Trial reportPloS one2016
Treatment Selection Choices Should Not Be Based on Benefits or Costs Alone: A Head-to-Head Randomized Controlled Trial of Antiviral Drugs for Hepatitis C.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02113631 (Comparative Effectiveness and Tolerability of Boceprevir vs Telaprevir and Re-assessment of Treatment Duration in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparative Effectiveness and Tolerability of Boceprevir vs Telaprevir and Re-assessment of Treatment Duration in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Body dissatisfaction and non-suicidal self-injury among Chinese young adults: a moderated mediation analysis.Eating and weight disorders : EWD · 2022Article
- Micro-costing analysis of guideline-based treatment by direct-acting agents: the real-life case of hepatitis C management in Brazil.BMC gastroenterology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinicians often face dilemmas with decisions related to formulary choices when two similar drugs are simultaneously available in the market. We studied the comparative safety, effectiveness, and treatment costs of the two first generation direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA), boceprevir and telaprevir as uncertainty existed regarding the drug of choice between these two seemingly equally Hepatitis-C treatment options.
methodsWe randomly assigned 50 patients in an open-label, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) at a VA Medical Center to either boceprevir or telaprevir in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin, stratified by the presence of cirrhosis and prior treatment experience. Tolerability was assessed at each visit and reasons for discontinuation of treatment and severity of adverse events due to PI treatment were adjudicated using a blinded adjudication committee. The primary outcome was difference in tolerability between boceprevir vs. telaprevir. Secondary outcomes included viral response rates and cost-per cure achieved.
resultsHigher rates of treatment discontinuations and/or severe DAA associated adverse events were seen in 10/25 (40%) patients randomized to telaprevir compared to 2/25 (8%) patients randomized to boceprevir (RR: 5; 95% CI: 1.2, 20; p<0.01). Cure rates did not appear to be significantly different between groups (telaprevir vs. boceprevir: RR 1.23; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.99; p = 0.39). On an intention-to-treat basis, total cost per cure was $44,329 for boceprevir vs. $57,115 for telaprevir. The significant side effect profile of telaprevir combined with the availability of highly efficacious second generation DAAs led to the early discontinuation of the trial.
conclusionTelaprevir is associated with a significantly higher rate of severe adverse events leading to treatment discontinuations, hospitalizations or severe anemia and a substantially higher cost per SVR when compared to boceprevir. Real-time, point of care, pragmatic randomized controlled trials are necessary for guidance beyond just acquisition costs and to make evidence-based formulary selections when multiple effective treatments are available. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT02113631).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.