Suppr超能文献

替拉瑞韦和博赛匹韦治疗初治和经治慢性丙型肝炎 1 型患者的疗效:基于贝叶斯网络荟萃分析的间接比较。

Efficacy of telaprevir and boceprevir in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C patients: an indirect comparison using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

机构信息

OptumInsight, Uxbridge, UK.

出版信息

Curr Med Res Opin. 2012 Nov;28(11):1841-56. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2012.734798. Epub 2012 Oct 31.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To indirectly compare the efficacy of telaprevir (TVR) and boceprevir (BOC) combined with peginterferon/ribavirin α-2a/2b (PR) in achieving sustained viral response (SVR) in treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials reporting the efficacy of PR-based treatment in genotype 1 chronic HCV patients. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed on the endpoint of SVR, assuming fixed study effects. For treatment-experienced patients, only previous relapsers and partial responders were included, as no results in prior null responders were available for boceprevir.

RESULTS

Eleven publications were included. In treatment-naïve patients, the odds ratios (OR) (posterior median [95% credible interval]) for telaprevir (12 weeks + response guided treatment [RGT] 24/48 weeks PR) and boceprevir (24 weeks + RGT 28/48 weeks PR) versus PR were respectively 3.80 (2.78-5.22) and 2.99 (2.23-4.01). The OR for telaprevir versus boceprevir was 1.42 (0.89-2.25), with a probability for telaprevir being more effective (P[OR > 1]) of 0.93. In treatment-experienced patients, the OR of telaprevir (12 weeks + 48 weeks PR) and boceprevir (32 weeks + RGT 36/48 weeks PR) versus PR were respectively 13.11 (7.30-24.43) and 5.36 (2.90-10.30). The OR for telaprevir versus boceprevir was 2.45 (1.02-5.80), with telaprevir having a probability of 0.98 of being more effective.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitation of this study is the low number of trials included in the analysis, especially for the treatment-experienced patient population, which only allowed random-effect models to be explored. We tried to identify potential biases due to study heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of direct comparative head-to-head studies between telaprevir and boceprevir for the treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 patients, an indirect comparison based on Bayesian network meta-analysis suggests better efficacy for telaprevir than boceprevir in both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients.

摘要

背景和目的

本研究旨在间接比较替拉瑞韦(TVR)和博赛匹韦(BOC)联合聚乙二醇干扰素/利巴韦林 α-2a/2b(PR)在治疗初治和治疗经治基因型 1 慢性丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)感染患者中实现持续病毒学应答(SVR)的疗效。

方法

系统检索了评估 PR 治疗方案治疗基因型 1 慢性 HCV 患者的疗效的随机对照试验,采用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析,假设固定研究效应。对于治疗经治患者,仅纳入既往复发和部分应答者,因为博赛匹韦的研究中没有既往无应答者的结果。

结果

共纳入 11 项研究。在治疗初治患者中,替拉瑞韦(12 周+应答指导治疗 24/48 周 PR)和博赛匹韦(24 周+RGT 28/48 周 PR)与 PR 相比,比值比(OR)(后验中位数[95%可信区间])分别为 3.80(2.78-5.22)和 2.99(2.23-4.01)。替拉瑞韦与博赛匹韦的 OR 为 1.42(0.89-2.25),替拉瑞韦更有效的概率(P[OR>1])为 0.93。在治疗经治患者中,替拉瑞韦(12 周+48 周 PR)和博赛匹韦(32 周+RGT 36/48 周 PR)与 PR 相比,OR 分别为 13.11(7.30-24.43)和 5.36(2.90-10.30)。替拉瑞韦与博赛匹韦的 OR 为 2.45(1.02-5.80),替拉瑞韦更有效的概率为 0.98。

局限性

本研究的主要局限性是分析中纳入的试验数量较少,特别是在治疗经治患者人群中,仅允许探索随机效应模型。我们试图确定由于研究异质性导致的潜在偏倚。

结论

在缺乏替拉瑞韦和博赛匹韦治疗慢性 HCV 基因型 1 患者的直接头对头比较研究的情况下,基于贝叶斯网络荟萃分析的间接比较表明,替拉瑞韦在治疗初治和治疗经治患者中的疗效优于博赛匹韦。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验