If treatment GNF-7 site outcomes involved acute HCV infection. Randomised trials were excluded in keeping with the aim of assessing outcomes in programmatic settings (defined as cohort reports in health care settings where there was no randomisation or control group comparison). In cases of potential duplication of studies, the largest report covering the longest 25033180 time period was included and authors were contacted for clarification. Patient and study characteristics were extracted in duplicate (AD, KS), with third party arbitration in case of disagreement (NF). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a SVR, calculated on an `intent-to-treat’ basis with all patients starting treatment contributing to the denominator. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving a rapid virological response (RVR), defined as an undetectable (,50 copies/mL) serum level of HCV RNA at week 4 of treatment; discontinuation of treatment due to adverse drug reactions; loss to care (default); and death.Data AnalysisPoint estimates and 95 confidence intervals (95 CI) were calculated for all primary and secondary outcomes. The variance of raw proportions was stabilised using a Freeman-Tukey type arcsine square-root transformation [10] and proportions were then pooled using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model [11]. We calculated the t2 statistic using DerSimonian and Laird’s method of moments estimator [11] to assess between-study heterogeneity [12]. Sources of heterogeneity were explored through univariate subgroup analyses to assess the potential influence of baseline liver damage, genotype, type of HCV treatment and co-treatment with highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). All analyses were conducted using Stata version 12 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, USA), with a Pvalue #0.05 considered as significant.were exclusively comprised of patients infected with genotypes 2 and 3. HCV treatment comprised pegylated interferon and weightbased ribavarin in most cases, and the majority of patients (84 ) received concomitant antiretroviral therapy. Liver damage was assessed by biopsy in over half (25) of studies. One study used fibroscan to assess liver damage, and 3 purchase Pleuromutilin studies used a combination of the 2 techniques. Nine studies did not assess liver damage while the remainder of the studies (3) did not state the method used. The proportion of patients achieving SVR ranged from 13.8 (2.2?2.9 ) to 71.9 (48.2?0.5 ), with a pooled proportion of 38 (34.7?2.3 ) (t2 0.037). Three studies were `adherent cohorts’ comprising only patients who completed treatment; removing these studies from the analysis did not affect the overall result. The result was also unaffected by a sensitivity analysis that included all studies from Spain regardless of potential overlap (pooled SVR 39 ). The most important determinant of treatment success was HCV genotype, with significantly poorer outcomes for patients infected with HCV genotypes 1 or 4 (3371 patients, pooled SVR 24.5 (95 CI 20.4?8.6 ), compared to genotypes 2 or 3 (1878 patients, pooled SVR 59.8 (95 CI 47.9?1.7 ). Cohorts in which more than 50 of patients had advanced liver fibrosis at baseline (Metavir F3 or F4 or equivalent) [53] had poorer outcomes compared to cohorts where less than 50 of patients had advanced liver disease (42.8 [36.7?9 ] versus 34.4 [27?1.8 ]). Subgroup analyses are summarized in Figure 2. Rapid virological response, reported by 5 studies, was achieved by 30.If treatment outcomes involved acute HCV infection. Randomised trials were excluded in keeping with the aim of assessing outcomes in programmatic settings (defined as cohort reports in health care settings where there was no randomisation or control group comparison). In cases of potential duplication of studies, the largest report covering the longest 25033180 time period was included and authors were contacted for clarification. Patient and study characteristics were extracted in duplicate (AD, KS), with third party arbitration in case of disagreement (NF). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving a SVR, calculated on an `intent-to-treat’ basis with all patients starting treatment contributing to the denominator. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients achieving a rapid virological response (RVR), defined as an undetectable (,50 copies/mL) serum level of HCV RNA at week 4 of treatment; discontinuation of treatment due to adverse drug reactions; loss to care (default); and death.Data AnalysisPoint estimates and 95 confidence intervals (95 CI) were calculated for all primary and secondary outcomes. The variance of raw proportions was stabilised using a Freeman-Tukey type arcsine square-root transformation [10] and proportions were then pooled using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model [11]. We calculated the t2 statistic using DerSimonian and Laird’s method of moments estimator [11] to assess between-study heterogeneity [12]. Sources of heterogeneity were explored through univariate subgroup analyses to assess the potential influence of baseline liver damage, genotype, type of HCV treatment and co-treatment with highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). All analyses were conducted using Stata version 12 (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas, USA), with a Pvalue #0.05 considered as significant.were exclusively comprised of patients infected with genotypes 2 and 3. HCV treatment comprised pegylated interferon and weightbased ribavarin in most cases, and the majority of patients (84 ) received concomitant antiretroviral therapy. Liver damage was assessed by biopsy in over half (25) of studies. One study used fibroscan to assess liver damage, and 3 studies used a combination of the 2 techniques. Nine studies did not assess liver damage while the remainder of the studies (3) did not state the method used. The proportion of patients achieving SVR ranged from 13.8 (2.2?2.9 ) to 71.9 (48.2?0.5 ), with a pooled proportion of 38 (34.7?2.3 ) (t2 0.037). Three studies were `adherent cohorts’ comprising only patients who completed treatment; removing these studies from the analysis did not affect the overall result. The result was also unaffected by a sensitivity analysis that included all studies from Spain regardless of potential overlap (pooled SVR 39 ). The most important determinant of treatment success was HCV genotype, with significantly poorer outcomes for patients infected with HCV genotypes 1 or 4 (3371 patients, pooled SVR 24.5 (95 CI 20.4?8.6 ), compared to genotypes 2 or 3 (1878 patients, pooled SVR 59.8 (95 CI 47.9?1.7 ). Cohorts in which more than 50 of patients had advanced liver fibrosis at baseline (Metavir F3 or F4 or equivalent) [53] had poorer outcomes compared to cohorts where less than 50 of patients had advanced liver disease (42.8 [36.7?9 ] versus 34.4 [27?1.8 ]). Subgroup analyses are summarized in Figure 2. Rapid virological response, reported by 5 studies, was achieved by 30.

If treatment outcomes involved acute HCV infection. Randomised trials were excluded

About author

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.