Antiviral Articles

Process Chemistry in Antiviral Research.

Journal: Topics in current chemistry (Cham)Juli/19/2017
This article reviews antiviral therapies that have been approved for human use during the last decade, with a focus on the process chemistry that enabled access to these important drugs. In particular, process chemistry highlights from the practical syntheses of the HCV drugs sofosbuvir (Gilead), grazoprevir (Merck), and elbasvir (Merck), the HIV therapy darunavir (Tibotec) and the influenza treatment peramivir (BioCryst) are presented.
Yong-Li Zhong; Nobuyoshi Yasuda; Hongming Li; Mark McLaughlin; David Tschaen

Prevalence of etravirine (ETR)-RAMs at NNRTI failure and predictors of resistance to ETR in a large Italian resistance database (ARCA).

Journal: Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious DiseasesJuli/13/2014
The prevalence of drug resistance associated with the failure of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens and the predictors of resistance to Etravirine (ETR) were assessed in 2854 subjects: 39 < 18 (paediatric) and 2815 ≥ 18 (adult) years old. These subjects failed to respond to their current NNRTI treatment, were three-class experienced and had been exposed to NNRTI for ≥3 months. A total of 1827 adult (64.9%) and 32 paediatric subjects (82.1%) harboured the virus with at least one ETR mutation. V179I, Y181C and G190A were the most frequent mutations in both groups. A significantly increased risk of ETR resistance with all three algorithms (Monogram (MGR) >3, Tibotec (TBT) >2 and enhanced MGR (ENH) ≥4) emerged in the paediatric population. Multivariate analysis revealed an increased risk of developing TBT >2 for NNRTI exposure, ENH ≥4 for NNRTI and EFV exposure in paediatric subjects; NVP exposure and higher (≥3.5 log10) HIV-RNA values for all three algorithms in adult subjects, whereas CD4 ≥ 200/μL appeared to be protective. The risk of being ETR resistant was more than doubled for paediatric vs. adult subjects, probably due to a more extensive use of NNRTI and an incomplete virological control.
S Rusconi; F Adorni; B Bruzzone; A Di Biagio; G Meini; A Callegaro+10 authors

Similar predictions of etravirine sensitivity regardless of genotypic testing method used: comparison of available scoring systems.

Journal: Antiviral therapyJuni/9/2013
The aims of this study were to compare various genotypic scoring systems commonly used to predict virological outcome to etravirine, and examine their concordance with etravirine phenotypic susceptibility.
Six etravirine genotypic scoring systems were assessed: Tibotec 2010 (based on 20 mutations; TBT 20), Monogram, Stanford HIVdb, ANRS, Rega (based on 37, 30, 27 and 49 mutations, respectively) and virco(®)TYPE HIV-1 (predicted fold change based on genotype). Samples from treatment-experienced patients who participated in the DUET trials and with both genotypic and phenotypic data (n=403) were assessed using each scoring system. Results were retrospectively correlated with virological response in DUET. κ coefficients were calculated to estimate the degree of correlation between the different scoring systems.
Correlation between the five scoring systems and the TBT 20 system was approximately 90%. Virological response by etravirine susceptibility was comparable regardless of which scoring system was utilized, with 70-74% of DUET patients determined as susceptible to etravirine by the different scoring systems achieving plasma viral load <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml. In samples classed as phenotypically susceptible to etravirine (fold change in 50% effective concentration ≤3), correlations with genotypic score were consistently high across scoring systems (≥70%).
In general, the etravirine genotypic scoring systems produced similar results, and genotype-phenotype concordance was high. As such, phenotypic interpretations, and in their absence all genotypic scoring systems investigated, may be used to reliably predict the activity of etravirine.
Johan Vingerhoets; Steven Nijs; Lotke Tambuyzer; Annemie Hoogstoel; David Anderson; Gaston Picchio

TMC435 for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C.

