↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of Sofosbuvir, Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir, or Paritaprevir/Ritonavir/Ombitasvir and Dasabuvir Regimens for Treatment of Patients With Hepatitis C in the Veterans Affairs National Health Care…

Overview of attention for article published in Gastroenterology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
196 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of Sofosbuvir, Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir, or Paritaprevir/Ritonavir/Ombitasvir and Dasabuvir Regimens for Treatment of Patients With Hepatitis C in the Veterans Affairs National Health Care System
Published in
Gastroenterology, June 2016
DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.05.049
Pubmed ID
Authors

George N. Ioannou, Lauren A. Beste, Michael F. Chang, Pamela K. Green, Elliott Lowy, Judith I. Tsui, Feng Su, Kristin Berry

Abstract

We investigated the real-world effectiveness of sofosbuvir, ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, and paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir and dasabuvir (PrOD) in treatment of different subgroups of patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes 1, 2, 3, or 4. We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 17,487 patients with HCV infection (13,974 with HCV genotype 1; 2131 with genotype 2; 1237 with genotype 3; and 135 with genotype 4) who began treatment with sofosbuvir (n=2986), ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (n=11,327), or PrOD (n=3174), with or without ribavirin, from January 1, 2014 through June 20, 2015 in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. Data through April 15, 2016 were analyzed to assess completion of treatments and sustained virologic response 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12). The mean age of patients was 61±7 years, 97% were male, 52% were non-Hispanic white, 29% were non-Hispanic black, 32% had a diagnosis of cirrhosis (9.9% with decompensated cirrhosis), 36% had a FIB-4 score >3.25 (indicator of cirrhosis), and 29% had received prior treatment. An SVR12 was achieved by 92.8% (95% CI, 92.3%-93.2%) of subjects with HCV genotype 1 infection (no significant difference between ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and PrOD regimens), 86.2% (95% CI, 84.6%-87.7%) of those with genotype 2 infection (treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin), 74.8% (95% CI, 72.2%-77.3%) of those with genotype 3 infection (77.9% in patients given ledipasvir/sofosbuvir plus ribavirin, 87.0% in patients given sofosbuvir and pegylated-interferon plus ribavirin, and 70.6% of patients given sofosbuvir), and 89.6% (95% CI 82.8%-93.9%) of those with genotype 4 infection. Among patients with cirrhosis, 90.6% of patients with HCV genotype 1, 77.3% with HCV genotype 2, 65.7% with HCV genotype 3, and 83.9% with HCV genotype 4 achieved an SVR12. Among previously treated patients, 92.6% with genotype 1, 80.2% with genotype 2, 69.2% with genotype 3, and 93.5% with genotype 4 achieved an SVR12. Among treatment-experienced patients, 92.8% with genotype 1, 88.0% with genotype 2, 77.5% with genotype 3, and 88.3% with genotype 4 achieved an SVR12. Eight-week regimens of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir produced an SVR12 in 94.3% of eligible patients with HCV genotype 1 infection; this regimen was underused. High proportions of patients with HCV infections genotypes 1-4 (ranging from 75%-93%) in the VA national healthcare system achieved SVR12, approaching the results reported in clinical trials-especially patients with genotype 1 infection. An 8 week regimen of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir is effective for eligible patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and could produce cost savings. There is substantial room for improvement in SVRs among persons with cirrhosis and genotype 2 or 3 infections.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 101 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 17%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 28 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 20 April 2022.
All research outputs
#2,119,574
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Gastroenterology
#1,919
of 12,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,005
of 354,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastroenterology
#16
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 354,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.