4.7 Article

Comparison of the efficacy of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in Chinese patients with genotype 3a or 3b HCV infectionn

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 91, Issue 7, Pages 1313-1318

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.25454

Keywords

China; genotype 3; hepatitis C virus (HCV); ribavirin; sofosbuvir

Categories

Funding

  1. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
  2. China-Singapore International S & T Cooperation Program [2016YFE0116800]
  3. China-Singapore International S & T Coorperation Program [2016YFE0116800]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aim: Genotype 3b hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection represents approximately 50% of patients with genotype 3 in China. We compared the efficacy of sofosbuvir (SOF) plus ribavirin (RBV) in Chinese patients with genotype 3a and 3b HCV. Methods: The analyzed data are from a phase 3, open-label study of SOF plus RBV for 24 weeks conducted in China. The primary endpoint for the trial was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12).= Results: Of 126 patients included in this analysis, 58 (46%) had genotype 3a and 68 (54%) had genotype 3b. Both the subtypes were similar in age, sex, body mass index, IL28B, and baseline HCV RNA. However, more treatment-experienced and cirrhotic patients were in the genotype 3b group. All 100% of patients with genotype 3a (95% confidence interval [CI], 94-100), and 91% (95% CI, 82-97) of patients with genotype 3b achieved SVR12 (P=0.030). For treatment-experienced patients with genotype 3b, the SVR12 rate was 73% (95% CI, 39-94) and 88% (95% CI, 64-99) among patients with and without cirrhosis (P=1.00), respectively. Conclusion: SOF plus RBV for 24 weeks in patients with HCV genotype 3 infection resulted in high rates of SVR. However, the SVR12 rate among patients with genotype 3b was lower than that observed in patients with genotype 3a infection, particularly among treatment-experienced patients with cirrhosis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available