Sofosbuvir-Based HCV Treatment in Maintenance Hemodialysis Patients: A Single-Center Study

Sofosbuvir plus velpatasvir combination for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in patients with end stage renal disease on renal replacement therapy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…A total of seven studies satisfied our pre-defined selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. 4,[17][18][19][20][21][22] The flow diagram for the search strategy is shown in Figure 1.…”

“…The seven studies that were finally incorporated in the meta-analysis included four single-centre studies (3 from India and 1 from Bangladesh) and three multicentric studies. 4,[17][18][19][20][21][22] One of the multicentric studies was conducted across 22 centres in Europe, North America and Australia, another was conducted in 18 haemodialysis centres of 3 Taiwanese cities, and the third study was conducted in 15 academic centres of Taiwan. 4,21,22 Five of the studies were prospective while the studies by Gaur et al and Liu et al were retrospective.…”

“…4,21,22 Five of the studies were prospective while the studies by Gaur et al and Liu et al were retrospective. 4,[17][18][19][20][21][22] All the studies were published between 2019 and 2021. Modified NOS score was ≥5 for all the included studies.…”

“…In all the studies, the fixed-dose combination of 400 mg of SOF and 100 mg of VEL was given daily for 12 weeks. 4,[17][18][19][20][21][22] Majority of the patients were on maintenance haemodialysis (98.05%) and only 8 (1.95%) patients were on peritoneal dialysis. 4,[17][18][19][20][21][22] Data about gender were extractable in 246 patients, of whom 151 (61.4%) were males.…”

“…4,[17][18][19][20][21][22] Majority of the patients were on maintenance haemodialysis (98.05%) and only 8 (1.95%) patients were on peritoneal dialysis. 4,[17][18][19][20][21][22] Data about gender were extractable in 246 patients, of whom 151 (61.4%) were males. 4,17,18,21 Details of prior treatment history was present in 293 patients, among whom 21 (7.2%) patients had previous treatment exposure while 272 (92.8%) patients were treatment naïve.…”