SynthesisMedicine2016
Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents for Treatment-Naive Hepatitis C Genotype 1.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Network meta-analysis of first- and second-generation protease inhibitors for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1: efficacy based on RVR and SVR 24.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of new antiviral treatments for non-genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in China: a societal perspective.BMJ global health · 2020Article
- Cost-utility of sofosbuvir/velpatasvir versus other direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C genotype 1b infection in China.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors Related to Hepatitis C Screening and Treatment among Health Care Providers in Washington, DC.Journal of community health · 2020Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Generic Sofosbuvir Plus Daclatasvir and Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir in HCV Genotype 3-Infected Patients: Real-World Outcomes From Pakistan.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
- Which are the best Chinese herbal injections combined with XELOX regimen for gastric cancer?: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Article
- Health-related quality of life on the clinical course of patients with chronic hepatitis C receiving daclatasvir/asunaprevir therapy: A prospective observational study comparing younger (<70) and elderly (≥70) patients.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2018Article
- Review
- Network meta-analysis of success rate and safety in antibiotic treatments of bronchitis.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Review
- Treatment of Hepatitis C in Patients Undergoing Immunosuppressive Drug Therapy.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2016Review
- New Direct-Acting Antivirals for the Treatment of Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical and experimental hepatologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
All possible direct-acting antiviral agent (DAA) regimens for treatment-naive hepatitis C genotype 1 were evaluated by many randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the optimum regimen remains inconclusive. We aim to compare interventions in terms of sustained virological response at 12 (SVR12) and 24 (SVR24) weeks after the end of treatment and adverse effects (AEs) (fatigue, headache, nausea, insomnia). PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for RCTs until July 31, 2015. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) between treatments on clinical outcomes. Twenty-two eligible RCTs were included. Compared with peginterferon-ribavirin (PR), daclatasvir plus PR (OR 8.90, P < 0.001), faldaprevir plus PR (OR 3.72, P < 0.001), simeprevir plus PR (OR 3.59, P < 0.001), sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 4.69, P < 0.001) yield a significant effect in improving SVR12. Consistently, simeprevir plus PR (OR 3.49, P < 0.001), sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 4.51, P < 0.001), daclatasvir plus PR (OR 4.77, P < 0.001) also improved the rates of SVR24 significantly compared with PR. With respect to AEs, compared with PR, ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir plus PR (OR 2.13, P < 0.001) confer a significant AE in nausea, whereas daclatasvir plus PR (OR 0.20, P < 0.001 and OR 0.18, P < 0.001, respectively) lowered the incidence of fatigue and nausea significantly when compared with ledipasvir plus sofosbuvir plus PR. Daclatasvir plus PR was the most effective in SVR12 and SVR24, but caused an increased AEs profile (headache and insomnia). Combined ledipasvir with sofosbuvir or combination of PR was associated with higher incidence of fatigue and nausea.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.