Hepatitis C virus infection and lymphoproliferative disorders after liver transplantation

✍ Scribed by Nizar N. Zein; Rogelio G. Perez; Russel H. Wiesner

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 2000
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 34 KB
• Volume: 31
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 0270-9139
• DOI: 10.1002/hep.510310340

✦ Synopsis

with treatment failures moving on to combination therapy (IFN/CMB). The primary difference between the two best strategies (IFN/CBM vs. CMB-G) was that the CMB-G strategy was more successful with those with genotype 1. Thus, the genotyping strategy reached more people with less responsive disease than the comparator. If genotype 1 is also associated with more progressive disease, then the cost effectiveness of the genotyping strategy may be slightly understated.

4. In our Table 5, the ICER ratio does not represent comparison of CMB-G with the no treatment strategy (No Tx) or the interferon alone strategy (IFN). 1 These two strategies were the main treatment options used in other studies. 6,7 Despite this, our study is the only published analysis that has considered the potential role of genotyping on the efficacy of combination therapy. Additionally, we have performed extensive sensitivity analyses to deal with the uncertainty of data (rates of progression, costs, utilities, rates of efficacy of different treatment strategies, etc.) with little impact on our conclusions.