Trial reportLancet (London, England)2025
Treatment options to support the elimination of hepatitis C: an open-label, factorial, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.
Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of sample size determination in Bayesian randomized clinical trials: full Bayesian methods are rarely used.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Pooled it
- Reimagining Hepatitis C Elimination: Time for Actions, Not Targets.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2026Article
- Host-derived lactic acid disrupts IFN efficacy via antiviral inhibition and proinflammatory amplification.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Hepatitis C Virus Infection in the PERSIAN Guilan Cohort Study Population: Intrafamilial Transmission Incidence and Response to SOVODAK-Based Therapy.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Modeling predicts shortening of DAA treatment duration to 5 weeks in individuals with recent or chronic infection with HCV RNA negativity at day 7 on treatment.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of alternative hepatitis C treatment options: a post hoc analysis of the VIETNARMS trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Head-to-head trial of HCV treatment regimens.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWHO recommends treating hepatitis C infection with one of three antiviral combinations for 8-12 weeks. No randomised trials have compared these regimens, and high cure rates might be achievable with shorter durations of therapy. We aimed to compare sofosbuvir-daclatasvir with sofosbuvir-velpatasvir, and to evaluate potential novel treatment strategies.
methodsWe conducted a multi-arm, open-label, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial in two public hospitals in Viet Nam. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with chronic hepatitis C infection and mild-to-moderate liver fibrosis were eligible. Recruitment was stratified by centre and viral genotype (1-5 vs 6) with 1:1 random allocation to an oral fixed-dose combination of sofosbuvir 400 mg plus daclatasvir 60 mg (sofosbuvir-daclatasvir) or sofosbuvir 400 mg plus velpatasvir 100 mg (sofosbuvir-velpatasvir). Participants were simultaneously factorially randomly assigned to one of four treatment strategies: 12 weeks' standard of care (SOC); 4 weeks' therapy with four weekly PEGylated interferon alfa-2a subcutaneous injections; induction and maintenance therapy with 2 weeks' standard therapy followed by 10 weeks' therapy 5 days a week; and response-guided therapy (RGT) for 4, 8, or 12 weeks determined by viral load on day 7. The primary outcome was sustained virological response (SVR) 12 weeks after treatment completion, analysed in all evaluable participants regardless of actual treatment received. We chose a 5% non-inferiority margin for the drug comparison, and a 10% non-inferiority margin for the treatment strategy comparisons. Safety was assessed in all randomised participants. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 61522291, and is completed.
findingsBetween June 19, 2020, and May 10, 2023, 624 participants were randomised (470 [75%] were male and 154 [25%] were female). 296 (47%) had genotype 6 and 328 (53%) had genotypes 1-5. The primary outcome was assessable in 609 (98%) participants. SVR occurred in 294 (97%) of 302 participants in the sofosbuvir-daclatasvir group and 292 (95%) of 307 participants in the sofosbuvir-velpatasvir group (risk difference 2·2%, 90% credible interval [CrI] -0·2 to 4·8, within the 5% non-inferiority margin; 93% probability that sofosbuvir-daclatasvir is superior to sofosbuvir-velpatasvir). SVR occurred in 148 (99%) of 150 in the SOC group, 143 (94%) of 152 in the 4-week antiviral plus interferon group (-4·5%, 90% CrI -8·3 to -1·3), 151 (99%) of 152 in the induction-maintenance group (0·6%, -1·1 to 2·7), and 144 (93%) of 155 in the RGT group (-5·7%, -9·6 to -2·3); all risk differences were within the 10% non-inferiority margin. Serious adverse events were rare (11 [4%] of 313 participants in the sofosbuvir-velpatasvir group vs six [2%] of 311 in the sofosbuvir-daclatasvir group; risk difference -1·6% [95% CrI -4·2 to 0·8]) with no evidence of differences between regimens or strategies, but adverse reactions were very common in the 4-week antiviral plus interferon group compared with the other treatment strategies (risk difference vs SOC group, 66·8% [59·2 to 74·0]; p<0·0001).
interpretationSofosbuvir-daclatasvir was non-inferior to sofosbuvir-velpatasvir. High efficacy was seen with novel strategies, which might help to inform approaches to treatment for harder-to-reach populations.
fundingWellcome Trust.
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.