ライフサイエンスコーパス: RBV

1 RBV and IFN alfa were effective against CHIKV as monothe

2 RBV cotreatment of HCV-infection improved pSTAT4-depende

3 RBV cotreatment with DAA-therapy for HCV increased CD56B

4 RBV dose reduction occurred in 25% without any treatment

5 RBV enhances the pSTAT4 and IFN-gamma response of NK cel

6 RBV/rIFN was initiated at a median of 2 days (Q1, Q3: 1,

7 drastic increase in the cost of aerosolized RBV, we aimed to compare outcomes of hematopoietic cell

8 recipients treated with oral or aerosolized RBV for RSV infections.

9 infections treated with oral or aerosolized RBV from September 2014 through April 2017.

10 Seventy patients (56%) received aerosolized RBV and 54 (44%) oral RBV.

11 y be an effective alternative to aerosolized RBV, with potential significant cost savings.

12 eficiency have been shown to protect against RBV-induced anemia.

13 ITPase deficiency protects against RBV-induced anemia, but is not associated with SVR.

14 and induced viral clearance by the IFN-alpha+RBV combination treatment.

15 e data suggest that treatment with IFN-alpha/RBV can moderately reduce the reservoir of HIV-1-infecte

16 Here, we show that treatment with IFN-alpha/RBV led to a moderate but significant and sustained decl

17 ed VDV 200 mg QD, TGV 30 mg twice-daily, and RBV 1,000-1,200 mg/day.

18 e findings suggest that SOF plus Peg-IFN and RBV for 12 weeks is effective and safe in patients who h

19 d previously failed DCV-ASV plus Peg-IFN and RBV).

20 or 36 weeks of dual therapy with PEG-IFN and RBV.

21 egimens of one or more DAAs plus Peg-IFN and RBV.

22 Patients were treated with TVR, PEG-IFN, and RBV for 12 weeks, followed by 12 or 36 weeks of dual the

23 Patient experience with IFN- and RBV-free anti-HCV (hepatitis C virus) regimens has not b

24 dipasvir/sofosbuvir), the first Peg-IFN- and RBV-free regimen for CHC GT1 patients, on work productiv

25 IFN- and RBV-free regimens with LDV/SOF result in early HCV suppr

26 by 9 (100%) of those receiving SOF, LDV, and RBV and 7 (70%) of those receiving SOF and LDVD without

27 group of TN patients received SOF, LDV, and RBV for 6 weeks (n = 25).

28 patients receiving 6 weeks of SOF, LDV, and RBV, 17 of 25 (68%) achieved SVR12.

29 infection previously treated with PegIFN and RBV.

30 When utilized with peginterferon and RBV for 12 weeks in treatment-naive patients with genoty

31 fa-2a) as well as the combination of SOF and RBV for the treatment of patients infected with hepatiti

32 SOF and RBV provide high rates of SVR in patients with severe re

33 t of SOF, RBV and peg-IFN-alfa-2a or SOF and RBV.

34 Sofosbuvir and RBV have also been studied without interferon and repres

35 Pase activity, on-treatment anemia, SVR, and RBV levels in hepatitis C virus genotype 1 (HCV-1) patie

36 the host IFN response, has been proposed as RBV's mechanism of action.

37 eron-free hepatitis C treatment regimens, as RBV alone does not inhibit hepatitis C virus (HCV) repli

38 blet of LDV-SOF once-daily plus weight-based RBV (1,000 or 1,200 mg/day) for 12 weeks.

39 CV-SOF (60 + 400 mg daily) with weight-based RBV for 12 or 16 weeks.

40 vira plus, n = 11) or the standard of care + RBV 800 mg (n = 11) daily for 12 weeks.

41 0 mg GLE + 120 mg PIB with 800 mg once-daily RBV (arm B), or 300 mg GLE + 120 mg PIB without RBV (arm

42 sessed them for the presence of any discrete RBV positional shifts (2 graders) and for traditional me

43 ) DRV 600 mg; all received OBV/PTV/r + DSV + RBV for 12 weeks.

44 the efficacy and safety of OBV/PTV/r + DSV + RBV in coinfected patients on stable, DRV-containing ant

45 fA1) prevented ENT1 degradation and enhanced RBV antiviral activity.

