Association Between Vitamin D Levels and Treatment Response to Direct-Acting Antivirals in Chronic Hepatitis C: A Real-World Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low serum vitamin D levels in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is associated with advanced liver fibrosis; and there remains an imprecise relationship with the treatment response based on the vitamin D levels. Previous studies have shown conflicting results on the vitamin D levels, and association with treatment response in CHC treated with interferon-based regimens. METHODS: Patients with CHC treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) between January 2016 and December 2017 in the community clinic setting were retrospectively analyzed. Pretreatment baseline patient characteristics, treatment efficacy with the sustained virologic response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR 12) were assessed in CHC patients with deficient, insufficient, and normal levels of vitamin D measured before the initiation of DAA therapy. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-one patients were included in the study. Direct-acting antivirals included in the study were ledipasvir/sofosbuvir ± ribavirin, ombitasvir + paritaprevir + ritonavir + dasabuvir ± ribavirin, and sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. An overall sustained virologic response was achieved in 95% (n = 276) of patients. SVR 12 rates among patients with vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D insufficiency and normal vitamin D levels were 92%, 96.2%, and 97.2% respectively and was not statically significant (P = 0.214). A total of 71 patients were cirrhotic. The prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency (20 - 29.9 ng/mL) and deficiency (< 20 ng/mL) was significantly higher in cirrhotic patients (P = 0.01). Despite this, pretreatment vitamin D levels did not show any impact on the virologic response. The most common adverse effect observed was fatigue. None of the patients had to discontinue the treatment due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: DAAs are safe and effective with a high overall SVR 12 in CHC and treatment response does not depend on the pretreatment vitamin D levels. The prevalence of both vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency was observed to be higher in cirrhotic cohorts compared to non-cirrhotic counterparts.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".