Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 12:37 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-27 @ 2:04 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01711567
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2016-11-09
First Post:
2012-10-17
Is Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate vs. Entecavir in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients With Partial Virologic Response to Entecavir
Sponsor:
Korea University
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Switching to Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate vs. Continuing Entecavir in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients With Partial Virologic Response During Entecavir Therapy: STEEP Study
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2016-11
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
STEEP
Brief Summary:
Entecavir, a potent antiviral agent, has been widely used for treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients. However, about 20% of patients showed partial virologic response after 2 year of entecavir therapy (33% in HBeAg positive, 10% in HBeAg negative patients). Tenofovir is a nucleotide analogue with more potent antiviral activity. In addition, there is no cross resistance between the two drugs. Therefore it is assumed that tenofovir would be effective in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients who shows partial virologic response (detectable HBV DNA by real time PCR after 12 months of treatment) despite treatment with entecavir. In this study, we will compare the efficacy of switching to tenofovir with continuing entecavir in patients who shows partial virologic response to entecavir.
Detailed Description:
The number of patients needed was calculated using PASS 2008. We hypothesized that two-thirds (65%) of the patients receiving TDF, and one-fifth (20%) of the patients receiving ETV, would achieve virologic response. We also assumed a 15% drop-out rate; thus, 22 patients were needed in each group to achieve 80% power to demonstrate a difference between the groups with a 5% level of significance.
The primary efficacy end point will be analyzed on a per-protocol basis, including only those patients who had completed the treatment schedule of study. In contrast, the intention-to-treat analysis will include all randomized subjects, even those dropped-out from the study before 12 months, as cases of treatment failure.
The primary efficacy end point will be analyzed on a per-protocol basis, including only those patients who had completed the treatment schedule of study. In contrast, the intention-to-treat analysis will include all randomized subjects, even those dropped-out from the study before 12 months, as cases of treatment failure.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: