Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Safety of The Directly Acting Antiviral Treatment For Hepatitis C Virus According To The Egyptian National Program Protocol In Patients With Midrange Ejection Fraction Cover

The Safety of The Directly Acting Antiviral Treatment For Hepatitis C Virus According To The Egyptian National Program Protocol In Patients With Midrange Ejection Fraction

Open Access
|Jan 2021

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Comparing basal demographic data and cardiac drug history of Group I and Group II.

Group IGroup IIt/X2P
Age (Years) 48.28 ± 11.8946.51 ± 8.4631.227t0.221
Males (%) 112 (56%)122 (61%)0.515X0.473
Hypertension (%) 163 (81.5%)165 (82.5%)0.113X0.203
Smoking (%) 66 (33.0%)60 (30.0%)0.358X0.550
NYHA I (%)* 166 (83%)146 (73%)2.918X0.088
Beta Blockers (%) 174 (87%)168 (84%)1.337X0.247
ACEI/ARBS (%) 184 (92%)188 (94%)0.915X0.261
Diuretics (%) 96 (48%)100 (50%)0.824X0.367
Miniralocorticoids inhibitors (%) 14 (7%)16 (8%)0.016X0.942
Digoxin (%) 8 (4%)10 (5%)0.116X0.733

[i] * NYHA I and NYHA II only included.

# Heart Rate (HR) < 60 b/min on resting ECG.

t Independent-Samples T-test.

X Chi-Square test.

HTN hypertension.

Table 2

Comparing NYHA Class, EF, and BNP in Groups I and II at Day 0 (baseline) and after three months (end of treatment).

Group I – 0Group I – 3Group II – 0Group II – 3F/X2P
NYHA I 166 (83%)162 (81%)146 (73%)144 (72%)5.278X0.153
II 34 (17%)38 (19%)54 (27%)56 (28%)
EF (%) 45.66 ± 3.0644.90 ± 4.4344.75 ± 2.8143.90 ± 2.843.439F0.020F
0.1111
0.0742
BNP (pg/ml) 65.73 ± 16.6869.83 ± 16.6568.77 ± 17.4272.67 ± 17.053.969F0.011F
0.0631
0.0712

[i] X Chi-Square test.

F One – Way ANOVA test.

1 Post hoc test – least significant difference (LSD) between Group I – 0 and Group I – 3.

2 Post hoc test – least significant difference (LSD) between Group II – 0 and Group II – 3.

NYHA New York Hear Association, EF; Ejection Fraction, BNP; Brain Natriuretic Peptide.

Table 3

Comparing heart rate and induction of arrhythmia in Groups I and II at Day 0 (baseline) and after three months (end of treatment).

Group A – 0Group A – 3Group B – 0Group B – 3F/X2P
Bradycardia (%) # 0 (0%)1 (0.5%)0 (0%)2 (1%)2.010 X0.570 X
0.1551
0.3162
Non-Sustaned VT (%) 1 (0.5%)1 (0.5%)1 (0.5%)2 (1%)0.608 X0.895X
1.0001
0.5612
PVCs Burden % 7.99 ± 4.318.88 ± 4.429.09 ± 4.419.14 ± 3.941.567F0.197F
0.1421
0.9342
Highest HR (b/min) 93.35 ± 8.5794.32 ± 8.6492.07 ± 8.0392.51 ± 7.311.481F0.219F
0.4011
0.7032
Lowest HR (b/min) 63.35 ± 8.5764.67 ± 8.8862.77 ± 8.6262.42 ± 7.791.363F0.254F
0.2711
0.7702

[i] # Heart Rate (HR) < 60 b/min on resting ECG.

X Chi-Square test was used to compare all groups.

F One – Way ANOVA test was used to compare all groups.

1 Comparison between Group A – 0 and Group A – 3.

2 Comparison between Group B – 0 and Group B – 3.

Table 4

Comparing fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin level, HOMA-IR and lipid profile in Groups I and II at Day 0 (baseline) and after three months (end of treatment).

