Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Characteristics of studies and patients

From: Sofosbuvir-based regimen is safe and effective for hepatitis C infected patients with stage 4–5 chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Studies Geographical origin No. of patients No. of dialysis recipients History of Cirrhosis (%) mean/median baseline RNA Genotype SOF-based regimen Dose of SOF SVR12/24 (PP) NOS score
Aggarwal (2017) [19] USA 14 14 20% (F3,F4) 8,375,588.6 IU/ML GT1–60%, GT2–6.7%, GT3–20%, GT4–13.3% SOF + SMV, SOF + RBV, SOF/LDV ± RBV, SOF + PR, SOF + DCV
12–24 W
200 mg QD 92.8% 13/14 4
Akhil (2018) [26] India 22 22 NA 2,642,495 IU/ML GT1–63.63%, GT3–27.27%,
GT4–9%
SOF + RBV 12 W 400 mg QD 80% 16/20 4
Beinhardt (2016) [27] Austria 10 10 40% (30% decompensation) 6.1 ± 0.8
log IU/ML
GT1a-20%, GT1b-40%, GT3a-20%,
GT4–20%
SOF + PR,
SOF + SMV,
SOF + DCV, SOF + RBV 12–24 W
400 mg QD 90% 9/10 4
Bera (2017) [20] India 25 25 20% 6.4 ± 0.57
log IU/ML
GT3–72%, GT1–24%,
GT4–4%
SOF + DCV 12–24 W 400 mg/48 h 100% 16/16 4
Bhamidimarri (2015) [31] USA 15 12 60% 9.7 × 106 IU/ML GT1a-67%,
GT1b-33%
SOF + SMV 12–24 W 200 mg QD or 400 mg/48 h 87% 13/15 4
Butt (2108) [45] USA 137 NA NA NA NA SOF/LDV ± RBV 12–16 W 400 mg QD 95% 103/108 3
Choudhary (2017) [21] India 16 16 12.50% 7 (5–8)
log IU/ML
GT1–69%,
GT3–25%,
GT-6%
SOF + PR, SOF + DCV ± RBV12 W 400 mg/48 h 80% 8/10 4
Desnoyer (2016) [32] France 12 12 83% 6.59 (6.13–6.86)
log IU/ML
GT1–92%
GT2–8%
SOF + SMV, SOF + DCV, SOF/LDV, SOF + RBV 12–24 W 400 mg QD or 400 mg TIW 83% 10/12 5
Dumortier (2017) [18] France 50 35 54% 2,603,063 IU/ML GT1–56%, GT2–12%,
GT3–10%,
GT4–18%,
GT5–4%
SOF + RBV, SOF + PR, SOF + DCV ± RBV, SOF + SMV ± RBV 12–24 W 400 mg QD or 400 mg/48 h or 400 mg TIW 91% 43/47 5
Taneja (2018) [22] India 65 54 32.3%(9% decompensation) 1.65 × 106 (1.2 × 103–1.73 × 108)
IU/ML
GT1–65%; GT2–1%, GT3–34% SOF + DCV
12- 24w
200 mg QD 100% 65/65 5
Goel (2018) [23] India 41 31 12% 5.9 (4.12–9.9)
log IU/ML
GT3–54%, GT1–42%, GT4–5% SOF + DCV 12–24 W 200 mg QD 100% 36/36 4
Yingli (2017) [24] China 33 33 NA 1.7–7.8
log IU/ML
GT1b-21%,
GT2a-73%, GT2a + 1b-6%
SOF + DCV 200 mg QD 100% 33/33 4
Lawitz (2017) [33] USA and New Zealand 18 0 11% NA GT1a-78%,
GT1b-22%
SOF/LDV
12 W
400 mg QD 100% 18/18 4
Manoj (2018) [28] India 64 11 NA NA NA SOF + RBV,
SOF/LDV,
SOF + DCV 12–24 W
400 mg QD 100% 64/64 5
Mehta (2018) [46] India 38 38 NA 5.75 (5.05–6.36)
log IU/ML
GT1a-42%, GT1b-58% SOF + DCV,
SOF/LDV
12 W
400 mg QD or 400 mg/48 h 86.8% 33/38 5
Nazario (2017) [29] USA 41 38 49% NA GT1a-66%; GT2–2%,
GT3–2%
SOF + SMV, SOF/LDV,
SOF + DCV 12–24 W
400 mg QD 100% 41/41 3
Saab (2017) [30] USA 12 12 NA 30,499,500 ± 29,655,754
IU/ML
GT1a-42%, GT1b-25%, GT2–17%,
GT1–17%
SOF + RBV, SOF/LDV ± RBV 400 mg QD 70% 7/10 4
Saxena (2015) [47] USA 18 5 75% NA NA SOF + PR,
SOF + RBV,
SOF + SMV ± RBV
400 mg QD 85% 11/13 5
Singh (2017) [34] USA 36 30 27.8% (16.7% decompensation) 9.9 × 105 IU/ML G1–72%,
G3–22%,
G4–5%
SOF/LDV,
SOF + DCV 12 W–24 W
400 mg QD 97.2% 35/36 4
Surendra (2018) [25] India 21 21 0 NA (63% > 800,000 IU/ML) GT1a-63%, GT1b-37% SOF/LDV
12 W
400 mg/48 h 100% 19/19 5
Cox-North (2017) [35] USA 29 NA 44%(14% decompensation) NA GT1–72%,
GT2–7%,
GT3–17%
GT6–4%
SOF/LDV ± RBV,
SOF + DCV ± RBV, 8-24 W
400 mg QD 100% 28/28 4
  1. SMV simeprevir, PR Peg-interferon/ribavirin, DCV daclatasvir, LDV ledipasvir