Trial · NCT02786537
Registered outcomes28
Each outcome the trial registered, primary first, in ClinicalTrials.gov's words.
1 to 20 of 28
Download this page as JSON| List | Outcome | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12) mITT With Imputation-Phase 1 and 2 EBR/GZR, SOF/LDV | 12 weeks post-treatment | SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation at discretion of provider). mITT with imputation (missing=failure). Total number of subjects reflects participants from EBR/GZR with or without RBV and SOF/LDV with or without RBV randomized during Phase 1 and Phase 2. |
| Primary | Phase 1/2 Number of Participants With Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12-mITT Without Imputation) | 12-24 weeks post HCV treatment | SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site). Number of subjects reflects participants who started EBR/GZR or SOF/LDV- based treatment (with or without RBV) during Phase 1 and 2. |
| Primary | Phase 1-Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12) mITT With Imputation | 12 weeks post-treatment | SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as patients who have undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site). mITT with imputation (missing=failure). Total number of subjects reflects participants from Phase 1 only. |
| Primary | Phase 1 Number of Participants With Sustained Virologic Response (SVR12-mITT Without Imputation) | 12 -24 weeks post-treatment | SVR (Sustained Virologic Response) 12 will be defined as undetectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA at 12 week follow-up visit (12 -24 weeks after HCV treatment discontinuation as dictated by standard of care at each individual site). Number of subjects reflects participants randomized during Phase 1 only. |
| Primary | Mean Change in Headache-PRO Scores -Phase 1 | Baseline to On-Treatment | Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Mean change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement in symptom. |
| Primary | Mean Change in Headache-EBR/GZR and SOF/LDV | Baseline to On-Treatment | Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Mean change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD |
| Primary | Median Change in Headache -Phase 1 | 12 weeks (Baseline and Average On-treatment Score) | Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Median change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of mean change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD |
| Primary | Median Change in Headache-Phase 2 | Baseline -on Treatment (12-16 weeks) | Headache was evaluated by the HIT-6 score, a validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs) 'PROMIS Headache Impact Test (HIT)' with scores ranging from 36 to 78 with higher score reflecting greater impact. Median change in headache side effect was evaluated using difference between baseline value of HIT-6 score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Estimates of median change and differences obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated baseline score as one of outcomes. Negative values for mean change represent improvement, while negative values for 'difference' indicate LDV/SOF performed better than PrOD |
| Primary | Mean Change in Nausea/Vomiting PRO Score -Phase 1 | Baseline to On-Treatment | Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for mean change represent improvement. The estimates of mean change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes. The model expressed mean score as a function of DAA regimen, cirrhosis status, HCV genotype, sex, age, race, and previous treatment status. |
| Primary | Mean Change in Nausea/Vomiting PROMIS Score -EBR/GZR vs. LDV/SOF | Baseline and Average On-Treatment Score | Participants completed the Patient Reported Outcomes surveys (PROs) 'PROMIS Nausea/Vomiting -4 Short Form' at baseline and during treatment. Raw scores are converted to standardized T-scores with a range of 45.0-80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea/vomiting. Results presented as mean difference from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores (highest/worst) score during treatment. A negative (-) PROMIS change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. Estimates of mean change were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes. |
| Primary | Median Change in Nausea PRO Score -Phase 1 | Baseline to end of treatment | Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for mean change represent improvement. The estimates of change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes. |
