AzTrials
AzTrials

Hepatitis CNCT03057236

Pilot Feasibility Study of a Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills (CBCS) Group Intervention for Hep C Therapy Patients

A study testing Cognitive Behavior Coping Skills in people with Hepatitis C and Hepatitis C, Chronic, run by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This is a pilot feasibility study of a small randomized controlled trial (RCT)design to evaluate participation in a Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills (CBCS) group intervention versus standard of care in patients with hepatitis C undergoing antiviral treatment. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 21 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Hepatitis C, Hepatitis C, Chronic
What is being tested?
Cognitive Behavior Coping Skills
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
20 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
1 Mar 2014to 31 Dec 2014
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 21 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • All English -speaking adult patients (age 21 or older) with HCV;
  • Treatment-naïve or treatment experienced;
  • Deemed eligible for standard antiviral therapy for HCV by the clinical providers by standard clinical criteria;
  • Referred by HCV clinician or on "Treatment Waitlist" ready to start a 12-week prescribed course of antiviral therapy.

Who cannot join

  • Prescribed a 24-week antiviral treatment regimen;
  • Inability to provide written informed consent;
  • Currently participating in another pharmaceutical clinical trial of hepatitis C therapeutics;
  • Evidence of use of illicit substances (excluding marijuana) reported in the last 6 months by patient during screening or noted in patient's medical record
  • Current significant suicidal ideation reported during Screening or noted in patient's medical record
  • Current significant personality disorder or features reported during Screening or noted in patient's medical record that is clinically judged to be detrimental to the group therapeutic setting for other group participants
  • Cannot make personal commitment to attend study visits and/or intervention sessions
  • Is medically or psychiatrically contraindicated to proceed with HCV antiviral therapy at the time of study enrollment.

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • University of North Carolina

    Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: A Pilot Feasibility Study of a Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills (CBCS) Group Intervention for Patients Undergoing Antiviral Therapy for Chronic Hepatitis C

This is a pilot feasibility study of a small randomized controlled trial (RCT)design to evaluate participation in a Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills (CBCS) group intervention versus standard of care in patients with hepatitis C undergoing antiviral treatment. The primary objectives are to (1) examine effect size (ES) estimates of key outcomes to provide essential data to inform a larger efficacy trial, (2) determine whether clinically significant improvements occurred in any key outcomes, and (3) evaluate study feasibility and patient acceptability. Study findings will inform a larger efficacy study of the CBCS-HCV.

Read the detailed description

This is a pilot feasibility study of a Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills (CBCS) Group Intervention with a representative sample of patients with Hepatitis C viral (HCV)undergoing standard antiviral treatment in a small RCT to examine (1) study feasibility, (2) effect size estimates, and (3) whether clinically significant improvements occurred in key outcomes. This pilot study will allow the investigators to test the hypotheses that the study procedures are feasible and that participation in the CBCS-HCV group is acceptable and useful to participants. Furthermore, effect size estimates of key outcome variables will determine which outcomes appear to improve as a result of the intervention and should potentially be evaluated in a future efficacy study. Several patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are evaluated: health-related quality of life (HrQOL), perceived stress, depression, anxiety, anger, fatigue, sleep, pain and medication adherence. The investigators will also determine if group participation affects viral cure rate. Change scores that have an effect size d> .35 are considered potentially clinically significant and reasonable to evaluate in a larger efficacy study. Study feasibility elements evaluated included: feasibility of a RCT study design, intervention delivery, patient acceptability, therapist protocol fidelity, recruitment, enrollment, attendance, retention and data collection.

The investigators planned to enroll and evaluate the intervention in two waves of study participants (Wave 2, Wave 3). When a block of 12 patients is consented for Wave 2, participants will be randomized to standard of care (SC; n=6) or the CBCS-HCV group intervention (n=6). The same procedure will be used to consent and randomize 12 patients in Wave 3 to SC vs CBCS-HCV. Patients randomized to CBCS will participate in 4 weekly CBCS sessions prior to starting HCV treatment, and 5 more sessions during HCV treatment, on the same day they attend follow-up treatment visits at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12. Outcome data will be collected at baseline (T1), just prior to HCV treatment starting (T2); at week 8 of HCV treatment (T3), at end of CBCS intervention/ HCV treatment at week 12 (T4), and 1-month post-CBCS intervention/ HCV treatment (T5). The primary outcome is change in total HrQOL score. Secondary outcomes are change in other PROs noted above. Additional secondary outcomes are group differences in medication adherence and viral cure rate. Elements of study feasibility are also evaluated.

