Comparison of simeprevir versus telaprevir plus pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection——a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of simeprevir-based (SMV) or telaprevir-based (TVR) triple therapy [SMV + Pegylated interferon alfa (PegIFNα) and ribavirin (RBV) versus TVR + PegIFNα and RBV] in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. Methods A systematic literature searching was conducted in multiple online databases to identify relevant studies. The sustained virologic response rate at 12 (SVR12) and 24 weeks (SVR24) after end of the treatment were used as the efficacy endpoints. The rate of treatment related adverse events (AEs), discontinuation due to AEs and overall treatment discontinuation were used as safety endpoints. Patients were divided into multiple subgroups according to the previous treatment history to further compare the efficacy of the two treatment regimen. Statistical analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. The Jajad score scale and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were employed to evaluate the quality of included studies. Results A total of 5 clinical studies including 1666 HCV genotype 1 patients were included in this study. The pooled results showed that SVR12 rates in SMV group and TVR group were 67.6% and 68.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference in overall SVR12 rate between SMV and TVR groups (OR=0.95, 95% CI: 0.76-1.18, P=0.65). There was no significant heterogeneity among studies (P=0.84, I2=0%). For SVR24 rate, the average SVR24 rate in SMV group was 78%, which was lower than that in TVR group of 84%. However, there was no significant difference in overall SVR24 rate between SMV and TVR groups (OR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.42-1.20, P=0.20). Meanwhile, there was no significant heterogeneity among studies (P=0.69, I2=0%). The subgroup analysis also showed that there was no significant difference in efficacy between SMV and TVR-based triple therapy for treatment-native patients, prior partial response, relapse, and prior null response patients (all P>0.05). However, the pooled analysis indicated that both SMV-based and TVR-based triple therapies were most effective for the treatment-naive patients(SMV: 85.7%, TVR: 85.6%). For the safety endpoints, the incidence rate of anemia was significant lower in SMV group compared to TVR group (OR=0.30, P<0.001). For the rate of overall treatment discontinuation, there was no statistically significant difference between SMV and TVR group (OR=0.48, P=0.12). Conclusions This meta-analysis suggests that the efficacy of SMV-based triple therapy is non-inferior to TVR-based triple therapy. However, the SMV-based triple therapy is more tolerable and has a lower incident rate of anemia and discontinuation due to AEs compared to TVR-based triple therapy. Key words: Hepatitis C, chronic; Meta-analysis; Genotype 1; Simeprevir; Telaprevir; Sustained viral response
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".