P3-S5.07 Multidisciplinary clinic for the treatment of Hepatitis C: an useful tool for the management of the patients; review of the experience of a regional hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background CSSSRN is a regional hospital with 240 acute-care beds, with a multidisciplinary clinic for the treatment of hepatitis C. This study aimed to review the clinical data from treated cases of hepatitis C, including the evaluation of the multidisciplinary support needed. Methods All files from patients evaluated for hepatitis C at CSSSRN between January 2000 and March 2009 were reviewed for clinical and microbiological data. Also, the numbers of visits to the different clinics were recorded. The data were analysed with Epi Info 3.5.1. Results A total of 165 cases of hepatitis C were evaluated at our facility and 46 treatments were initiated in 42 patients (four patients had two treatments). The average age was 41 years old (range 22–58) and 78% were men. All, except one, were native from the province of Quebec. The acquisition of hepatitis C was: injection or inhalation drug use (74%), blood transfusion (19%) and other causes (7%). The majority of treated individuals were heterosexual (93%), 55% had a history of alcohol abuse, 30% have been in detention, 19% had attempted suicide and 5% had done prostitution. HIV coinfection was present in three patients and none had HBV coinfection. The genotypes observed were 1 (55%), 3 (29%), 2 (9%) and 4 (7%). Liver biopsy was performed in 26 patients, eight had cirrhosis and one developed liver carcinoma. The treatments received were standard interferon alfa-2b/ribavirine (seven cases, 2000–2002), peginterferon alfa-2b/ribavirine (22 cases, 2003–2006), and peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirine (17 cases, 2005–2008). Treatment was completed in 78% of patients. Sustained virological response (SVR) was achieved in 53% of genotypes 1 and 4; and in 69% of genotypes 2 and 3. During treatment, an average of 30 visits per patient was recorded. The frequency and mean number of visits were: clinical nurses from the ambulatory care unit (100%, 14), infectious diseases (100%, 10), gastroenterology (100%, 5), psychiatry (35%) and dietetic (16%). Conclusion A SVR was achieved in 53% (genotypes 1 and 4) and 69% (genotypes 2 and 3) of patients. The treatment of hepatitis C involved an average of 30 visits, with many actors, which is eased by a multidisciplinary clinic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".