Table 1.
Efficacy of interventions based on systematic review and meta-analyses
| Treatment | Reference | Rate ratio | 95% CI (low) | 95% CI (high) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genotype 1 | |||||
| SOF24 + RBV24 | Cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.76 | 0.62 | 2.57 |
| SIM12 + SOF12 | Cirrhosis | PR48 | 2.18 | 0.93 | 2.95 |
| SOF12 + LDV12 | Cirrhosis | PR48 | 2.41 | 1.89 | 3.09 |
| SOF12 + PR12 | Cirrhosis | PR48 | 2.04 | 1.13 | 2.75 |
| SIM12 + PR24–48 RGT | Cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.7 | 1.06 | 2.39 |
| SOF24 + RBV24 | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.63 | 1.29 | 1.9 |
| SIM12 + SOF12 | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 2.19 |
| SOF12 + LDV12 | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.98 | 1.78 | 2.23 |
| SOF12 + PR12 | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.77 | 1.28 | 2.07 |
| SIM12 + PR24–48 RGT | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.59 | 1.41 | 1.78 |
| PAR/RIT12 + OMB12 + DAS12 + RBV12a | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.94 | 1.75 | 2.18 |
| DCV12 + SOF12a | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.9 | 1.28 | 2.21 |
| PAR/RIT12 + OMB12 + DAS12a | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.93 | 1.34 | 2.21 |
| Genotype 2 | |||||
| SOF12 + RBV12 | Cirrhosis | PR24 | 1.38 | 1.03 | 1.79 |
| SOF12 + PR12a | Without cirrhosis | PR24 | 1.15 | 0.48 | 1.27 |
| SOF12 + RBV12 | Without cirrhosis | PR24 | 1.16 | 1.08 | 1.24 |
| Genotype 3 | |||||
| SOF24 + RBV24 | Cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.47 | 1.09 | 1.68 |
| SOF12 + PR12 | Cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.56 | 1.04 | 1.73 |
| SOF24 + RBV24 | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.31 | 1.17 | 1.46 |
| SOF12 + PR12 | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.36 | 1.18 | 1.51 |
| DCV12 + SOF12a | Without cirrhosis | PR48 | 1.37 | 1.23 | 1.52 |
The number after the drug abbreviation refers to weeks of treatment
DAS dasabuvir, DCV daclatasvir, LDV ledipasvir, OMB ombitasvir, PAR paritaprevir, PR pegylated interferon-α-2a and ribavirin, RBV ribavirin, RGT response-guided therapy, RIT ritonavir, SIM simeprevir, SOF sofosbuvir
aFor strategies where data were not available for cirrhosis patients separately, we assumed the effect estimate for patients without cirrhosis