Journal: Expert opinion on investigational drugsNovember/19/2012
Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) virus infection affects more than 170 million people globally. The aim of treatment of CHC is to effect sustained elimination of the virus (a sustained virological response, SVR). Prior to the development of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents, the standard of care (SOC) for CHC comprised combined treatment with pegylated interferon (PegIFN) and ribavirin (RBV).
TMC435 (Tibotec pharmaceuticals) is a macrocyclic non-covalent NS3/NS4A protease inhibitor (DAA) that is currently in Phase III clinical development. TMC435 is being developed in treatment regimens both with and without PegIFN and RBV. In Phase IIb clinical trials, the addition of TMC435 to current SOC significantly increased the SVR rate in both treatment-naive and experienced patients with CHC. It differs, however, from the other first-generation protease inhibitors in that it is administered once daily, has a different tolerability and resistance profile and has activity against CHC genotypes 1 – 6 with the exception of genotype 3. Furthermore, the addition of TMC435 to PegIFN/RBV appears to be able to significantly shorten treatment duration in the majority of patients. This article will review the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, safety and efficacy of TMC435 by evaluating the preclinical and clinical studies to date.
TMC435 is a ‘second-wave’ protease inhibitor that has the potential to play a pivotal role in the next phase of CHC treatment. The forthcoming results of Phase III trials involving TMC435 are awaited with interest.
Sudeep Tanwar; Paul M Trembling; Geoffrey M Dusheiko

Short communication prevalence of susceptibility to etravirine by genotype and phenotype in samples received for routine HIV type 1 resistance testing in the United States.

Journal: AIDS research and human retrovirusesFebruar/22/2012
Abstract The prevalence of susceptibility to etravirine was investigated among clinical samples submitted for routine clinical testing in the United States using two separate weighted genotypic scoring systems. The presence of etravirine mutations and susceptibility to etravirine by phenotype of clinical samples from HIV-1-infected patients, submitted to Monogram Biosciences for routine resistance testing between June 2008 and June 2009, were analyzed. Susceptibility by genotype was determined using the Monogram and Tibotec etravirine-weighted genotypic scoring systems, with scores of ≤3 and ≤2, respectively, indicating full susceptibility. Susceptibility by phenotype was determined using the PhenoSense HIV assay, with lower and higher clinical cut-offs of 2.9 and 10, respectively. The frequency of individual etravirine mutations and the impact of the K103N mutation on susceptibility to etravirine by genotype were also determined. Among the 5482 samples with ≥1 defined nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) mutations associated with resistance, 67% were classed as susceptible to etravirine by genotype by both scoring systems. Susceptibility to etravirine by phenotype was higher (76%). The proportion of first-generation NNRTI-resistant samples with (n=3598) and without (n=1884) K103N with susceptibility to etravirine by genotype was 77% and 49%, respectively. Among samples susceptible to first-generation NNRTIs (n=9458), >99% of samples were susceptible to etravirine by phenotype (FC <2.9); the remaining samples had FC ≥2.9-10. In summary, among samples submitted for routine clinical testing in the United States, a high proportion of samples with first-generation NNRTI resistance was susceptible to etravirine by genotype and phenotype. A higher proportion of NNRTI-resistant samples with K103N than without was susceptible to etravirine.
Gaston Picchio; Johan Vingerhoets; Lotke Tambuyzer; Eoin Coakley; Mojgan Haddad; James Witek

Response-guided telaprevir combination treatment for hepatitis C virus infection.
Download PDF

