Accepted Manuscript
Prevalence of Resistance-Associated Substitutions in HCV NS5A, NS5B, or NS3
and Outcomes of Treatment with Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir
Christoph Sarrazin, Hadas Dvory-Sobol, Evguenia S. Svarovskaia, Brian Doehle,
Phillip S. Pang, Shu-Min Chuang, Julie Ma, Xiao Ding, Nezam H. Afdhal, Kris V.
Kowdley, Edward J. Gane, Eric Lawitz, Diana M. Brainard, John G. McHutchison,
Michael D. Miller, Hongmei Mo
PII:
DOI:
Reference:
S0016-5085(16)34614-5
10.1053/j.gastro.2016.06.002
YGAST 60505
To appear in: Gastroenterology
Accepted Date: 3 June 2016
Please cite this article as: Sarrazin C, Dvory-Sobol H, Svarovskaia ES, Doehle B, Pang PS, Chuang
S-M, Ma J, Ding X, Afdhal NH, Kowdley KV, Gane EJ, Lawitz E, Brainard DM, McHutchison JG,
Miller MD, Mo H, Prevalence of Resistance-Associated Substitutions in HCV NS5A, NS5B, or NS3
and Outcomes of Treatment with Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir, Gastroenterology (2016), doi: 10.1053/
j.gastro.2016.06.002.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
All studies published in Gastroenterology are embargoed until 3PM ET of the day they are published as
corrected proofs on-line. Studies cannot be publicized as accepted manuscripts or uncorrected proofs.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Prevalence of Resistance-Associated Substitutions in HCV NS5A, NS5B, or NS3 and
RI
PT
Outcomes of Treatment with Ledipasvir and Sofosbuvir
Short Title: Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir Baseline RASs and Treatment Outcomes
M
AN
US
C
Christoph Sarrazin1*, Hadas Dvory-Sobol2*#, Evguenia S. Svarovskaia2, Brian Doehle2, Phillip
S. Pang2, Shu-Min Chuang2, Julie Ma2, Xiao Ding2, Nezam H. Afdhal3, Kris V. Kowdley4,
Edward J. Gane5, Eric Lawitz6, Diana M Brainard2, John G. McHutchison2, Michael D. Miller2,
Hongmei Mo2
* Shared co-first authorship
Medizinische Klinik 1, Goethe University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany
2
Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA, United States
3
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States
4
Swedish Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States
5
New Zealand Liver Transplant Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand
6
Texas Liver institute, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX
AC
C
EP
TE
D
1
Financial Support: This work was supported by Gilead Sciences.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2
Abbreviations: DAAs, direct-acting antiviral agents; NI, nucleotide inhibitor; PI, protease
inhibitor; RAS, resistance-associated substitution; SVR, sustained virologic response; SVR12,
#
RI
PT
sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment.
Correspondence: Hadas Dvory-Sobol, 333 Lakeside Drive, 94404 Foster City CA USA;
M
AN
US
C
Telephone: +1-650-522-2415; Fax +1-650-522-5890; Email: Hadas.Dvory-Sobol@Gilead.com
Conflict of interest: Hadas Dvory-Sobol, Evguenia S. Svarovskaia, Brian Doehle, Phil S. Pang,
Shu-Min Chuang, Julie Ma, Xiao Ding, Diana M. Brainard, John G. McHutchison, Michael D.
Miller and Hongmei Mo are employees and stock holders of Gilead Sciences. Christoph Sarrazin
D
was supported by a grant (DZIF, German Centre for Infection Research, TTU Hepatitis) and
TE
received research support, and fees for advisory boards or speaking activities from Abbott,
Abbvie, Achillion, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck/MSD, and Roche. Kris V. Kowdley
EP
has received research support and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Intercept, Merck, and Trio
Health; has received research support from Evidera, Galectin, Immuron, NGM Biopharma,
AC
C
Novartis, and Tobira; has received personal fees from Enanta and Verlyx; and has received
royalties from Up-To-Date. Eric Lawitz has received research/grant support from AbbVie,
Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Enanta
Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck & Co., Roche, Salix,
Santaris Pharmaceuticals, Tacere, Theravance; is on the speakers’ bureau of AbbVie, BristolMyers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Merck & Co; and consults/advises AbbVie, Achillion
Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Enanta, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Merck & Co.,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
3
Novartis, Santaris Pharmaceuticals, Regulus, Theravance. Nezam Afdhal has received grant
support within last 2 years from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and Bristol Myers Squibb;
consulting/advisory board fees from Merck, Gilead Sciences, Echosens, GlaxoSmithKline PLC,
RI
PT
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc, Roivant Sciences Inc, Co-Crystal
Pharma Inc, Trio Health and Shionogi, Inc, and is currently an employee of Spring Bank
Pharmaceuticals and has an equity interest in SpringBank Pharmaceuticals, Allurion
M
AN
US
C
Technologies and Gilead Sciences. Edward Gane is a board member for, and received grants
from Abbvie, Janssen, Gilead Sciences and Merck; is on the speaker’s bureau for, and received
grants from Abbvie, Gilead Sciences and Merck.
TE
D
Writing Assistance: Gilead Sciences provided writing support.
Author Contributions: Hadas Dvory-Sobol, Evguenia S. Svarovskaia, Brian Doehle, Diana M.
EP
Brainard, Michael D. Miller and Hongmei Mo were involved in writing the manuscript, data
analysis and interpretation of the data; Phil S. Pang, Diana M. Brainard and John G.
AC
C
McHutchison were involved in the studies design, studies supervision and interpretation of the
data; Shu-Min Chuang, Xiao Ding, and Julie Ma, were involved in statistical analysis. Nezam H.
Afdhal, Kris V. Kowdley, Edward J. Gane and Eric Lawitz were involved in the studies design
and supervision; Christoph Sarrazin was involved in writing the manuscript and interpretation.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
4
Acknowledgement
We thank the patients who participated in the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir Phase 2 and 3 clinical
RI
PT
studies, the research staff in the clinical virology department at Gilead, and the clinical
investigators and resistance testing companies. We thank Charlotte Hedskog, PhD, for editorial
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
US
C
assistance.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5
Abstract
Background & Aims: We evaluated the effects of baseline hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5A,
RI
PT
NS5B, and NS3 resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) on response to the combination of
ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, with or without ribavirin, in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection.
M
AN
US
C
Methods: We analyzed data from 2144 participants in phase 2 and 3 studies of patients with
HCV genotype 1a or b infection received the combination of ledipasvir (90 mg) and sofosbuvir
(400 mg) (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir) once daily, with or without ribavirin twice daily. Population
and/or deep sequence analyses of the HCV NS3, NS5A, and NS5B genes were performed on
blood samples collected at baseline.
Results: Overall, 16.0% of patients had detectable baseline RASs in NS5A. Among patients with
D
HCV genotype 1b infection, there was no significant effect of baseline RASs in NS5A on
TE
sustained viral response 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12) with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir
and only a small effect in patients with HCV genotype 1a infection. RASs in NS5A that
EP
increased the half maximal effective concentration 50 to ledipasvir by more than 100-fold
AC
C
(Q30H/R, L31M in genotype 1a HCV, and Y93H) reduced the rate of SVR12 in treatment-naïve
patients given ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for 8 weeks, (P=.011), but not 12 weeks. These same
baseline NS5A RASs reduced the percentage of treatment-experienced patients who achieved an
SVR12 to 12 weeks (but not 24 weeks) ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (P<.001). These RASs had a small
effect in patients given ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in combination with ribavirin for 12 weeks. Overall,
2.5% of patients had baseline NS5B nucleotide inhibitor RASs (L159F, N142T, S282G, or
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
6
L320S) and all achieved an SVR12. Of patients previously treated with protease inhibitors,
53.7% had RASs in NS3 and 96.5% achieved an SVR12.
