| Title |
Daclatasvir combined with peginterferon-α and ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-3218-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qin Peng, Kang Li, Ming Rong Cao, Cai Qun Bie, Hui Jun Tang, Shao Hui Tang |
| Abstract |
Daclatasvir, a HCV NS5A inhibitor, is a new direct-acting antiviral drug for chronic hepatitis C (CHC). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of daclatasvir combined with peginterferon-α (pegIFN-α) and ribavirin (RBV) for the treatment of CHC. The databases of PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, WANFANG, and CNKI were retrieved to identify eligible studies. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random or fixed models. A total of six RCTs including 1100 adult patients with CHC met the inclusion criteria and the patients were infected with HCV genotype 1-4, with the genotype 1 infection accounting for 73.1 %. Meta-analysis showed daclatasvir-based combination therapy yielded a significantly higher probability of achieving the overall RVR (46.43 vs. 18.97 %) with pooled RR of 3.77 (95 % CI 1.95-7.28, p < 0.0001) and a slightly higher probability of achieving the overall SVR24 (65.08 vs. 47.77 %) with pooled RR of 1.41 (95 % CI 1.18-1.68, p < 0.0001), and did not show increased adverse events compared with the pegIFN-α/RBV regimen (control group). Subgroup analysis showed the rate of RVR and SVR24 in high-dose daclatasvir (60 mg/day) group were slightly higher than the overall results; the rate of RVR in low-dose daclatasvir (10 mg/day) group was also higher than the control group, but its SVR24 rate was similar between the two groups. Daclatasvir combined with pegIFN-α/RBV is effective and safe in treating adult patients with CHC, especially HCV genotype 1 infection, and daclatasvir (60 mg/day) is a better choice as compared with daclatasvir (10 mg/day). |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 30% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 11% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 February 2024.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#526
of 1,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,710
of 329,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#68
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.