46 However, RBV and IFN alfa were highly synergistic for antiviral e

47 and 3, 12-week administration of SOF+Peg-IFN+RBV provided high SVR rates, irrespective of cirrhosis s

48 lus peginterferon and ribavirin (SOF+Peg-IFN+RBV) administered for 12 weeks to treatment-experienced

49 9%) had previously received SOF plus Peg-IFN-RBV, 20 (39%) had received SOF-RBV, 5 (10%) had received

50 (10%) had received SOF placebo plus Peg-IFN-RBV, and 1 (2%) received GS-0938 monotherapy.

51 g every 8 hours with efavirenz) plus peg-IFN/RBV for 12 weeks and peg-IFN/RBV for 32-56 weeks accordi

52 z) plus peg-IFN/RBV for 12 weeks and peg-IFN/RBV for 32-56 weeks according to virological response at

53 who previously failed >/=12 weeks of peg-IFN/RBV for HCV genotype 1 coinfection were enrolled in a si

54 regarding the use of telaprevir plus peg-IFN/RBV in this population.

55 G-IFN)/ribavirin (RBV) for 48 weeks, PEG-IFN/RBV plus boceprevir (BOC) or telaprevir (TEL) for 48 wee

56 uncommonly (6/266 [2.3%]) in MK-5172/peg-IFN/RBV recipients.

57 ts who were null responders to prior peg-IFN/RBV standard therapy and on a raltegravir-based regimen

58 ubsequently broke through during the peg-IFN/RBV tail 16 weeks after completion of MK-5172.

59 lts suggest that a shorter course of peg-IFN/RBV therapy may be sufficient in this population.

60 nts with undetectable HCV RNA during peg-IFN/RBV therapy were enrolled.

61 s' absolute lymphocyte counts during peg-IFN/RBV therapy; peg-IFN dose reductions may be a considerat

62 bining daclatasvir, asunaprevir, and peg-IFN/RBV was associated with a very high cure rate.

63 ylated interferon alfa-2a/ribavirin (peg-IFN/RBV) for 12 weeks.

64 with pegylated interferon/ribavirin (peg-IFN/RBV) have shown promising results in HCV-monoinfected pa

65 pegylated interferon plus ribavirin (peg-IFN/RBV) therapy remain unknown.

66 received a 4-week lead-in phase with peg-IFN/RBV, followed by 24 weeks of asunaprevir (100 mg twice d

67 daclatasvir (60 mg once daily), and peg-IFN/RBV.

68 for 48 weeks (group A, n = 31), PEG-IFNalpha/RBV for 4 weeks followed by PEG-IFNalpha/RBV for 44 week

69 pha/RBV for 4 weeks followed by PEG-IFNalpha/RBV for 44 weeks with 6 injections of TG4040 (group B, n

70 y to 1 of the following groups: PEG-IFNalpha/RBV for 48 weeks (group A, n = 31), PEG-IFNalpha/RBV for

71 eeks (7 injections) followed by PEG-IFNalpha/RBV for 48 weeks with 6 injections of TG4040 (group C, n

72 erferon alpha-2a and ribavirin (PEG-IFNalpha/RBV) in patients with chronic HCV infection.

73 Furthermore, HCV replication impaired RBV uptake, because of reduced expression of the nucleos

74 s induces an autophagy response that impairs RBV uptake by preventing the expression of equilibrative

75 se could be used as a strategy for improving RBV antiviral activity against HCV infection.

76 ia occurred in 13% of patients, primarily in RBV-based regimens.

77 in (RBV); and Dactavira plus, which includes RBV 800 mg.

78 onse could be used as a strategy to increase RBV antiviral activity against HCV infection.

79 Oral and inhaled RBV appear to be well tolerated in LTRs, and our data su

80 lity was significantly higher in the inhaled RBV group (24.1% versus 7.1% [oral RBV], P = 0.03), adju

81 e oral RBV group and 29 of 32 in the inhaled RBV group had symptomatic RSV infection.

82 death and oral RBV use (compared to inhaled RBV), accounting for oxygen requirement and need for mec

83 ect of ribavirin and recombinant interferon (RBV/rIFN) therapy on the outcomes of critically ill pati

84 (RBV), n = 53; SOF + pegylated interferon + RBV, n = 25; SOF + RBV, n = 36; and SOF + ledipasvir, n

85 d 82% previously failed pegylated interferon/RBV-based regimens) received treatment and were followed

86 h ALV monotherapy, high body weight, and low RBV levels in patients that received ALV plus RBV.

