CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257.
Advertisements

Phase 2 of new ARVs TAF (TFV prodrug) - Study Study
Phase 2 of new ARVs BMS , prodrug of BMS (attachment inhibitor) - AI Study.
Comparison of RTV vs Cobi  GS-US Gallant JE. JID 2013;208:32-9 GS-US  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of COBI compared with RTV.
Phase 2 of new ARVs  Fostemsavir, prodrug of temsavir (attachment inhibitor) –AI Study  TAF (TFV prodrug) –Study –Study  Doravirine.
Comparison of INSTI vs PI  FLAMINGO  GS  ACTG A5257  WAVES.
Randomisation* 2 : 1 Double blind *Randomisation was stratified on genotype (1a or 1b or other) and IL28B genotype (CC, CT or TT) N = 133 N = 260 W24W48.
Placebo + PR W48 Placebo + PR Yes Hezode C. Gut 2015;64: COMMAND-1 COMMAND-1 Study: daclatasvir + PEG-IFN + RBV for genotype 1 or 4 DCV60 + PEG-IFN.
W24 ≥ 18 years Chronic HCV infection Genotype 1 Treatment naïve Early fibrosis to compensated cirrhosis No HBV or HIV co-infection N = 10 SOF + weight-based.
No randomization N = 59 W12W24 Arm B : compensated cirrhosis N = 31 N = 29 Arm C : compensated cirrhosis Arm A : No cirrhosis AGATE-II Study: OBV/PTV/r.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
 Objective –SVR 12 (HCV RNA < 25 IU/ml), with 95% CI, next observation carried backward DCV + SOF + RBV Randomised* 1:1 Open-label ALLY-3+ study: DCV.
Comparison of RTV vs Cobi  GS-US Gallant JE. JID 2013;208:32-9 GS-US  Design  Objective –Non inferiority of COBI compared with RTV.
 Design Randomisation* 2 : 1 Double blind *Randomisation was stratified on genotype (1a vs 1b) and ILB28 genotype (CC or non-CC) N = 134 N = 257 W24W48.
Pentoxifylline Improves Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis : A Randomized Placebo - Controlled Trial Claudia O. Zein, Lisa M. Yerian, Prema Gogate, Rocio Lopez,
 Objective –SVR 12 (HCV RNA < 25 IU/ml), by ITT OBV/PTV/r + SOF + RBV OBV/PTV/r + SOF Not randomised Open-label QUARTZ-II Study: OBV/PTV/r + SOF for HCV.
No cirrhosis or compensated cirrhosis * No HBV or HIV coinfection
Kris V. Kowdley, Patricia Belt, Laura A. Wilson, Matthew M. Yeh, Brent A. Neuschwander-Tetri, Naga Chalasani, Arun J. Sanyal, and James E. Nelson ; for.
ARV-trial.com RUBY-II Study: ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir + dasabuvir for HCV genotype 1a or 4 with severe renal impairment Design Open label W12.
Switch from TDF to TAF GS-US Study GS-US Study
Design Randomisation 1 : 1 Double-blind W8 W12
Switch to INSTI + NNRTI Switch to DTG + RPV SWORD Study
Design Single arm Open label W12 ≥ 18 years, HCV genotype 1 to 6
No HBV or HIV co-infection
TOPAZ-II Study: OBV/PTV/r + DSV + RBV for genotype 1
Design No randomisation Open-label W12 W years HCV genotype 1
ARV-trial.com Switch to RPV/FTC/TAF Studies 1216 and
> 18 years Chronic HCV infection Compensated cirrhosis **
Compensated cirrhosis No HBV or HIV co-infection
Design Randomisation 2 : 1 Double-blind W12 ≥ 18 years, HCV genotype 3
C-CORAL Study: elbasvir/grazoprevir for genotype 1, 4, 6
GEODE-II Study: OBV/PTV/r + DSV + low dose RBV in genotype 1a
GARNET Study: OBV/PTV/r + DSV 8 weeks in genotype 1b
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
No cirrhosis or compensated cirrhosis** No HBV or HIV co-infection
Creatinine clearance ≥ 50 ml/min No HBV or HIV co-infection
QUARTZ II-III : OBV/PTV/r + SOF RBV in genotype 2 or 3
Glecaprevir-Pibrentasvir in Non-Cirrhotic Genotype 2 ENDURANCE-2
Design Randomisation* 1 : 1 Double blind W12
SOF/VEL + GS-9857 in genotypes 1-6 Phase II
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Switch to BIC/FTC/TAF GS-US GS-US GS-US
Comparison of NRTI combinations
EXPEDITION-V Study: GLE/PIB in patients with renal impairment
MAGELLAN-3 Study: GLE/PIB + SOF + RBV in patients who failed GLE/PIB
No HBV or HIV co-infection
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Comparison of NRTI combinations
Comparison of INSTI vs EFV
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of INSTI – Phase 2
NGM282 in NASH: 3 mg vs 6 mg QD (phase 2)
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
ARREST Study: Phase 2b of Aramchol in NASH
Switch to INSTI + NNRTI Switch to DTG + RPV SWORD Study
Selonsertib in NASH: phase 2
NGM282 in NASH: 3 mg QD (phase 2)
GS-9674 in NASH: a phase 2 study
VK2809 in NAFLD: a phase 2 study
NGM282, NAS and fibrosis in NASH: a phase 2 study
NRTI-sparing SPARTAN PROGRESS RADAR NEAT001/ANRS 143 A VEMAN
ARV-trial.com Switch to DTG/ABC/3TC STRIIVING NEAT
ENDURANCE-4 Study: glecaprevir/pibrentasvir in genotype 4, 5 or 6
Design Randomisation * 2 : 1 Double blind W12 W16 W24 W28
ARV-trial.com CORAL-I study cohorts 3 to 6: OBV/PTV/r + DSV + RBV in transplant recipients and genotype 1 or 4 Design W12 W24 No randomisation Open-label.
Comparison of INSTI vs INSTI
Glecaprevir-Pibrentasvir in Non-Cirrhotic Genotype 2 ENDURANCE-2
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
Presentation transcript:

