Study of Oral Treatments for Hepatitis C

Study at a glance

From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Dec 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.

Official title

THE PRIORITIZE STUDY: A Pragmatic, Randomized Study of Oral Regimens for Hepatitis C: Transforming Decision-Making for Patients, Providers, and Stakeholders

ClinicalTrials.gov ID

NCT02786537

Acronym / sponsor ID

PRIORITIZE / 16-1234

Conditions

Chronic Hepatitis C

Keywords

Hepatitis C

Phase

Phase 4

Study type

Interventional

Recruitment status

Completed

Enrolment

1,275 participants (actual)

Lead sponsor

University of FloridaUniversity, hospital or other

Collaborators

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, AbbVie

Study start

Jun 2016

Primary completion

13 Jun 2019 (actual)

Study completion

2 Sep 2020 (actual)

First posted

1 Jun 2016 (estimated)

Results

Posted 24 Nov 2020

Clinical summary

The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.

Study design

Primary purpose

Treatment

Allocation

Randomised

Intervention model

Parallel groups

Masking

None (open label)

Number of arms

6

Who may qualify

Ages

18 years and older

Sex

All

Healthy volunteers

Not accepted

Age groups

Adult, Older adult

Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Interventions

Primary outcome

1. Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12) mITT With Imputation-Phase 1 and 2 EBR/GZR, SOF/LDV

   Time frame: 12 weeks post-treatment

   SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation at discretion of provider). mITT with imputation (missing=failure). Total number of subjects reflects participants from EBR/GZR with or without RBV and SOF/LDV with or without RBV randomized during Phase 1 and Phase 2.

2. Phase 1/2 Number of Participants With Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12-mITT Without Imputation)

   Time frame: 12-24 weeks post HCV treatment

   SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site). Number of subjects reflects participants who started EBR/GZR or SOF/LDV- based treatment (with or without RBV) during Phase 1 and 2.

3. Phase 1-Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12) mITT With Imputation

   Time frame: 12 weeks post-treatment

   SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as patients who have undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site). mITT with imputation (missing=failure). Total number of subjects reflects participants from Phase 1 only.

4. Phase 1 Number of Participants With Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12-mITT Without Imputation)

   Time frame: 12 -24 weeks post-treatment

   SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site). Number of subjects reflects participants randomized during Phase 1 only.

5. Mean Change in Headache-PRO Scores -Phase 1

   Time frame: Baseline to On-Treatment

   Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Mean change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement in symptom.

6. Mean Change in Headache-EBR/GZR and SOF/LDV

   Time frame: Baseline to On-Treatment

   Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Mean change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD

7. Median Change in Headache -Phase 1

   Time frame: 12 weeks (Baseline and Average On-treatment Score)

   Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Median change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD

8. Median Change in Headache-Phase 2

   Time frame: Baseline -on Treatment (12-16 weeks)

   Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Median change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of median change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD

9. Mean Change in Nausea/Vomiting PRO Score -Phase 1

   Time frame: Baseline to On-Treatment

   Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for mean change represent improvement. The estimates of mean change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes. The model expressed mean score as a function of DAA regimen, cirrhosis status, HCV genotype, sex, age, race, and previous treatment status.

10. Mean Change in Nausea/Vomiting PROMIS Score -EBR/GZR vs. LDV/SOF

    Time frame: Baseline and Average On-Treatment Score

    Participants completed the Patient Reported Outcomes surveys (PROs) 'PROMIS Nausea/Vomiting -4 Short Form' at baseline and during treatment. Raw scores are converted to standardized T-scores with a range of 45.0-80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea/vomiting. Results presented as mean difference from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores (highest/worst) score during treatment. A negative (-) PROMIS change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. Estimates of mean change were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes.

11. Median Change in Nausea PRO Score -Phase 1

    Time frame: Baseline to end of treatment

    Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for mean change represent improvement. The estimates of change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes.

12. Median Change in Nausea PROMIS Score-EBR/GZR SOF/LDV

    Time frame: Baseline- On Treatment (up to 16 weeks)

    Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for change represent improvement. The estimates of change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes.

13. Mean Change in Fatigue PRO Score -Phase 1

    Time frame: Baseline to On-treatment

    Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35.

14. Mean Change in Fatigue PRO -EBR/GZR vs SOF/LDV

    Time frame: Baseline and Average On-Treatment Score

    Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35.

