↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for dialysis patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Interventions for dialysis patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007003.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ravindra A Prabhu, Sreekumar Nair, Ganesh Pai, Nageswara P Reddy, Deepak Suvarna

Abstract

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis, causes chronic liver disease, increases mortality and impacts kidney transplant outcomes. Sustained response to the preferred treatment with standard or pegylated (PEG) interferon is seen in 39% with side effects necessitating treatment discontinuation in 20%. We collated evidence for treatment response and harms of interventions for HCV infection in dialysis. We aimed to look at the benefits and harms of various interventions for HCV infection in CKD patients on HD or peritoneal dialysis, specifically on mortality, disease relapse, response to treatment, treatment discontinuation, time to recovery, quality of life, cost effectiveness,adverse effects, and other outcomes. We aimed to study comparisons of available interventions with a placebo or control group, combinations of interventions with placebo or control group, interventions with each other singly and in combination, available standard interventions with newer treatment modalities. We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 24 March 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator. We also checked references of reviews, studies and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, first period of randomised cross-over studies on interventions for HCV in CKD on dialysis were considered. We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration and also collected adverse effects data listed in included RCTs. Ten RCTs (361 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Five RCTs (152 participants, 134 analysed) with low to moderate quality of evidence compared standard recombinant interferon with placebo or control. There was no significant difference for mortality (5 studies (134 participants): RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.23), relapses (1 study (36 participants): RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.88), sustained virological response (4 studies (98 participants): RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.07), treatment discontinuation (4 studies (116 participants): RR 4.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 42.69) and number with adverse events (5 studies (143 participants): RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 13.01). End of treatment response was significantly more for standard interferon (5 studies (132 participants): RR 8.62, 95% CI 3.03 to 24.55). There was overall low to unclear risk of bias and no significant heterogeneity.One RCT (50 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared PEG interferon and standard interferon. There was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.81), relapses (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25), sustained virological response (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.81), treatment discontinuation (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96) and number with major adverse events (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96). End of treatment response was significantly more for PEG interferon (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.15). There was overall low risk of bias.Two RCTs (97 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared two doses of two different preparations of PEG interferon. Subgroup analysis comparing high and low doses of PEG interferon alpha-2a (135 µg/week versus 90 µg/week) and PEG interferon alpha-2b (1 µg/kg versus 0.5 µg/kg body weight/week) found no significant difference in mortality (2 studies (97 participants): RR 4.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 24.33), relapses (1 study (81 participants): RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.77), end of treatment response (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.90), sustained virological response (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.07), treatment discontinuation (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28), patients with adverse events (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.83) or serious adverse events (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.14). Both had overall low risk of bias and no significant subgroup differences.Two RCTs (62 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared standard or PEG interferon alone or in combination with ribavirin. The only reported outcome in both was treatment discontinuation which was significantly more with ribavirin in the one study (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84) and pooled 7/10 in the second.No RCTs had data on time to recovery, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, and other outcomes and in peritoneal dialysis. Our review demonstrated that in CKD patients on haemodialysis with HCV infection treatment with standard interferon brings about an end of treatment but not a sustained virological response and is relatively well tolerated. PEG interferon is more effective than standard interferon for end of treatment response but not for sustained response; both were equally tolerated. Increasing doses of PEG interferon did not improve responses but high and low doses are equally tolerated. Addition of ribavirin results in more treatment discontinuation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Unspecified 11 14%
Researcher 10 12%
Other 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 48%
Unspecified 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Psychology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 12 15%

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 10 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,639,816
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,339
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,415
of 238,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#189
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 238,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.