4.6 Article

Four Weeks Treatment with Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir plus Ribavirin-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Journal

VIRUSES-BASEL
Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v14030614

Keywords

chronic hepatitis C; HCV; DAA; glecaprevir; pibrentasvir; ribavirin; predictors; genotype; viral load

Categories

Funding

  1. Danish Medicines Research fund [EMN-2017-00901]
  2. University of Southern Denmark

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Shortening the duration of treatment can improve the treatment rate of hepatitis C. This study compared the sustained virological response after 4 weeks and 8 weeks of treatment, and found that a high SVR was achievable in patients with low viral load even after 4 weeks of treatment.
Enhancing treatment uptake for hepatitis C to achieve the elimination goals set by the World Health Organization could be achieved by reducing the treatment duration. The aim of this study was to compare the sustained virological response at week 12 (SVR12) after four weeks of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) + ribavirin compared to eight weeks of GLE/PIB and to estimate predictors for SVR12 with four weeks of treatment through a multicenter open label randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized 2:1 (4 weeks:8 weeks) and stratified by genotype 3 and were treatment naive of all genotypes and without significant liver fibrosis. A total of 27 patients were analyzed for predictors for SVR12, including 15 from the first pilot phase of the study. In the 'modified intention to treat' group, 100% (7/7) achieved cure after eight weeks and for patients treated for four weeks the SVR12 was 58.3% (7/12). However, patients with a baseline viral load <2 mill IU/mL had 93% SVR12. The study closed prematurely due to the low number of included patients due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results suggest that viral load should be taken into account when considering trials of short course treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available