In Silico Evaluation of the Potential Interference of Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376 in the Binding of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein to Human Nanobody Nb20

Virtual screening can be a helpful approach to propose treatments for COVID-19 by developing inhibitors for blocking the attachment of the virus to human cells. This study uses molecular docking, recovery time and dynamics to analyze if potential inhibitors of main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2 can interfere in the attachment of nanobodies, specifically Nb20, in the receptor binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2. The potential inhibitors are four compounds previously identified in a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based enzymatic assay for the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro: Boceprevir, Calpain Inhibitor II, Calpain Inhibitor XII, and GC376. The findings reveal that Boceprevir has the higher affinity with the RBD/Nb20 complex, followed by Calpain Inhibitor XII, GC376 and Calpain Inhibitor II. The recovery time indicates that the RBD/Nb20 complex needs a relatively short time to return to what it was before the presence of the ligands. For the RMSD the Boceprevir and Calpain Inhibitor II have the shortest interaction times, while Calpain Inhibitor XII shows slightly more interaction, but with significant pose fluctuations. On the other hand, GC376 remains stably bound for a longer duration compared to the other compounds, suggesting that they can potentially interfere with the neutralization process of Nb20.

Boceprevir联合聚乙二醇干扰素α和利巴韦林治疗基因1型慢性丙型肝炎疗效及安全性Meta分析

目的系统评价Boceprevir联合聚乙二醇干扰素α和利巴韦林治疗基因1型慢性丙型肝炎的疗效及安全性。方法应用计算机检索Medline、CENTRAL和EMBASE数据库中关于Boceprevir联合聚乙二醇干扰素和利巴韦林三联疗法与聚乙二醇干扰素联合利巴韦林二联疗法治疗基因1型慢性丙型肝炎患者的随机对照试验(RCTs)。应用Rev Man 5.3软件进行Meta分析。主要结局指标为持续病毒学应答(SVR)、不良反应事件发生率,次要结局指标为快速病毒学应答(RVR)和复发率。结果纳入4个RCTs,共2211例患者。无论初治或经治患者,三联疗法均能显著提高患者SVR[初治患者:64.08%(737/1150)对42.20%(176/417),OR=0.34,95%CI(0.27,0.42),P<0.00001;经治患者:63.02%(288/457)对21.09%(31/147),OR=0.16,95%CI(0.10,0.24),P<0.00001];三联疗法复发率显著低于二联疗法[11.33%(115/1015)对24.00%(66/275),OR=2.69,95%CI(1.90,3.81),P<0.00001];在获得RVR方面,两组差异无统计学意义[72.11%(843/1169)对51.861%(265/511),OR=0.48,95%CI(0.13,1.78),P=0.28];三联疗法显示出了较高的严重贫血发生率[3.98%(64/1607)对1.46%(9/614),OR=0.33,95%CI(0.16,0.68),P=0.003]、严重不良反应发生率[10.45%(168/1607)对7.33%(45/614),OR=0.66,95%CI(0.48,0.90),P=0.01]和因不良反应事件导致停药的发生率[12.49%(109/873)对5.18%(13/251),OR=0.37,95%CI(0.20,0.67),P=0.001]。结论 Boceprevir联合聚乙二醇干扰素和利巴韦林能显著提高基因1型慢性丙型肝炎初治或经治患者的SVR,减少复发率,但可能增加了严重不良事件发生率。受纳入研究的数量限制,上述结论尚待开展更多高质量研究加以验证。

Boceprevir or telaprevir in hepatitis C virus chronic infection:The Italian real life experience

AIM: To check the safety and efficacy of boceprevir/telaprevir with peginterferon/ribavirin for hepatitis C virus(HCV) genotype 1 in the real-world settings. METHODS: This study was a non-randomized, observational, prospective, multicenter. This study involved 47 centers in Italy. A database was prepared for the homogenous collection of the data, was used by all of the centers for data collection, and was updated continuously. All of the patients enrolled in this study were older than 18 years of age and were diagnosed with chronic infection due to HCV genotype 1. The HCV RNA testing was performed using COBAS-Taq Man2.0(Roche, LLQ 25 IU/m L). RESULTS: All consecutively treated patients were included. Forty-seven centers enrolled 834 patients as follows: Male 64%; median age 57(range 18-78), of whom 18.3% were over 65; mean body mass index 25.6(range 16-39); genotype 1b(79.4%); diagnosis of cirrhosis(38.2%); and fibrosis F3/4(71.2%). The following drugs were used: Telaprevir(66.2%) and PEG-IFN-alpha2a(67.6%). Patients were na?ve(24.4%), relapsers(30.5%), partial responders(14.8%) and null responders(30.3%). Overall, adverse events(AEs) occurred in 617 patients(73.9%) during the treatment. Anemia was the most frequent AE(52.9% of cases), especially in cirrhotic. The therapy was stopped for 14.6% of the patients because of adverse events or virological failure(15%). Sustained virological response was achieved in 62.7% of the cases, but was 43.8% in cirrhotic patients over 65 years of age. CONCLUSION: In everyday practice, triple therapy is safe but has moderate efficacy, especially for patients over 65 years of age, with advanced fibrosis, nonresponders to peginterferon + ribavirin.

