B-Together
84 evidence topics · 7 sources
Objective
Primary aim: whether sequential bepirovirsen and Peg-IFN reduces relapse and improves response
Hypothesis: conversion of partial responders and prevention of relapse
Questions the protocol was designed to answer
Secondary and exploratory objectives
Location and study date
Registry record: identifiers, dates, and enrollment
| Field | Quoted record |
|---|---|
| Other study identifier | “209348” |
| Study start (actual) | “2021-01-28” |
| Primary completion (actual) | “2023-02-17” |
| Enrollment (actual) | “108” |
| Number of listed locations | “This study has 49 locations” |
| Results first posted | “2024-05-02” |
Overlap of sites with B-Clear
Study design
Phase IIb, multicentre, randomised, open-label design
Randomisation, stratification, and allocation concealment
Registered design details
| Field | Quoted record |
|---|---|
| Allocation | “Randomized” |
| Interventional model | “Parallel Assignment” |
| Masking | “None (Open Label)” |
| Model description | “Participants will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to one of two treatment arms: 24 weeks GSK3228836 followed by up to 24 weeks PegIFN, or 12 weeks GSK3228836 followed by up to 24 weeks PegIFN.” |
Rationale for enrolling participants controlled on NA therapy
Eligibility criteria
Key inclusion and exclusion criteria
Age range and registered inclusion criteria
Cirrhosis exclusion
Exclusions related to interferon, psychiatric history, and prior oligonucleotides
Treatment
Bepirovirsen dose and duration followed by Peg-IFN
Registered arms
Rationale for 24 weeks of Peg-IFN rather than 48 weeks
Study outcomes
Rationale for using sustained HBsAg and HBV DNA loss 24 weeks after sequential treatment as the primary endpoint
Post hoc alternative primary outcome and definition of relapse
Functional cure as the endpoint for new HBV therapies
Protocol rationale for sustained virologic response
Safety outcomes and adverse events of special interest
Statistical analysis description
Number of participants (Planned and analyzed)
Planned enrollment and Bayesian sample size basis
Participants enrolled and analyzed
Participants contributing to the biomarker analysis
Description of analysis sets
Primary analysis model and its simplification
Handling of wide disruptive events such as COVID-19
Protocol definitions of analysis populations
| Population | Quoted description |
|---|---|
| Intent-to-treat | “All randomised participants.” |
| Safety | “All participants who were randomised and received at least one dose of study treatment” |
| Multiplicity | “No adjustments will be made for multiplicity.” |
Biomarker analysis population and response subgroups
“All B-Together randomized participants from the rest of the world population (excluding China), who had been assessed for the primary outcome and who received at least one dose of bepirovirsen treatment and ≥ 12 doses of Peg-IFN were included in biomarker analyses [8].” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Null responders were non-responders who did not have two or more consecutive visits with a > 0.4 log10 HBsAg reduction while on treatment.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Results
Participant disposition
Withdrawals, Peg-IFN eligibility, and missed visits
Registry participant flow
| Disposition | Arm 1 (24 weeks bepirovirsen) | Arm 2 (12 weeks bepirovirsen) |
|---|---|---|
| Started | “55” | “53” |
| Completed | “49” | “50” |
| Not completed | “6” | “3” |
| Reason not completed: adverse event | “2” | “0” |
| Reason not completed: lost to follow-up | “1” | “0” |
| Reason not completed: physician decision | “0” | “1” |
| Reason not completed: withdrawal by subject | “3” | “2” |
Missed doses due to wide disruptive events
Baseline characteristics
Baseline HBsAg level and HBeAg status: most participants above 1,000 IU/ml and HBeAg negative
Baseline demographics and disease characteristics
| Characteristic | Arm 1 (n = 55) | Arm 2 (n = 53) | Overall (N = 108) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean (SD), years | “45.5 (10.7)” | “45.5 (9.4)” | “45.5 (10.0)” |
| Female, n (%) | “11 (20)” | “20 (38)” | “31 (29)” |
| Male, n (%) | “44 (80)” | “33 (62)” | “77 (71)” |
| Asian, n (%) | “30 (55)” | “26 (49)” | “56 (52)” |
| Black or African American, n (%) | “3 (5)” | “3 (6)” | “6 (6)” |
| White, n (%) | “22 (40)” | “24 (45)” | “46 (43)” |
| BMI, mean (SD), kg/m2 | “23.7 (3.4)” | “25.0 (4.2)” | “24.3 (3.9)” |
| HBsAg, mean (SD), IU/ml | “5,231.4 (8,939.8)” | “5,218.5 (8,437.4)” | “5,225.1 (8,656.2)” |
| HBsAg ≤1,000 IU/ml, n (%) | “17 (31)” | “17 (32)” | “34 (31)” |
| HBsAg >1,000 IU/ml, n (%) | “38 (69)” | “36 (68)” | “74 (69)” |
| HBV DNA <LLOQ, n (%) | “49 (89)” | “48 (91)” | “97 (90)” |
| HBeAg negative, n (%) | “41 (75)” | “39 (74)” | “80 (74)” |
| HBeAg positive, n (%) | “14 (25)” | “14 (26)” | “28 (26)” |
| TAF or TDF, n (%) | “33 (61)” | “37 (70)” | “70 (65)” |
| Entecavir, n (%) | “19 (35)” | “12 (23)” | “31 (29)” |
| ALT ≤ULN, n (%) | “51 (93)” | “43 (81)” | “94 (87)” |
| ALT >ULN, n (%) | “4 (7)” | “10 (19)” | “14 (13)” |
| HBV genotype undetermined, n (%) | “28 (51)” | “26 (49)” | “54 (50)” |
| METAVIR fibrosis score available, n | “7” | “8” | “15” |
Efficacy results
Primary outcome: 5 of 55 participants in Arm 1 and 8 of 53 in Arm 2
Primary outcome by baseline HBsAg and HBeAg stratum
| Stratum | Arm 1 n | Arm 1 responders, n (%) | Arm 2 n | Arm 2 responders, n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stratum 1: HBsAg ≤1,000 IU/ml, HBeAg negative | “16” | “3 (19)” | “14” | “7 (50)” |
| Stratum 2: HBsAg >1,000 IU/ml, HBeAg negative | “25” | “1 (4)” | “25” | “1 (4)” |
| Stratum 3: HBsAg ≤1,000 IU/ml, HBeAg positive | “1” | “1 (100)” | “3” | “0” |
| Stratum 4: HBsAg >1,000 IU/ml, HBeAg positive | “13” | “0” | “11” | “0” |
Registry primary outcome and between-arm comparison
Baseline HBsAg threshold among responders
Predictors of response in the logistic regression model
Odds ratios for response by baseline HBsAg, treatment arm, and NA type
| Comparison | Responders in reference group, n/N (%) | Responders in comparison group, n/N (%) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline HBsAg >1,000 versus ≤1,000 IU/ml | “11/34 (32.4)” | “2/73 (2.7)” | “0.05 (0.00, 0.26)” | “<0.0001” |
| Arm 2 versus Arm 1 | “5/54 (9.3)” | “8/53 (15.1)” | “1.01 (0.17, 5.96)” | “0.99” |
| Entecavir versus TAF and TDF | “10/70 (14.3)” | “2/31 (6.5)” | “0.09 (0.01, 0.61)” | “0.0119” |
| HBeAg positive versus negative | “12/79 (15.2)” | “1/28 (3.6)” | “0.28 (0.01, 3.27)” | “0.3263” |
Response and relapse at the end of each treatment window
Peg-IFN did not convert partial responders
Indirect comparison of relapse with B-Clear
Durability of primary outcome response in Arm 2
HBeAg loss and anti-HBe seroconversion
Comparison of bepirovirsen treatment durations
Median time to ALT normalization in participants with baseline ALT above ULN
| Measure | Arm 1 | Arm 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Participants analyzed | “4” | “10” |
| Median, weeks | “not estimable (NE)” | “4.1” |
| 95% CI, weeks | “(6.3 to NA)” | “(1.1 to 47.1)” |
Peripheral immune activation and markers of hepatocyte death
“Increases from baseline in mean expression of serum proteins with immune effector and apoptotic functions (Week 3) and transcripts associated with immune cell proliferation and activation (Week 5) were observed regardless of arm or response subgroup. By Week 8, serum liver and apoptosis-specific proteins were increased; this was more pronounced in responders than non-responders, with the difference more marked in Arm 1 versus Arm 2. Increased abundance of these proteins was highly correlated with ALT levels, which were often associated with transient hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA elevations and HBsAg decreases.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
Longer-term follow-up of responders in B-Sure
Follow-up of responders planned in B-Sure
Health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes
No evidence found.
