Efficacy of ultra-short, response-guided sofosbuvir and daclatasvir therapy for Hepatitis C: a single arm mechanistic pilot study

Study population

Participants were recruited from the outpatient hepatitis clinic of the Hospital for Tropical Diseases (HTD) in HCMC, between February 2019 and June 2020. Eligible patients were ≥18 years and had chronic infection with HCV genotype 1 or 6 without evidence of liver fibrosis (defined as a FibroScan score ≤7.1kPa, equivalent to F0-F1 disease)¹⁹. In addition, participants were required to be HCV-treatment naïve, have a BMI ≥18kg/m², a creatinine clearance ≥60ml/min, with no evidence of HIV or Hepatitis B coinfection, or solid organ malignancy in the preceding 5 years. Full eligibility criteria are provided in the protocol available at https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17100273.

Patients referred to the trial were initially enrolled into an observational study which included fibroscan assessment and genotyping. Individuals in this cohort found to be potentially eligible for the trial were invited for further screening. All patients provided written informed consent.

Study design

All participants were treated with sofosbuvir 400mg and daclatasvir 60mg (Pharco Pharmaceuticals, Egypt) administered orally as two separate tablets, once daily. Individuals requiring dose adjustment for any reason were excluded.

Treatment duration was determined using hepatitis C viral load measured 2 days after treatment onset (D2). Participants with viral load <500 IU/ml at D2 (after 2 dose of SOF/DCV) were treated with 4 weeks of SOF/DCV. Those with HCV RNA ≥500 IU/ml received 8 weeks (figure 1). This timepoint and viral load threshold were chosen from previous evaluations of response guided therapy with DAAs⁸.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Study design

*HCV RNA on day 0, 1, 2, 7, 10, 14, 17, 21, 24, 28, (42, 56), EOT+3, EOT+7, EOT+10, EOT+14, EOT+17, EOT+21, EOT+24, EOT+28s, EOT+56, EOT+84

To analyse viral kinetics on treatment (and on occasion of any failure), HCV viral load was measured at baseline (day 0) and at all subsequent follow up visits on day 1, 2, 7 and then twice weekly until end of treatment (figure 1). Visits after end-of-treatment (EOT) were scheduled twice weekly in the first month after completion of treatment, and then at 8 and 12 weeks after EOT.

The primary endpoint was sustained virological response (SVR12) defined as plasma HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification (<LLOQ) 12 weeks after the end of treatment without prior failure. Failure of first-line treatment was carefully defined to incorporate individuals who fully suppressed HCV RNA (<LLOQ) on therapy with late virological rebound, as well as those who never fully supressed HCV viral load. In both cases two consecutive viral loads >LLOQ, taken at least one week apart, were required to confirm failure, with the second >2000 IU/ml. Once failure was confirmed, participants commenced retreatment with standard duration SOF/DCV within 2 weeks (figure 1).

Secondary endpoints were lack of initial virological response (<1 log10 decrease in HCV viral load from baseline), serious adverse events (SAE), grade 3/4 clinical adverse events (AEs), adverse events of any grade leading to change in treatment (SOF, DCV or any other concomitant medication) and adverse reactions (AR). Severity of all AEs and ARs were graded using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events gradings²⁰.

Sample size justification

We set a target cure rate of ≥90%, and an unacceptably low cure rate of 70%. Assuming 90% power and one-sided alpha=0.05, 37 participants were required to exclude the null hypothesis that cure was <90%. Assuming 5% loss to follow-up, and that, based on the study by Lau et al⁸, 65% would suppress viral load <500IU/ml by day 2 and receive 4 weeks (rather than 8 weeks) of therapy, the final target population was 60 participants, pooling genotypes 1 and 6.

Study assessments

At each visit patients were assessed by a study doctor. AEs and ARs were recorded and graded according to a standardised scale²⁰ and medication adherence and use of healthcare facilities were recorded on case report forms.

HCV RNA was measured in the hospital using the available commercial platform. At start of study (for the first 34 participants enrolled), this was the Abbott Architect® (LLOQ = 12 IU/ml). This was subsequently replaced with the COBAS AmpliPrep®/COBAS TaqMan® HCV Quantitative Test, version 2.0 (Roche Molecular Systems, LLOQ = 15 IU/ml). Standard laboratory tests - including full blood count, renal function and liver function tests – were performed in the hospital laboratory at baseline, EOT and EOT+12.

