC, and 39 people had received previous anticancer treatment. At the time of this analysis, 44 (75%) out of 59 people who did not receive any treatment before taking encorafenib plus binimetinib had their tumors shrink or disappear. Eighteen (46%) out of 39 people who had received treatment before starting encorafenib plus binimetinib also had their tumors shrink or disappear. The most common side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib were nausea, diarrhea, fatigue, and vomiting. WHAT DO THE RESULTS MEAN?: These results support the use of encorafenib plus binimetinib combination treatment as a new treatment option in people with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic NSCLC. The side effects of encorafenib plus binimetinib in this study were similar to the side effects seen with encorafenib plus binimetinib in people with a type of skin cancer called metastatic melanoma.

Solriamfetol: A Review in Excessive Daytime Sleepiness Associated with Narcolepsy and Obstructive Sleep Apnoea.

Solriamfetol (SUNOSI®) is an oral selective dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor approved in the EU and the USA for improving wakefulness in adults with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In phase III studies, 12 weeks' therapy with solriamfetol within the recommended dosage range for narcolepsy (75 mg or 150 mg once daily) or OSA (37.5 mg, 75 mg or 150 mg once daily) provided early and sustained reductions in excessive sleepiness and improvements in wakefulness relative to placebo. These effects were generally sustained through 52 weeks. The drug's effectiveness in adults with EDS associated with narcolepsy is supported by results from real-world studies. Solriamfetol demonstrated a consistent safety and tolerability profile across clinical studies, with commonly reported adverse reactions generally occurring within 2 weeks of treatment initiation and mostly resolving within 2 weeks. Thus, solriamfetol represents a useful treatment option for adults with EDS associated with narcolepsy or OSA.

Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) is a common condition in which an individual is unable to stay awake during periods when they typically would be awake. Dopamine and norepinephrine are among the chemical messengers involved in sleep­wake regulation. Solriamfetol (SUNOSI^®), a selective dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is a once-daily oral treatment approved in the EU and the USA for improving wakefulness in adults with EDS associated with narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). In such patients, solriamfetol reduced excessive sleepiness and improved wakefulness compared with placebo over 12 weeks. Onset was rapid and generally sustained through 52 weeks. The safety and tolerability profile of solriamfetol was consistent over the short and longer term; the most common adverse reactions were headache, decreased appetite, nausea, anxiety and insomnia in adults with narcolepsy and nausea and decreased appetite in those with OSA. Thus, solriamfetol represents a useful treatment option for adults with EDS associated with narcolepsy or OSA.

Efficacy and safety of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir-based therapy in HCV patients with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence inchronic kidney disease (CKD) patients is significantly higher than in the general population. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combined ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir-based therapy in HCV patients with renal impairment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our study included 829 patients with normal kidney functions (group 1) and 829 patients with CKD (group 2),which were subdivided into patients not requiring dialysis (group 2a) and those on hemodialysis (group2b). Patients received regimens of ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir with or without ribavirin or sofosbuvir/ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir with or without ribavirin for 12 weeks. Clinical and laboratory assessment was done before treatment, and patients were followed up for12 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: The sustained virological response (SVR) at week 12 was significantly higher in group 1 than in the other three groups/subgroups, being 94.2% vs 90.2%, 90%, and 90.7%, respectively. The regimen with the highest SVR was ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir with ribavirin. The most common adverse event was anemia, which was more common in group 2. CONCLUSION: Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir-based therapy in chronic HCV patients with CKD is highly effective, with minimal side effects despite ribavirin-induced anemia.

Effects of solriamfetol on on-the-road driving in participants with narcolepsy: A randomised crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving performance in participants with narcolepsy. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, driving performance during a 1 h on-road driving test was assessed at 2 and 6 h post-dose following 7 days of treatment with solriamfetol (150 mg/day for 3 days, followed by 300 mg/day for 4 days) or placebo. The primary endpoint was standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) at 2 h post-dose. RESULTS: The study included 24 participants (54% male; mean age, 40 years); 22 had evaluable SDLP data. At 2 h post-dose, median SDLP was significantly lower (improved) with solriamfetol compared with placebo (19.08 vs. 20.46 cm [median difference, -1.9 cm], p = 0.002). Four participants on solriamfetol and 7 on placebo had incomplete driving tests. At 6 h post-dose, median SDLP was not statistically significantly different with solriamfetol compared with placebo (19.59 vs. 19.78 cm [median difference, -1.1 cm], p = 0.125). Three participants on solriamfetol and 10 on placebo had incomplete driving tests. Common adverse events (≥5%) included headache, decreased appetite, and somnolence. CONCLUSIONS: Solriamfetol 300 mg/day improved on-the-road driving performance, at 2 h post-administration in participants with narcolepsy.

