4.7 Article

Efficacy of peginterferon-α-2b plus ribavirin in patients aged 65 years and older with chronic hepatitis C

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 527-537

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1478-3231.2009.02064.x

关键词

elderly patient; hepatitis C virus; peginterferon; ribavirin; sustained virological response

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and indication of combination therapy with ribavirin plus peginterferon-alpha-2b in chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients aged 65 years and older. Methods Five hundred and ninety-one consecutive HCV patients were treated with combination therapy. These patients were divided into elder patients (>= 65 years) (n=115) and younger patients (< 65 years) (n=476). The clinical characteristics, sustained virological response (SVR) rates and discontinuation rates were compared between the two groups. Results Compared with younger patients, baseline haemoglobin levels and baseline platelet counts were significantly lower (P < 0.0001, P=0.013 respectively) and fibrosis was more advanced in elderly patients (P=0.0310). Moreover, the SVR rate was significantly lower (37.4 vs. 51.5%; P=0.0067) while the combination therapy discontinuation rate was significantly higher (32.2 vs. 17.0%; P=0.0003) in elderly patients. A multivariate analysis revealed that HCV load and genotype were significantly associated with an SVR in elderly patients. An SVR was achieved in over 50% of elderly male patients with genotype 1 and HCV RNA concentrations under 2 000 000 IU/ml. In contrast, the SVR rate was under 30% in elderly male patients with genotype 1 and with HCV RNA concentrations over 2 000 000 IU/ml and in all elderly female patients with genotype 1. Conclusions The SVR rate was lower in elderly patients than in younger patients. However, in elderly patients combination therapy was most beneficial for genotype 1 patients, male patients with HCV RNA concentrations < 2 000 000 IU/ml and patients with genotype 2.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据