Virus sequencing

At screening, HCV genotype and subtype were determined using NS5B, Core and 5’ UTR sequencing, according to the method described by Chau et.al²¹. To evaluate the impact of HCV subtypes and resistance associated substitutions on treatment outcome, whole genome sequencing (WGS) was additionally performed on all enrolled participants’ virus at baseline, and upon virological rebound and at start of retreatment in participants failing therapy. WGS of the HCV viral genome was attained using Illumina MiSeq platform as described previously^22–25. The de novo assemblies nucleotide sequences were translated into amino acid and were aligned to H77 HCV reference (GenBank ID: NC_038882.1) and the NS5A and NS5B protein regions were extracted. We only looked for RAS that were present in at least 15% of the reads in the sample and had a read count of greater than 10.

We used the Public Health England (PHE) HCV Resistance Group’s definition for resistance associated substitutions (RAS)²⁶. For genotype 1 we looked for RASs defined specifically for genotype 1 as they are well studied. For genotype 6 we looked for all RASs defined across all genotypes, as little work has been done on RASs in genotype 6.

For DCV we looked for 24R, 28T, 30E/K/T, 31M/V, 32L, 58D, and 93C/H/N/R/S/W in genotype 1 infection and additionally looked for 28S, 30R and 31F in genotype 6 infection. For SOF we looked for 159F, 237G, 282T, 315H/N, 321A/I in genotype 1 infection and additionally looked for 289I in genotype 6 infection^17,18.

In addition to viral sequencing, we evaluated host genetic polymorphisms within the interferon lambda 4 (IFNL4) gene of all participants at baseline. Genotyping of IFNL4 rs368234815 was performed on host DNA using the TaqMan® SNP genotyping assay and primers described previously¹⁵ with Type-it Fast SNP Probe PCR Master Mix (Qiagen).

Pharmacokinetics & pharmacodynamics (PK/PD)

To assess pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD), the plasma drug levels of SOF, its inactive metabolite GS-331007, and DCV were measured at baseline, at day 14 and at EOT (day 28 or 56) in all participants. In addition, intensive drug level sampling was conducted in a subset of 40 participants, who were sequentially invited to join an ancillary PK study. In this subgroup, five samples were collected in each participant after the first dose of SOF/DCV and at day 28, according to one of two randomly assigned sampling schedules (A and B). In sampling schedule A, drug levels were measured at 0.5, 2, 4, 6, and 24 hours post-dose; in sampling schedule B, drug levels were measured at 1, 3, 5, 8 and 24 hours post-dose.

Drug quantification was performed using liquid chromatography tandem mass-spectrometer at Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Bangkok. Two separate analytical assays were developed and validated to quantify SOF plus its metabolite GS-331007, and DCV, respectively. Full methodological details of PK/PD analysis are provided in appendix 1.

Statistical analysis

Virus genomics

Fisher’s exact test was used to test for association between presence and absence of each RAS and treatment outcome. To test for association between outcome and number of RAS we used logistic regression.

PK/PD

Intensive drug levels of SOF, its metabolite GS-331007, and DCV from the subset of 40 patients at day 0 and day 28, together with any EOT samples at day 28, were analysed using non-compartmental analysis in PKanalix version 2020R1²⁸. Two separate analyses were performed to characterise the pharmacokinetic properties of the study drugs.

In the first, naïve pooled analyses were performed separately on data from day 0 and day 28 (not including end of treatment samples) to derive pharmacokinetic parameters at each day. In these analyses, the median concentration at each protocol time were calculated. Individual concentration measurements below the LLOQ was set to LLOQ/2 when calculating the median values. It was assumed that the participants had no drug concentrations at time 0.

In the second analysis, data from day 0 and day 28 were pooled for each individual. This resulted in a full pharmacokinetic profile for each subject, which was analysed with a non-compartmental approach. If patients had samples taken at the same time point the mean of the samples were taken. These derived individual drug exposures were used to evaluate the relationship between drug exposure and therapeutic outcome. It was assumed that the participants had no drug concentrations at time 0. In this analysis the first measurement below LLOQ in a series of LLOQ samples were imputed as LLOQ/2 and the later measurements were ignored. In both approaches, the 24-hour samples for SOF were excluded. SOF has a very short half-life, which make concentrations at 24 hours after dose unlikely.