Being tested
Cognitive Behavior Coping Skills
Keywords
psychological, behavioral, psychosocial, antiviral, liver
Medical subject headings
Hepatitis C, Hepatitis C, Chronic, Behavior

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Cognitive Behavior Coping SkillsBehavioural

    Also called CBCS-HCV

    The CBCS-HCV is a psychosocial intervention delivered in group format. Through 9 group sessions, patients will learn coping skills, relaxation techniques and other new cognitive and behavioral skills based on several empirically-supported cognitive behavioral interventions.

Study groups in NCT03057236
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Standard of CareNo interventionThis arm does not receive the behavioral intervention. Participants will complete HCV treatment per standard of care.
Cognitive Behavior Coping SkillsExperimentalThe CBCS intervention is a structured module-based group intervention involving 9, 2-hour sessions. Participants will participate in 4 weekly sessions before HCV treatment to learn and practice new cognitive behavioral skills, and 5 sessions during HCV treatment at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12.
Receives: Behavioral: Cognitive Behavior Coping Skills

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change in health related quality of life score from T1 to T2

    HRQOL is measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Population (FACT-GP). The FACT-GP is an instrument derived from the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system to measure HRQOL during the management of chronic illness. The FACT-GP is a 21-item survey that assesses four HRQOL domains: Physical well-being; Social/Family well-being; Emotional well-being; and Functional well-being. Items are rated on a five-category response system ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Higher scores indicate higher (better) HRQOL. Change in the total HRQOL score from T1 to T2 was the primary outcome measure, with an effect size d>.35 indicating a small to moderate clinical improvement

    Measured: 4 weeks

Secondary outcomes (15)
  1. Change in 4 HRQOL subscale scores (physical well-being, emotional well-being, social well-being, functional well-being) from T1 to T5

    Change in each of the 4 HRQOL subscale scores derived from the FACIT-GP will be evaluated. Items are rated on a five-point system ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Higher scores indicate higher (better) physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being. Change in these 4 subscale scores from T1 to T5 evaluates change from baseline to 1 month post-intervention/post-HCV treatment. An effect size change of d>.35 would indicate a small to moderate clinical improvement

    Measured: 20 weeks

  2. Change in 4 HRQOL subscale scores (physical well-being, emotional well-being, social well-being, functional well-being) from T1 to T2

    Change in each of the 4 HRQOL subscale scores derived from the FACIT-GP will be evaluated. Items are rated on a five-point system ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much). Higher scores indicate higher (better) physical, emotional, social, and functional well-being. Change in these 4 subscale scores from T1 to T2 evaluates change after 4 CBCS sessions. An effect size change of d>.35 would indicate a small to moderate clinical improvement

    Measured: 4 weeks

  3. Change in perceived stress scale score from T1 to T2

    The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is a widely used survey to measure stress perception. The scale includes 10 items, rated using a 5-point Likert scale, from 0 (never) to 4 (very often) where patients report the frequency of symptoms in the past month. The PSS has been shown to have good reliability and validity. Higher stress scores represent a worse outcome. T1 to T2 measures change after 4 CBCS sessions. An effect size change of d>.35 indicates a small to moderate clinical improvement

    Measured: 4 weeks

  4. Change in perceived stress scale score from T1 to T5

    The Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) is a widely used survey to measure stress perception. The scale includes 10 items, rated using a 5-point Likert scale, from 0 (never) to 4 (very often) where patients report the frequency of symptoms in the past month. The PSS has been shown to have good reliability and validity. Higher stress scores represent a worse outcome. T1 to T5 measures change from baseline to 1 month post-intervention/post HCV treatment. An effect size change of d>.35 indicates a small to moderate clinical improvement

    Measured: 20 weeks

  5. Change in 8 PROMIS symptom scores from T1 to T2

    PROMIS symptom surveys measured 8 constructs: depression, anxiety, anger, fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance, sleep impairment, pain intensity, and pain interference. These surveys utilize 4-8 items each with higher scores indicating higher (worse) symptoms. The PROMIS surveys are derived from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Responses are scored 1 to 5 for each item with higher scores representing worse outcomes. Raw total scores are translated into T-scores in which the raw score has been rescaled into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. T1 to T2 measures change from baseline to after 4 CBCS sessions. An effect size change of d>.35 indicates a small to moderate clinical improvement

