PURPOSE: To compare the safety profile of telaprevir (TLV) and boceprevir (BOC) with each other and with those described in clinical trials (CT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective multicenter observational study. Variables collected: age, sex, type of patient (naive, nonresponder or recurrent), fibroscan, Hb nadir, neutrophil and platelet count, presence of rash, anorectal discomfort, number of patients treated with erythropoiesis stimulating factors (EPO) and colony stimulating factors granulocyte (G-CSF). RESULTS: BOC vs CT: anemia (56.5% vs. 49%.), Thrombocytopenia (56.5% vs 32%, p = 0.023). neutropenia (17.4% vs. 29.5%). Use of EPO (13% vs 43%;. p = 0.008), pruritus (13% vs. 21.1%), rash (16.1% vs. 8.7%), anorectal discomfort (4.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.0001), dysgeusia (47.8% vs. 37%). TLV vs. CT: anemia (51.2% vs. 32%, p = 0.014), neutropenia (2.3 vs 3.6%), thrombocytopenia (41.9% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.05), pruritus (39.5% vs 47), rash (16.3% vs 55%, P <0.001), anorectal discomfort (39.5% vs 26%), dysgeusia (14% vs. 9.5%). BOC vs TLV: anemia (56.5% vs 51.2%), neutropenia (17.4% vs 2.3%), thrombocytopenia (56.5% vs 41.9%), rash (8.7% vs 16.3%), pruritus (39.5% vs 13%) and anorectal discomfort (4.3% vs 39.5%, P = 0.006), dysgeusia (14% vs 47.8%, P = 0.007), EPO (13% vs. 25.6%). GCSF was used for a patient treated with TLV. CONCLUSIONS: 1. BOC and TLV have shown a worse safety profile for anemia, thrombocytopenia and anorectal discomfort than those described in CT. 2. As in CT, anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more common with BOC. Patients treated with TLV experienced more pruritus, rash and anorectal discomfort.
PURPOSE: To compare the safety profile of telaprevir (TLV) and boceprevir (BOC) with each other and with those described in clinical trials (CT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective multicenter observational study. Variables collected: age, sex, type of patient (naive, nonresponder or recurrent), fibroscan, Hb nadir, neutrophil and platelet count, presence of rash, anorectal discomfort, number of patients treated with erythropoiesis stimulating factors (EPO) and colony stimulating factors granulocyte (G-CSF). RESULTS:BOC vs CT: anemia (56.5% vs. 49%.), Thrombocytopenia (56.5% vs 32%, p = 0.023). neutropenia (17.4% vs. 29.5%). Use of EPO (13% vs 43%;. p = 0.008), pruritus (13% vs. 21.1%), rash (16.1% vs. 8.7%), anorectal discomfort (4.3% vs. 0%, p = 0.0001), dysgeusia (47.8% vs. 37%). TLV vs. CT: anemia (51.2% vs. 32%, p = 0.014), neutropenia (2.3 vs 3.6%), thrombocytopenia (41.9% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.05), pruritus (39.5% vs 47), rash (16.3% vs 55%, P <0.001), anorectal discomfort (39.5% vs 26%), dysgeusia (14% vs. 9.5%). BOC vs TLV: anemia (56.5% vs 51.2%), neutropenia (17.4% vs 2.3%), thrombocytopenia (56.5% vs 41.9%), rash (8.7% vs 16.3%), pruritus (39.5% vs 13%) and anorectal discomfort (4.3% vs 39.5%, P = 0.006), dysgeusia (14% vs 47.8%, P = 0.007), EPO (13% vs. 25.6%). GCSF was used for a patient treated with TLV. CONCLUSIONS: 1. BOC and TLV have shown a worse safety profile for anemia, thrombocytopenia and anorectal discomfort than those described in CT. 2. As in CT, anemia, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were more common with BOC. Patients treated with TLV experienced more pruritus, rash and anorectal discomfort.