The major limitations Vismodegib research buy in recruiting patients into trials were the requirement of liver biopsy

and the need of drug substitution. A liver biopsy was obtained in 98% of study participants, but in only 59% of SOC patients. Among biopsied patients, advanced fibrosis was more common in SOC patients (40%) than in study patients (21%). This may be an underestimate, because patients in the SOC group may have been cirrhotic, but did not undergo biopsy, because they had obvious clinical, laboratory, or radiographic features of cirrhosis. Most studies excluded patients on drug-substitution therapy, representing a substantial proportion of patients in “real life.” In SOC patients on drug-substitution therapy lost to follow-up, the rate was 56%, but only 9% Stem Cell Compound Library in study patients. The limitations of this study were its retrospective nature and the variations within each treatment protocol. A direct comparison of the SVR rates in SOC and study patients was not possible. SOC patients represent an inhomogeneous group consisting of persons not willing or not being able (because of stringent timelines for recruitment or the presence of exclusion criteria) to participate in randomized, controlled trials. Furthermore, most SOC patients were treated by a response-guided treatment concept. Treatment extension may have slightly improved outcome on peg-IFN/RBV-based

treatment in our SOC cohort. Also, the design of the DAA studies varied considerably and did not allow a comparison between different regimes. Except for one study, DAA trials included a placebo arm; the PROVE-2 trial9 also evaluated patients not receiving RBV. Because

all phase II and III studies with telaprevir were published,9, 11, 14 we could analyze the outcome of patients treated with telaprevir (Table 4; Fig. 2). All other studies are as yet unpublished and their results cannot be presented Levetiracetam separately because of confidentially issues. The balapiravir study was prematurely stopped because of severe side effects,20 and therefore, patients participating in that trial were not included for further SVR analysis. In unblinded studies, the outcome of the DAA or placebo groups could be compared. The improved SVR rates on DAA became only detectable in the ITT analysis. Similarly, ITT-SVR rates in patients receiving peg-IFN/RBV within a study setting (63%) with stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria were higher than in SOC patients (46%; P < 0.02), reinforcing the role of adherence to optimize treatment outcome. Overall, participation in well-controlled, prospective trials may increase adherence by a strict visit schedule and also allows an early treatment of side effects, resulting in lower drop-out rates. In addition, study patients are, in general, better informed, having detailed discussion about study design, treatment procedures, and potential side effects before signing informed consent.