ReviewCurrent opinion in infectious diseases2016
Postexposure prophylaxis after hepatitis C occupational exposure in the interferon-free era.
Review in Current opinion in infectious diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Present and future management of viral hepatitis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Testing and Clinical Management of Health Care Personnel Potentially Exposed to Hepatitis C Virus - CDC Guidance, United States, 2020.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2020Article
- Hepatitis C virus infection in children: How do we prevent it and how do we treat it?Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewHealthcare personnel are at risk for occupational exposures to bloodborne pathogens. Primary prevention remains the first line of defense, but secondary prevention measures known to be effective should be implemented when percutaneous exposures occur. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a major infectious cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality. Chronic HCV treatment has changed dramatically, with many all-oral directly acting anti-HCV antiviral (DAA) regimens now available. Evidence for the use of DAAs as postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) after occupational exposures to HCV is summarized here. RECENT
findingsLittle new evidence supports the use of antivirals in acute HCV infection. Several preliminary studies have examined the use of DAAs or host target agents in chronic HCV treatment. Effective HCV PEP requirements likely include pan-genotypic activity and a high barrier to resistance. One investigational DAA has shown promising results as an efficacious option for all genotypes in chronic HCV treatment and may ultimately represent a potential HCV PEP agent. SUMMARY: Insufficient supporting data exist to endorse the use of DAAs for PEP after HCV occupational exposures; additional studies examining efficacy, duration, and cost-effectiveness are needed. Development of more oral drugs possessing a high barrier of resistance and equal activity against all HCV genotypes is anticipated.
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.