Telaprevir- and boceprevir-based tritherapies in real practice for F3-F4 pretreated hepatitis C virus patients

AIM:To assess,in a routine practice setting,the sus-tained virologic response(SVR) to telaprevir(TPV) or boceprevir(BOC) in hepatitis C virus(HCV) nullresponders or relapsers with severe liver fibrosis.METHODS:One hundred twenty-five patients were treated prospectively for 48 wk with TPV or BOC + pegylated-interferon(peg-INF) α2a + ribavirin(PR) according to standard treatment schedules without randomization.These patients were treated in routine practice settings in 10 public or private health care centers,and the data were prospectively collected.Only patients with severe liver fibrosis(Metavir scores of F3 or F4 upon liver biopsy or liver stiffness assessed by elastography),genotype 1 HCV and who were null-responders or relapsers to prior PR combination therapy were included in this study.RESULTS:The Metavir fibrosis scores were F3 in 35(28%) and F4 in 90(72%) of the patients.In total,62.9% of the patients were null-responders and 37.1% relapsers to the previous PR therapy.The overall SVR rate at 24 wk post-treatment withdrawal was 59.8%.The SVR was 65.9% in the TPV group and 44.1% in the BOC group.Independent predictive factors of an SVR included a response to previous treatment,relapsers vs null-responders [OR = 3.9;(1.4,10.6),P = 0.0084],a rapid virological response(RVR) [OR 6.9(2.6,18.2),P = 0.001] and liver stiffness lower than 21.3 kPa [OR = 8.2(2.3,29.5),P = 0.001].During treatment,63 patients(50.8%) had at least one severe adverse event(SAE) of grade 3 or 4.A multivariate analysis identified two factors associated with SAEs:female gender [OR = 2.4(1.1,5.6),P = 0.037] and a platelet count below 150 × 103/ mm3 [OR = 5.3(2.3,12.4),P ≤ 0.001].CONCLUSION:More than half of these difficult-to-treat patients achieved an SVR and had SAEs in an actual practice setting.The SVR rate was influenced by the response to previous PR treatment,the RVR and liver stiffness.

Boceprevir plus peginterferon/ribavirin for treatment ofchronic hepatitis C in Russia

AIM: to evaluate addition of boceprevir to peginterferon/ribavirin(PR) in Russian patients with chronic hepatitis C virus(HCV).METHODS: treatment-naive(t N) and treatmentexperienced(t E) patients(who had failed prior treatment with PR for ≥ 12 wk) with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection were enrolled in this placebocontrolled, double-blind study. All patients initially received PR for 4 wk. Patients randomized to control treatment then received PR for an additional 44 wk. t N patients randomized to triple therapy received boceprevir(800 mg three times daily) plus PR for 24 wk and then further therapy according to treatment week 8(t W8) HCV RNA levels. t E patients received boceprevir plus PR for 32 wk and then further therapy according to t W8 HCV RNA levels. treatment was discontinued for t N patients with detectable HCV RNA at t W24 and t E patients with detectable HCV RNA at t W12 because of futility. the primary efficacy end point was sustained virologic response(SVR) defined as undetectable HCV RNA 24 wk after completing all study therapy.RESULTS: SVR was 74.8% in the boceprevir plus PR arm compared with 46.2% in the control arm, with a stratification-adjusted treatment difference of 29.2%(95%CI: 16.4-41.5; P < 0.0001). Rates of SVR were higher in the boceprevir arm in both t N and t E patient groups(t N 78.4% vs 56.3%; t E 69.4% vs 30.0%). Within t E patients, the rates of SVR were higher with boceprevir plus PR compared with PR, regardless of treatment failure type(null responder, partial responder, and relapser). Most patients receiving boceprevir plus PR in both t N(86%) and t E(71%) populations were eligible for reduced treatment duration. Anemia was increased in patients receiving boceprevir plus PR vs PR alone(47.2% vs 24.4%); there was a corresponding increase in ribavirin dose reduction and erythropoietin use. Among patients receiving boceprevir plus PR, SVR rates were similar in patients with anemia(< 10 g/d L) and those without anemia(71.2% vs 77.4%).CONCLUSION: Regulatory approval has been obtained for boceprevir plus PR in Russian patients with HCV genotype 1 infection based on the results of this study.