In addition, outcome varibles and the relationship between outcome variables and drug exposure were evaluated.

Additional detail of the PK/PD analysis is provided in appendix 1.

Ethical approval

The trial was approved by the research ethics committees of The Hospital for Tropical Diseases²⁹, Vietnam Ministry of Health³⁰, Imperial College London³¹, and Oxford University Tropical Research Ethics Committee³². The study’s conduct and reporting is fully compliant with the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects³³. The trial was registered at ISRCTN, registration number is ISRCTN17100273³⁴.

Baseline characteristics

Of 455 patients screened, 52 were enrolled and one subsequently withdrew (figure 2). Most exclusions were on account of a either a fibroscan score of >7.1kPa (with cirrhotic patients enrolled into a parallel study³⁵),or ineligible genotype.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: Screening and enrolment

22/51 were initially identified as genotype 1 infection and 30 as genotype 6. With the benefit of WGS data, it was confirmed that 22 (43%) had genotype 1 infection, 27 (53%) had genotype 6, one had genotype 2 and another had genotype 4 infection. The latter two individuals were included in the intention-to-treat analysis but excluded from a post-hoc analysis of G1 and G6 infections only.

Recruitment was completed short of the initial target of 60 due to severe COVID-19-related restrictions in Vietnam from February 2020. These included clinic closures, travel restrictions and repurposing of the HTD as a COVID-19 treatment centre. Baseline and clinical characteristics are described in Table 1.

Treatment duration, adherence and efficacy outcomes

By day two, 34 participants (65%) had HCV viral load below the threshold of 500 IU/ml (figure 2; table 2), so received 4 weeks of treatment. 18 participants were above the threshold at this timepoint, of which one withdrew after 9 days of treatment, meaning 17 completed 8 weeks therapy. Adherence was good, with 96% completing the full prescribed course of SOF/DCV. 18 (35%) participants missed at least one visit because of COVID-19-related restrictions.

Of the 51 participants with outcome data, 38 (75% [95% CI (63, 86)]) achieved SVR12 while 13 failed therapy and required retreatment. All treatment failures occurred in individuals who received 4 weeks therapy, translating to an SVR12 of 62% (21/34; 95% CI (44, 78)) in rapid responders who received 4 weeks therapy, and 100% (17/17; 97.5% CI (80, 100)) in slower responders who received 8 weeks SOF/DCV (figure 3; table 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3: Primary outcome, with HCV subtypes

All 13 individuals who experience treatment failure with 4 weeks SOF/DCV were cured with 12 weeks SOF/DCV retreatment

Of the 13 participants who underwent retreatment, 100% were cured. The mean first-line SOF/DCV treatment duration was 37 days (standard deviation, SD 13.7), with a first-line cure rate of 75%. The mean (SD) total SOF/DCV duration (i.e. including 12 weeks retreatment where required), was 58 (34.2) days per patient, with a 100% cure rate. There was no evidence of differences in age, gender, BMI, IFNL4 genotype, transaminases or baseline HCV viral load between patients who achieved cure with 4-weeks of treatment versus those who experienced treatment failure with 4 weeks of treatment (table 3).

Viral kinetics and timing of treatment failure

All participants had an initial virological response ((i.e. ≥1 log10 decrease in HCV viral load from baseline) (appendix 1 - figure 1)). There was no evidence of association between time to complete virological suppression (HCV RNA <LLOQ) and treatment outcome (table 3; appendix 1 – figure 2). In an exploratory analysis, we estimated first-line cure rates based on suppression below the LLOQ at other timepoints which could be used for RGT. At day 7, 9/21 cures and 1/12 treatment failures (one missed visit) had HCV RNA <LLOQ (p=0.054; table 3), translating to 90% sensitivity (95% CI [56, 100]) for predicting cure with 4 weeks treatment. However, by day 10, 9/21 cures and 9/13 failures had HCV RNA <LLOQ (p=1.00), making a rapid virological response 50% [26, 74] sensitive in predicting cure with 4 weeks treatment. This suggests early on-treatment response alone may be of limited value in determining cure with ultra-short therapy.