Group I – 0Group I – 3Group II – 0Group II – 3FP
FBG (mg/dl) 92.30 ± 12.1488.36 ± 10.2793.38 ± 12.5087.81 ± 10.475.9980.001F
0.0151
0.0012
FI (uIU/ml) 11.18 ± 4.509.82 ± 3.6112.65 ± 5.3111.01 ± 3.986.960<0.001F
0.0301
0.0082
HOMA-IR 2.56 ± 1.102.15 ± 0.852.90 ± 1.262.37 ± 0.869.414<0.001F
0.0051
<0.0012
Chol (mg/dl) 200.75 ± 45.16213.19 ± 49.51231.77 ± 41.59239.34 ± 54.6913.361<0.001F
0.0681
0.2652
LDL-C (mg/dl) 127.14 ± 36.91134.95 ± 43.59129.16 ± 25.41140.21 ± 29.632.8670.036F
0.1091
0.0282
HDL-C (mg/dl) 44.69 ± 8.5945.22 ± 7.6537.06 ± 6.2039.57 ± 7.5127.794<0.001F
0.6191
0.0192
TGs (mg/dl) 141.98 ± 45.72151.98 ± 37.31159.58 ± 58.03166.39 ± 48.084.7920.003F
0.1401
0.3152

[i] F One – Way ANOVA test.

1 Post hoc test – least significant difference (LSD) between Group 1 – 0 and Group 1 – 3.

2 Post hoc test – least significant difference (LSD) between Group 2 – 0 and Group 2 – 3.

FBG: Fasting Blood Glucose; FI: Fasting Insulin; HOMA-IR: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance; Chol: Total Cholesterol; TGs: Triglycerides.

Figure 1

Fasting blood glucose and fasting insulin levels at baseline and after three months in Groups I and II.

FBG: Fasting blood glucose; FI: Fasting insulin.

Figure 2

HOMA-IR index at baseline and after three months in Groups I and II.

HOMA – IR: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance.

Table 5

Comparing the effects of DAAs regimens on metabolic parameters within and between studied groups after HCV eradication.

Wilks’ LambdaFP
FBG (mg/dl) Effect of DAAs regimens within groups0.9714.7990.048
Effect of DAAs regimens between groups0.9853.0770.081
FI (uIU/ml) Effect of DAAs regimens within groups0.89922.184<0.001
Effect of DAAs regimens between groups0.9951.0320.311
HOMA-IR Effect of DAAs regimens within groups0.90221.503<0.001
Effect of DAAs regimens between groups0.9862.8210.095

[i] FBG: Fasting Blood Glucose; FI: Fasting Insulin; HOMA-IR: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance.

Figure 3

LDL-C and HDL-C levels at baseline and after three months in Groups I and II.

LDL-C: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, HDL-C: High-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Figure 4

Changes in FBG, FI, and HOMA-IR levels at baseline and after three months in Groups I and II.

FBG: Fasting Blood Glucose, FI: Fasting Insulin, HOMA-IR: Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance index, P1: Changes within groups, P2: Changes between groups.

2DTwo Dimensions
ALTAlanine-Amino-Transferase
ASTAspartate-Amino-Transferase
BNPB-natriuretic peptide
CHFCongestive Heart Failure
DAAsDirectly Acting Antiviral Agents
DCVDaclatasvir
EDHSEgyptian Demographic Health Survey
LVEFLeft Ventricular Ejection Fraction
FBGFasting Blood Glucose
HCVHepatitis C Virus
HDL-CHigh-Density Lipoprotein – Cholesterol
HOMA-IRHomeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance
INFInterferon
INRInternational Normalized Ratio
IRInsulin Resistance
LDL-CLow-Density Lipoprotein – Cholesterol
LVLeft Ventricle
NCCVHNational Committee for Control of Viral Hepatitis
NYHANew York Heart Association
PCRPolymerase Chain Reaction
PTProthrombin Time
RBVRibavirin
RNARibonucleic Acid
RWMAsRegional Wall Motion Abnormalities
SOFSofosbuvir
SVRSustained Virological Response
VTVentricular Tachycardia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/gh.906 | Journal eISSN: 2211-8179
Language: English
Submitted on: Aug 21, 2020
Accepted on: Nov 23, 2020
Published on: Jan 4, 2021
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2021 Ahmed Farouk Alaarag, Ahmed Mohamed Hamam, Osama Ahmed Amin, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.