Factors associated with success of telaprevir-and boceprevir-based triple therapy for hepatitis C virus infection

AIM To evaluate new therapies for hepatitis C virus(HCV), data about real-world outcomes are needed.METHODS Outcomes of 223 patients with genotype 1 HCV who started telaprevir-or boceprevir-based triple therapy(May 2011-March 2012) at the Mount Sinai Medical Center were analyzed. Human immunodeficiency viruspositive patients and patients who received a liver transplant were excluded. Factors associated with sustained virological response(SVR24) and relapse were analyzed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression as well as classification and regression trees. Fast virological response(FVR) was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at week-4(telaprevir) or week-8(boceprevir). RESULTS The median age was 57 years, 18% were black, 44% had advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis(FIB-4 ≥ 3.25). Only 42%(94/223) of patients achieved SVR24 on an intention-totreat basis. In a model that included platelets, SVR24 was associated with white race [odds ratio(OR) = 5.92, 95% confidence interval(CI): 2.34-14.96], HCV sub-genotype 1b(OR = 2.81, 95%CI: 1.45-5.44), platelet count(OR = 1.10, per x 104 cells/μL, 95%CI: 1.05-1.16), and IL28 B CC genotype(OR = 3.54, 95%CI: 1.19-10.53). Platelet counts > 135 x 103/μL were the strongest predictor of SVR by classification and regression tree. Relapse occurred in 25%(27/104) of patients with an end-oftreatment response and was associated with non-FVR(OR = 4.77, 95%CI: 1.68-13.56), HCV sub-genotype 1a(OR = 5.20; 95%CI: 1.40-18.97), and FIB-4 ≥ 3.25(OR = 2.77; 95%CI: 1.07-7.22). CONCLUSION The SVR rate was 42% with telaprevir-or boceprevirbased triple therapy in real-world practice. Low platelets and advanced fibrosis were associated with treatment failure and relapse.

Telaprevir/boceprevir era: From bench to bed and back

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infects approximately 200 million people worldwide. Interferon-based therapies have dominated over the past two decades. However, the overall response rates remain suboptimal. Thanks to the tremendous effort from both academia and industry, two serine protease inhibitors telaprevir and boceprevir for treating chronic hepatitis C have finally reached the clinic. Although these compounds are only approved for combination use with interferon and ribavirin in genotype 1 HCV infected chronic patients, the management of HCV patients however is now evolving incredibly. Here, we overviewed a series of landmark studies, regarding the clinical development of telaprevir and boceprevir. We discussed the mechanism-of-action of telaprevir/boceprevir and their potential application in HCV-positive liver transplantation patients. We further emphasized some emerging concerns with perspective of further development in this field.

Boceprevir

丙型肝炎蛋白酶抑制剂Boceprevir（SCH-503034）由美国先灵葆雅（Schering-Plough）公司研发（该公司于2009年11月与默克药厂合并）。2011年5月13日美国食品药品管理局（FDA）批准该药上市,用于某些成人患者慢性丙型肝炎的治疗。该药为口服制剂，商品名为Victrelis。

抗丙型肝炎病毒药Boceprevir

慢性丙型肝炎（chronic hepatitis C，CHC）由丙型肝炎病毒（hepatitis C virus，HCV）引起，易导致肝硬化和肝癌，目前尚无预防药物，而现有治疗手段主要为注射聚乙二醇化干扰素和口服抗病毒药利巴韦林，但疗效并不很理想，基因型1型患者治疗后的持续性病毒学应答（sustained virologic response，SVR，定义为停药后24周时血液中检测不到HCVRNA）率一直低于50％。

丙型肝炎病毒直接抗病毒药物的研究进展

全球丙型肝炎病毒（Hepatitis C Virus，HCV）感染者超过1．8亿，HCV感染可导致慢性肝病、肝硬化和肝细胞癌（HCC）等疾病，已成为严重的健康问题。HCV是基因组大小9．6kb的单链RNA病毒，属黄病毒科，丙型肝炎病毒属，

Chronic hepatitis C:This and the new era of treatment

Over the last years it has started a real revolution in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. This occurred for the availability of direct-acting antiviral agents that allow to reach sustained virologic response in approximately 90% of cases. In the near future further progress will be achieved with the use of pan-genotypic drugs with high efficacy but without side effects.

