Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Prospective observational study evaluated adverse drug reactions in 95 adults with viral hepatitis, implying safety of antivirals.
Background: Antiviral therapy is central to viral hepatitis care, yet real-world adverse drug reaction (ADR) patterns in busy outpatient settings remain incompletely characterised. Aim: To evaluate ADRs associated with antivirals used for viral hepatitis, focusing on frequency, severity, time-to-onset, and causality. Materials and Methods: A prospective, observational study conducted in the Gastroenterology and Medicine outpatient departments of KGMU, Lucknow after ethics approval (IEC 3006/Ethics/2024, 23-01-2024). Adults with viral hepatitis receiving antivirals were enrolled (n = 95) after consent. ADRs were captured using a pre-designed case-record form and assessed by WHO-UMC causality and Hartwig severity scales; follow-up was scheduled at ~1 month and thereafter per protocol, with review after any ADR. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, chi-square tests, and Kruskal–Wallis (two-sided p < 0.05). Results: Antivirals prescribed were tenofovir, entecavir, sofosbuvir+daclatasvir and sofosbuvir+velpatasvir. From baseline to follow-up, there were significant improvement in biochemical parameters, decrease in AST/SGOT, ALT/SGPT, ALP, urea, creatinine, and INR, and increase in serum protein and albumin. ADRs occurred in 31/95 (32.6%); Most frequent ADRs were nausea, headache, and fatigue. Most ADRs were mild. Causality was probable/possible in all cases. Conclusion: In tertiary-care practice, antiviral therapy for viral hepatitis was associated with favourable biochemical trajectories & mild ADRs. ADR type & onset timing differ, supporting early monitoring & standardised documentation to optimise safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biswas et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: