scholarly journals Strategic treatment optimization for HCV (STOPHCV1): a randomised controlled trial of ultrashort duration therapy for chronic hepatitis C

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Graham S. Cooke ◽  
Sarah Pett ◽  
Leanne McCabe ◽  
Chris Jones ◽  
Richard Gilson ◽  
...  

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the need for a better understanding of which patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be cured with ultrashort course HCV therapy. Methods: A total of 202 individuals with chronic HCV were randomised to fixed-duration shortened therapy (8 weeks) vs variable-duration ultrashort strategies (VUS1/2). Participants not cured following first-line treatment were retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin. The primary outcome was sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after first-line treatment and retreatment. Participants were factorially randomised to receive ribavirin with first-line treatment. Results: All evaluable participants achieved SVR12 overall (197/197, 100% [95% CI 98-100]) demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed-duration and variable-duration strategies (difference 0% [95% CI -3.8%, +3.7%], 4% pre-specified non-inferiority margin). First-line SVR12 was 91% [86%-97%] (92/101) for fixed-duration vs 48% [39%-57%] (47/98) for variable-duration, but was significantly higher for VUS2 (72% [56%-87%] (23/32)) than VUS1 (36% [25%-48%] (24/66)). Overall, first-line SVR12 was 72% [65%-78%] (70/101) without ribavirin and 68% [61%-76%] (69/98) with ribavirin (p=0.48). At treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin (12% [2%-30%] (3/26)) than without (38% [21%-58%] (11/29), p=0.01). Conclusions: Unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy did not compromise retreatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin (100% SVR12). SVR12 rates were significantly increased when ultrashort treatment varied between 4-7 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks. Ribavirin significantly reduced resistance emergence in those failing first-line therapy. ISRCTN Registration: 37915093 (11/04/2016).

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Graham S. Cooke ◽  
Sarah Pett ◽  
Leanne McCabe ◽  
Chris Jones ◽  
Richard Gilson ◽  
...  

Background: The world health organization (WHO) has identified the need for a better understanding of which patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be cured with ultrashort course HCV therapy. Methods: A total of 202 individuals with chronic HCV were randomised to fixed-duration shortened therapy (8 weeks) vs variable-duration ultrashort strategies (VUS1/2). Participants not cured following first-line treatment were retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin. The primary outcome was sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after first-line treatment and retreatment. Participants were factorially randomised to receive ribavirin with first-line treatment. Results: All evaluable participants achieved SVR12 overall (197/197, 100% [95% CI 98-100]) demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed-duration and variable-duration strategies (difference 0% [95% CI -3.8%, +3.7%], 4% pre-specified non-inferiority margin). First-line SVR12 was 91% [86%-97%] (92/101) for fixed-duration vs 48% [39%-57%] (47/98) for variable-duration, but was significantly higher for VUS2 (72% [56%-87%] (23/32)) than VUS1 (36% [25%-48%] (24/66)). Overall, first-line SVR12 was 72% [65%-78%] (70/101) without ribavirin and 68% [61%-76%] (69/98) with ribavirin (p=0.48). At treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin (12% [2%-30%] (3/26)) than without (38% [21%-58%] (11/29), p=0.01). Conclusions: Unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy did not compromise retreatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin (100% SVR12). SVR12 rates were significantly increased when ultrashort treatment varied between 4-7 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks. Ribavirin significantly reduced resistance emergence in those failing first-line therapy. ISRCTN Registration: 37915093 (11/04/2016).


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham S. Cooke ◽  
Sarah Pett ◽  
Leanne McCabe ◽  
Chris Jones ◽  
Richard Gilson ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe WHO has identified the need for a better understanding of which patients can be cured with ultrashort course hepatitis C (HCV) therapyMethods202 individuals with chronic HCV were randomised to fixed-duration shortened therapy (8 weeks) vs variable-duration ultrashort strategies (VUS1/2). Participants not cured following first-line treatment were retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin. Primary outcome was sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after first-line treatment and retreatment. Participants were factorially randomised to receive ribavirin with first-line treatment.ResultsAll evaluable participants achieved SVR12 overall (197/197, 100%[95%CI 98-100]) demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed-duration and variable-duration strategies (difference 0% [95%CI −3.8%,+3.7%], 4% pre-specified non-inferiority margin). First-line SVR12 was 91%[86%-97%] (92/101) for fixed-duration vs 48%[39%-57%] (47/98) for variable-duration, but was significantly higher for VUS2 (72% [56%-87%] (23/32)) than VUS1 (36% [25%-48%] (24/66)). Overall first-line SVR12 was 72%[65%-78%] (70/101) without ribavirin and 68%[61%-76%] (69/98) with ribavirin (p=0.48). At treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin (12% [2%-30%] (3/26)) than without (38% [21%-58%] (11/29), p=0.01).ConclusionsUnsuccessful first-line short-course therapy did not compromise retreatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin (100% SVR12). SVR12 rates were significantly increased when ultrashort treatment varied between 4-7 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks. Ribavirin significantly reduced resistance emergence in those failing first-line therapy.RegistrationISRCTN 37915093.FundingNational Institutes of Health Research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (17) ◽  
pp. 1-90
Author(s):  
Graham S Cooke ◽  
Sarah Pett ◽  
Leanne McCabe ◽  
Christopher Jones ◽  
Richard Gilson ◽  
...  

Background High cure rates with licensed durations of therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus suggest that many patients are overtreated. New strategies in individuals who find it challenging to adhere to standard treatment courses could significantly contribute to the elimination agenda. Objectives To compare cure rates using variable ultrashort first-line treatment stratified by baseline viral load followed by retreatment, with a fixed 8-week first-line treatment with retreatment with or without adjunctive ribavirin. Design An open-label, multicentre, factorial randomised controlled trial. Randomisation Randomisation was computer generated, with patients allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio using a factorial design to each of biomarker-stratified variable ultrashort strategy or fixed duration and adjunctive ribavirin (or not), using a minimisation algorithm with a probabilistic element. Setting NHS. Participants A total of 202 adults (aged ≥ 18 years) infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1a/1b or 4 for ≥ 6 months, with a detectable plasma hepatitis C viral load and no significant fibrosis [FibroScan® (Echosens, Paris, France) score F0–F1 or biopsy-proven minimal fibrosis], a hepatitis C virus viral load < 10,000,000 IU/ml, no previous exposure to direct-acting antiviral therapy for this infection and not pregnant. Patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus were eligible if human immunodeficiency virus viral load had been < 50 copies/ml for > 24 weeks on anti-human immunodeficiency virus drugs. Interventions Fixed-duration 8-week first-line therapy compared with variable ultrashort first-line therapy, initially for 4–6 weeks (continuous scale) stratified by screening viral load (variable ultrashort strategy 1, mean 32 days of treatment) and then, subsequently, for 4–7 weeks (variable ultrashort strategy 2 mean 39 days of duration), predominantly with ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir (Viekirax®; AbbVie, Chicago, IL, USA), and dasabuvir (Exviera®; AbbVie, Chicago, IL, USA) or ritonavir. All patients in whom first-line treatment was unsuccessful were immediately retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir, ledipasvir (Harvoni®, Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA, USA) and ribavirin. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was overall sustained virological response (persistently undetectable) 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). Results A total of 202 patients were analysed. All patients in whom the primary outcome was evaluable achieved SVR12 overall [100% (197/197), 95% confidence interval 86% to 100%], demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed- and variable-duration strategies (difference 0%, 95% confidence interval –3.8% to 3.7%, prespecified non-inferiority margin 4%). A SVR12 following first-line treatment was achieved in 91% (92/101; 95% confidence interval 86% to 97%) of participants randomised to the fixed-duration strategy and by 48% (47/98; 95% confidence interval 39% to 57%) allocated to the variable-duration strategy. However, the proportion achieving SVR12 was significantly higher among those allocated to variable ultrashort strategy 2 [72% (23/32), 95% confidence interval 56% to 87%] than among those allocated to variable ultrashort strategy 1 [36% (24/66), 95% confidence interval 25% to 48%]. Overall, a SVR12 following first-line treatment was achieved by 72% (70/101) (95% confidence interval 65% to 78%) of patients treated with ribavirin and by 68% (69/98) (95% confidence interval 61% to 76%) of those not treated with ribavirin. A SVR12 with variable ultrashort strategies 1 and 2 was 52% (25/48) (95% confidence interval 38% to 65%) with ribavirin, compared with 44% (22/50) (95% confidence interval 31% to 56) without. However, at treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin [12% (3/26), 95% confidence interval 2% to 30%] than without [38% (11/29), 95% confidence interval 21% to 58%; p = 0.01]. All 10 individuals who became undetectable at day 3 of treatment achieved first-line SVR12 regardless of treatment duration. Five participants in the variable-duration arm and five in the fixed-duration arm experienced serious adverse events (p = 0.69), as did five participants receiving ribavirin and five participants receiving no ribavirin. Conclusions SVR12 rates were significantly higher when ultrashort treatment varied between 4 and 7 weeks, rather than between 4 and 6 weeks. We found no evidence of ribavirin significantly affecting first-line SVR12, with unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy also not compromising subsequent retreatment with sofosbuvir, ledipasvir and ribavirin. Future work A priority for future work needs to be the development and evaluation of robust predictive measures to identify those patients who can be cured with ultrashort courses of therapy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37915093, EudraCT 2015-005004-28 and CTA 19174/0370/001-0001. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107815522110194
Author(s):  
Jacopo Giuliani ◽  
Beatrice Mantoan ◽  
Andrea Bonetti

