Title: Comparative efficacy and safety of Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir and Danoprevir for the
treatment of chronic hepatitis C: the real-world data in China
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Markus Reiser
Reviewer's report:
This manuscripts describes a retrospective analysis of the efficacy of velpatasvir/sofosbuvir
and danoprevir based treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus infections.  I have the following
comments:
1. The patient cohorts are quite heterogenous including  different HCV genotypes, fibrosis stages
and even HIV coinfections. Moreover, the treatment regimens seem to be manifold including
ribavirin, ritonavir and Peg-interferon. The patient characteristics and  applied treatment
regimens should be described in more detail.
2. The higher rate cirrhosis in the Vel/Sof group ist likely due to the lack of approval of
danoprevir for patients with cirrhosis. Nevertheless, some patients with cirrhosis and non-GT1-
infections were treated off-label with danoprevir based regimens. SVR and safety data in these
subgroups should be presented in more detail.
3. Table 2 contains superfluous routine laboratory data and should be shortened. Reference
ranges should be included.
4. The values presented in table 3 are not clear to me: Why does 64 of 82 or 31 of 66 patients
add up to a 100% SVR?
5. The discussion should be focused on the efficacy data and safety of the regimes. More
information regarding efficacy and safety in the off-label treated patients should be presented.
The discussed AFP and cirrhosis aspects are of limited value since these differences are likely
due to the approved indications.
6. Figure 1 can be ommitted.
7. Minor comment: I recommend against using brand names, therefore, Vel/Sof should be used
instead of epclusa.
Title: Comparative efficacy and safety of Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir and Danoprevir for the
treatment of chronic hepatitis C: the real-world data in China
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Markus Reiser
Reviewer's report:
This manuscripts describes a retrospective analysis of the efficacy of velpatasvir/sofosbuvir
and danoprevir based treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus infections.  I have the following
comments:
1. The patient cohorts are quite heterogenous including  different HCV genotypes, fibrosis stages
and even HIV coinfections. Moreover, the treatment regimens seem to be manifold including
ribavirin, ritonavir and Peg-interferon. The patient characteristics and  applied treatment
regimens should be described in more detail.
2. The higher rate cirrhosis in the Vel/Sof group ist likely due to the lack of approval of
danoprevir for patients with cirrhosis. Nevertheless, some patients with cirrhosis and non-GT1-
infections were treated off-label with danoprevir based regimens. SVR and safety data in these
subgroups should be presented in more detail.
3. Table 2 contains superfluous routine laboratory data and should be shortened. Reference
ranges should be included.
4. The values presented in table 3 are not clear to me: Why does 64 of 82 or 31 of 66 patients
add up to a 100% SVR?
5. The discussion should be focused on the efficacy data and safety of the regimes. More
information regarding efficacy and safety in the off-label treated patients should be presented.
The discussed AFP and cirrhosis aspects are of limited value since these differences are likely
due to the approved indications.
6. Figure 1 can be ommitted.
7. Minor comment: I recommend against using brand names, therefore, Vel/Sof should be used
instead of epclusa.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Comparative efficacy and safety of Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir and Danoprevir for the
treatment of chronic hepatitis C: the real-world data in China
Version: 0 Date: 03 Jun 2023
Reviewer:  Markus Reiser
Reviewer's report:
This manuscripts describes a retrospective analysis of the efficacy of velpatasvir/sofosbuvir
and danoprevir based treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus infections.  I have the following
comments:
1. The patient cohorts are quite heterogenous including  different HCV genotypes, fibrosis stages
and even HIV coinfections. Moreover, the treatment regimens seem to be manifold including
ribavirin, ritonavir and Peg-interferon. The patient characteristics and  applied treatment
regimens should be described in more detail.
2. The higher rate cirrhosis in the Vel/Sof group ist likely due to the lack of approval of
danoprevir for patients with cirrhosis. Nevertheless, some patients with cirrhosis and non-GT1-
infections were treated off-label with danoprevir based regimens. SVR and safety data in these
subgroups should be presented in more detail.
3. Table 2 contains superfluous routine laboratory data and should be shortened. Reference
ranges should be included.
4. The values presented in table 3 are not clear to me: Why does 64 of 82 or 31 of 66 patients
add up to a 100% SVR?
5. The discussion should be focused on the efficacy data and safety of the regimes. More
information regarding efficacy and safety in the off-label treated patients should be presented.
The discussed AFP and cirrhosis aspects are of limited value since these differences are likely
due to the approved indications.
6. Figure 1 can be ommitted.
7. Minor comment: I recommend against using brand names, therefore, Vel/Sof should be used
instead of epclusa.
assistant