RI
PT
Conclusions: Baseline RASs in NS5A have minimal effects on patients’ response to
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir therapy. When these RASs do have effects, they could be largely overcome
M
AN
US
C
by extending treatment duration or through treatment intensification.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
KEY WORDS: direct-acting antivirals; ION-1; ION-2; ION-3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
7
Introduction
Development of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in recent years has dramatically enhanced
RI
PT
sustained virologic response (SVR) rates in HCV genotype 1 chronic infected patients.1 In the
Phase 3 ION-1, ION-2, and ION-3 studies 2-4, and the Phase 2 LONESTAR study 5, treatment
naïve and experienced HCV genotype 1 infected patients with and without liver cirrhosis who
M
AN
US
C
received 8, 12 or 24 weeks of the fixed dose combination of NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir 6 and the
nucleoside analog sofosbuvir (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir) with or without ribavirin achieved SVR
rates of 94 percent to 99 percent.
Despite these high SVR12 rates, because the high-rate replication and poor fidelity of the HCV
RNA-dependent polymerase leads to heterogeneous virus populations in infected patients, it is
possible that the subpopulation of patients with pre-existing mutations that confer in vitro
D
resistance to sofosbuvir or ledipasvir may influence outcome.7 Such pre-existing mutations may
TE
exist at low levels in untreated patients, and emerge under the selective pressure of DAAs.7, 8
For ledipasvir, in vitro and in vivo resistance are primarily associated with substitutions at
EP
genotype 1a residues K24, M28, Q30, L31, P32, H58 and Y93 and genotype 1b residues L31,
P58, A92 and Y93.9, 10 Resistance to sofosbuvir is conferred by the S282T substitution in
AC
C
NS5B.11 S282T was first described as the major resistance-associated substitution (RAS) for
other nucleotide inhibitors (NIs).12 In addition, the combination of S96T and N142T has been
observed following in vitro selection with the NI R1479.13 M289I/L/V were selected in vitro by
various NIs,11, 13 and a combination of L159F and L320F was observed in 1 patient who had a
partial response during treatment with mericitabine.14, 15 A comprehensive analysis of all
substitutions in NS5B among all sofosbuvir-treated patients in the Phase 2 and 3 studies
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
8
identified 2 treatment-emergent substitutions, L159F and V321A, using deep sequencing (cutoff
1 percent).15, 16
RI
PT
The impact of HCV baseline RASs on SVR may depend on the susceptibility/fitness of the
RASs, the patient population, the specific regimen and treatment duration. For example, the
efficacy of simeprevir in combination with sofosbuvir can be significantly reduced in patients
M
AN
US
C
infected with HCV genotype 1a with an NS3 Q80K polymorphism. Rates of sustained virologic
response in treatment naïve patients treated for 8 weeks with and without Q80K detected by
population sequencing (~15 percent cutoff) are 73 percent and 84 percent.17 SVR rates for
patients with cirrhosis and 12 weeks treatment duration are 74 percent with the Q80K
polymorphism, compared to 92 percent without the polymorphism. 18
Pre-existing RASs clearly influence virologic outcomes for the combination of the PI
D
asunaprevir with the NS5A inhibitor daclatasvir, which is an approved treatment in Japan. While
TE
the overall SVR rate in the pivotal trial was 84 percent, the SVR rates for patients with baseline
L31 or Y93 substitutions were between 38-41 percent.19 In contrast, there was no apparent
EP
impact of baseline NS5A RASs on virologic response in patients treated with sofosbuvir +
daclatasvir in a small Phase 2b study. 20 These results, however, may have been a consequence of
AC
C
the small number of patients who relapsed, limiting the ability to evaluate the impact of NS5A
RASs on outcome.
In this analysis, the baseline prevalence and effects of NS5A inhibitor, NI, and PI RASs on
virologic response to ledipasvir and sofosbuvir with and without ribavirin in a large number of
patients (n=2144) from multiple studies from the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir Phase 2/3 development
program were investigated.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
9
Methods
Ethics statement
RI
PT
All studies were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical
Practice guidelines, and local regulatory requirements. All patients provided written informed
consent.
M
AN
US
C
Study design
Detailed descriptions of studies ION-1 (n=865), ION-2 (n=440), ION-3 (n=647), LONESTAR
(n=100), and ELECTRON (n=92) have been published2-5, 21 and are described briefly below.
Patients had chronic HCV genotype 1 (1a or 1b) infection (with exception of 1 genotype 1c, 1
genotype 1a/1b, 2 genotype 1h, genotype 1l, 2 genotype 4a, and 2 genotype 1h patients) and
D
received a fixed-dose combination tablet containing 90 mg of ledipasvir and 400 mg of
TE
sofosbuvir, administered orally once daily. Ribavirin was administered orally twice daily, with
the dose determined according to body weight. ION-1 and ION-3 patients were treatment-naïve,
EP
and ION-2 patients did not have a SVR after prior treatment with either pegylated interferon,
ribavirin, or a PI or pegylated interferon and ribavirin. ION-1 and ION-2 included patients with
AC
C
cirrhosis, and patients received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks. ION-3
excluded patients with cirrhosis, and patients received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin for 8
weeks or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for 12 weeks. In LONESTAR treatment-naïve, non-cirrhotic
patients received ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin for 8 weeks, or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for 12
weeks. Patients with and without cirrhosis who had failed a previous PI regimen received
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin for 12 weeks. Patients in ELECTRON, received
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
10
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin for 12 weeks, or ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin for 6 weeks
(treatment-naive patients, group 21).
RI
PT
Laboratory assessments
HCV RNA was determined at a central laboratory using the Roche High-Pure-SystemTM,
COBAS TaqMan v.2 assay (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA) with a lower limit of
M
AN
US
C
quantitation of 25 IU/mL. HCV genotype was determined using VERSANT® HCV Genotype 2.0
assay (LiPA) or by TRUGENE® (both Siemens, Munich, Germany). The genotype results from
LiPA and TRUGENE assay were confirmed or refined by direct sequencing results from the
viral NS5A and NS5B and NS3, if available. Thirty-five LiPA/TRUGENE subtype assignments
were refined or corrected.
D
Sequencing analyses
TE
Resistance testing was performed on available baseline plasma samples with HCV RNA ≥1000
IU/mL. For the NS5A gene, at the beginning of the studies only population sequencing was
EP
performed for patients that were enrolled in ION-1 part A and the initial group of patients in the
ELECTRON study. Deep sequencing was then performed for all patients that were enrolled in
AC
C
ION-1 Part B, ION-2 and ION-3, LONESTAR, and the later group of patients enrolled in the
ELECTRON study. Overall, NS5A population (n=237) or deep (n=1907) sequencing was
performed at baseline for all enrolled patients in the Phase 2/3 studies (ION-1, ION-2, ION-3,
LONESTAR, and ELECTRON arms 12-13, 16-17, and 20-21). Baseline NS5B sequencing was
successfully performed for a subset of patients by population (n=64) and deep (n=1628)
sequencing. Baseline NS3 deep sequencing was successfully performed for all treatmentexperienced patient (n=467). Population sequencing (Sanger method) of the full-length HCV
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
11
NS5A coding region was performed by DDL Diagnostic Laboratory (Rijswijk, The Netherlands)
or Monogram Biosciences (South San Francisco, CA). The sensitivity for detection of resistant
substitutions using population sequencing is approximately 10 percent to 20 percent. 22
RI
PT
Substitutions are reported as differences compared with a genotype-specific reference strain:
genotype 1b Con1 (AJ238799); genotype 1a H77 (Genbank accession number NC_004102).