Evidence-based consensus on the diagnosis, prevention and management of hepatitis C virus disease

Hepatitis C virus(HCV) is a potent human pathogen and is one of the main causes of chronic hepatitis round the world. The present review describes the evidencebased consensus on the diagnosis, prevention and management of HCV disease. Various techniques, for the detection of anti-HCV immunoglobulin G immunoassays, detection of HCV RNA by identifying virus-specific molecules nucleic acid testings, recognition of core antigen for diagnosis of HCV, quantitative antigenassay, have been used to detect HCV RNA and core antigen. Advanced technologies such as nanoparticlebased diagnostic assays, loop-mediated isothermal amplification and aptamers and Ortho trak-C assay have also come to the front that provides best detection results with greater ease and specificity for detection of HCV. It is of immense importance to prevent this infection especially among the sexual partners, injecting drug users, mother-to-infant transmission of HCV, household contact, healthcare workers and people who get tattoos and piercing on their skin. Management of this infection is intended to eradicate it out of the body of patients. Management includes examining the treatment(efficacy and protection), assessment of hepatic condition before commencing therapy, controlling the parameters upon which dual and triple therapies work, monitoring the body after treatment and adjusting the co-factors. Examining the treatment in some special groups of people(HIV/HCV co-infected, hemodialysis patients, renal transplanted patients).

Hepatitis C treatment in the elderly:New possibilities and controversies towards interferon-free regimens

Due to the progressive aging of the hepatitis C virus(HCV) population which have acquired the infection during its maximum spread after the Second World War, the management of the elderly HCV-infected patient is emerging as a hot topic. Unfortunately, although it is recognized that the progression of HCV-related liver disease gets faster with aging, and that even extrahepatic manifestations of HCV infection are probably worse in the elderly, till now, treatment attempts in this population have been significantly limited by the wellknown contraindications and side effects of interferon(IFN). The arrival of several new anti-HCV drugs, and the possibility to combine them in safe and effective anti-viral regimens, is relighting the hope of a cure for many elderly patients who had been cut out of IFN-based treatments. However, although these new regimens will be certainly more manageable, it should be underscored that IFN-free doesn't mean free from any contraindication or side-effect. Moreover, one issue which promises to become central is that of the possible interactions between antiviral therapy and the multiple drugs frequently assumed by elderly patients because of comorbidities. In this review, we will revise the epidemiology pointing to HCV as an infection of the elderly, the evidences that HCV harms the health of the aged patient more than that of the young one, and the available experiences of HCV treatment in the elderly with the "old" IFN-based regimens and with the newer drugs. We will conclude that the availability of IFNfree regimens should prompt us to change our mind and consider a significantly larger number of possible candidates among elderly patients, who would take significant advantage from viral eradication. Rather than the anagraphic age, drug-drug interactions and, mainly in case of economic restrictions, an evaluation of life expectancy dependent on liver disease with respect to that dependent on comorbidities, are likely to be the key issues guiding treatment indication in the next future. The sooner we will change our mind with respect to an a priori obstacle for anti-HCV treatment in the elderly, the sooner we will begin to spare many aged HCV patients from avoidable liver-related complications.

抗丙型肝炎病毒新药波普瑞韦和替拉瑞韦

波普瑞韦(boceprevir,BOC)和替拉瑞韦(telaprevir,TVR)均为丙型肝炎病毒NS3/4A丝氨酸蛋白酶抑制剂,用于治疗基因1型慢性丙型病毒性肝炎(chronic hepatitis C,CHC)。与现行的CHC的标准治疗方案比较,BOC或TVR联合聚乙二醇干扰素α和利巴韦林的三联疗法可大大提高初治病人的持久病毒应答率,且对既往聚乙二醇干扰素α联合利巴韦林治疗无效的病人也有较好的疗效。BOC和TVR的三联疗法比现行的标准治疗方案有更好的疗效和安全性。可以说,BOC和TVR的临床应用,使基因1型CHC的治疗进入新纪元。

