BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with chronic hepatitis C infection are 2- to 3-fold more likely to develop type 2 diabetes, which reduces their chances of achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR). To identify differences in predictors of SVR in patients with and without diabetes who received combination antiviral therapy, we conducted a retrospective analysis of a national Veterans Affairs administrative database. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Veterans Affairs Medical SAS Datasets and Decision Support System for entire cohort and separately for diabetic patients (n = 1704) and nondiabetic patients (n = 6589). Significant predictors of SVR were identified by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Diabetic patients had a lower SVR compared with nondiabetic patients (21% vs 27%, respectively, P < .001). Diabetic patients had higher clustering of previously established negative predictors of SVR. On multivariate analysis of diabetic patients for SVR, the positive predictors were higher low-density lipoprotein (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .0129), use of statin (OR, 1.52; P = .0124), and lower baseline viral load (OR, 2.31; P < .001), whereas insulin therapy (OR, 0.7; P = .0278) was a negative predictor. Diabetic patients on statins had higher pretreatment viral loads (log 6.2 vs 6.4, respectively, P = .006) but better early virologic response. There was a graded inverse relationship between Hemoglobin A1c and SVR rate (P = .0482). This relationship was significant among insulin users (P = .0154) and non-significant among metformin users (P = .5853). CONCLUSIONS: Statin use was associated with an improved SVR among both diabetic patients and nondiabetic patients receiving combination antiviral therapy. Diabetic patients who received insulin achieved lower SVR compared with those not receiving insulin. Poor diabetes control was associated with lower SVR rates.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:Patients with chronic hepatitis C infection are 2- to 3-fold more likely to develop type 2 diabetes, which reduces their chances of achieving a sustained virologic response (SVR). To identify differences in predictors of SVR in patients with and without diabetes who received combination antiviral therapy, we conducted a retrospective analysis of a national Veterans Affairs administrative database. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Veterans Affairs Medical SAS Datasets and Decision Support System for entire cohort and separately for diabeticpatients (n = 1704) and nondiabeticpatients (n = 6589). Significant predictors of SVR were identified by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS:Diabeticpatients had a lower SVR compared with nondiabeticpatients (21% vs 27%, respectively, P < .001). Diabeticpatients had higher clustering of previously established negative predictors of SVR. On multivariate analysis of diabeticpatients for SVR, the positive predictors were higher low-density lipoprotein (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .0129), use of statin (OR, 1.52; P = .0124), and lower baseline viral load (OR, 2.31; P < .001), whereas insulin therapy (OR, 0.7; P = .0278) was a negative predictor. Diabeticpatients on statins had higher pretreatment viral loads (log 6.2 vs 6.4, respectively, P = .006) but better early virologic response. There was a graded inverse relationship between Hemoglobin A1c and SVR rate (P = .0482). This relationship was significant among insulin users (P = .0154) and non-significant among metformin users (P = .5853). CONCLUSIONS: Statin use was associated with an improved SVR among both diabeticpatients and nondiabeticpatients receiving combination antiviral therapy. Diabeticpatients who received insulin achieved lower SVR compared with those not receiving insulin. Poor diabetes control was associated with lower SVR rates.
Authors: Peter Jarcuska; Sylvia Drazilova; Jan Fedacko; Daniel Pella; Martin Janicko Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Gowtham A Rao; Joshua R Mann; Azza Shoaibi; Charles Lee Bennett; Georges Nahhas; S Scott Sutton; Sony Jacob; Scott M Strayer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: David A Sheridan; S H Bridge; M M E Crossey; D J Felmlee; H C Thomas; R D G Neely; S D Taylor-Robinson; M F Bassendine Journal: Metab Brain Dis Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 3.584
Authors: E T Overton; D Kitch; C A Benson; P W Hunt; J H Stein; M Smurzynski; H J Ribaudo; P Tebas Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 9.079