87 mg ABT-530 with or without once-daily 800 mg RBV for 12 weeks; treatment-experienced patients who wer

88 nfounders using a marginal structural model, RBV/rIFN was not associated with changes in 90-day morta

89 her in patients with RBV/rIFN compared to no RBV/rIFN (106/144 [73.6%] vs 126/205 [61.5%]; P = .02].

90 The antiviral activity of RBV against HCV was progressively impaired in the persis

91 ect-acting antivirals (DAAs) and addition of RBV improves NK cell function in liver transplant (LTx)

92 12 weeks of treatment and/or the addition of RBV.

93 We evaluated the association of RBV/rIFN with 90-day mortality and MERS coronavirus (MER

94 imited data are available on the efficacy of RBV-free regimens posttransplant, particularly the use o

95 The impact of RBV-free pan-genotypic regimen with SOF and velpatasvir

96 a potential mechanism for the impairment of RBV antiviral activity in persistently HCV-infected cell

97 were infected with CHIKV in the presence of RBV and/or IFN alfa, and viral production was quantified

98 These studies illustrate the promise of RBV plus IFN alfa as a potential therapeutic strategy fo

99 redicted that a standard clinical regimen of RBV plus IFN alfa would inhibit CHIKV burden by 2.5 log1

100 ociated with clinically relevant regimens of RBV and IFN alfa as combination therapy.

101 Use of RBV did not impact the efficacy of LDV/SOF regimens in t

102 The use of RBV did not increase SVR12 and was associated with anemi

103 The use of RBV may not be necessary to achieve SVR in this patient

104 ents with and 32 patients without 4 weeks of RBV pretreatment, who all received subsequent pegylated

105 F, 138 LDV/SOF + RBV, 28 OPrD, and 73 OPrD + RBV.

106 ting 12 weeks of LDV/SOF +/- RBV or OPrD +/- RBV.

107 taprevir/ritonavir plus dasabuvir (OPrD) +/- RBV in HIV/HCV genotype 1 (GT1)-coinfected patients init

108 Peg-IFN or RBV dose reduction was required in 23% and 43% of patien

109 uired erythropoietin, blood transfusions, or RBV dose reduction for anemia.

110 e inhaled RBV group (24.1% versus 7.1% [oral RBV], P = 0.03), adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death an

111 ) received aerosolized RBV and 54 (44%) oral RBV.

112 djusted hazard ratio (HR) for death and oral RBV use (compared to inhaled RBV), accounting for oxygen

113 entilation, showed the HR for death and oral RBV use was 0.38 ([0.10, 1.46], P = 0.38).

114 n LTRs, and our data support the use of oral RBV as a safe alternative to inhaled ribavirin in LTRs.

115 tcomes when treated with aerosolized or oral RBV.

116 One patient receiving oral RBV had to prematurely stop drug due to significant naus

117 Fifty-six of 70 patients in the oral RBV group and 29 of 32 in the inhaled RBV group had symp

118 urvival rates, compared to untreated and PEG/RBV-treated persons.

119 ree survival rates between untreated and PEG/RBV-treated persons.

120 coinfection, and those treated with both PEG/RBV and DAA regimens.

121 ylated interferon and ribavirin regimen (PEG/RBV, n = 4764) or a DAA-containing regimen (n = 21 279),

122 ed with peginterferon alfa-2a/ribavirin (PEG/RBV) with or without TVL or BOC.

123 % CI 18.3-21.4) among those treated with PEG/RBV, and 9.89 (95% CI 8.7-11.1) among DAA-treated person

124 one direct-acting antiviral in 53.4%, PegIFN-RBV in 34.5%, and sofosbuvir/RBV in 12.2%.

125 d pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PegIFN-RBV) plus one direct-acting antiviral in 53.4%, PegIFN-R

126 LI4W-W8UTND) received 24 weeks of BOC/PEGIFN/RBV (total: 28 weeks [W28]).

127 NA at week 8 received 44 weeks of BOC/PEGIFN/RBV (total: 48 weeks [W48]).

128 ylated interferon-alpha-2a/ribavirin (PEGIFN/RBV) lead-in, patients with target-not-detectable HCV-RN

129 interferon plus ribavirin treatment (PegIFN/RBV) have not been fully illustrated yet.

