RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Direct acting antivirals (DAAs) are a very effective treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV). However, brand DAAs are expensive. The licensing of cheaper generic DAAs may address this issue, but there is a lack of clinical studies comparing the efficacy of generic vs brand DAA formulations. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of generic against brand DAAs for chronic hepatitis C treatment in Bahrain. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study involving 289 patients with chronic HCV infection during 2016 to 2018. There were 149 patients who were treated with brand DAAs, while 140 patients were treated with generic DAAs. Commonly used DAAs were Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir ± Dasabuvir ± Ribavirin, and Sofosbuvir/Daclatasvir ± Ribavirin. SVR at 12 wk post treatment was the main outcome variable. RESULTS: Overall, 87 patients (30.1%) had cirrhosis and 68.2% had genotype 1 HCV infection. At 12 wk post treatment, SVR was achieved by 271 (93.8%) of the patients. In patients who were treated with generic medications, 134 (95.7%) achieved SVR at 12 wk post treatment, compared to 137 (91.9%) among those treated with brand medications (P = 0.19). Having cirrhosis [odds ratio (OR): 9.41, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.47-35.84] and having HCV genotype 3 (OR: 3.56, 95%CI: 1.03-12.38) were significant independent predictors of not achieving SVR. Alanine transaminase, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, and total bilirubin levels decreased significantly following therapy with both generic and brand DAAs. CONCLUSION: Generic and brand DAAs demonstrate comparable effectiveness in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C patients. Both are safe and equally effective in improving biochemical markers of hepatic inflammation.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The donation of oocytes has been made feasible as a result of in vitro fertilization (IVF). This treatment offers an answer for infertile women with ovarian conditions, such as primary ovarian insufficiency. Demand for oocyte donors has been on the rise globally, with infertile couples, as well as gay men, increasingly using it as a means to found their families. With an acute shortage of oocyte donors globally, the psychosocial aspects behind oocyte donation are important for fertility clinics to understand. This paper aims primarily to provide an up-to-date systematic review of the psychosocial aspects of oocyte donation from the point of view of oocyte donors and recipients and egg sharers. Its secondary aims are to explore the motives and experiences of donors as well as attitudes towards donor anonymity and disclosure. An emphasis has been placed on the analysis of donors in the UK. No review has analysed together the aforementioned donor groups along with recipient group. METHODS: A systematic search of English peer-reviewed journals of four computerized databases was undertaken, with no time restriction set for publications. RESULTS: There were 62 studies which met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Attitudes towards donation were positive from both a donor oocyte and recipient point of view, with medical procedures being well tolerated and excellent post-donation satisfaction among all donor groups. There were distinct differences between the different donor groups and recipients in motivation for oocyte donation and decisions for disclosure. Attitudes towards anonymity issues were reassuring with a significant proportion of donors of all types willing to donate as identifiable donors. However, there were methodological limitations identified in the studies reviewed. CONCLUSION: This review successfully explored the important psychosocial aspects of oocyte donation. In general terms the attitudes and feeling of patients involved from all sides of the donation process were extremely positive. A number of key and consistent issues emerged which demonstrated differences and similarities between the different donor groups, as well as a greater understanding of the recipient. With regard to psychosocial well-being, the results were reassuring throughout all donor groups, especially the egg share donors. Although it seems the 2005 legislative changes in the UK have not caused the anticipated dramatic decrease in gamete donation, oocyte donation still falls far short of demand. The UK has an increasing population of patients from different ethnic backgrounds and same sex relationships seeking oocyte donation, with very few studies including these groups of patients. An increased number of well-designed studies looking into the psychological issues surrounding gamete donation of different patient groups, could allow more directed assessment and counselling of oocyte donors and recipients, with a resulting increase in donor recruitment.