    Measured: 4 weeks

  6. Change in 8 PROMIS symptom scores from T1 to T5

    PROMIS symptom surveys measured 8 constructs: depression, anxiety, anger, fatigue, pain, sleep disturbance, sleep impairment, pain intensity, and pain interference. These surveys utilize 4-8 items each with higher scores indicating higher (worse) symptoms. The PROMIS surveys are derived from the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Responses are scored 1 to 5 for each item with higher scores representing worse outcomes. Raw total scores are translated into T-scores in which the raw score has been rescaled into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. T1 to T5 measures change from baseline to 1 month post-intervention/post-HCV treatment. An effect size change of d>.35 indicates a small to moderate clinical improvement

    Measured: 20 weeks

  7. Pill count medication adherence

    To assess medication adherence from week 2 to 12 of HCV treatment, patients brought HCV medication bottles to clinic and pills were counted at treatment weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 if a patient had a standard clinical visit. The number of pills remaining in the pill bottle were monitored to determine ideal vs actual proportion of pills taken between clinic visits. The proportion of pills taken at each visit was added then divided by the number of visits to obtain an overall proportion of medical adherence.

    Measured: 12 weeks

  8. Viral cure after HCV treatment

    Medical records were reviewed for lab results for HCV RNA viral load after treatment had ended for at least 4 weeks. Lab data for HCV RNA indicated "detectable virus: or "undetectable virus" indicating whether viral cure had been achieved.

    Measured: 20 weeks

  9. study feasibility 1: Feasibility of recruitment

    Feasibility of recruitment efforts will be determined by the proportion of patients contacted for screening via phone versus those who are consented

    Measured: 3 months

  10. study feasibility 2: Feasibility of randomization

    Feasibility of randomization will be determined by whether the investigators were able to enroll and randomize a block of 12 participants for Wave 2 and Wave 3

    Measured: 3 months

  11. study feasibility 3: Feasibility of enrollment

    Feasibility of enrollment will be determined by the proportion of patients consented vs those enrolled and randomized

    Measured: 3 months

  12. study feasibility 4: Feasibility of data collection

    Feasibility of data collection will be determined by the overall proportion of surveys completed by each participant at each of the 5 timepoints (T1-T5)

    Measured: 20 weeks

  13. study feasibility 5: Patient retention and acceptability

    Patient acceptability of the CBCS intervention will be determined by retention, defined as the overall number of CBCS sessions attended by each patient and the proportion of patients who started and finished the intervention

    Measured: 16 weeks

  14. Patient acceptability and comprehension

    CBCS-HCV participants will complete a 14-item brief survey administered by a research coordinator at the end of each of the 9 sessions to rate the session on acceptability, usefulness, comprehension, and group process. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert scale from "1=Not At All" to "4=A lot/Extremely" with higher scores indicating greater patient acceptability. The survey was adapted from one developed by previous interventionists to examine intervention acceptability.

    Measured: 16 weeks

  15. Therapist Competency in intervention delivery

    Study staff will observe the delivery of each of the 9 CBCS module-based sessions and complete an observer-rating form of the therapist's competency. Ratings are made on 14 items based on the following Likert scale: 1=Not At All; 2=A little; 3=moderately; and 4=A lot/Extremely with higher scores indicating greater competency to manage group dynamics and demonstrate awareness of the nonspecific therapeutic processes.

    Measured: 16 weeks

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted20 Feb 2017
  2. Study start1 Mar 2014
  3. Primary completion31 Dec 2014
  4. Study completion31 Dec 2014

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Model description
Participants are assigned to Standard of Care group or the Intervention (CBCS) group.
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
20 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT03057236
Sponsor's protocol ID
12-2323
Other IDs
K23DK089004, K24DK066144
Status last verified
Feb 2017
First submitted
15 Feb 2017
Last updated
20 Feb 2017
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Evon DM, Golin CE, Ruffin R, Ayres S, Fried MW. Novel patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used in a pilot and feasibility study of a Cognitive Behavioral Coping Skills (CBCS) group intervention for patients with chronic hepatitis C. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018 Jun 27;4:92. doi: 10.1186/s40814-018-0285-5. eCollection 2018.

    PubMed 29983993

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Cognitive Behavior Coping Skills in people with Hepatitis C and Hepatitis C, Chronic, run by University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 Feb 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Change in health related quality of life score from T1 to T2 (time frame: 4 weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03057236, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 Feb 2017.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in