130 C infection who had been treated with PegIFN/RBV were enrolled, including 27 (45%) with sustained vir

131 NR in GT-1 CHC patients treated with PegIFN/RBV, while baseline serum level of CCL4 is the only pred

132 f 19 patients treated with SOF/peginterferon/RBV.

133 ent duration and different doses of ALV plus RBV on sustained virologic response (SVR).

134 BV levels in patients that received ALV plus RBV.

135 cacy and safety of ledipasvir (LDV)-SOF plus RBV in patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV)

136 Twelve weeks of LDV-SOF plus RBV was an effective and safe treatment for patients who

137 LDV/SOF plus RBV was associated with a greater incidence of AEs as we

138 ents were to receive 24-48 weeks of SOF plus RBV.

139 ith sofosbuvir-velpatasvir-voxilaprevir plus RBV were fatigue, anemia, gastroenteritis, and nausea.

140 eek, or peg-IFN alfa-2a 180 microg/week plus RBV.

141 osage of Peg-IFN-alpha2a (135 mug/week) plus RBV (10 mg/kg per day) were given for 4 weeks to treatme

142 eived peg-IFN alfa-2a (180 microg/week) plus RBV (1000-1200 mg/day) for 4 weeks, followed by telaprev

143 nter; 55% cohort A and 44% cohort B received RBV.

144 MERS patients, 144 (41.3%) patients received RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-alpha2a, rIFN-alpha2b, or rIFN

145 In the 25 patients who received RBV, 72% developed anemia requiring intervention.

146 Receiving RBV was an independent predictor of PRO impairment in mu

147 those receiving RBV and those not receiving RBV was the same (97%).

148 24 weeks of treatment, in patients receiving RBV or not, and in treatment-naive vs experienced patien

149 Patients receiving RBV with LDV/SOF were more likely to require dose modifi

150 The rate of SVR in those receiving RBV and those not receiving RBV was the same (97%).

151 ciation between Hb decline and SVR reflected RBV levels rather than actual Hb level.

152 Ribavirin (RBV) and interferon have been used successfully for trea

153 Ribavirin (RBV) continues to be an important component of interfero

154 Ribavirin (RBV) has been used to treat RSV-infected LTRs with limit

155 Ribavirin (RBV) remains an important component of interferon-free h

156 interferon alpha (IFN-alpha) and ribavirin (RBV) can effectively cure HCV infection in a significant

157 nd 3 contain sofosbuvir (SOF) and ribavirin (RBV) for 12 or 24 weeks.

158 e with peginterferon (PEGINF) and ribavirin (RBV) in patients with chronic genotype 1.

159 egylated interferon (Peg-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) in patients with genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV)

160 ginterferon-alpha2a (PegIFN), and ribavirin (RBV) in patients with HCV genotype-1 infection previousl

161 5B inhibitor tegobuvir (TGV), and ribavirin (RBV) in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis

162 egylated interferon (PEG-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) is poor.

163 We provided sofosbuvir (SOF) and ribavirin (RBV) on a compassionate-use basis to patients with sever

164 egylated interferon (peg-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) results in poor sustained virological response (SVR

165 eatment with interferon (IFN) and ribavirin (RBV) significantly impairs quality of life and other pat

166 e 1 infection with sofosbuvir and ribavirin (RBV), and explored associations with treatment outcome.

167 treated with interferon (IFN) and ribavirin (RBV), between 2000 and 2008.

168 egylated interferon (Peg-IFN) and ribavirin (RBV), with (n = 3) or without (n = 13) asunaprevir (ASV;

169 197 patients treated with SOF and ribavirin (RBV), with or without peginterferon, including 54% with

170 interferon (IFN)-free or IFN- and ribavirin (RBV)-free treatment regimens with shorter durations and

171 lpha (IFN-alpha), IFN-lambda, and ribavirin (RBV).

172 red to subjects receiving SOF and ribavirin (RBV; FUSION trial, N=201, 34% cirrhosis; VALENCE trial:

173 This shift was blocked by ribavirin (RBV), an antiviral drug that reduces relapse in HCV pati

174 ofosbuvir (SOF) + daclatasvir +/- ribavirin (RBV) was used in 123 patients, SOF + RBV in 30, SOF + si

175 h dasabuvir (OBV/PTV/r + DSV) +/- ribavirin (RBV) is approved for hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1

176 + dasabuvir (OBV/PTV/r + DSV) +/- ribavirin (RBV).

177 ategies: peg-interferon (PEG-IFN)/ribavirin (RBV) for 48 weeks, PEG-IFN/RBV plus boceprevir (BOC) or

178 uated the antiviral activities of ribavirin (RBV) and interferon (IFN) alfa as monotherapy and combin

179 eek treatment and the addition of ribavirin (RBV).

180 ransplantation include the use of ribavirin (RBV).

181 lated interferon (Peg-IFN) and/or ribavirin (RBV), which further compromised work productivity during

182 The use of oral ribavirin (RBV) for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections is

183 ir (GLE) + pibrentasvir (PIB) +/- ribavirin (RBV) in HCV genotype 1-infected patients with prior viro

184 ived pegylated IFN (PEG-IFN) plus ribavirin (RBV) therapy.

185 ) rates during peginterferon plus ribavirin (RBV) therapy.

186 n alpha-2a (Peg-IFN-alpha2a) plus ribavirin (RBV) to prevent of HCV recurrence.

187 ) and LDV (90 mg once daily) plus ribavirin (RBV) were given for 12 weeks to treatment-naive (TN) pat

188 atment with sofosbuvir (SOF) plus ribavirin (RBV) with or without pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN) do n

189 reated with sofosbuvir (SOF) plus ribavirin (RBV).

190 ed regimens (SOF + simeprevir +/- ribavirin (RBV), n = 53; SOF + pegylated interferon + RBV, n = 25;

191 8, 12, or 24 weeks of LDV/SOF +/- ribavirin (RBV).

192 combination of sofosbuvir (SOF), ribavirin (RBV) and peg-interferon-alfa-2a (peg-IFN-alfa-2a) as wel

193 imens used were: Sofosbuvir (SOF)/ribavirin (RBV)/pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), 25.2%; SOF/RBV, 62.

194 logic response (SVR) of LDV/SOF+/-ribavirin (RBV) in routine medical practice.

195 SMV)/SOF, 94% (16/17) for SMV/SOF/ribavirin (RBV), and 52% (16/31) for SOF/RBV.

196 osbuvir (SOF) in combination with ribavirin (RBV) for 12 or 24 weeks is the current standard of care

197 y (N = 50) evaluated DCV-SOF with ribavirin (RBV) in treatment-naive (n = 13) or treatment-experience

198 ir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks resulted in high sustained virologic r

199 svir-voxilaprevir with or without ribavirin (RBV) for 12 weeks.

200 -493 plus ABT-530 with or without ribavirin (RBV) in GT1- or GT3-infected patients with compensated c

201 (SVR) of SIM+SOF with and without ribavirin (RBV) in patients with Child-Pugh (CP)-B/C versus CP-A ci

202 sbuvir (LDV/SOF) with and without ribavirin (RBV) resulted in high rates of sustained virological res

203 sofosbuvir (SOF) with or without ribavirin (RBV) results in high sustained virological response (SVR

204 or 12 to 24 weeks with or without ribavirin (RBV).

205 hin gallate (EGCG) 400 mg without ribavirin (RBV); and Dactavira plus, which includes RBV 800 mg.

206 In this observational study, RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-alpha2a, rIFN-alpha2b, or rIFN-beta1a) t

207 nts, 144 (41.3%) patients received RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-alpha2a, rIFN-alpha2b, or rIFN-beta1a; n

208 + pegylated interferon + RBV, n = 25; SOF + RBV, n = 36; and SOF + ledipasvir, n = 6) between Januar

209 , and compared between the SOF/VEL and SOF + RBV groups.

210 nitiated therapy: 757 LDV/SOF, 138 LDV/SOF + RBV, 28 OPrD, and 73 OPrD + RBV.

211 avirin (RBV) was used in 123 patients, SOF + RBV in 30, SOF + simeprevir in 11, and SOF + ledipasvir

212 .0% for the use of SOF/VEL (reference: SOF + RBV).

213 In contrast, those in the SOF + RBV group had a modest decline in their PROs starting at

214 epatitis C antibody therapy with LDF/SOF +/- RBV support the prescription labeling suggesting that pa

215 PPI use with LDV/SOF +/- RBV did not affect SVR (89.7% [131/146] with PPI and 91.

216 veterans initiating 12 weeks of LDV/SOF +/- RBV or OPrD +/- RBV.