Journal: The New England journal of medicineSeptember/26/2011
Patients with chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 often need 48 weeks of peginterferon-ribavirin treatment for a sustained virologic response. We designed a noninferiority trial (noninferiority margin, -10.5%) to compare rates of sustained virologic response among patients receiving two treatment durations.
We enrolled patients with chronic infection with HCV genotype 1 who had not previously received treatment. All patients received telaprevir at a dose of 750 mg every 8 hours, peginterferon alfa-2a at a dose of 180 μg per week, and ribavirin at a dose of 1000 to 1200 mg per day, for 12 weeks (T12PR12), followed by peginterferon-ribavirin. Patients who had an extended rapid virologic response (undetectable HCV RNA levels at weeks 4 and 12) were randomly assigned after week 20 to receive the dual therapy for 4 more weeks (T12PR24) or 28 more weeks (T12PR48). Patients without an extended rapid virologic response were assigned to T12PR48.
Of the 540 patients, a total of 352 (65%) had an extended rapid virologic response. The overall rate of sustained virologic response was 72%. Among the 322 patients with an extended rapid virologic response who were randomly assigned to a study group, 149 (92%) in the T12PR24 group and 140 (88%) in the T12PR48 group had a sustained virologic response (absolute difference, 4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2 to 11), establishing noninferiority. Adverse events included rash (in 37% of patients, severe in 5%) and anemia (in 39%, severe in 6%). Discontinuation of all the study drugs was based on adverse events in 18% of patients overall, as well as in 1% of patients (all of whom were randomly assigned) in the T12PR24 group and 12% of the patients randomly assigned to the T12PR48 group (P<0.001).
In this study, among patients with chronic HCV infection who had not received treatment previously, a regimen of peginterferon-ribavirin for 24 weeks, with telaprevir for the first 12 weeks, was noninferior to the same regimen for 48 weeks in patients with undetectable HCV RNA at weeks 4 and 12, with an extended rapid virologic response achieved in nearly two thirds of patients. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and Tibotec; ILLUMINATE number, NCT00758043.).
Kenneth E Sherman; Steven L Flamm; Nezam H Afdhal; David R Nelson; Mark S Sulkowski; Gregory T Everson+11 authors

Viral particles with capside
Viral particles

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz with two background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive adults infected with HIV-1 (THRIVE): a phase 3, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

Journal: Lancet (London, England)Juli/28/2011
The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), rilpivirine (TMC278; Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, County Cork, Ireland), had equivalent sustained efficacy to efavirenz in a phase 2b trial in treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1, but fewer adverse events. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of rilpivirine to efavirenz in a phase 3 trial with common background nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs).
We undertook a 96-week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, non-inferiority trial in 98 hospitals or medical centres in 21 countries. We enrolled adults (≥18 years) not previously given antiretroviral therapy and with a screening plasma viral load of 5000 copies per mL or more and viral sensitivity to background N(t)RTIs. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) using a computer-generated interactive web-response system to receive oral rilpivirine 25 mg once daily or efavirenz 600 mg once daily; all patients received an investigator-selected regimen of background N(t)RTIs (tenofovir-disoproxil-fumarate plus emtricitabine, zidovudine plus lamivudine, or abacavir plus lamivudine). The primary outcome was non-inferiority (12% margin on logistic regression analysis) at 48 weeks in terms of confirmed response (viral load <50 copies per mL, defined by the intent-to-treat time to loss of virologic response [TLOVR] algorithm) in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with, number NCT00543725.
From May 22, 2008, we screened 947 patients and enrolled 340 to each group. 86% of patients (291 of 340) who received at least one dose of rilpivirine responded, compared with 82% of patients (276 of 338) who received at least one dose of efavirenz (difference 3.5% [95% CI -1.7 to 8.8]; p(non-inferiority)<0.0001). Increases in CD4 cell counts were much the same between groups. 7% of patients (24 of 340) receiving rilpivirine had a virological failure compared with 5% of patients (18 of 338) receiving efavirenz. 4% of patients (15) in the rilpivirine group and 7% (25) in the efavirenz group discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Grade 2-4 treatment-related adverse events were less common with rilpivirine (16% [54 patients]) than they were with efavirenz (31% [104]; p<0.0001), as were rash and dizziness (p<0.0001 for both) and increases in lipid levels were significantly lower with rilpivirine than they were with efavirenz (p<0.0001).
Despite a slightly increased incidence of virological failures, a favourable safety profile and non-inferior efficacy compared with efavirenz means that rilpivirine could be a new treatment option for treatment-naive patients infected with HIV-1.
Calvin J Cohen; Jaime Andrade-Villanueva; Bonaventura Clotet; Jan Fourie; Margaret A Johnson; Kiat Ruxrungtham