Efficacy and safety of direct‐acting antiviral‐based treatment in hepatitis C virus infected patients with chronic renal function impairment: An updated systemic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To further determine the efficacy and safety of direct-acting antiviral (DAA)-based treatments in hepatitis C virus (HCV) infected patients with renal function impairment. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. All studies assessing the efficacy and safety of DAA-based treatments against HCV infection in patients with renal impairment and HCV infection were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes assessed included efficacy outcomes and safety outcomes. Summary estimates were obtained using an inverse-variance weighted random effect model and Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies (n = 1048 participants) were included. The majority of included studies were of fair quality with Newcastle-Ottawa scale scores between 4 and 6. The pooled virologic response rates at the end of treatment or 4, 12, 24 weeks after treatment (ie, EOTR, SVR4, SVR12 and SVR24 rates) were 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.0%-99.0%), 80.9% (95% CI, 49.3%-98.7%), 94.1% (95% CI, 91.6%-96.3%) and 89.6% (95% CI, 75.5%-98.1%), respectively. The pooled relapse rate was 6.4% (95% CI, 3.4%-10.4%). The pooled incidence of adverse events and severe adverse events leading to discontinuation were 47.6% (95% CI, 35.0%-60.4%) and 2.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-5.0%), respectively. High heterogeneity among studies exists for SVR4 and SVR24 rates. Formal statistical testing did not identify the presence of publication bias for all measured outcomes except the relapse rate. CONCLUSION: The results support the efficacy and safety of DAA-based treatments in this population. Future studies with better design, larger sample size and longer follow up will be the next step. SUMMARY AT A GLANCE This systematic review evaluated the efficacy and safety of direct-acting antiviral based therapies in hepatitis C infection in patients with renal impairment. The majority of studies were of fair quality only. These therapies were found to be highly efficacious although there were high rates of adverse events.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".