Global search

Find data and evidence

Type at least 2 characters. Use arrow keys to review and Enter to open.

Peer reviewedOpen accessHepatitis CHepatitis E

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ANTIVIRAL THERAPIES IN CHRONIC HCV PATIENTS: CLINICAL OUTCOMES AND TREATMENT IMPLICATIONS

Bulletin of Biological and Allied Sciences Research·

A ALI, A ULLAH, S KIRBAG

DOI
10.64013/bbasr.v2026i1.136
PMID
PMCID
OpenAlex
W7208771801
Study type
Journal article
Publisher
BBASR Publishers
Article type
journal-article
Integrity
current

Why this research matters now

Findings highlight commonly reported HCV exposure routes in this cohort, including unsafe barber visits (38.2%), unsafe therapeutic injections (31.8%), and unsafe dental procedures (24.5%), suggesting potential targets for infection control.

01

Structured evidence summary

Research question

The study evaluated clinical outcomes of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens in chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) patients, including demographic patterns and treatment efficacy.

Study design

A comparative treatment analysis of 110 HCV-confirmed patients classified into two DAA treatment groups, with sustained virologic response (SVR) assessed at 3 and 6 months.

Population and setting

110 chronic HCV patients, with a higher proportion of males (54.5%) than females (45.5%), predominantly from urban areas (62.7%) and most frequently aged 36–55 years (46.4%).

Main findings

Overall SVR at 24 weeks was 89.1%; sofosbuvir plus ribavirin achieved 93.2% SVR versus 84.3% for sofosbuvir plus daclatasvir. Common reported adverse effects included generalized body aches, fatigue, headache, and fever across both DAA groups.

Public-health relevance

Findings highlight commonly reported HCV exposure routes in this cohort, including unsafe barber visits (38.2%), unsafe therapeutic injections (31.8%), and unsafe dental procedures (24.5%), suggesting potential targets for infection control.

Important limitations

This summary is limited to the supplied single-article abstract/metadata; the original paper is needed for decision-grade interpretation. The abstract does not report sample-size justification, randomization, blinding, genotype distribution across arms, or statistical testing.

GIDS interpretation

Within the GIDS framework, this article is discoverable as a peer-reviewed treatment-efficacy and transmission-context study on HCV, potentially useful for editorial contextualization rather than as an active surveillance signal.

02

Related GIDS surveillance

Literature context does not validate, explain, or change a surveillance signal. Exact and contextual relationships are shown separately.

03

Evidence relationships

This article has 9 auditable classifier relationships to diseases, places, topics, and study design.

about diseaseabout diseaseaddresses topicaddresses topicevaluates interventionhas pathogen typestudied instudied population settinguses study design