Hepatitis C direct‐acting antiviral outcomes in patients 75 years and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Elderly patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have worse interferon-based treatment outcomes than young patients. Direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens have enabled the treatment of previously difficult-to-cure populations. There are few studies that specifically assess DAA treatment outcomes in patients over 75 years of age. METHODS: Design: This was a cohort study. Setting: The setting was three Canadian HCV specialty sites. Participants: Patients aged 75 years and older and treated with DAA without interferon were enrolled. Measurements: Patient demographics, liver fibrosis by transient elastography, treatment regimen, and treatment outcome data were collected. RESULTS: The mean age of 78 patients in our analysis was 78.6 years (SD 3.5; range: 75-88 years). The most common genotype was 1b (35%). The most frequently utilized regimens included sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (33%) and ledipasvir-sofosbuvir (32%). Ribavirin was included for 17% of recipients. Sustained virological response (SVR) was achieved in 94% of patients (69% of those receiving ribavirin and 98% of patients on ribavirin-free regimens). Ribavirin toxicity contributed to the lower SVR rates in ribavirin-exposed patients. Ribavirin dosage was decreased in three patients and ultimately discontinued in two of these patients. All treatment was discontinued in another two patients. CONCLUSION: Ribavirin-free DAA therapy is safe and achieves SVR rates in older adults comparable to those described in the general population. RBV inclusion frequently results in complications, often leads to treatment modification or interruption, and does not improve SVR rates in those with advanced age.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".