Elderly Patients Are at Greater Risk of Cytopenia During Antiviral Therapy for Hepatitis C
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
UNLABELLED: The results of antiviral therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have improved recently with the use of pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN)/ribavirin (RBV) combination therapy. At this point, most patients with chronic HCV remain untreated. Thus, it is anticipated that therapy will be more appealing and prescribed more broadly than in the past, including in patients considered marginal. AIM: To examine the effects of PEG-IFN-based antiviral therapy in elderly patients with chronic HCV. METHODS: The charts of patients treated with chronic HCV were reviewed. Patients were defined as elderly if they were 60 years of age or older. The control group consisted of patients younger than 60 years of age who were matched to the treated elderly patients based on sex, treating physician, prescribed treatment and intended prescribed treatment duration. The data recorded included end of treatment response, sustained virological response (SVR), adverse events, dose modification and withdrawal of therapy. RESULTS: Thirty of 147 (20.4%) elderly patients attending a hepatitis C clinic were treated. The average age of the elderly patients was 65+/-4 years. Forty-three per cent were men and 57% were women. Ten per cent received IFN monotherapy, 70% received a combination of IFN/RBV therapy and 20% received a combination of PEG-IFN/RBV therapy. The overall response rates in the elderly patients compared with the younger patients was 46.7% versus 65.8% (P=0.11) for end of treatment response and 33.3% versus 51.2% (P=0.13) for SVR. The rate of dose modification was 50% in the elderly patients compared with 29% in the control group (P=0.08). Therapy was discontinued in 53% of the elderly compared with 34% of younger patients (P=0.17). The younger patients reported more side effects than elderly patients; although, there were more laboratory abnormalities (anemia, thrombocytopenia and neutropenia) in the elderly patients during therapy than in the younger group (0.93 per patient versus 0.49 per patient, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with chronic HCV can be treated successfully. However, they are more at risk to develop cytopenias while on treatment. In such patients, the close monitoring of blood counts is necessary. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine whether SVR differs in this population.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».