Deep sequencing was performed by Monogram Biosciences using Illumina MiSeq deep
M
AN
US
C
sequencing platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA), or NS5A PCR amplicons generated by DDL
were subjected to deep sequencing at Wuxi AppTec (Shanghai, China). Internally developed
software (Gilead Sciences) was used to process and align sequencing data to identify the
substitutions present at levels above 1 percent (percent total of reads). Substitutions at RAS
positions were analyzed using 1 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent
cutoffs. The presence of baseline RASs was established by comparison with wild-type reference
D
sequences (1a-H77 for genotype 1a samples and 1b-Con-1 for genotype 1b samples). RASs from
TE
clinical trials were recently summarized by the HCV Drug Resistance Advisory Group (DRAG)
group.22 For patients with genotype 1a HCV infection, NS5A RASs were defined as the
EP
following substitutions at the following positions: K24G/N/R, M28A/G/T, Q30E/G/H/L/K/R/T,
L31I/F/M/V, P32L, S38F, H58D, A92K/T, and Y93C/F/H/N/S (ledipasvir specific RASs). For
AC
C
patients with genotype 1b HCV infection, NS5A RASs were defined as the following
substitutions at the following positions: L31F/I/M/V, P32L, P58D, A92K, and Y93C/H/N/S
(ledipasvir specific RASs). NS5B NI substitutions that are reported here included any
substitutions that had a change from the corresponding genotype-specific reference at NS5B
position 96, 142, 159, 282, 289, 320, and 321 (nucleotide class specific RASs). RASs at residues
associated with resistance to PIs including substitutions at position V36, F43, T54, V55, Q80,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
12
S122, R155, A156, D168, and M175 of the NS3 protease gene were included in the analysis
(NS3 protease inhibitor class RASs). Patients who were lost to follow up prior to the SVR12
RI
PT
visit or had early termination (n=29) were excluded from the SVR12 analysis.
Drug susceptibility analyses
Resistance mutations were introduced into the genotype 1a or genotype 1b replicon by site-
M
AN
US
C
directed mutagenesis and tested in transient transfections as previously described.23 Briefly,
NS5A mutations were introduced into a plasmid encoding the PI-hRluc replicon using a
QuikChange II XL mutagenesis kit, following the manufacturer’s instructions (Stratagene, La
Jolla, CA). Mutations were confirmed by DNA sequencing. Replicon RNAs were transcribed in
vitro from replicon-encoding plasmids using a MEGAscript kit (Ambion, Austin, TX). RNA was
transfected into Huh-lunet cells using the method of Lohmann et al.24 Briefly, cells were
D
trypsinized and washed twice with PBS. A suspension of cells was mixed with RNA and
TE
subjected to electroporation. Cells were transferred into 40 ml of pre-warmed culture medium
and then seeded into 96-well plates (100 L/well). Compounds were diluted in 100 percent
EP
DMSO and added to cells. Cells were treated for 3 days, after which culture media were
removed, cells were lysed, and Renilla luciferase activity was quantified using a commercially
AC
C
available assay (Promega, Madison, WI) and a Top Count instrument (Perkin Elmer, Waltham,
MA). EC50 values were calculated as the compound concentration at which a 50 percent
reduction in the level of Renilla reporter activity was observed when compared with control
samples with DMSO. Dose-response curves and EC50 values were generated using GraphPad
Prism software package (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA) by nonlinear regression analysis.
The replication level of either reference strains (1b-Con1 or 1a-H77) or chimeric replicons
derived transiently from clinical isolates was determined as the ratio of the Renilla luciferase
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13
signal at Day 4 to that at 4 h post-electroporation, to normalize for transfection efficiency. The
replication capacity of each replicon was expressed as their normalized replication efficiency
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
US
C
RI
PT
compared with that of the reference strain (1b-Con1 or 1a-H77) within the same experiment.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14
Results
Prevalence of NS5A RASs and association with treatment outcome
RI
PT
NS5A population sequencing or deep sequencing was attempted for all patients who participated
in the studies and was successful for 233 of 237 by population sequencing and 1904 of 1907 by
deep sequencing. Twenty-nine patients were excluded from further outcome analyses due to
M
AN
US
C
either early study drug termination or lost to follow-up prior to the SVR12 visit resulting in a
final analysis population of 2108 patients (1575 patients with genotype 1a, 525 genotype 1b, 2
genotype 1h, 2 genotype 4a, 2 genotype 1c, 1 genotype 1l, and 1 recombinant genotype
1a+genotype 1b patient).
In the pooled analysis of population and deep sequencing data from the Phase 2 and 3 studies,
338 of 2108 (16.0 percent) patients were identified as having baseline NS5A RASs by
D
population (~15 percent cutoff) or deep sequencing (using 1 percent cutoff), irrespective of
TE
subtype (246 of 1575, 15.6 percent genotype 1a, 86 of 525, 16.4 percent genotype 1b, and 8
patients with other genotypes). Of the 338 patients with baseline NS5A RASs, 316 (93.5 percent)
EP
patients achieved SVR12 following 6, 8, 12, or 24 weeks of treatment with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir
AC
C
with or without ribavirin, compared with 1741 of 1770 (98.4 percent) patients with no NS5A
RASs (p<0.001). The reduction in SVR rates appears to be driven predominantly by patients
with genotype 1a NS5A RASs; the SVR12 rates in genotype 1b patients with baseline NS5A
RASs were 96.5 percent, compared with 98.6 percent for patients without NS5A RASs (p=0.7),
while SVR12 rates for genotype 1a patients were 92.3 percent for those with NS5A RASs
compared with 98.3 percent for patients without NS5A RASs (p<0.001) (Figure 1a). Slightly
lower treatment response rates of 90 percent were observed for genotype 1a patients with NS5A
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15
RASs using a 15 percent deep sequencing cutoff (Figure 1b).
RI
PT
Treatment outcomes by level of RAS resistance and Prior Treatment Status
NS5A RASs were classified by level of resistance to ledipasvir (Table 1). Patients with NS5A
RASs were classified according to their prior treatment status. Among treatment-naïve genotype
M
AN
US
C
1 patients in the ledipasvir/sofosbuvir group, 102/887 (11.5 percent) had at least 1 RAS that
conferred >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir. A significant reduction in the SVR rate (Figure 2a)
was seen among treatment-naive patients with NS5A RASs conferring >100-fold ledipasvir
resistance who received only 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir therapy (82.8 percent; p=0.011).
A significant reduction in SVR based on the presence of high-level baseline NS5A RASs was
not observed among treatment-naïve patients treated for 12 or 24 weeks with
D
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, and all patients with NS5A RASs conferring <100-fold ledipasvir
TE
resistance achieved SVR12. Furthermore, of the 5 patients who did not achieve SVR12 after 8
weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir therapy, 3 had high (>6 million IU/ml) HCV RNA levels at
EP
baseline and 3 had at least one NS5A RAS conferring >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir at a
AC
C
frequency of >15 percent at baseline (Table 1). Similar SVR rates (82.1 percent) were observed
for treatment-naïve patients with NS5A RASs conferring >100-fold ledipasvir resistance who
received 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin therapy (Figure 2c), which also included 4/5
virologic failure patients with HCV RNA >6 million IU/mL.
Among treatment-experienced patients SVR rates were 97.4 to 100 percent for those without
baseline RASs or with RASs conferring <100-fold resistance to ledipasvir treated for 12 or 24
weeks with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Figure 2b). Those treatment-experience patients with baseline
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16
NS5A RASs with >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir who were treated for 12 weeks had a
significantly lower SVR12 rate (64.7 percent; 11/17) than those without baseline RASs (97.4
percent; 113/116) or those with high-level RASs treated for 24 weeks (100 percent; 6/6). Of the
RI
PT
6 patients with RASs who did not achieve SVR12 after 12 weeks of treatment, all had at least
one RAS conferring >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir at a frequency of >15 percent at baseline
M
AN
US
C
and 4 had multiple high-level NS5A RASs (Table 1).
Relative to 100 percent SVR for 24 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir treatment shown in Figure 2b,
reduced SVR rates (81.8 percent) were also observed among treatment-experienced patients with
NS5A RASs conferring >100-fold ledipasvir resistance who received 12 weeks of
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin therapy (Figure 2c); however, the overall SVR rate was
numerically higher than that observed for 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir without ribavirin
(64.7 percent). No significant differences were observed among treatment-naïve or treatment-
D
experienced patients with NS5A RASs conferring >100-fold ledipasvir resistance who received
TE
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for 8 or 12 weeks (treatment-naïve) or 24 weeks
AC
C
EP
(treatment-experienced)(Figure 2c).
Prevalence and geographical distribution of specific NS5A RASs
The prevalence of specific ledipasvir RASs detected at baseline was evaluated using different
deep sequencing assay cutoffs: 1 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent. Of
the 1030 patients who had successful deep sequencing and were treated with
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for 8, 12, and 24 weeks, 16.7 percent, 12.4 percent, 10.5 percent, 9.0
percent, and 8.5 percent had specific ledipasvir NS5A RASs with 1 percent, 5 percent, 10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17
percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent cutoffs, respectively (Figure 3a). Only slight differences in
SVR rates were seen for the different cutoffs and SVR12 rates ranged from 87.1 percent to 91.9
RI
PT
percent (Supplementary Figure 1).
For genotype 1a patients, the majority of patients harbored a single ledipasvir RAS (data not
shown). The most frequent NS5A RASs with the 1 percent cutoff were
M
AN
US
C
K24R>L31M>Q30H>M28T>Y93H>Q30R. At 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, and 20 percent
cutoffs, Q30H and L31M were the most frequent RASs in genotype 1a patients (Figure 3b). For
all cutoffs, the most frequent NS5A RASs in genotype 1b patients were Y93H and L31M (Figure
3c), and almost all patients harbored a single NS5A RAS.
A comparison of the prevalence of NS5A RASs between patients in the US and the EU shows
only small differences in the geographic distribution of baseline RASs (Figure 3d and 3e).
D
Overall, approximately 15.0 percent of genotype 1a HCV-infected patients in the US harbored
TE
NS5A RASs compared with approximately 20.9 percent in the EU. For genotype 1b,
approximately 15.5 percent of US patients and 17.1 percent of EU patients had baseline NS5A
EP
RASs. Similar frequencies were observed for single RASs with high levels of resistance in
patients infected with genotype 1a virus including L31M, Q30H/R, and Y93H. For patients with
AC
C
genotype 1b infection, 9.3 percent and 15.0 percent of the patients had Y93H in the US and EU,
respectively.
Relationship of specific substitution and treatment outcome
The relationship of baseline NS5A RASs to the treatment outcome in patients treated with
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir was evaluated for the most common NS5A RASs: K24R, M28T, Q30H,
Q30R, L31M, and Y93H. The SVR rates ranged from 80-93.3 percent and 75-88.2 percent for
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
18
NS5A RASs that confer >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir (Q30H, Q30R, L31M in genotype 1a
and Y93H) using 1 percent and 15 percent deep sequencing cutoffs, respectively (Figure 4a).
Slightly lower SVR rates were observed using the 15 percent cutoff compared to the 1 percent
RI
PT
cutoff for these RASs. For K24R, which confers 3.7-fold resistance to ledipasvir, the SVR rate
was 100 percent independent of deep sequencing cutoff. For M28T, which confers 61-fold
resistance to ledipasvir, the SVR rate was also reduced, however the 2 patients with virologic
M
AN
US
C
failure with M28T also had other NS5A RASs conferring >100-fold resistance (Table 1). In the
case of L31M, reduced SVR rates were only observed in patients with genotype 1a infection,
consistent with only 3.4-fold reduced susceptibility for this RAS in the background of genotype
1b.
Overall, the relapse rate increased with the number of RASs. Of patients with no baseline RAS,
1.6 percent (28/1786) experienced virologic failure, compared with incidences of 4.9 percent,
D
10.2 percent and 15.8 percent virologic relapse with 1 RAS, 2 RASs and ≥3 RASs, respectively
TE
(Figure 4b). Moreover, the prevalence of baseline RASs decreased with the number of RASs, in
percent, respectively.
EP
which 1 RAS, 2 RASs and ≥3 RASs had a prevalence of 12.6 percent, 2.3 percent and 0.9
AC
C
Forty-nine patients experienced virologic relapse in the Phase 2/3 studies with
sofosbuvir/ledipasvir regimens. Of these, 21 (43 percent) had NS5A RASs at baseline; 18 had
genotype 1a infection and 3 had genotype 1b infection. For the 18 genotype 1a patients who did
not achieve SVR12, 8 had double and triple substitutions that conferred >100-fold-resistance to
ledipasvir (Table 1). For the 3 genotype 1b patients who did not achieve SVR12 with NS5A
RASs, Y93H was detected as a dominant substitution. The overall SVR12 rate for genotype 1b
with Y93H was 93.3 percent and 88.2 percent using 1 percent and 15 percent deep sequencing
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
19
cutoffs, respectively. Of the 21 patients with baseline RASs who relapsed, 71 percent (15/21)
had at least one RAS conferring >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir at a frequency of >15 percent
RI
PT
at baseline (Table 1).
The relationship of the baseline NS5A mutant viral load to the treatment outcome was evaluated
for each individual NS5A RAS. The baseline mutant viral load for the NS5A RASs was
M
AN
US
C
calculated by multiplying the total HCV viral load by the percentage of the specific NS5A RAS
observed at baseline. These NS5A-specific baseline viral loads of NS5A RASs at positions 24,
28, 30, 31, and 93 were compared between patients achieving SVR12 and those experiencing
virologic failure (Figure 4c). Although there was a small trend of high mutant viral loads for Y93
and Q30 and virologic failure, many patients with these substitutions and the same mutant viral
load achieved SVR12 and overall there was no significant effect.
D
Baseline NS5B NI substitutions
TE
Baseline NS5B sequencing was attempted for a subset of patients from the ION-1 study and all
patients from the LONESTAR, ELECTRON, ION-2, and ION-3 studies. Successful NS5B
EP
sequencing was obtained for 1692 patients (1291 genotype 1a and 395 genotype 1b, 6 other),
AC
C
including deep sequencing results from 1628 patients. The NS5B RAS S282T was not detected
in any patient using a 1 percent cutoff for deep sequencing (Table 2). A total of 41 sequenced
patients had other NI RASs at baseline (36 with L159F and 5 with N142T); all 41 of these
patients achieved SVR12 (Table 2). In addition 1 patient had S282G and another patient had
L320S, two substitutions at two residues associated with NI resistance; both patients achieved
SVR12.
Baseline NS3 substitutions
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
20
NS3 deep sequencing results were obtained for 467 patients from LONESTAR and ION-2
patients (372 genotype 1a, 95 genotype 1b). Of these patients, 265 were previously treated with
PI-containing regimens. Baseline NS3 RASs were detected in 141 of the 265 (53.2 percent)
RI
PT
patients, of which 139 (98.6 percent) achieved SVR12 (Table 2). For the patients who were PI
treatment-naïve (previous pegylated interferon+ribavirin treatment failures), 23 of 202 (11.4
percent) had baseline NS3 RASs and 95.5 percent achieved SVR12. Additionally, Q80
M
AN
US
C
polymorphisms were observed in 93 of 202 (46.0 percent) PI treatment-naïve patients and 110 of
265 (41.5 percent) PI treatment-experienced patients, of which 96.8 percent and 97.3 percent
AC
C
EP
TE
D
patients achieved SVR12, respectively.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
21
Discussion
Ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is an effective, simple, and safe single tablet regimen for the treatment of
genotype 1 chronic HCV, with SVR rates of 94-99 percent in Phase 3 clinical trials. This study
RI
PT
describes the prevalence of pre-existing NS5A, NS5B NI, and NS3 RASs in patients infected
with HCV genotype 1 in the Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials as well as the impact of these RASs on
treatment outcome. Overall, the presence of pre-existing RASs in the NS5A gene had no
M
AN
US
C
significant impact on treatment outcome in genotype 1b-infected patients, and a minimal impact
on treatment outcome in genotype 1a-infected patients with SVR rates >90 percent. The
presence of pre-existing RASs in the NS5B and NS3 genes had no impact on treatment outcome.
