4.6 Review

Regional differences in treatment rates for patients with chronic hepatitis C infection: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183851

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Gilead Sciences, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & aims Treatment rates with interferon-based therapies for chronic hepatitis C have been low. Our aim was to perform a systematic review of available data to estimate the rates and barriers for antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis searching MEDLINE, SCOPUS through March 2016 and abstracts from recent major liver meetings for primary literature with available hepatitis C treatment rates. Random-effects models were used to estimate effect sizes and meta-regression to test for potential sources of heterogeneity. Results We included 39 studies with 476,443 chronic hepatitis C patients. The overall treatment rate was 25.5% (CI: 21.1-30.5%) and by region 34% for Europe, 28.3% for Asia/Pacific, and 18.7% for North America (p = 0.008). On multivariable meta-regression, practice setting (tertiary vs. population-based, p = 0.04), region (Europe vs. North America p = 0.004), and data source (clinical chart review vs. administrative database, p = 0.025) remained significant predictors of heterogeneity. The overall treatment eligibility rate was 52.5%, and 60% of these received therapy. Of the patients who refused treatment, 16.2% cited side effects, 13.8% cited cost as reasons for treatment refusal, and 30% lacked access to specialist care. Conclusions Only one-quarter of chronic hepatitis C patients received antiviral therapy in the pre-direct acting antiviral era. Treatment rates should improve in the new interferon-free era but, cost, co-morbidities, and lack of specialist care will likely remain and need to be addressed. Linkage to care should even be of higher priority now that well-tolerated cure is available.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available