基因型1型慢性丙型肝炎的新的标准治疗方案

目的:慢性丙型肝炎是严重的公共卫生问题。近年来,抗丙型肝炎病毒药物有了新的发展,相关治疗指南也有相应更新,故有必要介绍这些重要的进展。方法:进行文献检索,对抗病毒药物的研究进展进行综述。结果:已有两个直接作用的抗病毒药物即博赛泼维和特拉泼维进入临床应用,并被推荐联合聚乙二醇α-干扰素和利巴韦林作为治疗基因型1型慢性丙型肝炎的新的标准治疗方案。结论:研究提示,现有的聚乙二醇α-干扰素联合利巴韦林的标准治疗方案再联合博赛泼维或特拉泼维已成为基因型1型慢性丙型肝炎的新的标准治疗方案。

Virological response and resistance mutations to NS3/4A inhibitors in hepatitis C virus-human immunodeficiency virus coinfection

AIM: To evaluate virological response to telaprevir or boceprevir in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin and resistance mutations to NS3/4A inhibitors in hepatitis C virus-human immunodeficiency virus(HCV-HIV) coinfected patients in a real life setting. METHODS: Patients with HCV genotype 1-HIV coinfection followed in Nice University Hospital internal medicine and infectious diseases departments who initiated treatment including pegylated interferon and ribavirin(Peg IFN/RBV) + telaprevir or boceprevir, according to standard treatment protocols, between August 2011 and October 2013 entered this observational study. Patient data were extracted from an electronic database(Nadis&#174;). Liver fibrosis was measured by elastometry(Fibroscan&#174;) with the following cut-off values: F0-F1: < 7.1 k Pa, F2: 7.1-9.5 k Pa, F3: 9.5-14.5 k Pa, F4: ≥ 14.5 k Pa. The proportion of patients with sustained virological response(SVR) twelve weeks after completing treatment, frequency and type of adverse events, and NS3/4A protease inhibitor mutations were described. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were included: 13(31.7%) patients were HCV-treatment na?ve, 22(53.7%) had advanced liver fibrosis or cirrhosis(Fibroscan stage F3 and F4); none had decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma; all were receiving antiretroviral treatment, consisting for most them(83%) in either a nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor/protease inhibitor or/integrase inhibitor combination; all patients had undetectable HIV-RNA. One patient was lost to follow-up. SVR was achieved by 52.5% of patients. Five patients experienced virological failure during treatment and four relapsed. Seven discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Main adverse events included severe anemia(88%) and rash(25%). NS3/4A protease mutations were analyzed at baseline and at the time of virological failure in the 9 patients experiencing non-response, breakthrough or relapse. No baseline resistance mutation could predict resistance to HCV protease inhibitor-based treatment. CONCLUSION: Telaprevir and boceprevir retain their place among potential treatment strategies in HIVHCV coinfected patients including those with advanced compensated liver disease and who failed previous Peg IFN/RBV therapy.

Phase 3 trial of first generation protease inhibitor therapy for hepatitis C virus/human immunodeficiency virus coinfection

AIM To evaluate efficacy/safety of hepatitis C virus(HCV) protease inhibitor boceprevir with pegylated interferon(PEG-IFN) alfa and weight-based ribavirin(RBV) in a phase 3 trial. METHODS A prospective, multicenter, phase 3, open-label, singlearm study of PEG-IFN alfa, weight-based RBV, and boceprevir, with a PEG-IFN/RBV lead-in phase was performed. The HCV/human immunodeficiency virus coinfected study population included treatment na?ve(TN) and treatment experienced(TE) patients. Treatment duration ranged from 28 to 48 wk dependent upon response-guided criteria. All patients had HCV Genotype 1 with a viral load > 10000 IU/ml. Compensated cirrhosis was allowed. Sample size was determined to establish superiority to historical(PEG-IFN plus RBV) rates in sustained viral response(SVR). RESULTS A total of 257 enrolled participants were analyzed(135 TN and 122 TE). In the TN group, 81.5% were male and 54.1% were black. In the TE group, 76.2% were male and 47.5% were white. Overall SVR12 rates(HCV RNA < lower limit of quantification, target not detected, target not detected) were 35.6% in TN and 30.3% in TE. Response rates at SVR24 were 28% in TN and 10% in TE, and exceeded those in historical controls. The highest rate was observed in TN non-cirrhotic participants(36.8% and the lowest in TE cirrhotics(26.3%). Cirrhotic TN participants had a 27.8% SVR12 rate and 32.1% of TE non-cirrhotics achieved SVR12. Significantly lower response rates were observed among black participants; in the TE, SVR12 was 39.7% in white participants but only 13.2% of black subjects(P = 0.002). Among the TN, SVR12 was 42.1% among whites and 27.4% among blacks(P = 0.09). CONCLUSION The trial met its hypothesis of improved SVR compared to historical controls but overall SVR rates were low. All-oral HCV treatments will mitigate these difficulties.