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Design Randomisation * 2:1:1 Double-blind Year 1 Year 2 Adults NASH (liver biopsy) + NAS ** ≥ 4 (≥ 1 in each component) + Liver fibrosis (NASH CRN stages 1 to 3) + ≥ 1 of the following: diabetes mellitus, BMI > 25 kg/m2 + ≥ 1 component of metabolic syndrome, bridging fibrosis (NASH CRN stage 3), NAS ≥ 5 CVC 150 mg N = 289 Placebo CVC 150 mg Placebo Placebo ** NAS (NAFLD Activity Score): steatosis (0 to 3), lobular inflammation (0 to 3), ballooning (0 to 2) * Randomisation was stratified by NAS (4 or ≥ 5) and fibrosis stage (≤ 2 or > 2) Cenicriviroc: oral dual antagonist of CCR-2 and CCR-5 Objective Primary: hepatic histologic improvement at year 1 (≥ 2 point in NAS with ≥ 1 point in lobular inflammation or ballooning) with no worsening of fibrosis ; superiority of CVC vs placebo, 80% power Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Friedman SL, Hepatology 2018;67:1754-67, Ratziu, EASL 2018, Abs. GS-002

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Baseline characteristics and disposition CVC, N = 145 Placebo, N = 144 Mean age, years 55 54 Female 50% 55% Mean BMI, kg/m2 33.6 34.1 Diabetes mellitus 57% 44% ≥ 3 criteria of metabolic syndrome, % 72 Liver histology NASH CRN fibrosis stage 1 / 2 / 3 NAS Mean ≥ 5, % Mean steatosis Mean lobular inflammation Mean ballooning 32% / 29% / 39% 5.3 73.1% 1.4 2.4 1.5 33% / 28% / 38% 5.4 75.0% Discontinued before end of Year 1, N For adverse event Withdrew consent 20 9 10 18 8 7 Entered Year 2 of the study, N Early withdrawal, N / for adverse event, N 121 12 / 5 CVC = 61 2 /1 PCB = 60 2 /0 Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Friedman SL, Hepatology 2018;67:1754-67, Ratziu, EASL 2018, Abs. GS-002

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Primary endpoint at Year 1: improvement in NAS and no worsening of fibrosis, ITTm 10 20 30 40 50 15.9 18.8 OR = 0.82 (0.44 - 1.52) p = 0.52 CVC N = 145 Placebo N = 144 % Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Friedman SL, Hepatology 2018;67:1754-67

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Key secondary endpoint at Year 1: improvement in fibrosis by ≥ 1 stage and no worsening of steato-hepatitis by baseline characteristics All patients By NAS 10 20 30 21.6 18.8 p = 0.77 OR = 1.2 (0.37 ; 3.9) 23.6 9.6 p = 0.013 OR = 2.92 (1.26 ; 6.78) 37 32 89 94 NAS = 4 NAS > 5 N = % 10 20 30 10.4 OR = 2.20 (1.11 ; 4.35) p = 0.023 % CVC Placebo By Fibrosis stage (NASH CRN) By ballooning grade 13.6 4.8 p = 0.175 OR = 3.16 (0.6 ; 16.62) 22.9 8.8 p = 0.123 OR = 3.06 (0.74 ; 12.71) 31.9 20 p = 0.183 OR = 1.88 (0.74 ; 4.73) 28 15.5 p = 0.049 OR = 2.2 (1.0 ; 4.7) 44 Stage 1 10 30 40 N = 42 35 34 47 50 82 84 Stage 2 Stage 3 Pooled stage 2 and 3 % 17.7 15.8 p = 0.78 OR = 1.15 (0.44 ; 3.02) 28.1 8.7 p = 0.0056 OR = 4.1 (1.51 ; 11.2) 62 57 64 69 Grade 1 Grade 2 10 20 30 40 N = % Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Friedman SL, Hepatology 2018;67:1754-67

