Comparison of simeprevir versus telaprevir plus pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection——a meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of simeprevir-based (SMV) or telaprevir-based (TVR) triple therapy [SMV + Pegylated interferon alfa (PegIFNα) and ribavirin (RBV) versus TVR + PegIFNα and RBV] in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. Methods A systematic literature searching was conducted in multiple online databases to identify relevant studies. The sustained virologic response rate at 12 (SVR12) and 24 weeks (SVR24) after end of the treatment were used as the efficacy endpoints. The rate of treatment related adverse events (AEs), discontinuation due to AEs and overall treatment discontinuation were used as safety endpoints. Patients were divided into multiple subgroups according to the previous treatment history to further compare the efficacy of the two treatment regimen. Statistical analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. The Jajad score scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were employed to evaluate the quality of included studies. Results A total of 5 clinical studies including 1666 HCV genotype 1 patients were included in this study. The pooled results showed that SVR12 rates in SMV group and TVR group were 67.6% and 68.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference in overall SVR12 rate between SMV and TVR groups (OR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.76-1.18, P=0.65). There was no significant heterogeneity among studies (P=0.84, I2=0%). For SVR24 rate, the average SVR24 rate in SMV group was 78%, which was lower than that in TVR group of 84%. However, there was no significant difference in overall SVR24 rate between SMV and TVR groups (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.42-1.20, P=0.20). Meanwhile, there was no significant heterogeneity among studies (P=0.69, I2=0%). The subgroup analysis also showed that there was no significant difference in efficacy between SMV and TVR-based triple therapy for treatment-native patients, prior partial response, relapse, and prior null response patients (all P>0.05). However, the pooled analysis indicated that both SMV-based and TVR-based triple therapies were most effective for the treatment-naive patients(SMV: 85.7%, TVR: 85.6%). For the safety endpoints, the incidence rate of anemia was significant lower in SMV group compared to TVR group (OR=0.30, P<0.001). For the rate of overall treatment discontinuation, there was no statistically significant difference between SMV and TVR group (OR=0.48, P=0.12). Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that the efficacy of SMV-based triple therapy is non-inferior to TVR-based triple therapy. However, the SMV-based triple therapy is more tolerable and has a lower incident rate of anemia and discontinuation due to AEs compared to TVR-based triple therapy. Key words: Hepatitis C, chronic; Meta-analysis; Genotype 1; Simeprevir; Telaprevir; Sustained viral response
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,043 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».