U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Variable short duration treatment versus standard treatment, with and without adjunctive ribavirin, for chronic hepatitis C: the STOP-HCV-1 non-inferiority, factorial RCT

Variable short duration treatment versus standard treatment, with and without adjunctive ribavirin, for chronic hepatitis C: the STOP-HCV-1 non-inferiority, factorial RCT

Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation, No. 8.17

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; .

Author Information and Affiliations
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; .

Headline

Sustained virological response was non-inferior with variable short duration treatment compared to standard 8 week treatment when including 12 week retreatment, and in addition adjunct ribavirin first-line had no effect

Abstract

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.

Contents

About the Series

Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation
ISSN (Print): 2050-4365
ISSN (Electronic): 2050-4373

Declared competing interests of authors: Graham S Cooke has received fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) and Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Foster City, CA, USA), unrelated to this work. In addition, Graham S Cooke is supported, in part, by the Biomedical Research Centre of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (London, UK) and is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) research professor. Sarah Pett has received grants from Gilead Sciences, Inc. and ViiV Healthcare Ltd (Research Triangle, NC, USA), unrelated to this work. Richard Gilson reports grants from AbbVie (Chicago, IL, USA) and Gilead Sciences, Inc., unrelated to this work. Sumita Verma reports grants and consultancy fees from Gilead Sciences, Inc., and personal fees from AbbVie, unrelated to this work. Stephen D Ryder has carried out consultancy work for Gilead Sciences, Inc. Stephen T Barclay reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences, Inc., unrelated to this work. Sanjay Bhagani reports personal fees from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences, Inc., and is the spouse of an AbbVie employee. Mark Nelson reports personal fees and grants from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Bristol Myers Squibb™ (New York, NY, USA), unrelated to this work. In addition, he has a patent for AbbVie pending. Chin Lye Ch’Ng reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences, Inc., unrelated to this work. Martin Wiselka reports personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., AbbVie and Gilead Sciences, Inc., unrelated to this work. Daniel Forton has received research funding and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, Inc. and personal fees from AbbVie, unrelated to this work. Stuart McPherson reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and AbbVie, as well as a grant from Gilead Sciences, Inc., unrelated to this work. Ann Sarah Walker is a NIHR Senior Investigator.

Article history

The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the EME programme as project number 14/02/17. The contractual start date was in February 2016. The final report began editorial review in February 2020 and was accepted for publication in June 2021. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The EME editors and production house have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the final report document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report.

Last reviewed: February 2020; Accepted: June 2021.

See Appendix 1 for full list of investigators

Copyright © 2021 Cooke et al. This work was produced by Cooke et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaption in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited.
Bookshelf ID: NBK574850PMID: 34723451DOI: 10.3310/eme08170

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (3.2M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...