All treatment failures occurred during follow-up after EOT. Despite intensive twice weekly sampling from EOT to EOT+28d, the earliest virologic rebound occurred 3 weeks after completion of therapy (appendix 1 - figure 3).

Viral genomics at baseline

Whole genome sequencing was attempted on all participants’ virus at baseline, but consensus sequences could not be assembled in two individuals (who had low baseline viral load and were both cured with first line therapy). This left 50 patients with baseline sequences, of which 49 had outcome data.

We found nine discrepancies between lab genotyping and sequencing-based genotyping. Five of these differences were at the level of subtypes for genotype 6 samples, highlighting difficulties inherent in classifying this rare and genetically diverse lineage using an amplicon approach for genotying (lab genotyping). Two samples were called 6a/e using lab genotyping and whole genome sequencing classified them as 6e. One sample was classified as 6e on lab genotyping, but whole genome sequencing showed that it was a genotype 2m sample. Whole genome sequencing revealed another patient to have mixed infection with genotype 1a and genotype 6a; this had been classified by laboratory genotyping as a genotype 6a mono-infection. The individual with mixed infection received 4 weeks of SOF/DCV but cure was not achieved, with relapse of the genotype 1a infection. They subsequently responded to 12 weeks retreatment.

We found no evidence of differences between genotypes or subtypes with regards to rates of treatment failure. Among genotype 1-infected individuals, 1/7 subtype 1b infections experienced treatment failure with 4 weeks therapy compared with 4/8 subtype 1a infections (including the mixed infection case) (p=0.15). Among genotype 6-infected individuals, 1/8 subtype 6a infections were not cured with 4 weeks SOF/DCV compared with 3/6 subtype 6e (p=0.58), 0/1 subtype 6h and 1/1 subtype 6l.

At baseline, the 159F SOF RAS was identified in one patient, and the 237G putative SOF RAS was identified in six patients (appendix 1-figures 4 and 5). The DCV RAS 24R, 30R, 31M, 93H and 93S were detected at baseline (appendix 1 - figures 6 and 7).

In the assessment of SOF RAS (appendix 1-figure 5), the one patient who had 159F at baseline failed treatment, although this was a minority variant making up 20% of the sequencing reads (figure 4; black box). 237G was identified as a majority variant in two individuals where treatment failed, but was also seen in four individuals who were cured (three received 4 weeks treatment (appendix 1 - figure 5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4: Sofosbuvir RAS and Daclatasvir RAS at baseline, treatment failure, and at start of retreatment in all participants who failed first line treatment.

The most prevalent DCV RAS was 31M, present in 9 participants where treatment failed after 4 week first-line therapy (figure 4; appendix 1 - figures 8 and 9). However, 31M was also found in 13 individuals cured with 4 weeks treatment, and 13 cured with 8 weeks. The next most prevalent RAS was 30R, present at baseline in 3 patients who had treatment failure, in 5 individuals cured with 4 weeks treatment and in 4 patients cured with 8 weeks treatment. 30R RAS was present in 11/12 6a genomes and 1/1 2m genomes but was absent in other subtypes. 31M RAS was present in 10/11 1a genomes and 12/12 6a genomes and was also found in other subtypes (appendix 1 – figures 7 and 8). Additionally almost all of the subtype 6a samples carried both 30R and 31M RASs while other subtypes did not carry this combination (apart from the 2m sample).

Viral genomics in participants failing first line therapy

Among 13 individuals who experienced treatment failure, we compared the emerging viral genome with baseline virus (figure 4). Full genome sequences could not be assembled for three participants at time of virological relapse, however, we were able to generate whole viral genomes using samples from the start of retreatment for two of these individuals. No new genomes were identified at treatment failure (ruling out any new infections). No new SOF RAS were identified on virologic rebound. DCV 28T RAS (not present at baseline) was identified in one participant failing therapy (see red box figure 4; figure S9) as a minority variant at time of virological rebound and start of retreatment (at 30% and 25% of reads respectively). Given 100% of retreated individuals achieved SVR12 with standard duration of therapy we found no evidence to suggest this emerging RAS was clinically significant. There was no evidence of differences in the number of combined SOF- and DCV-RAS at baseline in those who failed 4 week therapy (median 2, range 0-3) vs those who cured with 4 weeks (median 2, range 1-2), (p=0.12) or in those with a slower initial virological response, who received 8 weeks (median 2, range 0-4).

