TREATMENT OF VIROLOGICAL RESPONCES IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEPATITIS C THROUGH SOFOSBUVIR AND RIBAZOLE AS COMPARED TO SOFOSBUVIR AND DECLACAVIR

Objective: We aimed in this analysis to predict the virologic activities in patients with chronic hepatitis C through diagnosis by sofosbuvir and daclatasvir as compared to sofosbuvir and ribavirin in tertiary care hospital. Study Design: A potential comparative type of analysis Place and Duration: This analysis was processed at gastroenterology department in Services Hospital, Lahore for the period of one year started from November, 2017 to October, 2018. Methodology: Total of 107 patients of chronic hepatitis C virus with predicted HCV RNA through PCR were treated having age limit from 18 years to 60 years of every gender were enrolled. the separation of all patients was made into two groups in association with diagnosis as in Group A the patients were diagnosed through sofosbuvir in addition of daclatasvir and in group B the patients were treated through sofosbuvir in addition of ribazole. To calculate the viral evaluations the PCR for HCV RNA relative to quantity was processed at the accomplishment of 4th week of RVR, 12th week of EVR, 24th week of ETR and after 24 weeks of SVR accomplishment of diagnosis. Total patients were not observed through the diagnosis and progressed no complexity in accordance with conventional procedures which directs the stoppage of diagnosis were sorted out of the analysis. Total details were stated on the written agreement form. Results: Patients with number of 107 were enrolled with average age of 36.46 +/- 11.34 years. Female patients were observed as maximum in number with the percentage of 58.9 %. Patients treated through sofosbuvir in addition of daclatasvir and patients which were treated through sofosbuvir in addition of ribazole were having percentage of 80.4 % and 19.6 % respectively. Sustained viral response, rapid viral load response, early viral load response and end treatment response abbreviated as SVR, RVR, EVR and ETR were instantly mostly kept in Group A in matching with Group B where value of P was 0.004, 0.020, 0.020 and 0.004 accordingly. 18 patients out of 21 patients were kept out in group B. In the average of viral load, no instant variation was observed in the two groups after the accomplishment of diagnosis where the value of P was 0.628. Conclusion: It is gained from this analysis that the two diagnoses presented good effectiveness but diagnosis by sofosbuvir in addition of daclatasvir kept most definite Rapid viral response (RVR), Sustained Viral Response (SVR), End treatment response (ETR) and Early viral response (EVR) as a matching with sofosbuvir in addition of ribazole.