Suppr超能文献

替拉瑞韦治疗慢性 HCV 基因型 1 感染:初治和经治患者固定疗程与应答指导疗程的贝叶斯混合治疗比较。

Treatment of chronic HCV genotype 1 infection with telaprevir: a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison of fixed-length and response-guided treatment regimens in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients.

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology and Endocrinology, University Medical Center Goettingen, Georg-August-University Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany.

出版信息

BMC Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct 14;13:148. doi: 10.1186/1471-230X-13-148.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Telaprevir (TVR) has been approved for response-guided-therapy (RGT) of chronic hepatitis C (HCV) genotype-1-infection in treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. In RGT-regimens patients that did not achieve extended rapid-virological-response (eRVR) within the first 4-12 weeks undergo treatment for 48-weeks, whereas in fixed-length-treatment (FLT) patients are treated for a fixed-duration regardless of their RVR.

METHODS

This systematic review and Bayesian mixed-treatment-comparison (MTC) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of standard-therapy with pegylated-interferon-α/ribavirin (Peg-IFN-α/RBV (48 weeks), group A), FLT with TVR, Peg-IFN-α/RBV for 12 weeks with a long (+36 weeks, group B) or short (+12 weeks, group C) tail of Peg-IFN-α/RBV treatment, and RGT with 12 weeks of TVR, Peg-IFN-α/RBV followed by 12 weeks of Peg-IFN-α/RBV (group D) or no therapy (group E).

RESULTS

We identified seven randomized controlled trials including 3505 patients. Compared to standard-treatment (group A), treatment-naïve patients allocated to groups B, C, and D were significantly more likely to achieve sustained-virological-response (SVR, odds ratios (OR): B vs. A 3.5 (credibility interval [CrI] 2.2-5.4), C vs. A 3.0 (CrI 1.8-4.9), D vs. A 3.4 (CrI 2.5-4.6)). Treatment-experienced patients achieved increased SVR rates when they were treated in group B (OR: 8.2 (CrI 5.0-13.5)), C (OR 7.0 (CrI 3.9-12.8)), or simulated group D (OR 8.2 (CrI 4.3-15.3)). Patients treated with short RGT (simulated group E) did also have a significant improvement when they were treatment-experienced (simulated OR 3.6 (CrI 1.6-8.2)), whereas the effect was not significant in treatment-naïve patients (OR E vs. A 1.6 (CrI 0.9-2.7)).

CONCLUSION

Long FLT and RGT regimens are useful treatment options for HCV-genotype-1 in both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. A short 24-weeks FLT regimen does not seem to be inferior and should further be evaluated in clinical trials to reduce side effects and costs of treatment.

摘要

背景

替拉瑞韦(TVR)已被批准用于慢性丙型肝炎(HCV)基因型 1 感染的应答指导治疗(RGT),适用于初治和经治患者。在 RGT 方案中,未能在最初的 4-12 周内实现扩展快速病毒学应答(eRVR)的患者接受 48 周的治疗,而在固定疗程治疗(FLT)中,无论 RVR 如何,患者均接受固定持续时间的治疗。

方法

本系统评价和贝叶斯混合治疗比较(MTC)旨在比较标准治疗(聚乙二醇干扰素-α/利巴韦林(Peg-IFN-α/RBV(48 周),A 组)、FLT 联合 TVR、Peg-IFN-α/RBV 治疗 12 周加 36 周(B 组)或 12 周(C 组)长(PEG-IFN-α/RBV 治疗)、12 周 TVR、Peg-IFN-α/RBV 加 12 周 Peg-IFN-α/RBV(D 组)或无治疗(E 组)的疗效和安全性。

结果

我们共确定了 7 项随机对照试验,包括 3505 例患者。与标准治疗(A 组)相比,B、C 和 D 组的初治患者获得持续病毒学应答(SVR)的可能性显著增加(OR:B 组 vs. A 组 3.5(置信区间 [CrI] 2.2-5.4),C 组 vs. A 组 3.0(CrI 1.8-4.9),D 组 vs. A 组 3.4(CrI 2.5-4.6))。治疗经验丰富的患者在 B 组(OR:8.2(CrI 5.0-13.5))、C 组(OR 7.0(CrI 3.9-12.8))或模拟 D 组(OR 8.2(CrI 4.3-15.3))接受治疗时,SVR 率也有所提高。接受短期 RGT(模拟 E 组)治疗的经验丰富的患者也有显著改善(模拟 OR 3.6(CrI 1.6-8.2)),而初治患者的效果不显著(OR E 组 vs. A 组 1.6(CrI 0.9-2.7))。

结论

长疗程 FLT 和 RGT 方案对初治和经治 HCV 基因型 1 患者均为有用的治疗选择。24 周的短疗程 FLT 方案似乎并不差,应进一步在临床试验中进行评估,以减少治疗的副作用和成本。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f3eb/3852825/65764ae00361/1471-230X-13-148-1.jpg

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