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Pharmacokinetic parameters derived from the naïve pooled analysis (based on 40 patients on day 0 and 37 and day 28) are presented in appendix 1 - table 1. Exposure after the individual analysis as well as outcome measurements are presented in appendix 1 - table 2. In the individual analysis and the linear regression between outcome measurements and drug exposure 3 patients were excluded as they did not have dense samples collected at day 28 (n=37). In the analysis of outcome variables data from all 40 patients were used. No significant relationship between outcome variables and drug exposure was found using linear regression (appendix 1 - table 3).

In the subset of 37 participants who underwent dense PK analysis at d0 and 28, 23 received 4 weeks SOF/DCV and 14 received 8 weeks. There was no significant difference between AUC_last (total drug exposure to the last time point) for SOF and DCV in 4 week cures (n=15) vs 4 week failures (n=8); (table 3). However GS-331007 levels were significantly higer in treatment failures (p=0.032).

Safety

SOF/DCV was well-tolerated in general and no participants discontinued treatment due to drug side effects. 18 participants (35%; 95% CI 22%, 48%) reported at least one non-serious adverse reaction. The most common of these were insomnia, gastritis and dizziness, which are all consistent with undesirable effects described in the summary of product characteristics of SOF/DCV³⁶. There were no serious adverse events or grade 3 or 4 adverse events.

Effect of shortening therapy

Inferior rates of cure are well described when DAA therapy is shortened below 8 weeks without use of early on-treatment virological response, falling below 50% with ≤4 weeks therapy without stratification^7,37,38. A few small studies have reported high rates of cure with shortened therapy based early virological response^8,39,40. The only previous RGT study to use less than 6 weeks treatment, by Lau et el, found a cure rate of 100% with just three weeks of DAA therapy in 18 individuals whose HCV viral load was suppressed below 500 IU/ml after two days of therapy. This was the same threshold and time point used in our study. One important difference was in the treatment regimen, which included a protease inhibitor (simeprevir or asunaprevir). Although NS5A-(DCV) and NS5B-(SOF) inhibitors rapidly eliminate HCV from the blood, second-phase decline in viral load appears to be enhanced by addition of a protease inhibitor⁴¹. This may be crucial in sustaining high rates of cure with shortened therapy. Additionally, 100% of participants in that study had genotype 1b infection, compared with just 23% (n=12) in ours. Genotype 1b is associated with favourable outcomes with some DAAs^42,43. Although real world 1b outcomes with standard duration SOF/DCV appear similar to other non-3 genotypes⁴⁴, our data are consistent with the hypothesis that subtype may become more important when treatment is shortened.

Role for response-guided therapy with SOF/DCV

Cure rates with this strategy are too low for it to be routinely recommended. With standard duration therapy, SVR12 is known not to be impacted by time to first undetectable HCV RNA⁴⁵ or by the presence of detectable virus at the end of treatment ⁴⁶. This also appears to be true of shortened treatment: in one individual who experienced treatment failure, HCV viral load was already <LLOQ by day 7; in five of the 4-week cures, HCV VL was only suppressed to <LLOQ virus for the first time at end of treatment (appendix 1 - figure 2). Comparison of 4-week cures and 4-week treatment failures inidicates that an HCV RNA <LLOQ by day 7 may be a useful discriminator of 4-week treatment outcome (p=0.054). However, day 10 HCV RNA<LLOQ was not predictive of response to shortened treatment. Day-7 viral load thresholds for shortening DAA therapy are currently being evaluated as part of a large ongoing randomised controlled trial in Vietnam⁴⁷.

