Bulevirtide 2mg powder for solution for injection vials

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of seven major interventions [Bulevirtide (BLV), Interferon (IFN), Nucleoside analogs (NAs), BLV + IFN, BLV + NAs, IFN + NAs, and Placebo] to treat chronic hepatitis D.MethodsWe followed PRISMA-NMA guidelines, searched databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web Of Science) for eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and applied STATA17.0 software to execute the meta-analysis.ResultsWe included 14 randomized controlled trials (814 patients) comparing seven different interventions. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that: ① Sustained virological response (after 24 weeks of follow-up): Four intervention groups (BLV + IFN, IFN alone, IFN + NAs, and NAs alone) were effective (relative risk (RR) = 13.30, 95% confidence interval (Cl) [1.68,105.32], RR = 12.13, 95% Cl [1.46,101.04], RR = 5.05, 95% Cl [1.68,15.19], RR = 5.03, 95% Cl [1.66,15.20]), with no statistically significant differences between the four groups. The top three in probability rankings were: BLV + NAs, BLV + IFN, and BLV alone (surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 86.8%, 80.3%, and 48.4%; ② Sustained biochemical response (after 24 weeks of follow-up): BLV + IFN and IFN were superior to BLV (RR = 14.71, 95% Cl [1.14,189.07], RR = 16.67, 95% Cl [1.39,199.52]). The top three were BLV alone, BLV + NAs, and BLV + IFN (SUCRA = 86.9%,81.2%, and 64.3%). ③ Histological response: NAs were superior to BLV (RR = 2.08, 95% Cl [1.10,3.93]), whereas the difference between other treatment regimens was not statistically significant, and the top three in the probability ranking were BLV alone, BLV + NAs, and BLV + IFN (SUCRA = 75.6%, 75.6%, and 61.8%).ConclusionsIFN, IFN + BLV, and IFN + NAs were effective in clearing HDV RNA and normalizing alanine aminotransferase levels; however, IFN and IFN + NAs had a high rate of viral relapse at 24 weeks post-treatment follow-up. There was no additional benefit of adding NAs to IFN therapy for chronic hepatitis D; however, the combination of IFN + BLV significantly improved short-term HDV RNA clearance, which showed strong synergistic effects. The seven regimens included in the study did not contribute significantly to liver histological improvement. Therefore, the IFN + BLV combination has the most potential as a treatment option to improve the long-term prognosis or even cure chronic hepatitis D.Trial registrationThis systematic evaluation and meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO under the registration number: CRD42022314544.).

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background: Hepatitis D virus (HDV) is a defective virus requiring co-infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) to replicate, occurring in 5% of HBV+ patients. Bulevirtide (BLV) is now the first-in-class specific anti-HDV agent, inhibiting HDV binding to NTCP, with good tolerability and good virological and biochemical response rates. Currently, little is known about its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD), as well as potential drug-drug interaction (DDI) profile. In this work we provide a systematic review of the current knowledge on these aspects. Methods: A literature review of PK, PD and DDI profiles of BLV was conducted from Pubmed and EMA websites. Experimentally tested interactions and hypothetical mechanisms of interaction were evaluated, mostly focusing on usually co-administered anti-infective agents and other drugs interacting on NTCP. Results: BLV shows non-linear PK, due to target-mediated drug disposition, so its PK as well as PD is expected to be influenced by interactions of other drugs with NTCP, while it is not substrate of CYPs and ABC transporters. In-vivo investigated DDIs showed no clinically relevant interactions, but a weak inhibitory effect was suggested on CYP3A4 in a work when used at high doses (10 mg instead of 2 mg). In vitro, a weak inhibitory effect on OATP transporters was observed, but at much higher concentrations than the ones expected in vivo. Conclusions: The drug-drug interaction potential of BLV can be considered generally very low, particularly at the currently approved dose of 2 mg/day. Some attention should be paid to the coadministration of drugs with known binding and/or inhibition of NTCP.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0

BackgroundChronic hepatitis D virus (HDV) continues to be a global health concern, and the infection remains challenging to treat. Over the past few decades, pegylated interferons, typically in combination with therapy for hepatitis B, have become the standard of care, with considerable side effects and frequently unsatisfactory results. Several new therapies are emerging, including bulevirtide and lonafarnib. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of bulevirtide, interferons, and nucleos(t)ide analogs, alone or in combination, for the treatment of chronic hepatitis D.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized interventional studies assessing HDV RNA suppression, biochemical response, combined response, and histological improvement with various therapies. NMA was performed using a frequentist random-effects model. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and forest plots were generated.ResultsThirteen studies (n = 922) were included, studying nine possible treatment arms. At the end of treatment, 31.8% achieved a virological response. Bulevirtide monotherapy (OR 38.63, p p p p n = 183) was not statistically significant with any intervention compared with control.ConclusionBulevirtide and peginterferon alpha combination therapy may offer the most promising treatment for chronic hepatitis D. More studies are needed to assess the efficacy of this regimen and establish the optimum dose and duration of treatment.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Chronic hepatitis Delta (CHD) is a rare and severe form of chronic viral hepatitis. Until recently, the only therapeutic approach has been the off‐label use of a 48 weeks course of PegInterferon alpha (PegIFNα), that was characterized by suboptimal efficacy and burdened by significant side effects that limited treatment applicability in patients with advanced liver disease. In July 2020, European Medicines Agency (EMA) conditionally approved the entry inhibitor Bulevirtde (BLV) at the dose of 2 mg/day for the treatment of adult patients with compensated CHD. Efficacy and safety of BLV in CHD have been evaluated in clinical trials either as monotherapy or in combination with PegIFNα. These results were confirmed by real‐life studies, which also evaluated long‐term BLV monotherapy in patients with advanced compensated cirrhosis. Notwithstanding these promising results there are still several issues to be addressed, such as the optimal duration of the treatment, the rates of off‐therapy responses, as well as the long‐term clinical benefits. This review summarizes updated and current literature data about clinical trials and real‐life studies with BLV monotherapy and/or in combination with PegIFNα.

Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0