| Primary | Median Change in Nausea PROMIS Score-EBR/GZR SOF/LDV | Baseline- On Treatment (up to 16 weeks) | Patients completed the PROMIS® Nausea Short Form at Baseline (T1) and on-treatment. PROMIS raw scores from each of the completed questionnaires were converted to standardized T-scores. Change was calculated as the difference between baseline and on-treatment score. T-scores for the PROMIS Nausea and Vomiting 4a scale range from 45.0 - 80.1. Higher scores indicate worse nausea. Negative values for change represent improvement. The estimates of change and differences were obtained from a constrained longitudinal linear mixed-effects model that treated the baseline score as one of the outcomes. |
| Primary | Mean Change in Fatigue PRO Score -Phase 1 | Baseline to On-treatment | Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35. |
| Primary | Mean Change in Fatigue PRO -EBR/GZR vs SOF/LDV | Baseline and Average On-Treatment Score | Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35. |
| Primary | Median Change in Fatigue -Phase 1 | Baseline to End of Treatment | Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35. |
| Primary | Median Change in Fatigue-Phase 2 | Baseline-On Treatment (up to 16 weeks) | Fatigue severity collected from validated, Patient Reported Outcomes survey (PROs), 'PROMIS Fatigue Short Form'. PROMIS® T-scores were computated to compare difference between baseline value of PROMIS score to the highest (worst) score during treatment. Results presented as computated t-score from baseline to average of on Treatment Scores. A positive (+) score suggests improvements in functional well-being. A negative (-) PRO change score is suggestive of symptom improvement or lack of drug side effect. PROMIS Fatigue Score scale per question: 1=Never, 2=Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4=Often, 5=Always with 7 questions for a total maximum score of 35. |
| Primary | Mean Change in HCV- PRO- Phase 1 | Baseline to End of Treatment | HCV-PRO, a survey for patients with HCV that measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess 'overall functioning and well-being'. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being. Total score = (SUM-N)/(4\*N)\*100, where N is the number of questions answered. |
| Primary | Median Change in HCV-PRO (Overall Well Being) -Phase 1 | Baseline to End of Treatment | HCV-PRO, a survey for patients with HCV that measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess 'Overall Functioning and Well-being'. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being. Total score = (SUM-N)/(4\*N)\*100, where N is the number of questions answered. |
| Primary | Mean Change in HCV-PRO (Functional Well-being) EBR/GZR vs. SOF/LDV Score-Phase 2 | End of Treatment - Baseline | HCV-PRO, a survey designed to assess functional status of patients with HCV and measures physical, emotional, and social functioning, productivity, intimacy, and perception of quality of life, was used to assess functional well-being. In general, lower score is worst outcome and higher scores indicate greater well-being and functioning. However, for ease of interpretation, HCV-PRO scale has been transformed by using '100 - HCV-PRO' ultimately revising the score to mean 0 (lowest score) is best to 100 (worst outcome). A positive change (End of treatment to baseline) suggests improvements in functional well-being. Total score = (SUM-N)/(4\*N)\*100, where N is the number of questions answered. End of Treatment -Baseline were used to calculate CHANGE in outcome. Number of subjects reflects participants from both Phase 1 and 2. |
| Primary | 16 Wk EBR/GZR With RBV Efficacy on Patients With HCV RASs | 12 weeks post treatment | Efficacy of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Treatment with Zepatier (Elbasvir/Grazobevir) with Ribavirin (RBV) for 16 weeks when used in Genotype 1a patients with Baseline RASs (NS5a Resistance Associated Substitutions or RAPs -Resistance Associated Polymorphisms). Efficacy defined as HCV RNA undetectable 12 weeks post treatment. Table excludes Genotype 1b patients. |
Source ClinicalTrials.govtrials-2026-11-12-0.5.0
Sources 3
- ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTFreely available. Acknowledgement requested
- ClinicalTrials.govNo license stated
- NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain
Each source's terms
- ClinicalTrials.gov's posted results, through CTTI's AACTClinicalTrials.gov data via Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT), CTTI. CTTI makes its materials freely available and requests acknowledgement. https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/documentation/299
- ClinicalTrials.govnone stated
- NIH RePORTER's clinical studies and project filesPublic domain (NIH RePORTER)
ClinicalTrials.gov's data carry an international copyright outside the United States: https://clinicaltrials.gov/about-site/terms-conditions.
For software
Read this list from software.
Twenty rows a page, as JSON. No key.
GET https://conductscience.org/api/trials/v1/NCT02786537/registered