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Improvement in fibrosis by ≥ 1 stage and no worsening of steato-hepatitis 15/126 (12%) 6/32 (19%) 9/94 (10%) 2/42 (5%) 3/34 (9%) 10/50 (20%) 9/57 (16%) 6/69 (9%) 7/61 (12%) 10/81 (12%) 4/41 (10%) 5/45 (11%) 4/28 (14%) 3/19 (16%) 5/69 (7%) 10/57 (18%) 29/126 (23%) 8/37 (22%) 21/89 (24%) 6/44 (14%) 8/35 (23%) 15/47 (32%) 11/62 (18%) 18/64 (28%) 17/66 (26%) 11/54 (20%) 8/31 (26%) 7/32 (22%) 8/51 (16%) 6/22 (27%) 7/19 (37%) 15/52 (23%) 17/74 (23%) Overall mITT population NAS = 4 NAS > 5 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Grade 1 (few ballon cells) Grade 2 (prominent ballooning) Grade 2 (2-4 foci/200x) Grade 3 (> 4 foci/200x) Grade 1 (5-33 %) Grade 2 (> 33-66 %) < 30 kg/m² > 30 - < 35 kg/m² > 35 - < 40 kg/m² > 40 kg/m² Not present Present NAS Fibrosis stage (NASH CRN) Hepatocellular ballooning Lobular inflammation Steatosis BMI Type 2 diabetes status Favors placebo Favors CVC Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Friedman SL, Hepatology 2018;67:1754-67

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Change in liver biopsy at year 1 (IPP population) CVC N = 123 Placebo Improved No change Worsened Steatosis 19.5 74.0 6.5 25.2 61.8 13.0 Lobular inflammation 31.7 43.9 24.4 27.6 49.6 22.8 Ballooning 26.8 54.5 18.7 35.0 50.4 14.6 Biomarkers of inflammation Marked reductions in circulating biomarkers of systemic inflammation (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-8, fibrinogen, and IL-1ß) and of monocyte activation (sCD14) were observed with CVC (vs placebo). Persistence of systmeic anti-inflamamtory activity at Year 2, without no metabolic disturbances Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Friedman SL, Hepatology 2018;67:1754-67, Ratziu, EASL 2018, Abs. GS-002

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Main outcomes at Year 2 Improvement in fibrosis (≥ 1 stage) Improvement in fibrosis (≥ 1 or ≥ 2 stages) and no worsening of NASH Maintenance of antifibrotic response from Year 1 to Year 2 (groups with 2 years CVC vs 2 years of placebo) Effects of 2 years of CVC treatment (groups with 2 years CVC vs 2 years of placebo) Effects of 1 year of CVC treatment (immediate or deferred CVC vs placebo) Safety and tolerability of CVC vs placebo during Year 2 Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Ratziu, EASL 2018, Abs. GS-002

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Antifibrotic response at year 2, ITTm CVC Placebo 10 20 30 40 N evaluable = N enrolled = 26 22 p = 0.63 15 17 p = 0.94 11 3 p = 0.13 99 145 54 72 65 86 34 50 Stage 2 or 3 % Improvement in fibrosis by ≥ 1 stage and no worsening of NASH fibrosis by ≥ 2 stages Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Ratziu, EASL 2018, Abs. GS-002

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities, % CVC 1st year N = 144 Placebo 1st year N = 145 CVC 2nd year N = 182 Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse event 8.3 6.3 12.1 Serious adverse event 11.1 6.9 NA Discontinuation for adverse event 2.7 Most common adverse events of grade ≥ 2 Fatigue Diarrhea Headache ALT increase ≥ grade 2 2.8 2.1 1.4 0.7 3.5 7.1 Grade 3-4 laboratory abnormalities Fasting serum glucose > 250 mg/dL ALT > 5 x ULN AST > 5 x ULN Triglycerides grade 3 / grade 4 Gamma-GT grade 3 / grade 4 Creatine kinase grade 3 / grade 4 Uric acid grade 3 / grade 4 Amylase > 2-5 x ULN Phosphorus < 2-1 mg/dL Absolute neutrophil grade 3 / grade 4 11.9 11.8 4.9 3.5 / 2.1 5.6 / 0.7 4.2 / 1.4 6.3 / 7.6 4.2 1.4 / 1.4 9.2 4.9 / 2.1 4.2 / 0.7 4.9 / 1.4 6.3 / 4.2 0.7 2.1 / 0.7 Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Friedman SL, Hepatology 2018;67:1754-67, Ratziu, EASL 2018, Abs. GS-002

CENTAUR Study: cenicriviroc in NASH (phase 2b) Summary CVC showed a significant antifibrotic benefit at year 1 and was well tolerated Although the primary endpoint of the study was not met, the fact that the CENTAUR year 1 study results showed that CVC provided clinically meaningful benefits and resulted in twice as many subjects achieving improvement in fibrosis by 1 stage and no worsening of steato-hepatitis as compared to placebo suggests that the study did, in fact, show proof of concept, warranting phase 3 development of CVC Year 2 analyses corroborate CVC antifibrotic activity in adults with NADH and liver fibrosis Effect more pronounced in stage 3 fibrosis Cenicriviroc - Phase 2b Friedman SL, Hepatology 2018;67:1754-67, Ratziu, EASL 2018, Abs. GS-002