↓ Skip to main content

Direct-acting antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis C and risk of major vascular events: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
5 Mendeley
Title
Direct-acting antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis C and risk of major vascular events: a systematic review
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11739-018-1828-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eleonora Tamborini Permunian, Lorenzo Gervaso, Victor Gerdes, Lorenzo Moja, Luigina Guasti, Alessandro Squizzato

Abstract

Direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAAs) were recently approved for treating hepatitis C virus-related chronic hepatitis. As advanced chronic liver disease may predispose patients to thrombotic events, it is still uncertain whether DAAs may influence the actual risk of major arterial and venous thrombotic events. We performed a systematic review to assess the incidence of major vascular events in patients receiving DAAs for HCV chronic hepatitis during phase-III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers identified studies through Pubmed database until October 2015. Reporting and incidence of any vascular events were compared with reporting and incidence of major bleeding, anemia (a prespecified safety outcome) and headache (a common non-prespecified safety outcome). 33 RCTs, encompassing 14,764 patients, were included. Only 13 (39%) and 4 (12%) RCTs provide data on any arterial or venous events, respectively. Occurrence of anemia and headache is reported in all studies. Crude unweighted rate of major arterial events is 0.16% (95% CI 0.10-0.24) of the total included population and 0.47% in those 13 RCTs reporting data. Crude unweighted rate of major venous events is 0.03% of the total included population (95% CI 0.01-0.08) and 0.22% in those four RCTs reporting data. Crude unweighted rate of major bleeding is 0.07% (95% CI 0.03-0.1). Incidence of thrombotic events in HCV patients receiving DAAs may be low, but an incorrect estimation cannot be excluded.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Other 1 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 20%
Unspecified 1 20%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 60%
Unspecified 1 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#11,344,711
of 12,755,705 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#331
of 398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,830
of 273,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,755,705 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 398 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 273,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.