In this analysis, the percentage of patients having baseline NS5A RASs ranged from 8.5 percent,
when a cutoff of 20 percent was used, to a high of 16.7 percent, when a cutoff of 1 percent was
used. This percentage of patients harboring NS5A RASs is similar to that reported by other
D
studies, 25, 26 when one takes into consideration the method (deep versus population sequencing)
TE
and the cutoff used to determine the presence of a substitution. Overall, the treatment responses
were similar regardless of the specific cutoff used in the analysis, with slightly lower responses
EP
observed using the 15 percent cutoff versus a 1 percent cutoff. Thus, population sequencing
AC
C
would be sufficient to detect most clinically meaningful baseline RASs. However, of the 21
virologic relapse patients with baseline ledipasvir NS5A RASs, 5 had these RASs at frequencies
below the detection limit of population-based sequencing (15 percent).
Zeuzem et al., conducted a larger study that investigated the prevalence of baseline NS5A RASs
in genotype 1 patients and the effect on treatment response and included more than 5,000
patients from 21 countries across HCV Gilead clinical trials from 2010 to 2015 (Zeuzem et al,
Hepatology, volume 62: p 254A, Abstract 91, 2016). The analysis included data from
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
22
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir±ribavirin treated patients only when used according to recommended
treatment guidelines and showed that baseline NS5A RASs have no clinically meaningful impact
on treatment outcome with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir when used according to recommended
RI
PT
guidelines in the vast majority of patient populations. Our analysis included data from the 5
phase 2 and 3 registrational clinical trials, including all treatment groups that supported the
Gilead regulatory filings for Harvoni and also included patients that were treated with
M
AN
US
C
investigational regimens. This allows an understanding of the influence of different treatment
durations and the addition of ribavirin on the importance of RASs with respect to virologic
treatment response.
Further assessment of the effects of baseline NS5A RASs and treatment outcome demonstrated
that reduced SVR rates in treatment-naive patients was limited to those with NS5A RASs
conferring >100-fold ledipasvir resistance (Q30H/R, L31M in genotype 1a, or Y93H) who
D
received 8 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir therapy, with 5 of 29 patients failing to achieve
TE
SVR12. For the 5 patients with virologic failure, 3 had NS5A RASs conferring >100-foldresistance to ledipasvir at a frequency of >15 percent of the viral population at baseline.
EP
Moreover, 3 of these 5 patients had a baseline viral load > 6 million IU/ml and per current
AC
C
treatment guidelines, a treatment course of 12 weeks is recommended. Among treatment-naïve
patients who received 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, no treatment outcome differences were
observed based on the presence or absence of NS5A RASs. All patients with NS5A RASs
conferring <100-fold ledipasvir resistance achieved SVR12.
Among treatment-experienced patients, a lower SVR12 rate was observed for those who had
baseline NS5A RASs associated with >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir and were treated for 12
weeks without ribavirin. Six out of these 17 patients did not achieve SVR12. Of these 6 patients,
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
23
all had at least one NS5A RAS conferring >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir at a frequency of
>15 percent at baseline and 4/6 had multiple high-level ledipasvir RASs. Treatment-experienced
genotype 1a patients with pre-existing NS5A RASs that confer a >100 fold resistance to
RI
PT
ledipasvir represented 6.9 percent (17/245) of the patients in this analysis. However, as
recommended by treatment guidelines, all treatment-experienced patients with baseline RASs
M
AN
US
C
treated for 24 weeks with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir achieved SVR12.
The addition of ribavirin to 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir resulted in an improved SVR12
rate in treatment-experienced patients with NS5A RASs associated with >100-fold-resistance to
ledipasvir, relative to 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir without ribavirin; however, the SVR12
rate was still numerically lower than that observed with 24 weeks of therapy. This observation
stands in contrast to data from the SIRIUS trial 27, in which treatment-experienced cirrhotic
patients, were randomized to 24 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir or 12 weeks of
D
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin. All the patients (8/8) with NS5A RASs conferring >100-fold-
TE
resistance to ledipasvir treated for 12 weeks with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin achieved
SVR12; conversely, 7/9 (78 percent) of patients with NS5A RASs conferring >100-fold-
EP
resistance to ledipasvir treated for 24 weeks with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir achieved SVR12. These
AC
C
data suggest that for treatment-experienced patients with NS5A RASs, 12 weeks of
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir+ribavirin provides similar effectiveness compared to ledipasvir/sofosbuvir
for 24 weeks.
For the specific NS5A RASs Q30H/R, L31M in genotype 1a and Y93H that confer >100-foldresistance to ledipasvir, SVR rates ranged from 80-93.3 percent and 75-88.2 using 1 and 15
percent deep sequencing cutoffs, respectively. Overall, slightly lower SVR rates were observed
using the 15 percent cutoff compared to the 1 percent cutoff. The number of RASs harbored
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
24
within the virus seems to be a predictor of treatment failure. An increasing rate of virologic
relapse was observed in patients without baseline NS5A RASs (1.6 percent) to patients with 1, 2
or at least 3 RASs (4.9, 10.2 and 15.8 percent, respectively). However, the prevalence of patients
RI
PT
with 1, 2 or at least 3 pre-existing NS5A RASs decreased from 12.6 percent to 2.3 percent and
0.9 percent. This observation is in line with a higher relapse rate observed in patients who
received sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir after failure to a ledipasvir-containing regimen and the
M
AN
US
C
presence of multiple NS5A RASs. 28
Baseline NS3 RASs were detected in 53.2 percent of patients who were previously treated with
PI-containing regimens, of whom 98.6 percent achieved SVR12. Additionally, Q80
polymorphisms were observed in 46.0 percent of PI treatment-naïve patients and 41.5 percent of
PI treatment-experienced patients, of whom 96.8 percent and 97.3 percent patients achieved
SVR12, respectively. Taken together, no association between any NS3 RAS and treatment
D
outcome was observed in patients treated with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, which is consistent with the
TE
lack of cross resistance between PIs and either ledipasvir or sofosbuvir in vitro. In addition, the
NS5B NI RAS S282T was not detected in any patient at baseline. Of the 2.5 percent of patients
EP
with other NI RASs at baseline, all achieved SVR12, including 1 patient with S282G.
AC
C
In summary, high SVR rates were achieved in the presence of baseline HCV NS5A RASs upon
treatment with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in the majority of patient populations. NS5A RASs
corresponding to >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir together with a shortened treatment duration
of 8 weeks in treatment-naïve patients or 12 weeks in treatment-experienced patients, were
associated with reduced SVR rates. Most of these patients were not treated according to current
treatment guidelines. In the majority of these patients, at least one NS5A RAS conferring >100fold-resistance to ledipasvir was detected at a frequency of >15 percent at baseline, which could
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
25
have been detected by population sequencing. The effect of these RASs may be overcome by
extension of treatment duration to 12 and 24 weeks, respectively, or the addition of ribavirin or
another DAA in treatment-experienced cirrhotic patients. Given the low magnitude of effect of
RI
PT
baseline NS5A RASs in genotype 1 patients, routine baseline NS5A RAS testing prior to
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir therapy does not appear to be clinically warranted. This is further
supported by the high rates of SVR observed in post-marketing “real world” cohorts of patients
M
AN
US
C
treated outside of clinical trials with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir regimens where the SVR rate has been
AC
C
EP
TE
D
>90 percent across multiple diverse patient cohorts 29, 30.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
26
References
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
RI
PT
M
AN
US
C
5.
D
4.
TE
3.
EP
2.
Liang TJ, Ghany MG. Current and future therapies for hepatitis C virus infection. N
Engl J Med 2013;368:1907-17.
Afdhal N, Zeuzem S, Kwo P, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for untreated HCV
genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1889-98.
