ArticleScientific reports2024
A comparative study of different antiviral treatment protocols in HCV related cryoglobulinemic vasculitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
The treatment of HCV and its sequelae are used to be predominantly based on Interferon (IFN). However, this was associated with significant adverse events as a result of its immunostimulant capabilities. Since their introduction, the directly acting antiviral drugs (DAAs), have become the standard of care to treat of HCV and its complications including mixed cryoglobulinemic vasculitis (MCV). In spite of achieving sustained viral response (SVR), there appeared many reports describing unwelcome complications such as hepatocellular and hematological malignancies as well as relapses. Prolonged inflammation induced by a multitude of factors, can lead to DNA damage and affects BAFF and APRIL, which serve as markers of B-cell proliferation. We compared, head-to-head, three antiviral protocols for HCV-MCV treatment As regards the treatment response and relapse, levels of BAFF and APRIL among pegylated interferon α-based and free regimens (Sofosbuvir + Ribavirin; SOF-RIBA, Sofosbuvir + Daclatasvir; SOF-DACLA). Regarding clinical response HCV-MCV and SVR; no significant differences could be identified among the 3 different treatment protocols, and this was also independent form using IFN. We found no significant differences between IFN-based and free regimens DNA damage, markers of DNA repair, or levels of BAFF and APRIL. However, individualized drug-to-drug comparisons showed many differences. Those who were treated with IFN-based protocol showed decreased levels of DNA damage, while the other two IFN-free groups showed increased DNA damage, being the worst in SOF-DACLA group. There were increased levels of BAFF through follow-up periods in the 3 protocols being the best in SOF-DACLA group (decreased at 24 weeks). In SOF-RIBA, CGs relapsed significantly during the follow-up period. None of our patients who were treated with IFN-based protocol had significant clinico-laboratory relapse. Those who received IFN-free DAAs showed a statistically significant relapse of constitutional manifestations. Our findings suggest that IFN-based protocols are effective in treating HCV-MCV similar to IFN-free protocols. They showed lower levels of DNA damage and repair. We believe that our findings may offer an explanation for the process of lymphoproliferation, occurrence of malignancies, and relapses by shedding light on such possible mechanisms.
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.