Sofosbuvir-Based Direct-Acting Antiviral Therapies for HCV in People Receiving Opioid Substitution Therapy: An Analysis of Phase 3 Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) direct-acting antiviral therapy is effective among people receiving opioid substitution therapy (OST), but studies are limited by small numbers of nongenotype 1 (GT1) patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the treatment completion, adherence, SVR12, and safety of sofosbuvir-based therapies in HCV patients receiving and not receiving OST. Methods Ten phase 3 studies of sofosbuvir-based regimens included ION (ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin for 8, 12, or 24 weeks in GT1), ASTRAL (sofosbuvir/velpatasvir for 12 weeks in GT1-6), and POLARIS (sofosbuvir/velpatasvir and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir in GT1-6). Patients with clinically significant drug use (last 12 months) or noncannabinoids detected at screening were ineligible. Results Among 4743 patients, 4% (n = 194) were receiving OST (methadone; n = 113; buprenorphine, n = 75; other, n = 6). Compared with those not receiving OST (n = 4549), those receiving OST (n = 194) were younger (mean age, 48 vs 54), more often male (73% vs 61%), GT3 (38% vs 17%), treatment-naïve (78% vs 65%), and cirrhotic (36% vs 23%). Among those receiving and not receiving OST, there was no significant difference in treatment completion (97% vs 99%, P = .06), SVR12 (94% vs 97%, P = .06), relapse (0.5% vs 2.1%, P = .19), adverse events (78% vs 77%, P = .79), or serious adverse events (3.6% vs 2.4%, P = .24). There was no difference in SVR12 in patients with cirrhosis (99% vs 95%, P = .25) or those with G3 (95% vs 95%, P = .77) in those receiving OST. Among patients receiving OST, SVR12 was high among those receiving methadone (95%) and buprenorphine (96%). Conclusion Sofosbuvir-based therapies are effective and safe in patients receiving OST.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".