Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 21, 2016; 22(35): 8050-8059
Published online Sep 21, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i35.8050
Table 2 Predictive model of sustained virological response analyzed for all patients treated with second generation direct acting antiviracombination therapy (n = 256)
SVR 12 (n/N; %)2Univariate analysisMultivariate analysis
Odds ratio (95%CI)Wald P valueOdds ratio (95%CI)Wald P value
Viral kinetics
RVR143/152; 94%
vs Non-RVR83/89; 93%1.149 (0.395, 3.341)0.7990.728
Baseline demographic parameters
Fibrosis
Liver Cirrhosis76/87; 87%
vs no Liver Cirrhosis164/169; 97%0.211 (0.071, 0.627)0.0050.290
Transplant Status
LTx15/17; 88%
vs no LTx225/239; 94%0.467 (0.097, 2.246)0.4670.972
Sex
Male140/153; 92%
vs female100/103; 97%0.329 (0.091, 1.184)0.0890.282
Age
Patients ≥ 60 yr68/71; 96%
vs < 60 yr172/185; 93%0.999 (0.959, 1.04)0.9480.078
Baseline viral load
High viral load (> 6 Mio IU/mL)28/28; 100%
vs low viral load ( ≤ 6 Mio IU/mL)212/228; 93%NA0.9980.251
Genotype
1180/192; 93%
vs 338/42; 90%1.606 (0.510, 5.060)0.4180.424
Genotype1
1 IFN-free, per protocol160/164/; 98%
vs 3 IFN-free, per protocol16/20/; 80%5.000 (1.355, 18.45)0.016NA
Baseline platelet count
Platelets ≤ 100/nL45/55; 82%
vs > 100/nL195/201; 97%0.138 (0.048, 0.401)< 0.00010.24 (0.072, 0.88)0.031
Baseline MELD ≥ 10
MELD ≥ 1018/25; 72%
vs MELD < 10222/231; 96%0.104 (0.035, 0.313)< 0.00010.117 (0.037, 0.373)< 0.0001
Previous treatment response
Pre-treated133/142; 94%
vs treatment-naive107/114; 94%0.967 (0.349, 2.681)0.9480.457