Title: Hepatitis C treatment outcomes for Australian First Nations Peoples: equivalent SVR rate
but higher rates of loss to follow-up
Version: 2 Date: 15 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer report to BMC
Ref: Submission ID 7b1130ef-0cb0-422c-8ed6-df016d66775c
Thanks for the reference and thanks for the authors for their efforts
Title: needs to be more informative
Aim of the work lack novelty and not clearly stated, whether is SVR predictors, LTFU predictors.
It seems it s rather panoramic view of the HCV patients (being collected from multiple sources
in the present and past) rather than HCV outcome
Methodology
Sources of data needs to be clearer.
• In paragraph of “Data collection and governance” in first line; “Sociodemographic and clinical
data were obtained prospectively from medical records.” I think “prospectively to be revised
and corrected “retrospectively”
• In third line in the same paragraph “Clinical data collected every six months included HCV
diagnosis, HCV treatment and transmission history, concurrent opioid replacement therapy, risk
factors for liver disease including significant alcohol intake (#40g of ethanol per day), and
comorbidities. “ Clinical data only to be collected repetitively for FUP, however, risk factors
and comorbidities is only once in first calls. This paragraph needs to be rephrased.
Results
• First line “Of 3,295 patients enrolled in the OPERA-C study, 89 (2.7%) identified as First
Nations Peoples (Figure 1).” On revising the figure, it does not include categorization of the
patients into first nation and non indigenous Australian. This was clear in table 1 not figure 1.
• Authors mentioned health care utilisation in results. However, a deeper analysis to health care
facilities was not mentioned.
• MVA was conducted to assess LTFU in first nation people. A MVA for the other group would
enrich the analysis and give more informative data for the LTFU predictors in both groups rather
than one group
Discussion
• discussion is directed to multiple aims that distract attention of the readers. For example;
First two paragraphs talks about notification of HCV and initiation of treatment in previous
studies with comparison to this study. The following paragraphs talks about mental health and
comorbidities. This raise question about what the final aim of all these paragraphs is
Conclusions
• too long conclusion needs to be more concise and more accurate
Title: Hepatitis C treatment outcomes for Australian First Nations Peoples: equivalent SVR rate
but higher rates of loss to follow-up
Version: 2 Date: 15 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer report to BMC
Ref: Submission ID 7b1130ef-0cb0-422c-8ed6-df016d66775c
Thanks for the reference and thanks for the authors for their efforts
Title: needs to be more informative
Aim of the work lack novelty and not clearly stated, whether is SVR predictors, LTFU predictors.
It seems it s rather panoramic view of the HCV patients (being collected from multiple sources
in the present and past) rather than HCV outcome
Methodology
Sources of data needs to be clearer.
• In paragraph of “Data collection and governance” in first line; “Sociodemographic and clinical
data were obtained prospectively from medical records.” I think “prospectively to be revised
and corrected “retrospectively”
• In third line in the same paragraph “Clinical data collected every six months included HCV
diagnosis, HCV treatment and transmission history, concurrent opioid replacement therapy, risk
factors for liver disease including significant alcohol intake (#40g of ethanol per day), and
comorbidities. “ Clinical data only to be collected repetitively for FUP, however, risk factors
and comorbidities is only once in first calls. This paragraph needs to be rephrased.
Results
• First line “Of 3,295 patients enrolled in the OPERA-C study, 89 (2.7%) identified as First
Nations Peoples (Figure 1).” On revising the figure, it does not include categorization of the
patients into first nation and non indigenous Australian. This was clear in table 1 not figure 1.
• Authors mentioned health care utilisation in results. However, a deeper analysis to health care
facilities was not mentioned.
• MVA was conducted to assess LTFU in first nation people. A MVA for the other group would
enrich the analysis and give more informative data for the LTFU predictors in both groups rather
than one group
Discussion
• discussion is directed to multiple aims that distract attention of the readers. For example;
First two paragraphs talks about notification of HCV and initiation of treatment in previous
studies with comparison to this study. The following paragraphs talks about mental health and
comorbidities. This raise question about what the final aim of all these paragraphs is
Conclusions
• too long conclusion needs to be more concise and more accurate
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Hepatitis C treatment outcomes for Australian First Nations Peoples: equivalent SVR rate
but higher rates of loss to follow-up
Version: 2 Date: 15 May 2022
Reviewer's report:
Reviewer report to BMC
Ref: Submission ID 7b1130ef-0cb0-422c-8ed6-df016d66775c
Thanks for the reference and thanks for the authors for their efforts
Title: needs to be more informative
Aim of the work lack novelty and not clearly stated, whether is SVR predictors, LTFU predictors.
It seems it s rather panoramic view of the HCV patients (being collected from multiple sources
in the present and past) rather than HCV outcome
Methodology
Sources of data needs to be clearer.
• In paragraph of “Data collection and governance” in first line; “Sociodemographic and clinical
data were obtained prospectively from medical records.” I think “prospectively to be revised
and corrected “retrospectively”
• In third line in the same paragraph “Clinical data collected every six months included HCV
diagnosis, HCV treatment and transmission history, concurrent opioid replacement therapy, risk
factors for liver disease including significant alcohol intake (#40g of ethanol per day), and
comorbidities. “ Clinical data only to be collected repetitively for FUP, however, risk factors
and comorbidities is only once in first calls. This paragraph needs to be rephrased.
Results
• First line “Of 3,295 patients enrolled in the OPERA-C study, 89 (2.7%) identified as First
Nations Peoples (Figure 1).” On revising the figure, it does not include categorization of the
patients into first nation and non indigenous Australian. This was clear in table 1 not figure 1.
• Authors mentioned health care utilisation in results. However, a deeper analysis to health care
facilities was not mentioned.
• MVA was conducted to assess LTFU in first nation people. A MVA for the other group would
enrich the analysis and give more informative data for the LTFU predictors in both groups rather
than one group
Discussion
• discussion is directed to multiple aims that distract attention of the readers. For example;
First two paragraphs talks about notification of HCV and initiation of treatment in previous
studies with comparison to this study. The following paragraphs talks about mental health and
comorbidities. This raise question about what the final aim of all these paragraphs is
Conclusions
• too long conclusion needs to be more concise and more accurate
assistant