MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890807462 · doi:10.1111/jvh.12997

Long‐term follow‐up of patients treated with entecavir and peginterferon add‐on therapy for <scp>HB</scp>eAg‐positive chronic hepatitis B infection: <scp>ARES</scp> long‐term follow‐up

2018· article· en· W2890807462 on OpenAlexaff
Margo J. H. van Campenhout, Willem Pieter Brouwer, Qing Xie, Simin Guo, Heng Chi, Xun Qi, Fehmı Tabak, Adrian Streinu‐Cercel, Jiyao Wang, Ning‐Ping Zhang, Ramazan Idılman, Hendrik W. Reesink, Mircea Diculescu, Krzysztof Simon, Meral Akdoğan, Włodzimierz Mazur, Robert J. de Knegt, Elke Verhey, Bettina E. Hansen, Harry L.A. Janssen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Viral Hepatitis · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatitis B Virus Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsEntecavirMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyPeginterferon alfa-2aClinical endpointChronic hepatitisClinical trialImmunologyVirus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Addition of peginterferon alpha ( PEG ‐ IFN add‐on) to entecavir ( ETV ) treatment after a short lead‐in phase results in more response than ETV monotherapy in HB eAg‐positive chronic hepatitis B infection ( CHB ). This study is the first to assess long‐term efficacy of this treatment strategy. Patients who received ETV ± 24 weeks of PEG ‐ IFN add‐on in a global trial ( ARES study) and completed follow‐up were eligible to participate in this observational LTFU study if they had at least one combined HB eAg and HBV DNA measurement beyond week 96 of the ARES study. The primary endpoint was combined response ( HB eAg loss and HBV DNA &lt;200 IU / mL ) at LTFU . In total, 48 patients treated with PEG ‐ IFN add‐on and 48 patients treated with ETV monotherapy were included. The median follow‐up duration was 226 ( IQR 51) weeks, and 86/96 (90%) patients were initial non‐responders. At LTFU , combined response was present in 13 (27%) vs 11 (23%) patients ( P = 0.81), and 1 log 10 HB sAg decline in 59% vs 28% ( P = 0.02) for PEG ‐ IFN add‐on and ETV monotherapy, respectively. In 41 initial non‐responders who continued ETV therapy, combined response at LTFU was present in 9 patients ( PEG ‐ IFN add‐on: 5/22 [23%]; ETV monotherapy: 4/19 [21%]). Beyond week 96 of follow‐up, rates of serological response became comparable between PEG ‐ IFN add‐on and ETV monotherapy. Although in this LTFU study initial non‐responders were overrepresented in the add‐on arm, PEG ‐ IFN add‐on possibly leads rather to accelerated HB eAg loss than to increased long‐term HB eAg loss rates.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Viral HepatitisSame topicHepatitis B Virus StudiesFrench-language works237,207