Treatment selection choices should not be based on benefits or costs alone: A head-to-head randomized controlled trial of antiviral drugs for hepatitis C
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 11, Issue: 10, Page: e0163945
2016
- 3Citations
- 43Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations3
- Citation Indexes3
- CrossRef1
- Captures43
- Readers43
- 43
Article Description
Background: Clinicians often face dilemmas with decisions related to formulary choices when two similar drugs are simultaneously available in the market. We studied the comparative safety, effectiveness, and treatment costs of the two first generation direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA), boceprevir and telaprevir as uncertainty existed regarding the drug of choice between these two seemingly equally Hepatitis-C treatment options. Methods: We randomly assigned 50 patients in an open-label, pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) at a VA Medical Center to either boceprevir or telaprevir in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin, stratified by the presence of cirrhosis and prior treatment experience. Tolerability was assessed at each visit and reasons for discontinuation of treatment and severity of adverse events due to PI treatment were adjudicated using a blinded adjudication committee. The primary outcome was difference in tolerability between boceprevir vs. telaprevir. Secondary outcomes included viral response rates and cost-per cure achieved. Results: Higher rates of treatment discontinuations and/or severe DAA associated adverse events were seen in 10/25 (40%) patients randomized to telaprevir compared to 2/25 (8%) patients randomized to boceprevir (RR: 5; 95% CI: 1.2, 20; p<0.01). Cure rates did not appear to be significantly different between groups (telaprevir vs. boceprevir: RR 1.23; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.99; p = 0.39). On an intention-to-treat basis, total cost per cure was $44,329 for boceprevir vs. $57,115 for telaprevir. The significant side effect profile of telaprevir combined withthe availability of highly efficacious second generation DAAs led to the early discontinuation of the trial. Conclusion: Telaprevir is associated with a significantly higher rate of severe adverse events leading to treatment discontinuations, hospitalizations or severe anemia and a substantially higher cost per SVR when compared to boceprevir. Real-time, point of care, pragmatic randomized controlled trials are necessary for guidance beyond just acquisition costs and to make evidence-based formulary selections when multiple effective treatments are available. (Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT02113631).
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0163945; 10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t004; 10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t001; 10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.g001
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84992382832&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27741230; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02113631; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0163945&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t003; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.g001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t004; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163945.t002
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know