Trial reportPloS one2017
Clinical Significance of Two Real-Time PCR Assays for Chronic Hepatitis C Patients Receiving Protease Inhibitor-Based Therapy.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Hepatitis C Virus Infection on Liver Function, T Cell Immunity, and Mortality Risk in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients.Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi · 2025Article
- Implications of HCV RNA level at week 4 of direct antiviral treatments for hepatitis C.Journal of viral hepatitis · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of two hepatitis C virus (HCV) real-time PCR assays, the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV test (CAP/CTM) and the Abbott RealTime HCV test (ART), for predicting the clinical outcomes of patients infected with HCV who received telaprevir (TVR)-based triple therapy or daclatasvir/asunaprevir (DCV/ASV) dual therapy. The rapid virological response rates in patients receiving TVR-based triple therapy were 92% (23/25) and 40% (10/25) for CAP/CTM and ART, respectively. The false omission rate (FOR) of ART was 93.3% (14/15), indicating that CAP/CTM could accurately predict clinical outcome in the early phase. In an independent examination of 20 patients receiving TVR-based triple therapy who developed viral breakthrough or relapse, the times to HCV disappearance by ART were longer than by CAP/CTM, whereas the times to HCV reappearance were similar. In an independent experiment of WHO standard HCV RNA serially diluted in serum containing TVR, the analytical sensitivities of CAP/CTM and ART were similar. However, cell cultures transfected with HCV and grown in medium containing TVR demonstrated that ART detected HCV RNA for a longer time than CAP/CTM. Similar results were found for 42 patients receiving DCV/ASV dual therapy. The FOR of ART was 73.3% (11/15) at week 8 after initiation of therapy, indicating that ART at week 8 could not accurately predict the clinical outcome. In conclusion, although CAP/CTM and ART detected HCV RNA with comparable analytical sensitivity, CAP/CTM might be preferable for predicting the clinical outcomes of patients receiving protease inhibitor-based therapy.
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.