Title: The care cascade for hepatitis C virus and prognosis of chronic hepatitis C patients treated
with antiviral agents in a tertiary hospital
Version: 3 Date: 17 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Yoo and colleagues revised manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. However, most
comment was not fully addressed raising concern about the quality of this study.
#1. The authors changed the title of this study adding “prognosis of chronic HCV patients treated
with antiviral agents..”. However, there was few information about HCV care cascade in this
study except the number of patients being tested HCV Ab, HCV RNA, and patients who were
treated. There was rare information regarding speculation for what could be the problem in this
care cascade system and supporting data.
#2. Again, we may need to know why patients were not referred to get further tested despite of
HCV Ab positivity. Although, this study was retrospective study this could be further elaborated
based on the characteristics or comorbidities of patients who were not tested HCV RNA. The
authors stated there was no data for this in this revision.
#3. Regarding the figure 3, I suggested that X-axis could be modified considering the significant
difference in follow-up period between the two groups. However, the authors insisted that they
would like to show the long-term outcomes. I am wondering the long-term outcome can be
presented in the form of annual incidence. In addition, probably due to the low number of
patients, cumulative incidence of HCC in the SVR (-) group rate increased from 5% to 52.5%.
#4. I suggested to delete some information in the Figure 3, such as number of events, and event
rate. However, the authors insisted that they would like to show readers the detailed number of
events per year. The graph appeared to be very busy. Event rates are already explained by the
Y-axis. I do not agree that the number of events in this graph is needed. This is applied to Figure
4 as well. Only 11 patient left after 7 years of antiviral treatment in cirrhosis group in the Figure
4, no event occurred since this point. Just 1 patient left after 10 years.
#5. Regarding the Figure 3A and 3B, no significant difference was observed between the SVR
(+) and SVR (-) groups in the risk of HCC. Authors did not further mention about this non-
difference despite I commented. Do the authors think that HCC risk may not be different
regardless of SVR? I think this should be appropriately addressed. Otherwise, we may not need
to treat patients with HCV to achieve SVR as this may not decrease the risk of HCC.
Title: The care cascade for hepatitis C virus and prognosis of chronic hepatitis C patients treated
with antiviral agents in a tertiary hospital
Version: 3 Date: 17 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Yoo and colleagues revised manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. However, most
comment was not fully addressed raising concern about the quality of this study.
#1. The authors changed the title of this study adding “prognosis of chronic HCV patients treated
with antiviral agents..”. However, there was few information about HCV care cascade in this
study except the number of patients being tested HCV Ab, HCV RNA, and patients who were
treated. There was rare information regarding speculation for what could be the problem in this
care cascade system and supporting data.
#2. Again, we may need to know why patients were not referred to get further tested despite of
HCV Ab positivity. Although, this study was retrospective study this could be further elaborated
based on the characteristics or comorbidities of patients who were not tested HCV RNA. The
authors stated there was no data for this in this revision.
#3. Regarding the figure 3, I suggested that X-axis could be modified considering the significant
difference in follow-up period between the two groups. However, the authors insisted that they
would like to show the long-term outcomes. I am wondering the long-term outcome can be
presented in the form of annual incidence. In addition, probably due to the low number of
patients, cumulative incidence of HCC in the SVR (-) group rate increased from 5% to 52.5%.
#4. I suggested to delete some information in the Figure 3, such as number of events, and event
rate. However, the authors insisted that they would like to show readers the detailed number of
events per year. The graph appeared to be very busy. Event rates are already explained by the
Y-axis. I do not agree that the number of events in this graph is needed. This is applied to Figure
4 as well. Only 11 patient left after 7 years of antiviral treatment in cirrhosis group in the Figure
4, no event occurred since this point. Just 1 patient left after 10 years.
#5. Regarding the Figure 3A and 3B, no significant difference was observed between the SVR
(+) and SVR (-) groups in the risk of HCC. Authors did not further mention about this non-
difference despite I commented. Do the authors think that HCC risk may not be different
regardless of SVR? I think this should be appropriately addressed. Otherwise, we may not need
to treat patients with HCV to achieve SVR as this may not decrease the risk of HCC.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: The care cascade for hepatitis C virus and prognosis of chronic hepatitis C patients treated
with antiviral agents in a tertiary hospital
Version: 3 Date: 17 Nov 2022
Reviewer's report:
Yoo and colleagues revised manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. However, most
comment was not fully addressed raising concern about the quality of this study.
#1. The authors changed the title of this study adding “prognosis of chronic HCV patients treated
with antiviral agents..”. However, there was few information about HCV care cascade in this
study except the number of patients being tested HCV Ab, HCV RNA, and patients who were
treated. There was rare information regarding speculation for what could be the problem in this
care cascade system and supporting data.
#2. Again, we may need to know why patients were not referred to get further tested despite of
HCV Ab positivity. Although, this study was retrospective study this could be further elaborated
based on the characteristics or comorbidities of patients who were not tested HCV RNA. The
authors stated there was no data for this in this revision.
#3. Regarding the figure 3, I suggested that X-axis could be modified considering the significant
difference in follow-up period between the two groups. However, the authors insisted that they
would like to show the long-term outcomes. I am wondering the long-term outcome can be
presented in the form of annual incidence. In addition, probably due to the low number of
patients, cumulative incidence of HCC in the SVR (-) group rate increased from 5% to 52.5%.
#4. I suggested to delete some information in the Figure 3, such as number of events, and event
rate. However, the authors insisted that they would like to show readers the detailed number of
events per year. The graph appeared to be very busy. Event rates are already explained by the
Y-axis. I do not agree that the number of events in this graph is needed. This is applied to Figure
4 as well. Only 11 patient left after 7 years of antiviral treatment in cirrhosis group in the Figure
4, no event occurred since this point. Just 1 patient left after 10 years.
#5. Regarding the Figure 3A and 3B, no significant difference was observed between the SVR
(+) and SVR (-) groups in the risk of HCC. Authors did not further mention about this non-
difference despite I commented. Do the authors think that HCC risk may not be different
regardless of SVR? I think this should be appropriately addressed. Otherwise, we may not need
to treat patients with HCV to achieve SVR as this may not decrease the risk of HCC.
assistant