The present analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of atezolizumab as first-line treatment in triple negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Pivotal phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT) was considered. Nine hundred and two patients were included. Differences in costs between the 2 arms (atezolizumab plus nabpaclitaxel versus placebo plus nab-paclitaxel) was 17 398 €, with a cost of 7564 €per month of OS-gain in the overall population and 2485 €per month of OS-gain in PD-L1-positive (≥1) population. Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by the OS, atezolizumab could be considered cost-effective in first-line treatment for triple-negative mBC only in PD-L1-positive population, but a reduction of costs is mandatory.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marouf Alhalabi ◽  
Waleed Alassi ◽  
Kamal Alaa Eddin ◽  
Khaled Cheha

Abstract Background: Antibiotic-resistant reduces the efficacy of conventional triple therapy for Helicobacter Pylori infections worldwide, lead to varying treatment protocols according to locations. This was an open‑label randomized controlled trial. We used two protocols, doxycycline-based quadruple and concomitant levofloxacin regimens. The aim was to compare the eradication rates of previous protocols as empirical first-line treatment to cure Helicobacter Pylori infection in intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses (PPA) in Syrian population.Settings and Design: an open‑label parallel randomized controlled trial.Methods: We randomly assigned seventy-eight naïve who tested positive for Helicobacter Pylori gastric infection, with a 1:1 ratio to (D-group ) which receive (bismuth subsalicylate 524 mg four times daily, doxycycline 100 mg, tinidazole 500 mg, and esomeprazole 20 mg, each twice per day for two weeks), or (L-group) which receive (levofloxacin 500 mg daily, tinidazole 500 mg, amoxicillin 1000 mg, and esomeprazole 20 mg each twice per day for two weeks). We confirmed Helicobacter Pylori eradication by stool antigen test at eight weeks. Results: Thirty-nine patients were allocated in each group. In the D-group, thirty-eight patients completed the follow-up, thirty patients were cured. While in the L-group, thirty-nine completed the follow-up, thirty-two patients were cured. According to ITT, the eradication rates were 76.92%, and 82.05%, for the D-group and L-group respectively. Odds ratio with 95% confidence interval was 1.371 [0.454-4.146]. According to PPA, the eradication rates were 78.9 %, and 82.05% for the D-group and L-group respectively. The odds ratio with 95% confidence interval was 1.219 [0.394-3.774]. We didn’t report serious adverse effects. Conclusions: The eradication rates in both therapy regimes were fair. Further researches are required to identify the optimum first-line treatment for Helicobacter-Pylori Infection in the Syrian population.Trial registration: We register this study as a standard randomized clinical trial (Clinicaltrial.gov, identifier‑NCT04348786, date:29-January-2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04348786).


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 573-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Kodjikian ◽  
David Bellocq ◽  
Francesco Bandello ◽  
Anat Loewenstein ◽  
Usha Chakravarthy ◽  
...  

Management of center-involving diabetic macular edema represents a real therapeutic challenge. Diabetic macular edema is the leading cause of visual acuity impairment in diabetic patients. Since the advent of intravitreal drugs, management of diabetic macular edema has significantly evolved. The historical grid laser photocoagulation is no longer recommended as first-line treatment of diabetic macular edema owing to the findings of the pivotal randomized controlled trials, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy has emerged as first-line therapy. Steroids also represent a valid treatment option in the management of naïve diabetic macular edema and their efficacy has also been confirmed in several studies. The optimal treatment for diabetic macular edema should consider both general and ophthalmological comorbidities. Patient compliance and motivation should also be carefully evaluated as some treatments require monthly follow-up. Based on recent literature evidence, the present review provides clinicians with a first-line treatment algorithm for center-involving diabetic macular edema tailored to the patient’s individual characteristics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document