4.6 Article

Hepatitis C Virus Variants with Decreased Sensitivity to Direct-Acting Antivirals (DAAs) Were Rarely Observed in DAA-Naive Patients prior to Treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
卷 87, 期 3, 页码 1544-1553

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.02294-12

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Incorporated
  2. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prevalence of naturally occurring hepatitis C virus (HCV) variants that are less sensitive to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) inhibitors has not been fully characterized. We used population sequence analysis to assess the frequency of such variants in plasma samples from 3,447 DAA-naive patients with genotype 1 HCV. In general, HCV variants with lower-level resistance (3- to 25-fold increased 50% inhibitor concentration [IC50]) to telaprevir were observed as the dominant species in 0 to 3% of patients, depending on the specific variant, whereas higher-level resistant variants (>25-fold-increased IC50) were not observed. Specific variants resistant to NS5A inhibitors were predominant in up to 6% of patients. Most variants resistant to nucleo(s/t)ide active-site NS5B polymerase inhibitors were not observed, whereas variants resistant to non-nucleoside allosteric inhibitors were observed in up to 18% of patients. The presence of DAA-resistant variants in NS5A, NS5B, or NS3 (including telaprevir-resistant variants), in baseline samples of treatment-naive patients receiving a telaprevir-based regimen in phase 3 studies did not affect the sustained viral response (SVR). Treatment-naive patients with viral populations containing the telaprevir-resistant variants NS3 V36M, T54S, or R155K at baseline achieved a 74% SVR rate, whereas patients with no resistant variants detected prior to treatment achieved a 76% SVR rate. The effect of specific resistant variant frequency on response to various DAA treatments in different patient populations, including interferon nonresponders, should be further studied.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据