A case for 8-weeks SOF/DCV therapy

Given the high rates of cure observed with 8 weeks of SOF/DCV in participants with a slow initial virological response (17/17), there is a case for reducing SOF/DCV therapy from 12 to 8 weeks in individuals with mild liver disease. Pror evidence for caution regarding 8 weeks of SOF/DCV comes predominantly from a small 2015 study in HIV-coinfected individuals⁴⁸, in which 7/10 treatment failures in the 8-week arm received half-dose daclatasvir (30mg) because participants were taking concomitant darunavir–ritonavir. This dose adjustment was subsequently deemed unnecessary once drug-interaction data emerged, such that this study is likely to underestimate the efficacy of 8 weeks SOF/DCV. More recent studies corroborate our finding of >90% cure with 8 weeks NS5A/NS5A inhibitor combination^39,49,50. Larger trials are warranted to evaluate 8 weeks SOF/DCV therapy for patients with mild liver disease (irrespective of speed of virological response). This could save significant costs, particularly in countries where pricing is determined per pill rather than per treatment course, such as Vietnam, and the USA^37,51.

Impact of resistance-associated substitutions and retreatment concerns

To our knowledge this study is the largest assessment of G6 RAS in vivo with SOF/DCV therapy. We hypothesised that a high number of putative RAS at baseline may be associated with higher rates of failure with shortened treatment. However, we found no evidence that number or type of SOF- or DCV-RAS was different at baseline in 4-week cures compared with 4-week treatment failures (table 3, appendix 1 - figures 5 and 7), although numbers were small. Additionnally, the excellent retreatment outcomes observed (13/13) are reassuring, particularly for low-resource settings where protease inhibitor-based retreatment options are limited. Only one novel RAS was detected after first line treatment failure, and the individual concerned achieved SVR with standard duration retreatment, suggesting this was not clinically relevant.

Impact of drug levels

This was the first assessment of the impact of DAA drug levels on efficacy of shortened therapy. The inactive SOF metabolite GS-331007 is the main circulating metabolite of SOF prior to undergoing renal excretion, and it is frequently used to describe SOF’s pharmacokinetics⁵². We hypothesized that accumulation and slow elimination of GS-331007 and DCV in vivo might protect against the re-emergence of HCV viraemia. However we found no evidence of a difference in AUC_last between 4-week cures and 4-week treatment failures for SOF or DCV. Total exposure to GS-331007 was higher in treatment failures (3,920 (2,400-5,140) vs 3,050 (2,190-3,670) (p=0.023). This was a surprising result, given that SOF and GS-331007 AUCs are near dose proportional over the dose range of 200 mg to 1200 mg⁵², and higher day 10 concentrations of GS-331007 have been associated with improved rates of cure with SOF/ribavirin treatment⁵³. Further PK studies are warranted to better understand if SOF metabolism impacts treatment outcomes.

Limitations

Our study has important limitations. Firstly it was powered to determine overall cure rate with 4- and 8-weeks treatment, rather than outcomes with each duration. It is possible that we would have seen patients failing 8 weeks therapy with a larger sample, and our cure estimates may therefore be imprecise. Secondly, the participating cohort did not include any individuals with HIV, Hepatitis B-co-infection or renal impairment and only 4 participants reported a history of injecting drug use, of which none were currently injecting. These populations are known to have an altered immunological response and constitute an important part of the HCV epidemic. Thirdly, in order to identify the timing of failure, the protocol required a visit schedule with many more visits than is standard of care, which many patients would not be able to follow. Consequently, adherence was very high, which may not reflect real world practice. Finally our non-compartmental analysis of drug levels may not adequately account for drug accumulation of sofosbuvir’s metabolite GS-331007 and DCV between day 0 and 28, which was observed (see appendix 1 for more detail).

In summary our findings indicate that shortened SOF/DCV therapy cures a significant proportion of patients with mild liver disease without compromising retreatment with the same drug combination in those who fail first-line therapy. This study adds to a growing case for shortening SOF/DCV therapy in individuals with mild liver disease from 12 to 8 weeks, and offering retreatment with 12 weeks SOF/DCV when required. There was no evidence that relatively high numbers of putative resistance associated substitutions at baseline were associated with treatment outcomes, suggesting routine sequencing at baseline or prior to retreatment remains unnecessary. We also found no evidence that drug levels affect virological response or influence treatment outcome. Further work is required to understand which factors predict cure with ultra-short DAA treatment.