15. Median Change in Fatigue -Phase 1

    Time frame: Baseline to End of Treatment

    Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35.

16. Median Change in Fatigue-Phase 2

    Time frame: Baseline-On Treatment (up to 16 weeks)

    Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35.

17. Mean Change in HCV- PRO- Phase 1

    Time frame: Baseline to End of Treatment

    HCV-PRO, a survey for patients with HCV that measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess 'overall functioning and well-being'. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being. Total score = (SUM-N)/(4*N)*100, where N is the number of questions answered.

18. Median Change in HCV-PRO (Overall Well Being) -Phase 1

    Time frame: Baseline to End of Treatment

    HCV-PRO, a survey for patients with HCV that measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess 'Overall Functioning and Well-being'. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being. Total score = (SUM-N)/(4*N)*100, where N is the number of questions answered.

19. Mean Change in HCV-PRO (Functional Well-being) EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV Score-Phase 2

    Time frame: End of Treatment - Baseline

    HCV-PRO, a survey designed to assess functional status of patients with HCV and measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess functional well-being. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being. Total score = (SUM-N)/(4*N)*100, where N is the number of questions answered. End of Treatment -Baseline were used to calculate CHANGE in outcome. Number of subjects reflects participants from both Phase 1 and 2.

20. 16 Wk EBR/GZR With RBV Efficacy on Patients With HCV RASs

    Time frame: 12 weeks post treatment

    Efficacy of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Treatment with Zepatier (Elbasvir/Grazobevir) with Ribavirin (RBV) for 16 weeks when used in Genotype 1a patients with Baseline RASs (NS5a Resistance Associated Substitutions or RAPs -Resistance Associated Polymorphisms). Efficacy defined as HCV RNA undetectable 12 weeks post treatment. Table excludes Genotype 1b patients.

Results and safety

Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…

Research links

• Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Dec 2021.
• Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
• Derived from this study: PubMed 35657133Evon DM, Dong M, Reeve BB, Peter J, Michael L, Lok AS, Nelson DR, Stewart PW. Sustainable and equivalent improvements in symptoms and functional well-being following viral cure from ledipasvir/sofosbuvir versus elbasvir/grazoprevir for chronic hepatitis C infection: Findings from the randomized PRIORITIZE trial. J Viral Hepat. 2022 Sep;29(9):795-806. doi: 10.1111/jvh.13716. Epub 2022 Jun 15.
• Derived from this study: PubMed 35182741Lok AS, Moon J, Sherman KE, Khalili M, Fishbein D, Reddy KR; PRIORITIZE Study Team. Long-term Follow-up of Hepatitis C Patients Who Achieved Sustained Virologic Response in the Pragmatic PRIORITIZE Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Feb;21(2):546-548.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.01.059. Epub 2022 Feb 17.
• Derived from this study: PubMed 34255381Sulkowski MS, Moon JS, Sherman KE, Morelli G, Darling JM, Muir AJ, Khalili M, Fishbein DA, Hinestrosa F, Shiffman ML, Di Bisceglie A, Rajender Reddy K, Pearlman B, Lok AS, Fried MW, Stewart PW, Peter J, Wadsworth S, Kixmiller S, Sloan A, Vainorius M, Horne PM, Michael L, Dong M, Evon DM, Segal JB, Nelson DR; PRIORITIZE Study Team. A Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial of Oral Antivirals for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C: The PRIORITIZE Study. Hepatology. 2021 Dec;74(6):2952-2964. doi: 10.1002/hep.32053. Epub 2021 Aug 26.
• Individual participant dataSharing planned: No

Related trials for Chronic Hepatitis C

• RecruitingObservational study

  Evaluation of Patients With Liver Disease

  Hepatitis D, Hepatitis C

• Active, not recruitingPhase 4

  People With CHC Who Achieved a Sustained Virological Response Following Therapy With Direct Acting Antiviral Agents

  Diabetes Mellitus, Hepatitis C, Chronic

• RecruitingObservational study

  "Constitution of a Biological Collection to Establish Preclinical Translational Models for the Study of Tumors and Chronic Liver Diseases".

  Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis, Liver Cancer

• Active, not recruitingPhase 4

  Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis C During Pregnancy

  Hepatitis C, Chronic, Pregnancy; Infection

• Enrolling by invitationObservational study

  Comparative Autoantibody and Immunologic Cell Marker Study

  Autoimmune Diseases, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic

Referral and contact

AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.

38 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.