Afdhal N, Reddy KR, Nelson DR, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for previously
treated HCV genotype 1 infection. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1483-93.
Kowdley KV, Gordon SC, Reddy KR, et al. Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 8 or 12
weeks for chronic HCV without cirrhosis. N Engl J Med 2014;370:1879-88.
Lawitz E, Poordad FF, Pang PS, et al. Sofosbuvir and ledipasvir fixed-dose
combination with and without ribavirin in treatment-naive and previously treated
patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection (LONESTAR): an open-label,
randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet 2014;383:515-23.
Lawitz EJ, Gruener D, Hill JM, et al. A phase 1, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3-day,
dose-ranging study of GS-5885, an NS5A inhibitor, in patients with genotype 1
hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2012;57:24-31.
Rong L, Dahari H, Ribeiro RM, et al. Rapid emergence of protease inhibitor
resistance in hepatitis C virus. Sci Transl Med 2010;2:30ra32.
Sarrazin C, Zeuzem S. Resistance to direct antiviral agents in patients with hepatitis
C virus infection. Gastroenterology 2010;138:447-62.
Wong KA, Worth A, Martin R, et al. Characterization of Hepatitis C virus resistance
from a multiple-dose clinical trial of the novel NS5A inhibitor GS-5885. Antimicrob
Agents Chemother 2013;57:6333-40.
G Cheng BP, A Corsa, M Yu, M Nash, YJ Lee, Y Xu, T Kirschberg, Y Tian, J Taylor, J
Link, W Delaney IV. Antiviral Activity and Resistance Profile of the Novel HCV NS5A
Inhibitor GS-5885 In EASL 47th Annual Meeting, Barcelona, Spain, April 18th - 22nd
2012, 2012.
Lam AM, Espiritu C, Bansal S, et al. Genotype and subtype profiling of PSI-7977 as a
nucleotide inhibitor of hepatitis C virus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2012;56:3359-68.
Dutartre H, Bussetta C, Boretto J, et al. General catalytic deficiency of hepatitis C
virus RNA polymerase with an S282T mutation and mutually exclusive resistance
towards 2'-modified nucleotide analogues. Antimicrob Agents Chemother
2006;50:4161-9.
Le Pogam S, Jiang WR, Leveque V, et al. In vitro selected Con1 subgenomic replicons
resistant to 2'-C-methyl-cytidine or to R1479 show lack of cross resistance. Virology
2006;351:349-59.
Tong X, Le Pogam S, Li L, et al. In vivo emergence of a novel mutant L159F/L320F in
the NS5B polymerase confers low-level resistance to the HCV polymerase inhibitors
mericitabine and sofosbuvir. J Infect Dis 2014;209:668-75.
Svarovskaia ES, Dvory-Sobol H, Parkin N, et al. Infrequent development of resistance
in genotype 1-6 hepatitis C virus-infected subjects treated with sofosbuvir in phase
2 and 3 clinical trials. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:1666-74.
AC
C
1.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
27
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
RI
PT
M
AN
US
C
20.
D
19.
TE
18.
EP
17.
Svarovskaia ES, Gane E, Dvory-Sobol H, et al. L159F and V321A SofosbuvirAssociated Hepatitis C Virus NS5B Substitutions. J Infect Dis 2015.
P. Kwo NG, R. Nahass, D. Bernstein, S. Rojter, E. Schiff, M. Davis, P.J. Ruane, Z. Younes,
R. Kalmeijer, M. Peeters, O. Lenz, B. Fevery, G. De La Rosa, J. Scott,, R. Sinha JW. A
phase 3, randomised, open-label study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 8 and 12
weeks of simeprevir (SMV) plus sofosbuvir (SOF) in treatment-naive and experienced patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection without cirrhosis:
OPTIMIST-1 In 50th Annual Meeting of the European Association for the Study of
the Liver Vienna Austria, April 22-26, 2015.
E. Lawitz GM, E. DeJesus, E. Yoshida, F. Felizarta, R. Ghalib, E. Godofsky, R. Herring, G.
Poleynard, A. Sheikh, H. Tobias, M. Kugelmas, R. Kalmeijer, M. Peeters, O. Lenz, B.
Fevery, G. De La Rosa, J. Scott, R. Sinha, J. Witek. A phase 3, open-label, single-arm
study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 12 weeks simeprevir (SMV) plus
sofosbuvir (SOF) in treatment-naive or -experienced patients with chronic HCV
genotype 1 infection and cirrhosis: OPTIMIST-2 In 50th Annual Meeting of the
European Association for the Study of the Liver, Vienna Austria, April 22-26, 2015.
Manns M, Pol S, Jacobson IM, et al. All-oral daclatasvir plus asunaprevir for hepatitis
C virus genotype 1b: a multinational, phase 3, multicohort study. Lancet
2014;384:1597-605.
Sulkowski MS, Gardiner DF, Rodriguez-Torres M, et al. Daclatasvir plus sofosbuvir
for previously treated or untreated chronic HCV infection. N Engl J Med
2014;370:211-21.
Gane EJ, Stedman CA, Hyland RH, et al. Efficacy of nucleotide polymerase inhibitor
sofosbuvir plus the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir or the NS5B non-nucleoside inhibitor
GS-9669 against HCV genotype 1 infection. Gastroenterology 2014;146:736-743 e1.
HCV Phenotype Working Group HDDAG. Clinically relevant HCV drug resistance
mutations figure and tables (Updated). Ann Forum Collab HIV Res 2012;14:1-10.
Shih I-h, Vliegen I, Peng B, et al. Mechanistic characterization of GS-9190
(tegobuvir), a novel non-nucleoside inhibitor of hepatitis C virus NS5B polymerase.
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 2011;55:4196-4203.
Lohmann V, Korner F, Koch J, et al. Replication of subgenomic hepatitis C virus RNAs
in a hepatoma cell line. Science 1999;285:110-113.
Bartels DJ, Sullivan JC, Zhang EZ, et al. Hepatitis C virus variants with decreased
sensitivity to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) were rarely observed in DAA-naive
patients prior to treatment. J Virol 2013;87:1544-53.
Suzuki F, Sezaki H, Akuta N, et al. Prevalence of hepatitis C virus variants resistant to
NS3 protease inhibitors or the NS5A inhibitor (BMS-790052) in hepatitis patients
with genotype 1b. J Clin Virol 2012;54:352-4.
Bourliere M, Bronowicki JP, de Ledinghen V, et al. Ledipasvir-sofosbuvir with or
without ribavirin to treat patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and cirrhosis nonresponsive to previous protease-inhibitor therapy: a randomised, double-blind,
phase 2 trial (SIRIUS). Lancet Infect Dis 2015;15:397-404.
E. Lawitz SF, J.C. Yang, P.S. Pang, Y. Zhu, E. Svarovskaia, J.G. McHutchison, D. Wyles, P.
Pockros. Retreatment of patients who failed 8 or 12 weeks of ledipasvir/sofosbuvirbased regiments with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir for 24 weeks, In 50th Annual Meeting of
AC
C
16.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
28
RI
PT
M
AN
US
C
D
TE
EP
30.
AC
C
29.
the European Association for the Study of the Liver Vienna, Austria April 22-26,
2015.
Terrault N, Zeuzem S, Di Bisceglie AM, Lim JK, Pockros PJ, Frazier LM, Kuo A, Lok AS,
Shiffman ML, Ben Ari Z, Stewart T, Sulkowski MS, Fried MW, and Nelson DR for the
HCV-TARGET Study Group. Treatment Outcomes With 8, 12 and 24 Week Regimens
of Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir for the Treatment of Hepatitis C Infection: Analysis of a
Multicenter Prospective, Observational Study. Annual Meeting of the American
Association for theStudy of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Boston, MA, Nov 13-17, 2015.
