Direct-Acting Antivirals in Chronic Hepatitis C Genotype 4 Infection in Community Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Limited data exists comparing the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 4 (HCV GT-4) in the community practice setting. We aim to evaluate the treatment response of DAAs in these patients. Methods: All the HCV GT-4 patients treated with DAAs between January 2014 and October 2017 in a community clinic setting were retrospectively analyzed. Pretreatment baseline patient characteristics, treatment efficacy with sustained virologic response (SVR) at 12 weeks post treatment (SVR12), and adverse reactions were assessed. Results: Fifty-two patients of Middle Eastern (primarily Egyptian) descent were included in the study. Thirty-two patients were treated with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvon i ® ) ± ribavirin, 12 patients were treated with ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir/dasabuvir (ViekiraPak ® ) ± ribavirin, and eight patients were treated with sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir (Epclusa ® ). Ten patients (19.2%) had compensated cirrhosis. Overall, SVR at 12 weeks was achieved in 94% in patients who received one of the three DAA regimens (93.8% in Harvoni ® group, 91.7 % in ViekiraPak ® group and 100% in Epclusa ® group). Prior treatment status and type of regimen used in the presence of compensated cirrhosis had no statistical significance on overall SVR achievement (P value = 0.442 and P value = 0.091, respectively). The most common adverse effect was fatigue (27%). Conclusions: In the real-world setting, DAAs are effective and well tolerated in patients with chronic HCV GT-4 infection with a high overall SVR rate of 94%. Large-scale studies are needed to further assess this SVR in these groups. Gastroenterol Res. 2018;11(2):130-137 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr999w
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".