Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Clin Microbiol ; 53(7): 2195-202, 2015 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25926499

RESUMO

The pretherapeutic presence of protease inhibitor (PI) resistance-associated variants (RAVs) has not been shown to be predictive of triple-therapy outcomes in treatment-naive patients. However, they may influence the outcome in patients with less effective pegylated interferon (pegIFN)-ribavirin (RBV) backbones. Using hepatitis C virus (HCV) population sequence analysis, we retrospectively investigated the prevalence of baseline nonstructural 3 (NS3) RAVs in a multicenter cohort of poor IFN-RBV responders (i.e., prior null responders or patients with a viral load decrease of <1 log IU/ml during the pegIFN-RBV lead-in phase). The impact of the presence of these RAVs on the outcome of triple therapy was studied. Among 282 patients, the prevalances (95% confidence intervals) of baseline RAVs ranged from 5.7% (3.3% to 9.0%) to 22.0% (17.3% to 27.3%), depending to the algorithm used. Among mutations conferring a >3-fold shift in 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) for telaprevir or boceprevir, T54S was the most frequently detected mutation (3.9%), followed by A156T, R155K (0.7%), V36M, and V55A (0.35%). Mutations were more frequently found in patients infected with genotype 1a (7.5 to 23.6%) than 1b (3.3 to 19.8%) (P = 0.03). No other sociodemographic or viroclinical characteristic was significantly associated with a higher prevalence of RAVs. No obvious effect of baseline RAVs on viral load was observed. In this cohort of poor responders to IFN-RBV, no link was found with a sustained virological response to triple therapy, regardless of the algorithm used for the detection of mutations. Based on a cross-study comparison, baseline RAVs are not more frequent in poor IFN-RBV responders than in treatment-naive patients and, even in these difficult-to-treat patients, this study demonstrates no impact on treatment outcome, arguing against resistance analysis prior to treatment.


Assuntos
Antivirais/farmacologia , Farmacorresistência Viral , Hepacivirus/efeitos dos fármacos , Hepatite C Crônica/virologia , Inibidores de Proteases/farmacologia , Adulto , Idoso , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Hepacivirus/genética , Hepacivirus/isolamento & purificação , Hepatite C Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Concentração Inibidora 50 , Interferon-alfa/uso terapêutico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mutação de Sentido Incorreto , Oligopeptídeos/farmacologia , Oligopeptídeos/uso terapêutico , Prolina/análogos & derivados , Prolina/farmacologia , Prolina/uso terapêutico , Inibidores de Proteases/uso terapêutico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Ribavirina/uso terapêutico , Resultado do Tratamento , Proteínas não Estruturais Virais/genética
2.
World J Hepatol ; 6(9): 660-9, 2014 Sep 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25276282

RESUMO

AIM: To assess, in a routine practice setting, the sustained virologic response (SVR) to telaprevir (TPV) or boceprevir (BOC) in hepatitis C virus (HCV) null-responders or relapsers with severe liver fibrosis. METHODS: One hundred twenty-five patients were treated prospectively for 48 wk with TPV or BOC + pegylated-interferon (peg-INF) α2a + ribavirin (PR) according to standard treatment schedules without randomization. These patients were treated in routine practice settings in 10 public or private health care centers, and the data were prospectively collected. Only patients with severe liver fibrosis (Metavir scores of F3 or F4 upon liver biopsy or liver stiffness assessed by elastography), genotype 1 HCV and who were null-responders or relapsers to prior PR combination therapy were included in this study. RESULTS: The Metavir fibrosis scores were F3 in 35 (28%) and F4 in 90 (72%) of the patients. In total, 62.9% of the patients were null-responders and 37.1% relapsers to the previous PR therapy. The overall SVR rate at 24 wk post-treatment withdrawal was 59.8%. The SVR was 65.9% in the TPV group and 44.1% in the BOC group. Independent predictive factors of an SVR included a response to previous treatment, relapsers vs null-responders [OR = 3.9; (1.4, 10.6), P = 0.0084], a rapid virological response (RVR) [OR 6.9 (2.6, 18.2), P = 0.001] and liver stiffness lower than 21.3 kPa [OR = 8.2 (2.3, 29.5), P = 0.001]. During treatment, 63 patients (50.8%) had at least one severe adverse event (SAE) of grade 3 or 4. A multivariate analysis identified two factors associated with SAEs: female gender [OR = 2.4 (1.1, 5.6), P = 0.037] and a platelet count below 150 × 10(3)/ mm(3) [OR = 5.3 (2.3, 12.4), P ≤ 0.001]. CONCLUSION: More than half of these difficult-to-treat patients achieved an SVR and had SAEs in an actual practice setting. The SVR rate was influenced by the response to previous PR treatment, the RVR and liver stiffness.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA