Study of Sirolimus Versus Mycophenolate Liver Transplant Recipients With Recurrent Hepatitis C Virus (HCV)
A Prospective Cross-over Study Comparing the Effect of Sirolimus Versus Mycophenolate on Viral Load in Liver Transplant Recipients With Recurrent Chronic HCV Infection
1 other identifier
interventional
11
1 country
1
Brief Summary
Different immunosuppressive drugs used in transplantation may reduce the body's defences against infection differently. It is known that patients with Hepatitis C virus, known as HCV, who switched from azathioprine to mycophenolate mofetil experienced an increase in viral load. Despite this, mycophenolate mofetil is used because it prevents rejection more reliably than azathioprine. Sirolimus is an another immunosuppressive agent that reliably prevents rejection and may have antiviral activity. This study is designed to see if the viral load of HCV and other viruses is reduced by switching from mycophenolate to sirolimus.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at below P25 for phase_4
Started Jun 2010
Longer than P75 for phase_4
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
May 27, 2010
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
June 1, 2010
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
June 2, 2010
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
December 1, 2014
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
December 1, 2014
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
January 21, 2015
CompletedFebruary 26, 2015
February 1, 2015
4.5 years
May 27, 2010
December 15, 2014
February 6, 2015
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
Delta Hepatitis C Viral Load
Percent change in HCV load determined 3 months after switch from MMF to SRL.
3 month
Secondary Outcomes (10)
Final Hepatitis C Viral Load
3 month
Sirolimus Trough Level
3 month
Delta Tacrolimus Trough Level
3 month
Delta Bilirubin
3 month
Delta Alkaline Phosphatase
3 month
- +5 more secondary outcomes
Study Arms (1)
Mycophenolate to sirolimus switch
EXPERIMENTALLiver transplant recipients with Hepatitis C virus switched from mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) to sirolimus (SRL) for 3 months and then switched back to MMF
Interventions
Sirolimus given for 3 months instead of mycophenolate at a starting dose equivalent of 1 mg sirolimus equal to 1000 mg of mycophenolate.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Recurrent HCV after liver transplantation
- Taking mycophenolate mofetil
- Stable liver function
You may not qualify if:
- Pregnant females or couples unwilling to use contraception
- Intolerance or allergy to sirolimus
- Patients taking anti-HCV therapy
- Patients taking medications known to alter the levels of sirolimus
- History of thromboembolic disease
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
London Health Sciences Centre
London, Ontario, N6A5A5, Canada
Related Publications (14)
Zekry A, Gleeson M, Guney S, McCaughan GW. A prospective cross-over study comparing the effect of mycophenolate versus azathioprine on allograft function and viral load in liver transplant recipients with recurrent chronic HCV infection. Liver Transpl. 2004 Jan;10(1):52-7. doi: 10.1002/lt.20000.
PMID: 14755778BACKGROUNDMcAlister VC, Gao Z, Peltekian K, Domingues J, Mahalati K, MacDonald AS. Sirolimus-tacrolimus combination immunosuppression. Lancet. 2000 Jan 29;355(9201):376-7. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)03882-9.
PMID: 10665560BACKGROUNDDi Benedetto F, Di Sandro S, De Ruvo N, Montalti R, Ballarin R, Guerrini GP, Spaggiari M, Guaraldi G, Gerunda G. First report on a series of HIV patients undergoing rapamycin monotherapy after liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2010 Mar 27;89(6):733-8. doi: 10.1097/TP.0b013e3181c7dcc0.
PMID: 20048692BACKGROUNDGallego R, Henriquez F, Oliva E, Camacho R, Hernandez R, Hortal L, Sablon N, Quintana B, Santana R, Gonzalez F, Palop L, Vega N. Switching to sirolimus in renal transplant recipients with hepatitis C virus: a safe option. Transplant Proc. 2009 Jul-Aug;41(6):2334-6. doi: 10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.06.064.
PMID: 19715912BACKGROUNDSamonakis DN, Cholongitas E, Triantos CK, Griffiths P, Dhillon AP, Thalheimer U, Patch DW, Burroughs AK. Sustained, spontaneous disappearance of serum HCV-RNA under immunosuppression after liver transplantation for HCV cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2005 Dec;43(6):1091-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2005.08.005. Epub 2005 Sep 15.
