↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Consequences of inaccurate hepatitis C virus genotyping on the costs of prescription of direct antiviral agents in an Italian district

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
Title
Consequences of inaccurate hepatitis C virus genotyping on the costs of prescription of direct antiviral agents in an Italian district
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s106238
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ennio Polilli, Valeria Cento, Umberto Restelli, Francesca Ceccherini-Silberstein, Marianna Aragri, Velia Chiara Di Maio, Antonina Sciacca, Fiorenzo Santoleri, Paolo Fazii, Alberto Costantini, Carlo Federico Perno, Giustino Parruti

Abstract

Available commercial assays may yield inaccurate hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype assignment in up to 10% of cases. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of re-evaluating HCV genotype by population sequencing, prior to choosing a direct acting antiviral (DAA) regimen. Between March and September 2015, HCV sequence analysis was performed in order to confirm commercial LiPA-HCV genotype (Versant(®) HCV Genotype 2.0) in patients eligible for treatment with DAAs. Out of 134 consecutive patients enrolled, sequencing yielded 21 (15.7%) cases of discordant results. For three cases of wrong genotype assignment, the putative reduction in efficacy was gauged between 15% and 40%. Among the eight cases for whom G1b was assigned by commercial assays instead of G1a, potentially suboptimal treatments would have been prescribed. Finally, for five patients with G1 and indeterminate subtype, the choice of regimens would have targeted the worst option, with a remarkable increase in costs, as in the case of the four mixed HCV infections for whom pan-genotypic regimens would have been mandatory. Precise assignment of HCV genotype and subtype by sequencing may, therefore, be more beneficial than expected, until more potent pan-genotypic regimens are available for all patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 18%
Other 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 7 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 25%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#20,294,544
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#394
of 527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259,700
of 349,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#19
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.