Abstract 94
Afdhal NH, Bacon B, Dieterich D, Flamm SL, Kowdley KV, Lee Y, Younossi ZM, Tsai N,
Younoss Z. Failure with All-oral DAA Regimens: Real-world experience from the
TRIO Network. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD),
Boston, MA, Nov 13-17, 2015. Abstract LB-17.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
29
Figure Legends
Figure 1. Prevalence of NS5A RASs and Treatment Response. Patient baseline sequences
RI
PT
generated by population and deep sequencing were pooled for treatment-naïve and treatmentexperienced patients who were treated with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin for 6, 8, 12 and 24
weeks. (a) SVR12 rates in patients with or without baseline NS5A RAS (using a 1 percent cutoff
M
AN
US
C
for deep sequencing and population sequencing with a substitution detection of ~15 percent). (b)
SVR12 rates in patients with or without baseline NS5A RASs (using a 15 percent cutoff for deep
sequencing and population sequencing with a substitution detection of ~15 percent). LDV,
ledipasvir. SOF, sofosbuvir. RBV, ribavirin. GT, genotype.
Figure 2. SVR12 by Level of NS5A RASs in those Treated with Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir.
D
Patient baseline sequences generated by population and deep sequencing were pooled (using 1
TE
percent cutoff for deep sequencing and population sequencing with a substitution detection of
~15 percent). (a) Treatment-naïve. 3/5 failures who had baseline NS5A RASs with >100 fold
EP
resistance to ledipasvir had baseline viral load >6 x106 IU/mL. (b) Treatment-experienced. (c)
AC
C
SVR12 for patients with NS5A RASs with >100-fold-resistance to ledipasvir in treatment-naïve
patients treated for 8 or 12 weeks and treatment-experienced patients treated for 12 or 24 weeks
with and without ribavirin. * One patient experienced breakthrough due to documented
noncompliance during the dosing period. LDV, ledipasvir. SOF, sofosbuvir. RBV, ribavirin.
Figure 3. Prevalence of NS5A RASs by Deep Sequencing Cutoff and Geographical Region.
Substitution analyses were conducted on deep sequencing data (population sequences were not
included). (a) Prevalence of NS5A RAS by 1 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent and 20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
30
percent deep sequencing cutoff in patients treated with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (n=1040). (b)
Prevalence of specific NS5A RASs in patients with genotype 1a infection by deep sequencing
cutoffs. (c) Prevalence of specific NS5A RASs in patients with genotype 1b infection by deep
RI
PT
sequencing cutoffs. (d) Prevalence of NS5A RASs in patients with genotype 1a infection in US
and EU. (e) Prevalence of NS5A RASs in patients with genotype 1b infection in US and EU. GT,
M
AN
US
C
genotype.
Figure 4. Treatment Outcome in Patients with NS5A RASs. Substitution analyses were
conducted on deep sequencing data (population sequences were not included). (a) SVR12 by
specific baseline NS5A RASs and cutoff (1 percent and 15 percent) in patients treated with
ledipasvir/sofosbuvir. (b) Relapse rate in patients with 1, 2 or ≥3 NS5A RASs. The prevalence of
D
1 RAS, 2 RASs and ≥3 RASs is 12.6 percent, 2.3 percent and 0.9 percent, respectively. (c)
TE
Treatment outcome for all patients with baseline NS5A RAS by baseline RAS viral load. The
baseline viral load for the NS5A RASs was calculated by multiplying the total HCV viral load by
EP
the percentage of the specific NS5A RAS observed at baseline and compared in patients
AC
C
achieving SVR12 and those experiencing virologic failure. VF, virologic failures. GT, genotype.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. NS5A Resistance-Associated Substitutions Classified by Level of Resistance to Ledipasvir
and RASs among Patients with NS5A RASs who did not Achieve SVR12
2.5- to 100-Fold
GT1a
K24R, Q30L, Q30T, K24G,
K24N, A92T, Y93F, M28T,
S38F
GT1b
L31M, P32L, L31I, L31V
100-1000-Fold
>1000-Fold
M28A, M28G, Q30E, Q30K,
Q30H, Q30G, Q30R, L31I,
H58D, Y93C, Y93H, Y93N,
L31M, L31V, P32L
Y93S
P58D
A92K, Y93H
M
AN
US
C
Genotype
RI
PT
Level of Resistance to ledipasvir
Patients Who Did Not Achieve SVR12 with RAS
Treatment
Baseline NS5A RAS
Prior
treatment
status
HCV
Genotype
Level of resistance to LDV
L31M (19.25%)
TN
1a
100-1000-Fold
TN
1a
100-1000-Fold
TN
1a
>1000-Fold
TN
1a
>1000-Fold
M28T (93.52%) M28A
(6.09%)
TN
1a
>1000-Fold
L31M (>99%)
TN
1a
100-1000-Fold
Q30H (>99%)
TE
1a
100-1000-Fold
M28T (1.03%) Q30R (>99%)
L31M (>99%)
TE
1a
100-1000-Fold
Y93H (59.82%)
TE
1b
>1000-Fold
Q30H (98.76%), Y93H
(98.07%)
TE
1a
>1000-Fold
Q30H(>99%) Y93H(>99%)
TE
1a
>1000-Fold
Q30R (1.43%) Y93N (97.60%)
TE
1a
>1000-Fold
Y93F (10.81%) Y93N (1.71%)
TN
1a
>1000-Fold
L31M (25.45%)
ledipasvir/
Y93N (15.37%)
D
sofosbuvir
Q30Y (2.04%) Q30H (1.16%)
Y93H (3.60%)
AC
C
EP
TE
8 weeks
ledipasvir/
sofosbuvir
12 weeks
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ledipasvir/
sofosbuvir
Y93H (94.07%)
TN
1b
>1000-Fold
L31M (1.12%)
TN
1a
100-1000-Fold
Y93N (>99%)
TN
1a
Y93C (8.65%)
TN
1a
Y93H (63.83%)
TN
1b
sofosbuvir+
ribavirin
8 weeks
Q30R (71.06%) Q30H
(28.84%) Y93H (24.58%)
ledipasvir/
L31M (>99%)
sofosbuvir+
ribavirin
Y93H (1.20%)
12 weeks
ledipasvir/
sofosbuvir+
>1000-Fold
>1000-Fold
TN
1a
>1000-Fold
TE
1a
100-1000-Fold
TE
1a
>1000-Fold
TE
1a
100-1000-Fold
D
K24R (1.06%) Q30R (2.61%)
>1000-Fold
M
AN
US
C
ledipasvir/
RI
PT
24 weeks
ribavirin
TE
24 weeksa
GT, genotype; RAS, resistance-associated substitution; SRV12, sustained virologic response 12 weeks
EP
after treatment. TN, treatment naïve. TE, treatment experienced.
AC
C
a Patient experienced breakthrough due to documented noncompliance during the dosing period
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 2. SVR Rates in Patients with Baseline NS5B NI or NS3 PI RASs
Patients with Baseline NS5B NI RASs
Genotype
No. of Patients
with RASs (%)
SVR12 for Patients
with RASs (%)
L159F (NI)
GT1b (n=36)
36/1692 (2.1%)
36/36 (100)
N142T (NI)
GT1b (n=4), GT1a (n=1)
5/1692 (0.3%)
5/5 (100)
S282Ga
GT1a (n=1)
1/1692 (0.1%)
L320Sa
GT1a (n=1)
M
AN
US
C
Total RASs
RI
PT
NS5B RASs
GT1b (n=40), GT1a (n=3)
1/1 (100)
1/1692 (0.1%)
1/1 (100)
43/1692 (2.5%)
43/43 (100)
No. of Patients
b
with PI RASs
(%)
SVR12 for Patients
with PI RASs
(%)
pegylated interferon
+ribavirin+protease
inhibitor
141/265 (53.2%)
D
Patients with Baseline NS3 PI RASs
pegylated interferon
+ribavirin
23/202 (11.4%)
21/22 (95.5%)
110/265c (41.5%)
107/110 (97.3%)
93/202d (46.0%)
90/93 (96.8%)
EP
TE
139/141 (98.6%)
(%)
SVR12 for
Patients with Q80
Variants (%)
AC
C
Prior Treatment
No. of Patients with
Q80 Variants
GT, genotype; NI, nucleotide inhibitor; RAS, resistance-associated substitution; SVR12,
sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment.
