Hepatitis C Treatment in PWIDs: MAT or Syringe Exchange Assisted-therapy vs Standard of Care
A Prospective Cohort Study Comparing the Effectiveness of Zepatier for the Treatment of Hepatitis C in an Academic Center Population to People Who Inject Drugs (PWIDs) in a Safety Net Clinic Setting Engaged in Either a Medication Assisted Therapy (MAT) or Syringe Exchange Program
1 other identifier
interventional
100
1 country
2
Brief Summary
hepatitis C virus (HCV) has traditionally been treated in subspecialty health centers given the complexity of older pegylated interferon containing regimens, formerly the standard of care. This model has persisted into the modern era of direct anti-viral agents (DAAs) despite their relative simplicity, creating a bottleneck of human resources necessary to fight the largest infectious epidemic in North America. In addition, stigma and fear over cost has lead payers to restrict treatment in People Who Inject Drugs (PWIDs), even though a majority of new infections occur in this population. This study evaluates the effectiveness of treatment of HCV with elbasvir-grasoprevir in PWIDs in a real world, community health clinic setting. There are two prospective cohorts of PWIDs of 25 patients each, both in primary care-based community health clinics in Portland, Oregon. Cohort one is actively engaged with ambulatory medication assisted therapy with buprenorphine or extended released injectable naltrexone. Cohort two maintains active injection drug use with needle exchange and risk reduction education. These groups are compared to a 50 patient retrospective cohort of people with substance use disorders at tertiary care hepatology-based treatment program. All patients have genotype 1 or 4 HCV and are treated with elbasvir-grasoprevir for 12 weeks. The investigators hypothesize there is no difference in sustained viremic response at 12 or 48 weeks post-completion of treatment (SVR 12, 48) when treating patients in a community health clinic setting as compared to the standard-of-care subspecialty setting.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P50-P75 for phase_4
Started May 2017
Typical duration for phase_4
2 active sites
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
March 9, 2017
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
March 28, 2017
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
May 30, 2017
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
June 6, 2019
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
June 6, 2019
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
November 12, 2020
CompletedNovember 12, 2020
October 1, 2020
2 years
March 9, 2017
August 31, 2020
October 19, 2020
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
SVR 12
Sustained Viremic Response at 12 weeks post-completion of treatment. SVR12 was determined negative if undetectable (\<20 copies) by polymerase chain reaction and positive if EITHER loss-to-follow up and no lab data or virus was detected greater than 20 copies.
24 weeks post-initiation of treatment (12 weeks post-completion of treatment)
Secondary Outcomes (5)
SVR 48
60 weeks post-initiation of treatment (48 weeks post-completion of treatment)
Discontinuation Rate or Lost To Follow Up
Study duration (60 weeks)
NS5A Resistance
At Study Screening/Enrollment
Medication Adherence
12 weeks (duration of treatment)
Injection Drug Use Relapse (IDU)
Duration of study (60 weeks)
Study Arms (3)
Old Town Clinic, Medication Assisted Therapy group
ACTIVE COMPARATOR25 People Who Inject Drugs engaged in a Medication Assisted Therapy treatment program for their substance use disorder, treated for their HCV using elbasvir-grazoprevir (50 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks.
Outside In Clinic, Needle Exchange Program
ACTIVE COMPARATOR25 People Who Inject Drugs engaged in a Needle Exchange Program with risk reduction education, treated for their HCV using elbasvir-grazoprevir (50 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks.
OHSU Hepatology Clinic, Academic center Retrospective Cohort
OTHER50 people with substance use disorder and HCV engaged with an Academic Hepatology Clinic (Oregon Health \& Sciences University, OHSU) and treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir (50 mg/100 mg) for 12 weeks.
Interventions
12 week treatment of elbasvir-grazoprevir (50 mg/100 mg)
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Genotype 1b and genotype 1a without baseline NS5A resistance or Genotype 4
- APRI Score \<0.7; if \>0.7 a Fibrosure/Fibrotest or Fibroscan score of F2 or less
- No clinical or laboratory evidence of cirrhosis
- Readiness for treatment based on ability to make \>2/3 sequential office visits
- Patients must be assessed to have decision-making capacity, be capable of consenting, and not be displaying evidence of overt intoxication.
