MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972732919 · doi:10.1002/hep.23827

Virologic Response Rates of Weight-Based Taribavirin Versus Ribavirin in Treatment-Naive Patients with Genotype 1 Chronic Hepatitis C

2010· article· en· W1972732919 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fred Poordad, Eric Lawitz, Mitchell L. Shiffman, Tarek Hassanein, Andrew J. Muir, Bruce R. Bacon, Jamie Heise, Deanine G. Halliman, Eric Chun, Janet Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis C virus research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGilead SciencesValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalPfizerBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsRibavirinChronic hepatitisMedicineGenotypeInternal medicineVirologyHepatitis CGastroenterologyBiologyGeneVirusGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Ribavirin-induced hemolytic anemia can prompt dose reductions and lower sustained virologic response (SVR) rates in the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C. The study aimed to determine if weight-based dosing of taribavirin (TBV), an oral prodrug of ribavirin (RBV), demonstrated efficacy comparable to RBV while maintaining its previously demonstrated anemia advantage with fixed dose administration. A U.S. phase 2b randomized, open-label, active-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in 278 treatment-naive patients infected with genotype 1 who were stratified by body weight and baseline viral load. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive TBV (20, 25, or 30 mg/kg/day) or RBV (800-1400 mg/day) with pegylated interferon alfa-2b for 48 weeks. The SVR rates in this difficult-to-cure patient demographics (mean age, 49 years; 61% male; 30% African American or Latino; high viral load; advanced fibrosis; and mean weight, 82 kg) were 28.4%, 24.3%, 20.6%, and 21.4% in the 20, 25, and 30 mg/kg TBV groups and the RBV group, respectively. There were no statistical differences in the efficacy analyses. Anemia rates were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the 20 and 25 mg/kg/day TBV treatment groups (13.4% and 15.7%, respectively) compared to RBV (32.9%). The most common adverse events in all groups were fatigue, diarrhea, and insomnia. Diarrhea, reported in 38% of TBV patients versus 21% of RBV patients, was generally mild and not dose-limiting. CONCLUSION: All TBV doses demonstrated efficacy and tolerability comparable to that of RBV; however, the 25 mg/kg dose demonstrated the optimal balance of safety and efficacy. Anemia rates were significantly lower for TBV given at 20-25 mg/kg than RBV. These data suggest weight-based dosing with TBV provides a safe and effective treatment alternative to RBV for chronic hepatitis C. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatologySame topicHepatitis C virus researchFrench-language works237,207