Variant analyses were conducted at 1% cutoff
a
b
Substitutions observed at RAS sites.
RASs associated with resistance to protease inhibitors observed at baseline at positions V36,
T54, V55, R155, A156, D168, I/V170, and M175L of the NS3 protease gene.
c
Of the 110 patients with Q80 substitutions, 57 had a Q80 substitution and another NS3 RAS.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
EP
TE
D
M
AN
US
C
RI
PT
Of the 93 patients with Q80 substitutions, 8 had a Q80 substitution and another NS3 RAS
AC
C
d
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
98.6
98.3
96.5
98.4
93.5
M
AN
U
92.3
80
TE
D
60
EP
40
20
AC
C
SVR 12 (%)
100
p-value < 0.001
SC
p-value = 0.7
p-value < 0.001
RI
PT
1% cutoff
1306/1329
0
no RASs
GT 1a
227/246
433/439
83/86
1741/1770
316/338
RASs
no RASs
RASs
no RASs
RASs
GT 1b
LDV/SOF ± RBV for 6, 8, 12 or 24 weeks
Overall GT 1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
98.7
98.0
90.0
80
91.7
TE
D
60
EP
40
20
AC
C
SVR 12 (%)
98.2
94.7
M
AN
U
100
p-value < 0.001
SC
p-value = 0.063
p-value <0.001
RI
PT
15% cutoff
1416/1445
0
no RASs
GT 1a
117/130
462/468
54/57
1880/1915
177/193
RASs
no RASs
RASs
no RASs
RASs
GT 1b
LDV/SOF ± RBV for 6, 8, 12 or 24 weeks
Overall GT 1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
RI
PT
Treatment-naïve Patients
p-value = 0.066
100
100.0
82.8
M
AN
U
p-value = 0.011
100.0
96.4
100.0
96.2
99.4
TE
D
99.5
p-value = 0.24
EP
60
40
20
12/12
AC
C
SVR 12 (%)
80
95.7
Baseline NS5A RASs <100-fold
Baseline NS5A RASs >100-fold
No NS5A RASs at Baseline
24/29 185/192
28/28
45/47 363/365
8/8
25/26 179/180
0
8 Weeks LDV/SOF
12 Weeks LDV/SOF
24 Weeks LDV/SOF
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RI
PT
Treatment-experienced Patients
100.0
SC
M
AN
U
p-value < 0.001
100
97.4
64.7
p-value 1.0
100.0
100.0
7/7
6/6
95/95
TE
D
100.0
EP
60
40
20
4/4
AC
C
SVR 12 (%)
80
Baseline NS5A RASs <100-fold
Baseline NS5A RASs >100-fold
No NS5A RASs at Baseline
11/17
113/116
0
12 Weeks LDV/SOF
24 Weeks LDV/SOF
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
p-value = 0.53
100
82.8
M
AN
U
95.7 100.0
p-value = 0.42
82.1
LDV/SOF+RBV
p-value = 1.0
100.0
91.7
81.8
64.7
TE
D
80
LDV/SOF
EP
60
40
AC
C
SVR 12 in patients with >100-fold RASs (%)
p-value = 1.0
SC
RI
PT
Patients with Highly Resistant NS5A RASs (LDV/SOF with and without RBV)
20
24/29
23/28
45/47
27/27
11/17
9/11
6/6
11/12*
0
8 Weeks
12 Weeks
Treatment-Naïve
12 Weeks
24 Weeks
Treatment-Experienced
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16.7
M
AN
U
16
14
12.4
12
10.5
10
9.0
8.5
D
8
TE
6
2
0
1% cutoff
EP
4
AC
C
Patients with NS5A RASs (%)
18
SC
20
5% cutoff
10% cutoff
15% cutoff
20% cutoff
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
M
AN
U
4
3
1 percent cutoff
5 percent cutoff
10 percent cutoff
15 percent cutoff
D
2
20 percent cutoff
TE
0
Q30H K24R L31M M28T Y93H
Q30R Y93N
EP
1
Y93C
AC
C
Percent of Patients with NS5A RASs
5
Q30L M28A H58D
Y93F
L31V
K24G
Q30S
Q30T
Q30E
Q30Y
Y93S
Q30I
Y93T
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
M
AN
U
10
8
1 percent cutoff
5 percent cutoff
10 percent cutoff
15 percent cutoff
D
6
20 percent cutoff
TE
4
0
Y93H
EP
2
L31M
AC
C
Percent of Patients with NS5A RASs
12
L31I
Y93F
Y93S
L31F
L31V
P32L
Y93C
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
SC
M
AN
U
Percent of GT 1a Patients in US (n=1238)
15
Percent GT 1a Patients in EU (n=206)
D
10
TE
5
EP
0
AC
C
Number of Patients with RASs (%)
20
RI
PT
SC
20
M
AN
U
Percent of GT 1b Patients in US (n=356)
15
Percent GT 1b Patients in EU (n=140)
D
10
EP
0
TE
5
AC
C
Number of Patients with RASs (%)
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1% cutoff
p-value = 1.0 p-value = 0.69
p-value = 1.0
p-value = 0.7 p-value = 1.0
100 100
100
90.0
86.7
84.6
80.0
83.3
82.6
p-value = 1.0
p-value = 0.6
100 100
93.3
88.2
80.0
75.0
TE
D
60
EP
40
20
35/35 9/9
0
K24R
AC
C
SVR 12 (%)
80
87.9
M
AN
U
87.5
SC
p-value = 1.0
15% cutoff
14/16 9/10
M28T
22/26 12/15
13/15 5/6
29/33 19/23
Q30H
Q30R
L31M
12/15 6/8
Y93H
GT 1a
3.7-fold
61-fold
>100-fold
>100-fold >100-fold >1000-fold
9/9
9/9
31/33 15/17
L31M
Y93H
GT 1b
3.4-fold
>1000-fold
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
RI
PT
18
16
SC
12
10
8
6
D
4.9
no RASs
84.2%
13/268
AC
C
0
EP
1.6
28/1786
Prevalence:
TE
4
2
10.2
M
AN
U
Relapse Rate (%)
14
15.8
5/49
1 RAS
2 RASs
Number of NS5A RASs at Baseline
12.6%
2.3%
3/19
≥ 3 RASs
0.9%
10
8
M 2 8 A /T
10
6
10
5
10
4
M
AN
U
7
Y 9 3 C /F /H /N /S /T
EP
M 28T
L30R
Q 30E
Q 30H
Q 30I
Q 30L
Q 30R
Q 30S
Q 30T
Q 30Y
L31I
L31M
L31V
Y93C
Y93F
Y93H
Y93S
Y93T
S
V
R
F
V
R
V
V
F
S
S
V
R
F
V
R
V
S
K24G
K 24R
M 28A
Y93N
AC
C
F
V
R
V
2
S
10
F
3
V
10
TE
D
10
L 3 1 I /M / V
Q 3 0 E /H /I/L /R /S /T /Y
SC
K 2 4 G /R
R A S IU /m L
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
Supplementary Figure 1. SVR12 for Patients Treated with Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir with
NS5A RASs by Deep Sequencing Cutoffs. Substitution analyses were conducted on deep
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
US
C
RI
PT
sequencing data (population sequences were not included).
89.8
91.9
88.0
80
60
88.6
TE
D
40
158/172
0
EP
20
AC
C
SVR 12 (%)
87.1
M
AN
U
100
SC
RI
PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1% cutoff
115/128
5% cutoff
95/108
81/93
78/88
10% cutoff
15% cutoff
20% cutoff