Reviewer's report
Title:HCV genotype 1a shows a better virological response to antiviral therapy
than HCV genotype 1b
Version: 2Date:25 July 2012
Reviewer: MAURIZIO KOCH
Reviewer's report:
This is a large, observational study on 388 patients, followed in 11 regional
centres, and admitted between February 2007 and October 2010 (388/11= 35 pts
per center).
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The answer is yes: in fact very few studies have examined whether the subtype
of genotype
1 affects the rate of sustained virological response. Please note that all studies of
this kind should be registered in bibliography and referred in pag. 4, line 10
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Here I have some doubt. All pts were naïve, and not co-infected. Due to the large
admission time (more than 3 years), are the admitted patients really
consecutive?
Authors: please refer.
This is an ITT analysis: pleas refer also the number of patients that dropped out. I
do not see this figure.
3. Are the data sound?
RVR rates are higher than the expected, while SVR rates fit well with the
literature.
The subtype 1a patients pts were younger, predominantly male and with lower
HCV RNA activity. Thus, casually the study included in subtype 1a subgroup
patients more suitable for a SVR.
Authors: please comment.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Please, look at point 3. If the patients in the subgroup 1a have more chance to
cure the virus, how can the authors conclude that
“Antiviral therapy is more effective against HCV subtype 1a than against subtype
1b “ ?
Authors: please comment.
6. Are limitation of the paper clearly stated?
Yes if the authors include requested comments
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
I think that a fully extended search for papers studying the effect of SOC I the two
sub genotypes is warranted. Authors: please refer also in the discussion to the
role of sub genotypes of HCV for the triple therapy with protease inhibitors.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes, but please check again commas!
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the
publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or
lose financially from the publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content
of the manuscript? NO
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
NO
Do you have any other financial competing interests? NO
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper? NO
Reviewer's report
Title:HCV genotype 1a shows a better virological response to antiviral therapy
than HCV genotype 1b
Version: 2Date:25 July 2012
Reviewer: MAURIZIO KOCH
Reviewer's report:
This is a large, observational study on 388 patients, followed in 11 regional
centres, and admitted between February 2007 and October 2010 (388/11= 35 pts
per center).
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The answer is yes: in fact very few studies have examined whether the subtype
of genotype
1 affects the rate of sustained virological response. Please note that all studies of
this kind should be registered in bibliography and referred in pag. 4, line 10
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Here I have some doubt. All pts were naïve, and not co-infected. Due to the large
admission time (more than 3 years), are the admitted patients really
consecutive?
Authors: please refer.
This is an ITT analysis: pleas refer also the number of patients that dropped out. I
do not see this figure.
3. Are the data sound?
RVR rates are higher than the expected, while SVR rates fit well with the
literature.
The subtype 1a patients pts were younger, predominantly male and with lower
HCV RNA activity. Thus, casually the study included in subtype 1a subgroup
patients more suitable for a SVR.
Authors: please comment.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Please, look at point 3. If the patients in the subgroup 1a have more chance to
cure the virus, how can the authors conclude that
“Antiviral therapy is more effective against HCV subtype 1a than against subtype
1b “ ?
Authors: please comment.
6. Are limitation of the paper clearly stated?
Yes if the authors include requested comments
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
I think that a fully extended search for papers studying the effect of SOC I the two
sub genotypes is warranted. Authors: please refer also in the discussion to the
role of sub genotypes of HCV for the triple therapy with protease inhibitors.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes, but please check again commas!
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the
publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or
lose financially from the publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content
of the manuscript? NO
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
NO
Do you have any other financial competing interests? NO
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper? NO
Please review this paper.
user
Reviewer's report
Title:HCV genotype 1a shows a better virological response to antiviral therapy
than HCV genotype 1b
Version: 2Date:25 July 2012
Reviewer: MAURIZIO KOCH
Reviewer's report:
This is a large, observational study on 388 patients, followed in 11 regional
centres, and admitted between February 2007 and October 2010 (388/11= 35 pts
per center).
1. Is the question posed by the authors well defined?
The answer is yes: in fact very few studies have examined whether the subtype
of genotype
1 affects the rate of sustained virological response. Please note that all studies of
this kind should be registered in bibliography and referred in pag. 4, line 10
2. Are the methods appropriate and well described?
Here I have some doubt. All pts were naïve, and not co-infected. Due to the large
admission time (more than 3 years), are the admitted patients really
consecutive?
Authors: please refer.
This is an ITT analysis: pleas refer also the number of patients that dropped out. I
do not see this figure.
3. Are the data sound?
RVR rates are higher than the expected, while SVR rates fit well with the
literature.
The subtype 1a patients pts were younger, predominantly male and with lower
HCV RNA activity. Thus, casually the study included in subtype 1a subgroup
patients more suitable for a SVR.
Authors: please comment.
4. Does the manuscript adhere to the relevant standards for reporting and data
deposition?
Yes
5. Are the discussion and conclusions well balanced and adequately supported
by the data?
Please, look at point 3. If the patients in the subgroup 1a have more chance to
cure the virus, how can the authors conclude that
“Antiviral therapy is more effective against HCV subtype 1a than against subtype
1b “ ?
Authors: please comment.
6. Are limitation of the paper clearly stated?
Yes if the authors include requested comments
7. Do the authors clearly acknowledge any work upon which they are building,
both published and unpublished?
I think that a fully extended search for papers studying the effect of SOC I the two
sub genotypes is warranted. Authors: please refer also in the discussion to the
role of sub genotypes of HCV for the triple therapy with protease inhibitors.
9. Is the writing acceptable?
Yes, but please check again commas!
Level of interest: An article of importance in its field
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being
published
Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the
statistics.
Declaration of competing interests:
Have you in the past five years received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary
from an organisation that may in any way gain or lose financially from the
publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organisation that may in any way gain or
lose financially from the publication of this paper, either now or in the future?
Do you hold or are you currently applying for any patents relating to the content
of the manuscript? NO
Have you received reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization
that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript?
NO
Do you have any other financial competing interests? NO
Do you have any non-financial competing interests in relation to this paper? NO
assistant