Safety results
Overall adverse events, discontinuations, serious adverse events, and deaths
Adverse events over the whole study
| Event, n (%) | Arm 1 (n = 55) | Arm 2 (n = 53) | Total (N = 108) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Any AE | “52 (95)” | “52 (98)” | “104 (96)” |
| Any AE related to study treatment | “52 (95)” | “48 (91)” | “100 (93)” |
| AEs leading to permanent discontinuation | “2 (4)” | “2 (4)” | “4 (4)” |
| Any grade 3 and 4 event | “31 (56)” | “23 (43)” | “54 (50)” |
| Any SAE | “6 (11)” | “2 (4)” | “8 (7)” |
| AESI: ALT increase | “27 (49)” | “11 (21)” | “38 (35)” |
| AESI: vascular inflammation and complement activation | “19 (35)” | “11 (21)” | “30 (28)” |
| AESI: thrombocytopenia | “29 (53)” | “19 (36)” | “48 (44)” |
| AESI: renal injury | “10 (18)” | “7 (13)” | “17 (16)” |
| Neutropenia | “10 (18)” | “12 (23)” | “22 (20)” |
| Leukopenia | “10 (18)” | “7 (13)” | “17 (16)” |
Adverse events during the bepirovirsen treatment window
| Event, n (%) | Arm 1 (n = 55) | Arm 2 (n = 53) | Total (N = 108) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Any AE | “48 (87)” | “42 (79)” | “90 (83)” |
| Any AE related to study treatment | “47 (85)” | “39 (74)” | “86 (80)” |
| AEs leading to permanent discontinuation | “1 (2)” | “2 (4)” | “3 (3)” |
| Any grade 3 and 4 event | “20 (36)” | “16 (30)” | “36 (33)” |
| Any SAE | “4 (7)” | “1 (2)” | “5 (5)” |
| AESI: ALT increase | “16 (29)” | “8 (15)” | “24 (22)” |
| AESI: vascular inflammation and complement activation | “16 (29)” | “6 (11)” | “22 (20)” |
| AESI: thrombocytopenia | “11 (20)” | “7 (13)” | “18 (17)” |
| AESI: renal injury | “10 (18)” | “6 (11)” | “16 (15)” |
Adverse events during the Peg-IFN treatment window
ALT increases and the serious adverse event of drug-induced liver injury
Grade 3 and 4 events and DAIDS laboratory grading
Registry serious and selected other adverse events through Week 72
| Event, affected / at risk (%) | Arm 1 | Arm 2 |
|---|---|---|
| All-cause mortality | “0/55 (0.00%)” | “0/53 (0.00%)” |
| Serious adverse events, total | “6/55 (10.91%)” | “2/53 (3.77%)” |
| Other adverse events, total | “52/55 (94.55%)” | “50/53 (94.34%)” |
| Injection site erythema | “20/55 (36.36%)” | “22/53 (41.51%)” |
| Pyrexia | “17/55 (30.91%)” | “14/53 (26.42%)” |
| Alanine aminotransferase increased | “23/55 (41.82%)” | “6/53 (11.32%)” |
| Thrombocytopenia | “14/55 (25.45%)” | “11/53 (20.75%)” |
| Influenza like illness | “12/55 (21.82%)” | “8/53 (15.09%)” |
| COVID-19 (non-serious) | “15/55 (27.27%)” | “5/53 (9.43%)” |
Study limitations
Summary: study limitations
B-Together randomized 108 participants (55 to 24 weeks and 53 to 12 weeks of bepirovirsen, each followed by up to 24 weeks of Peg-IFN) and had no bepirovirsen-only control arm, so the effect of adding Peg-IFN was assessed by indirect comparison with B-Clear. Treatment was open label, the sample size of approximately 100 was selected to provide a 65% posterior probability of the true response rate exceeding a fixed threshold, and the 95% credible intervals for the primary outcome were 0 to 46% in Arm 1 and 0 to 56% in Arm 2. COVID-19 infections and lockdowns caused missed visits for 9 participants, all in Arm 1. All primary outcome responders had baseline HBsAg of 3,000 IU/ml or lower, and the approved label recommends against concomitant administration of bepirovirsen with peginterferon alfa-2a. GSK funded the trial and took part in its design, conduct, and analysis, and authors employed by GSK hold financial equities in GSK.
Absence of a bepirovirsen-only control group
Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on Arm 1
Small arms and heterogeneity limit between-arm comparison
Limitations of the post hoc biomarker analysis
“These analyses were opportunistic and not powered.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Second, all patients in B-Together received bepirovirsen, and findings could not be validated against a placebo-treated population within this study. Third, due to limited PBMC availability, this study could not demonstrate activation of HBV-specific T and B cells in the liver or periphery.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote
“Finally, due to operational complexities, this study did not include liver sampling, which would have been required to show direct evidence of killing of infected hepatocytes.” (opens the original PMC page at this quote in a new tab)View highlighted excerpt for this quote