Safety and Efficacy of Direct-acting Antiviral Therapies for Chronic HCV Infection in Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of a direct-acting antiviral treatment, ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir, without ribavirin, in a real-life setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study including 108 patients undergoing hemodialysis for end-stage kidney disease, referred to our clinic for antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Patients received treatment with ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir, for 12 weeks. Sustained virologic response (SVR) was defined as undetectable viremia at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. For safety analysis, we monitored serum levels of hemoglobin, albumin, total bilirubin, alanine-aminotransferase and aspartate- aminotransferase at the beginning and end of therapy, as well as at SVR. Verbal Numeric Rating Scale was used to assess the presence of nausea, headaches and fatigue. RESULTS: We noted a high prevalence of diabetic and hypertensive nephropathy as the underlying cause of chronic kidney disease. Most of the patients had F2 and F3 liver fibrosis (32.40% and 34.25%, respectively). The SVR rate was 96.2% (103/107 patients). We recorded an unrelated death after the completion of antiviral therapy. We found increased levels of nausea, headaches and fatigue at the end of therapy compared to at initiation, The presence and degree of symptoms did not correlate with the underlying cause of renal disease (p=0.72) nor with the degree of fibrosis (p=0.08). Minimal increases in transaminases and bilirubin were recorded at the end of treatment, with no statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Oral antiviral therapy with ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir and dasabuvir can be safely used in hemodialysis patients, with similar response rates compared to the general population.

A Real-World Study to Compare the Safety and Efficacy of Paritaprevir/Ombitasvir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir, with or without Ribavirin, in 587 Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C at the Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania.

BACKGROUND In the European Union, a tablet with fixed doses of ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir combined with dasabuvir is an authorized treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Ribavirin is a broad-spectrum antiviral used in several treatment regimens for patients with HCV infection. This real-world study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir combined with dasabuvir, with or without ribavirin, in 587 patients with chronic hepatitis C attending the Fundeni Clinical Institute, Bucharest, Romania. MATERIAL AND METHODS This is an observational prospective study including 315 patients with F4 degree of fibrosis and compensated cirrhosis, 185 patients with F3 fibrosis, and 83 patients with F2 fibrosis. Liver fibrosis was evaluated by liver biopsy or Fibromax. Efficacy was defined as undetectable HCV-RNA at 12 weeks after the end of treatment. In terms of safety, we monitored the development of adverse reactions, liver cytolysis, cholestasis, and hematologic disorders. RESULTS Of the 587 patients, 2 patients with B-cell lymphoma died during therapy. In total, 3/585 patients (0.51%) did not achieve sustained virologic response. Common adverse effects were nausea and asthenia (especially in patients with other medical treatments; P=0.03 and P=0.04, respectively) and anemia in patients who received ribavirin (P<0.01). None of the patients discontinued antiviral treatment. Patients with kidney transplant or end-stage kidney disease did not receive or discontinued ribavirin. CONCLUSIONS Ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir combined with dasabuvir, with or without ribavirin had an efficacy rate of over 99% in HCV genotype 1b infection. We report no serious adverse reactions.