217 an American race or PPI use with LDV/SOF +/- RBV was not associated with lower SVR rates, but cirrhos

218 buvir with or without ribavirin (LDV/SOF +/- RBV) and ombitasvir/ paritaprevir/ritonavir plus dasabuv

219 SMV/SOF +/- RBV is an effective option with minimal adverse effects

220 N = 654) with LDV/SOF (N = 1,080) or LDV/SOF+RBV (N = 872).

221 for LDV/SOF and 92.0% (527/573) for LDV/SOF+RBV (P = 0.65).

222 he other hand, during treatment with LDV/SOF+RBV, PRO scores declined (up to -5.5% regardless of trea

223 Treatment with SOF+RBV with or without Peg-IFN is tolerated by HCV patients

224 V genotype 1 patients treated with LDV/SOF+/-RBV (ION-1, -2, and -3).

225 real-world cohort, SVR rates with LDV/SOF+/-RBV nearly matched the rates reported in clinical trials

226 HCV-infected veterans treated with LDV/SOF+/-RBV.

227 ALENCE trial: N=333, 21% cirrhosis) and SOF, RBV, and pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN; NEUTRINO trial:

228 eived either a combination treatment of SOF, RBV and peg-IFN-alfa-2a or SOF and RBV.

229 The all-oral regimen of DCV-SOF-RBV was well tolerated and resulted in high and similar

230 plus Peg-IFN-RBV, 20 (39%) had received SOF-RBV, 5 (10%) had received SOF placebo plus Peg-IFN-RBV,

231 )/pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), 25.2%; SOF/RBV, 62.4%; SOF/RBV/daclatasavir (DCV), 10.6%; SOF/DCV,

232 rferon (PEG-IFN), 25.2%; SOF/RBV, 62.4%; SOF/RBV/daclatasavir (DCV), 10.6%; SOF/DCV, 2.0%.

233 vival compared with those treated with a SOF/RBV/PEG-IFN regimen.

234 he base-case scenario, SOF/SMV dominated SOF/RBV in a modeled 50-year-old cohort of treatment-naive a

235 SOF/ribavirin (RBV), and 52% (16/31) for SOF/RBV.

236 e of SMV/SOF/RBV was higher than that of SOF/RBV (P < .01).

237 A 24-week course of SOF/RBV costs approximately US$169,000, with sustained virol

238 l response to a 12- to 16-week course of SOF/RBV treatment in these patients was more similar to resp

239 ent regimen, those treated with SOF/RBV, SOF/RBV/DCV, or SOF/DCV regimens had a shorter HCC-free surv

240 otype 1 infection: sofosbuvir/ribavirin (SOF/RBV) for 24 weeks or sofosbuvir/simeprevir (SOF/SMV) for

241 ofosbuvir in combination with ribavirin (SOF/RBV) treatment.

242 The SVR rates of SMV/SOF/RBV and SMV/SOF did not differ significantly in this sma

243 In a per protocol analysis, SMV/SOF/RBV had a higher SVR rate than SOF/RBV: 100% (16/16) vs

244 However the SVR rate of SMV/SOF/RBV was higher than that of SOF/RBV (P < .01).

245 , SMV/SOF/RBV had a higher SVR rate than SOF/RBV: 100% (16/16) vs 57% (16/28) (P < .01).

246 Ys) for the average subject, compared to SOF/RBV ($165,336 and 14.69 QALYs vs. $243,586 and 14.45 QAL

247 mmune activation in those who respond to SOF/RBV therapy and a potential role in predicting treatment

248 ategy saved $91,590 per SVR, compared to SOF/RBV.

249 in those with cirrhosis, treatment with SOF/RBV was suboptimal, highlighting the need for new therap

250 Of 178 patients treated with SOF/RBV, 60% achieved SVR at 12 weeks (SVR12), compared with

251 by treatment regimen, those treated with SOF/RBV, SOF/RBV/DCV, or SOF/DCV regimens had a shorter HCC-

252 For patients treated with SOF/RBV, the SVR12 rate was 58% in treatment-naive patients

253 n 53.4%, PegIFN-RBV in 34.5%, and sofosbuvir/RBV in 12.2%.