You may not qualify if:
- Clinical or Laboratory Evidence of Cirrhosis
- Elevated prothrombin time unrelated to anticoagulation, hemoglobin level less than 12.3 g/L in females and \<14 g/L in males, platelet count \<150 Ă— 109 cells/L), white blood cells (WBC) \<4.0 x103/mm3 , aminotransferase levels more than 10 times the upper limit of normal, or albumin level \<3.5 g/L.
- Previous treatment for hepatitis C infection
- Hepatocellular carcinoma
- HIV or hepatitis B virus co-infection
- Subjects taking medications that are contra-indicated to administer with Zepatier including phenytoin, carbamazepine, rifampin, St. John's Wort, and cyclosporine AND unable to change these medications to one without interactions.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (2)
Old Town Clinic
Portland, Oregon, 97214, United States
Outside In
Portland, Oregon, 97214, United States
Related Publications (7)
Islam MM, Topp L, Conigrave KM, White A, Reid SE, Grummett S, Haber PS, Day CA. Linkage into specialist hepatitis C treatment services of injecting drug users attending a needle syringe program-based primary healthcare centre. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2012 Dec;43(4):440-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2012.07.007. Epub 2012 Aug 29.
PMID: 22938915BACKGROUNDBruggmann P, Litwin AH. Models of care for the management of hepatitis C virus among people who inject drugs: one size does not fit all. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Aug;57 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S56-61. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit271.
PMID: 23884067RESULTAspinall EJ, Corson S, Doyle JS, Grebely J, Hutchinson SJ, Dore GJ, Goldberg DJ, Hellard ME. Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection among people who are actively injecting drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2013 Aug;57 Suppl 2:S80-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit306.
PMID: 23884071RESULTSylvestre DL, Litwin AH, Clements BJ, Gourevitch MN. The impact of barriers to hepatitis C virus treatment in recovering heroin users maintained on methadone. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2005 Oct;29(3):159-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2005.06.002.
PMID: 16183464RESULTGrebely J, Knight E, Genoway KA, Viljoen M, Khara M, Elliott D, Gallagher L, Storms M, Raffa JD, DeVlaming S, Duncan F, Conway B. Optimizing assessment and treatment for hepatitis C virus infection in illicit drug users: a novel model incorporating multidisciplinary care and peer support. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Mar;22(3):270-7. doi: 10.1097/meg.0b013e32832a8c4c.
PMID: 20425880RESULTNewman AI, Beckstead S, Beking D, Finch S, Knorr T, Lynch C, MacKenzie M, Mayer D, Melles B, Shore R. Treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection among current and former injection drug users within a multidisciplinary treatment model at a community health centre. Can J Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr;27(4):217-23. doi: 10.1155/2013/515636.
PMID: 23616960RESULTMason K, Dodd Z, Sockalingam S, Altenberg J, Meaney C, Millson P, Powis J. Beyond viral response: A prospective evaluation of a community-based, multi-disciplinary, peer-driven model of HCV treatment and support. Int J Drug Policy. 2015 Oct;26(10):1007-13. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2015.04.012. Epub 2015 Apr 29.
PMID: 26005037RESULT
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Limitations and Caveats
Study groups comparisons of sites of enrollment/treatment (MAT clinic vs needle exchange) rather than disease state (many MAT participants used needle exchange; many needle exchange on MAT); funding limitations prevented SVR48 collection.
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Andrew Seaman, MD
- Organization
- Oregon Health and Sciences University
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Atif Zaman, MD
Oregon Health and Science University
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- Yes
- Restrictive Agreement
- No
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- phase 4
- Allocation
- NON RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- TREATMENT
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Co Investigator
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
March 9, 2017
First Posted
March 28, 2017
Study Start
May 30, 2017
Primary Completion
June 6, 2019
Study Completion
June 6, 2019
Last Updated
November 12, 2020
Results First Posted
November 12, 2020
Record last verified: 2020-10
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will share
All electronic data will be maintained encrypted in the Red Cap repository. Only the primary investigator and co-investigator will have access to the master spreadsheet linking study and personal identifiers. Andrew Seaman, co-investigator and primary study contact, will be listed as the repository guardian. He will be responsible for ensuring data are released according to OHSU policy and the institutional review board (IRB) approved repository protocol, executing a repository sharing agreement in case data are released for future research, ensuring the security and confidentiality of all stored data, ensuring the security and confidentiality of data, and tracking releases of data. The repository guardian will be responsible for verifying that future releases are done in concordance with pre-proposed limits and the original consent. Data transport at the time of any future IRB approved data sharing will be approved by an updated research services agreement and separate IRB approval.