PMID: 16239045BACKGROUNDBallardini G, De Raffele E, Groff P, Bioulac-Sage P, Grassi A, Ghetti S, Susca M, Strazzabosco M, Bellusci R, Iemmolo RM, Grazi G, Zauli D, Cavallari A, Bianchi FB. Timing of reinfection and mechanisms of hepatocellular damage in transplanted hepatitis C virus-reinfected liver. Liver Transpl. 2002 Jan;8(1):10-20. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2002.30141.
PMID: 11799480BACKGROUNDCharlton M. Liver biopsy, viral kinetics, and the impact of viremia on severity of hepatitis C virus recurrence. Liver Transpl. 2003 Nov;9(11):S58-62. doi: 10.1053/jlts.2003.50245.
PMID: 14586897BACKGROUNDSindhi R, Webber S, Venkataramanan R, McGhee W, Phillips S, Smith A, Baird C, Iurlano K, Mazariegos G, Cooperstone B, Holt DW, Zeevi A, Fung JJ, Reyes J. Sirolimus for rescue and primary immunosuppression in transplanted children receiving tacrolimus. Transplantation. 2001 Sep 15;72(5):851-5. doi: 10.1097/00007890-200109150-00019.
PMID: 11571449BACKGROUNDNepomuceno RR, Balatoni CE, Natkunam Y, Snow AL, Krams SM, Martinez OM. Rapamycin inhibits the interleukin 10 signal transduction pathway and the growth of Epstein Barr virus B-cell lymphomas. Cancer Res. 2003 Aug 1;63(15):4472-80.
PMID: 12907620BACKGROUNDKneteman NM, Oberholzer J, Al Saghier M, Meeberg GA, Blitz M, Ma MM, Wong WW, Gutfreund K, Mason AL, Jewell LD, Shapiro AM, Bain VG, Bigam DL. Sirolimus-based immunosuppression for liver transplantation in the presence of extended criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl. 2004 Oct;10(10):1301-11. doi: 10.1002/lt.20237.
PMID: 15376305BACKGROUNDIacob S, Cicinnati VR, Hilgard P, Iacob RA, Gheorghe LS, Popescu I, Frilling A, Malago M, Gerken G, Broelsch CE, Beckebaum S. Predictors of graft and patient survival in hepatitis C virus (HCV) recipients: model to predict HCV cirrhosis after liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2007 Jul 15;84(1):56-63. doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000267916.36343.ca.
PMID: 17627238BACKGROUNDKornberg A, Kupper B, Tannapfel A, Hommann M, Scheele J. Impact of mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine on early recurrence of hepatitis C after liver transplantation. Int Immunopharmacol. 2005 Jan;5(1):107-15. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2004.09.010.
PMID: 15589468BACKGROUNDHaddad EM, McAlister VC, Renouf E, Malthaner R, Kjaer MS, Gluud LL. Cyclosporin versus tacrolimus for liver transplanted patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18;2006(4):CD005161. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005161.pub2.
PMID: 17054241BACKGROUNDRostaing L, Izopet J, Sandres K, Cisterne JM, Puel J, Durand D. Changes in hepatitis C virus RNA viremia concentrations in long-term renal transplant patients after introduction of mycophenolate mofetil. Transplantation. 2000 Mar 15;69(5):991-4. doi: 10.1097/00007890-200003150-00055.
PMID: 10755563BACKGROUND
Related Links
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Limitations and Caveats
Greater than expected baseline variation; technical problems with laboratory measurement of HCV (two different platforms used); and poor recruitment over a long period make the results difficult to interpret.
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Dr Vivian McAlister
- Organization
- LondonHSC
Study Officials
- STUDY DIRECTOR
Vivian McAlister, MB, FRCSC
London Health Sciences Centre
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Natasha Chandok, MD, FRCPC
London Health Sciences Centre
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- No
- Restrictive Agreement
- No
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 4
- Allocation
- NA
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- PREVENTION
- Intervention Model
- SINGLE GROUP
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Principal investigator
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
May 27, 2010
First Posted
June 2, 2010
Study Start
June 1, 2010
Primary Completion
December 1, 2014
Study Completion
December 1, 2014
Last Updated
February 26, 2015
Results First Posted
January 21, 2015
Record last verified: 2015-02