254 eline viral load, previous treatment status, RBV use, or GT1 subtype did not impact SVR 12.

255 In this observational study, RBV/rIFN (RBV and/or rIFN-alpha2a, rIFN-alpha2b, or rIFN

256 In the HFIM system, RBV plus IFN alfa at clinical exposures resulted in a 2.

257 d membrane expression of ENT1 and terminated RBV uptake.

258 terferon-free regimen containing LDV/VDV/TGV/RBV was well tolerated and led to SVR12 in up to 63% of

259 nd in 100% (27 of 27; 95% CI, 88-100) in the RBV-containing arm.

260 (27 of 28; 95% CI, 82-99) of patients in the RBV-free arm (1 relapse), and in 100% (27 of 27; 95% CI,

261 nearly all adverse events were lower in the RBV-free SOF/VEL group (all P < .03).

262 In this study, we investigated the RBV resistance mechanism using a persistently HCV-infect

263 treatment compared with those receiving the RBV-containing regimen.

264 and prior failure of DAA-containing therapy; RBV coadministration did not improve efficacy.

265 The regimen is well tolerated, though RBV use may require a reduction or interruption to manag

266 To assess whether RBV has a direct effect on NK cells and/or improves the

267 study provides a potential mechanism for why RBV antiviral activity is impaired in persistently HCV-i

268 The reason why RBV alone does not inhibit HCV replication effectively h

269 s treated with the DAA sofosbuvir along with RBV, IFNL4-DeltaG is associated with slower early viral

270 rogression was statistically associated with RBV shift (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1-4.5; P = 0.

271 ther variables significantly associated with RBV shift included neuroretinal rim loss (OR, 21.9; 95%

272 l change, were significantly associated with RBV shift.

273 ead investigational DAAs in combination with RBV with or without Peg-IFN.

274 t-term treatment with IFN alfa combined with RBV decreases HIV expression, in part through inhibition

275 d, especially given that viral isolates with RBV resistance have been recently identified.

276 fixed-dose combination of SOF and LDV, with RBV (n = 9) or without RBV (n = 10).

277 90-day mortality was higher in patients with RBV/rIFN compared to no RBV/rIFN (106/144 [73.6%] vs 126

278 patients (of whom 872 received LDV/SOF with RBV and 1,080 received LDV/SOF alone) were analyzed.

279 perienced patients who were not treated with RBV received 16 weeks of therapy.

280 I, 80-100) receiving the same treatment with RBV.

281 and 45% of patients treated with and without RBV, respectively, including fatigue, insomnia, irritabi

282 rability profile of LDV-SOF with and without RBV.

283 ir and sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) with and without RBV.

284 ty of SOF/LDV fixed-dose combination without RBV in patients with HCV recurrence posttransplant.

285 The combination of SOF/LDV without RBV for 12 or 24 weeks produced 100% SVR 12 in patients

286 SOF/LDV without RBV was used for 12 weeks in patients with early-stage f

287 of sofosbuvir (SOF)/ledipasvir (LDV) without RBV in this patient population.

288 70%) of those receiving SOF and LDVD without RBV.

289 of SOF and LDV, with RBV (n = 9) or without RBV (n = 10).

290 tients, ABT-493 plus ABT-530 with or without RBV achieved SVR12 rates of 96%-100% and was well tolera

291 l protocol utilizing SMV+SOF with or without RBV at three transplant centers were retrospectively rev

292 ng simeprevir and sofosbuvir with or without RBV for 12 weeks was very well tolerated and resulted in

293 The regimen of SMV+SOF with or without RBV for 12 weeks was very well tolerated and resulted in

294 tolerability of SOF and SMV with or without RBV in compensated and decompensated patients with cirrh

295 12, and 24 weeks of LDV/SOF with or without RBV.

296 (arm B), or 300 mg GLE + 120 mg PIB without RBV (arm C).

297 ated for 12 weeks with SOF plus SIM, without RBV.

298 LDV/SOF without RBV is an effective and safe treatment option for patien

299 cirrhosis treated with SIM+SOF with/without RBV for 12 weeks.

300 SIM+SOF with/without RBV has lower efficacy and higher rates of AEs in patien

301 0 patients treated with SIM+SOF with/without RBV, 35% had CP-B/C and 64% had CP-A, with median baseli