...
首页> 外文期刊>Current medical research and opinion >Efficacy of telaprevir and boceprevir in treatment-na?ve and treatment-experienced genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C patients: An indirect comparison using Bayesian network meta-analysis
【24h】

Efficacy of telaprevir and boceprevir in treatment-na?ve and treatment-experienced genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C patients: An indirect comparison using Bayesian network meta-analysis

机译:Telaprevir和boceprevir在未经治疗和经历过治疗的基因型1型慢性丙型肝炎患者中的疗效:使用贝叶斯网络荟萃分析的间接比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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-na?ve 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-na?ve 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-na?ve and treatment- experienced patients.
机译:背景与目的:间接比较特拉法韦(TVR)和博塞泼韦(BOC)联合培格干扰素/利巴韦林α-2a/ 2b(PR)在初治和经验丰富的患者中实现持续病毒应答(SVR)的功效。基因型1慢性丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)感染的患者。方法:进行系统的文献综述,以鉴定报告基于PR的治疗对基因型1慢性HCV患者的疗效的随机对照试验。假设研究效果固定,对SVR的终点进行贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。对于有治疗经验的患者,仅包括先前的复发者和部分缓解者,因为先前的无效应答者中没有boceprevir的结果。结果:包括11种出版物。在未接受过治疗的患者中,telaprevir(12周应答指导治疗[RGT] 24/48周PR)和boceprevir(24周RGT 28/48)的比值比(OR)(后中位[95%可信区间]) PR)对PR分别为3.80(2.78-5.22)和2.99(2.23-4.01)。 telaprevir与boceprevir的OR值为1.42(0.89-2.25),而telaprevir更有效的可能性(P [OR> 1])为0.93。在有治疗经验的患者中,telaprevir(PR 12周48周)和boceprevir(32周RGT 36/48周PR)与PR的OR分别为13.11(7.30-24.43)和5.36(2.90-10.30)。 telaprevir与boceprevir的OR值为2.45(1.02-5.80),而telaprevir的有效率为0.98。局限性:这项研究的主要局限性在于分析中的试验数量少,尤其是对于有治疗经验的患者人群,这仅允许探索随机效应模型。我们试图确定由于研究异质性而产生的潜在偏见。结论:在telaprevir和boceprevir之间没有直接比较的头对头治疗慢性HCV基因型1型患者的研究中,基于贝叶斯网络荟萃分析的间接比较表明telaprevir在两种治疗方案中都比boceprevir疗效更好五,有治疗经验的患者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号