Effectiveness and safety of first-generation protease inhibitors in clinical practice:Hepatitis C virus patients with advanced fibrosis

AIM:To evaluates the effectiveness and safety of the first generation,NS3/4A protease inhibitors(PIs) in clinical practice against chronic C virus,especially in patients with advanced fibrosis. METHODS:Prospective study and non-experimental analysis of a multicentre cohort of 38 Spanish hospitals that includes patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1,treatment-na?ve(TN) or treatment-experienced(TE),who underwent triple therapy with the first generation NS3/4A protease inhibitors,boceprevir(BOC) and telaprevir(TVR),in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. The patients were treatment in routine practice settings. Data on the study population and on adverse clinical and virologic effects were compiled during the treatment period and during follow up.RESULTS:One thousand and fifty seven patients were included,405(38%) were treated with BOC and 652(62%) with TVR. Of this total,30%(n = 319) were TN and the remaining were TE:28%(n = 298) relapsers,12%(n = 123) partial responders(PR),25%(n = 260) null-responders(NR) and for 5%(n = 57) with prior response unknown. The rate of sustained virologic response(SVR) by intention-to-treatment(ITT) was greater in those treated with TVR(65%) than in those treated with BOC(52%)(P < 0.0001),whereas by modified intention-to-treatment(m ITT) no were found significant differences. By degree of fibrosis,56% of patients were F4 and the highest SVR rates were recorded in the non-F4 patients,both TN and TE. In the analysis by groups,the TN patients treated with TVR by ITT showed a higher SVR(P = 0.005). However,by m ITT there were no significant differences between BOC and TVR. In the multivariate analysis by m ITT,the significant SVR factors were relapsers,IL28 B CC and non-F4; the type of treatment(BOC or TVR) was not significant. The lowest SVR values were presented by the F4-NR patients,treated with BOC(46%) or with TVR(45%). 28% of the patients interrupted the treatment,mainly by non-viral response(51%):this outcome was more frequent in the TE than in the TN patients(57% vs 40%,P = 0.01). With respect to severe haematological disorders,neutropaenia was more likely to affect the patients treated with BOC(33% vs 20%,P ≤ 0.0001),and thrombocytopaenia and anaemia,the F4 patients(P = 0.000,P = 0.025,respectively). CONCLUSION:In a real clinical practice setting with a high proportion of patients with advanced fibrosis,effectiveness of first-generation PIs was high except for NR patients,with similar SVR rates being achieved by BOC and TVR.

Grade 4 febrile neutropenia and Fournier's Syndrome associated with triple therapy for hepatitis C virus:A case report

The use of triple therapy for hepatitis C not only increases the rate of sustained virological responses compared with the use of only interferon and ribavirin(RBV) but also leads to an increased number of side effects. The subject of this study was a 53-year-old male who was cirrhotic with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 A and was a previous null non-responder. We initially attempted retreatment with boceprevir(BOC), Peginterferon and RBV, and a decrease in viral load was observed in the 8th week. In week 12, he presented with disorientation, flapping, fever, tachypnea, arterial hypotension and tachycardia. He also exhibitedleucopenia with neutropenia. Cefepime and filgrastim were initiated, and treatment for hepatitis C was suspended. A myelogram revealed hypoplasia, cytotoxicity and maturational retardation. After 48 h, he developed bilateral inguinal erythema that evolved throughout the perineal area to the root of the thighs, with exulcerations and an outflow of seropurulent secretions. Because we hypothesized that he was suffering from Fournier's Syndrome, treatment was replaced with the antibiotics imipenem, linezolid and clindamycin. After this new treatment paradigm was initiated, his lesions regressed without requiring surgical debridement. Triple therapy requires knowledge regarding the management of adverse effects and drug interactions; it also requires an understanding of the importance of respecting the guidelines for the withdrawal of treatment. In this case report, we observed an adverse event that had not been previously reported in the literature with the use of BOC.