1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Efficacy and Safety of Direct-Acting Antivirals for Chronic Hepatitis C Genotypes 5 and 6

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are modern treatments for chronic hepatitis C infection, but majority of available evidence on its treatment effect covers genotypes 1 to 4. Therefore, the efficacy and safety of DAAs for genotypes 5 and 6 need to be analysed. Studies were identified from Medline, Scopus, and CENTRAL and a Chinese database CNKI, from inception until Dec 4, 2018. Clinical trials were included if they enrolled patients with genotypes 5 and/or 6 infection, any type of second-generation DAAs was studied, and sustained virological response was assessed at the 12 th week after treatment (SVR12) as outcome measure. Meta-analysis using metaprop statistical program was applied for pooling proportions if data were sufficient (i.e., at least 2 studies). Thirteen studies were included in the analysis. Four studies assessed the efficacy of four DAA regimens in genotype 5 patients, which were mainly sofosbuvir (SOF) plus pegylated-interferon/ribavirin (PR) or other DAAs, with SVR12 ranging from 94.4% to 100%. Twelve studies assessed the efficacy of seven DAA regimens among genotype 6 patients, but only two DAA regimens (i.e., SOF + PR and SOF/ledipasvir) had sufficient data for pooling. The pooled SVR12 rates (95% CI) were 99.6% (92.2 to 100) for SOF + PR and 99.2% (96.5 to 100) for SOF/ledipasvir. No treatment-related serious adverse event was reported, while the nonserious adverse events were comparable to other genotypes. In conclusion, DAAs are effective and may be safe for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C genotypes 5 and 6. However, our evidence is based on noncomparative studies; hence, further larger-scale randomized controlled trials in these genotypes are still required.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Sofosbuvir and Velpatasvir for HCV in Patients with Decompensated Cirrhosis.

          As the population that is infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) ages, the number of patients with decompensated cirrhosis is expected to increase.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Understanding the hepatitis C virus life cycle paves the way for highly effective therapies.

            More than two decades of intense research has provided a detailed understanding of hepatitis C virus (HCV), which chronically infects 2% of the world's population. This effort has paved the way for the development of antiviral compounds to spare patients from life-threatening liver disease. An exciting new era in HCV therapy dawned with the recent approval of two viral protease inhibitors, used in combination with pegylated interferon-α and ribavirin; however, this is just the beginning. Multiple classes of antivirals with distinct targets promise highly efficient combinations, and interferon-free regimens with short treatment duration and fewer side effects are the future of HCV therapy. Ongoing and future trials will determine the best antiviral combinations and whether the current seemingly rich pipeline is sufficient for successful treatment of all patients in the face of major challenges, such as HCV diversity, viral resistance, the influence of host genetics, advanced liver disease and other co-morbidities.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?

              Including only a portion of all available evidence may introduce systematic errors into the meta-analytic process and threaten its validity. We set out to examine whether language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, provide different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions evaluated in randomized trials. We identified and retrieved all 79 meta-analyses from several disease areas in which explicit eligibility criteria regarding trial selection were reported. General characteristics and quality of reporting of the meta-analyses were assessed using a validated instrument. We explored the effects of language of publication of the randomized trials on the quantitative results using logistic regression analyses. Language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, did not differ with respect to the estimate of benefit of the effectiveness of an intervention (ROR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.81-1.17). These results were also robust after a series of sensitivity analyses. This study provides no evidence that language restricted meta-analyses lead to biased estimates of intervention effectiveness. We encourage others to replicate this study using different sampling frames, clinical topics and interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Biomed Res Int
                Biomed Res Int
                BMRI
                BioMed Research International
                Hindawi
                2314-6133
                2314-6141
                2019
                11 November 2019
                : 2019
                : 2301291
                Affiliations
                1Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Bangkok, Thailand
                2Health Strategy and Policy Institute, Vietnam Ministry of Health, Hanoi, Vietnam
                3Social and Administrative Pharmacy Excellence Research (SAPER) Unit, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
                4Health Technology Assessment Unit, Health Regulation Team, Department of Health Philippines, Manila, Philippines
                5Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
                6Section for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Hongqun Liu

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5787-4145
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9457-9823
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3730-5532
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9991-386X
                Article
                10.1155/2019/2301291
                6877942
                a5ecc603-5071-481f-b38d-ea4bd48ef79a
                Copyright © 2019 Ong The Due et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 April 2019
                : 14 August 2019
                : 20 September 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: Mahidol University
                Funded by: International Decision Support Initiative
                Funded by: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
                Funded by: Department for International Development
                Funded by: Rockefeller Foundation
                Categories
                Research Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article