Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Hepatology ; 74(6): 2952-2964, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34255381

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multiple direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens are available to treat HCV genotype 1 infection. However, comparative effectiveness from randomized controlled trials of DAA regimens is unavailable. APPROACH AND RESULTS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (NCT02786537) to compare the effectiveness of DAAs for HCV genotype 1a or 1b on viral response, safety, tolerability, and medication nonadherence. Adults with compensated liver disease, HCV genotype 1, not pregnant or breastfeeding, and with health insurance likely to cover ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) were recruited from 34 US viral hepatitis clinics. Participants were randomized (± ribavirin) to LDV/SOF, elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR), and paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir+dasabuvir (PrOD; treatment arm stopped early). Primary outcomes included sustained viral response at 12 weeks (SVR12), clinician-recorded adverse events, patient-reported symptoms, and medication nonadherence. Between June 2016 and March 2018, 1,609 participants were randomized. Among 1,128 participants who received ≥1 dose of EBR/GZR or LDV/SOF (± ribavirin), SVR12 was 95.2% (95% CI, 92.8%-97.6%) and 97.4% (95% CI, 95.5%-99.2%), respectively, with a difference estimate of 2.2% (-0.5% to 4.7%), falling within the "equivalence" interval (-5% to 5%). While most (56%) participants experienced adverse events, few were serious (4.2%) or severe (1.8%). In the absence of ribavirin, discontinuations due to adverse events were rare. Patient-reported symptoms and medication nonadherence were similar. Study limitations were dropout due to insurance denial and loss to follow-up after treatment, limiting the ability to measure SVR12. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic trial demonstrated high SVR12 for participants treated with EBR/GZR and LDV/SOF with few adverse effects. Overall, the two regimens were equivalent in effectiveness. The results support current HCV guidelines that do not distinguish between ribavirin-free EBR/GZR and LDV/SOF.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , Hepacivirus/isolation & purification , Hepatitis C, Chronic/drug therapy , 2-Naphthylamine/administration & dosage , Administration, Oral , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anilides/administration & dosage , Benzimidazoles/administration & dosage , Benzofurans/administration & dosage , Cyclopropanes/administration & dosage , Drug Combinations , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Female , Fluorenes/administration & dosage , Follow-Up Studies , Genotyping Techniques , Hepacivirus/genetics , Hepatitis C, Chronic/blood , Hepatitis C, Chronic/diagnosis , Hepatitis C, Chronic/virology , Humans , Imidazoles/administration & dosage , Lactams, Macrocyclic/administration & dosage , Male , Middle Aged , Proline/administration & dosage , Proline/analogs & derivatives , Quinoxalines/administration & dosage , RNA, Viral/blood , Ribavirin/administration & dosage , Sofosbuvir/administration & dosage , Sulfonamides/administration & dosage , Sustained Virologic Response , Treatment Outcome , Uracil/administration & dosage , Uracil/analogs & derivatives , Valine/administration & dosage , Young Adult
2.
Res Involv Engagem ; 7(1): 7, 2021 Jan 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33494839

ABSTRACT

Historically, few publications exist where patient engagement in clinical studies is a driving force in study design and implementation. The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), established in 2010, employed a new model of integrating stakeholder perspectives into healthcare research. This manuscript aims to share the experience of a Patient Engagement Group (PEG) that has engaged in hepatitis C (HCV) clinical research alongside investigators conducting two studies funded by PCORI and to inspire others to get more involved in research that can impact our healthcare and health policies.There are many gaps in treating infectious diseases. Traditionally, treatment and research have been strictly clinical/medical approaches with little focus on the biopsychosocial aspects of individual patients. Our PEG reflected on its own personal experiences regarding how research design can affect study implementation by including patients who are normally excluded. We considered barriers to treatment, out of pocket costs, access to insurance, and patient race/ethnicity. Common themes were discovered, and four major topics were discussed. In addition, measures used in the two studies to collect patient data were considered, tested, and implemented by the group.We describe in detail how we were formed and how we have worked together with researchers on two PCORI funded projects over the past 7 years. We formulated and implemented guidelines and responsibilities for operating as a PEG as well as appointing a chair, co-chair, and primary author of this manuscript.Written from the perspective of a PEG whose members experienced HCV treatment and cure, we provide lessons learned, and implications for further research to include patients. PEGs like ours who are included as active partners in research can provide useful input to many areas including how patients are treated during clinical trials, how they interact with research teams, and how the clinical benefits of drugs or devices are defined and evaluated. PCORI believes engagement impacts research to be more patient-centered, useful, and trustworthy, and will ultimately lead to greater use and interest of research results by the patient and the broader healthcare community.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...