Effects of solriamfetol on on-the-road driving performance in participants with excessive daytime sleepiness associated with obstructive sleep apnoea.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of solriamfetol, a dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, on on-the-road driving in participants with excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) associated with obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA). METHODS: Eligible participants were aged 21-75 years with OSA and EDS (Maintenance of Wakefulness Test mean sleep latency <30 minutes and Epworth Sleepiness Scale score ≥10). Participants were randomised 1:1 to solriamfetol (150 mg/day [3 days], then 300 mg/day [4 days]) or placebo for 7 days, before crossover to the other treatment paradigm. On Day 7 of each period, standardised on-road driving tests occurred (2 and 6 hours postdose). Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP) was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Solriamfetol significantly reduced SDLP at 2 (n = 34; least squares mean difference, -1.1 cm; 95% CI, -1.85, -0.32; p = 0.006) and 6 hours postdose (n = 32; least squares mean difference, -0.8 cm; 95% CI, -1.58, -0.03; p = 0.043). Two hours postdose, 4 placebo-treated and 1 solriamfetol-treated participants had incomplete driving tests; 6 hours postdose, 7 and 3 participants, respectively, had incomplete tests. Common treatment-emergent adverse events included headache, nausea, and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Solriamfetol 300 mg/day significantly improved on-the-road driving performance in participants with EDS associated with OSA.

Glycemic Control in Patients Undergoing Treatment With Paritaprevir/Ombitasvir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir for Chronic Hepatitis C Infection.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-associated cirrhosis are more prone to developing type 2 diabetes mellitus than patients with any other etiology of cirrhosis. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of all oral antiviral treatment with ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir/ombitasvir and dasabuvir (OBV/PTV/r + DSV) in patients with chronic genotype 1b HCV infection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 806 patients who underwent antiviral therapy between December 2015 and July 2019. The laboratory data analyzed were liver function tests, kidney function tests, HCV viremia, fasting glucose levels, and glycosylated hemoglobin. RESULTS: Patients with impaired glucose metabolism were predominantly male and of older age compared to patients with normal glucose tolerance, and also had higher levels of transaminases. Proteinuria and higher creatinine levels were found in patients with impaired glucose metabolism. Overall, we found a 98.01% rate of sustained virologic response (SVR), with a non-significant difference between patients with normal and abnormal glucose metabolism. A statistically significant difference in SVR rates in patients with low degrees of fibrosis (F0-F2) versus those with advanced degrees of fibrosis (F3-F4) was found in both groups. Antiviral treatment resulted in significant decreases in fasting glucose levels and glycosylated hemoglobin levels in all patients with impaired glucose metabolism at SVR. CONCLUSION: Patients with pre-diabetes, as well as diabetic patients, achieved a better glycemic control after SVR obtained by ritonavir-boosted paritaprevir/ombitasvir and dasabuvir.

Efficacy and safety of adjunctive cenobamate: Post-hoc analysis of study C017 in patients grouped by mechanism of action of concomitant antiseizure medications.

PURPOSE: To assess how efficacy and safety outcomes were affected when cenobamate was co-administered with antiseizure medications (ASMs) that use either sodium channel blocker (SCB) or non-sodium channel blocker (non-SCB) mechanisms of action (MoAs) in patients with uncontrolled focal seizures. METHODS: An exploratory post-hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study (YKP3089C017) was conducted. Baseline concomitant ASMs were grouped as either those that employed an SCB or non-SCB MoA. Efficacy was examined by cenobamate dose (100 mg, 200 mg, and 400 mg/day) and concomitant ASM group using responder rates (≥50%, ≥75%, ≥90% seizure reduction; 100% seizure reduction/seizure freedom) during the maintenance phase and median percentage seizure reduction during the double-blind period. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were examined in the double-blind period. RESULTS: When co-administered with SCBs or non-SCBs, significantly higher percentages of patients achieved ≥50%, ≥75%, and ≥90% responder rates with cenobamate 200 mg/day and/or 400 mg/day versus placebo. Additionally, significantly higher percentages of patients achieved seizure freedom with cenobamate 400 mg/day versus placebo (SCB group, 17.5% versus 1.2%; non-SCB group, 40.0% versus 0.0%). Patients receiving 200 mg/day and 400 mg/day and concomitant SCBs and all patients taking cenobamate combined with non-SCB concomitant ASMs had significantly greater median percentage reductions in focal seizure frequency versus placebo. TEAEs were similar across groups; however, dizziness was more frequently reported in the SCB group. CONCLUSION: Cenobamate is a highly effective new treatment option for patients with uncontrolled focal seizures when co-administered with SCB or non-SCB ASMs.