Day hospitalization programs for eating disorders: A systematic review of the literature

Objective: Partial day hospitalization programs for the treatment of eating disorders are increasingly being developed worldwide. Method: First, a systematic database search of day hospitalization programs for eating disorders, published in either English or German, seas conducted. Programs that provided sufficient information on their program structure were summarized and compared across various dimensions. Second, the responsible program directors were contacted to provide additional information regarding outcome data, current trends, challenges, and future directions of their programs. Third, outcome data from day programs presented at international conferences were included to expand the base of the review. Discussion: Although the programs from different countries and health care environments varied in terms of their purpose and operated within very different health care systems, many similarities were found to exist, including the use of a multidisciplinary staff and reliance on group treatment as the primary means of therapy. Marked differences were noted in terms of inclusion criteria and intensity of care. (C) 2002 by Wiley Periodicals, I

Limited impact of IL28B genotype on response rates in telaprevir-treated patients with prior treatment failure.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nucleotide polymorphisms upstream of the interleukin 28B (IL28B) gene are strongly associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV) clearance in treatment-naïve patients treated with peginterferon/ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV). This subanalysis of the REALIZE study evaluated the impact of IL28B polymorphisms on sustained virologic response (SVR) in telaprevir-treated, HCV genotype 1-infected patients with prior PegIFN/RBV treatment failure. METHODS: Treatment-experienced patients were randomized to 12 weeks of telaprevir (750 mg every 8h) with/without a 4-week PegIFN/RBV lead-in, or placebo, each with PegIFN-α-2a (180 μg/week) and ribavirin (1000-1200 mg/day) for 48 weeks overall. Data from telaprevir arms were pooled. RESULTS: Eighty percent (527/662) of patients consented to genetic testing and were included. Similar proportions of patients had IL28B CC, CT and TT genotypes across treatment arms; baseline characteristics were generally well balanced. SVR rates were higher in the pooled telaprevir versus placebo group for all IL28B genotypes; CC: 79% versus 29%, respectively; CT: 60% versus 16%, respectively; TT: 61% versus 13%, respectively. Within each prior response category (relapse, partial or null response), SVR and viral breakthrough rates with telaprevir-based treatment were comparable across IL28B genotypes. IL28B genotype did not significantly affect SVR (2-step multivariate analyses; p >0.16 in pairwise comparison among CC, TT, and CT). Variations in rapid virologic response and relapse rates were noted in certain patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that IL28B genotype has a limited impact on SVR rates with telaprevir-based therapy in treatment-experienced patients. IL28B genotyping may have limited utility in the baseline evaluation of similar patients considered for telaprevir-based therapy

Limited impact of IL28B genotype on response rates in telaprevir-treated patients with prior treatment failure

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nucleotide polymorphisms upstream of the interleukin 28B (IL28B) gene are strongly associated with hepatitis C virus (HCV) clearance in treatment-naïve patients treated with peginterferon/ribavirin (PegIFN/RBV). This subanalysis of the REALIZE study evaluated the impact of IL28B polymorphisms on sustained virologic response (SVR) in telaprevir-treated, HCV genotype 1-infected patients with prior PegIFN/RBV treatment failure. METHODS: Treatment-experienced patients were randomized to 12 weeks of telaprevir (750 mg every 8h) with/without a 4-week PegIFN/RBV lead-in, or placebo, each with PegIFN-α-2a (180 μg/week) and ribavirin (1000-1200 mg/day) for 48 weeks overall. Data from telaprevir arms were pooled. RESULTS: Eighty percent (527/662) of patients consented to genetic testing and were included. Similar proportions of patients had IL28B CC, CT and TT genotypes across treatment arms; baseline characteristics were generally well balanced. SVR rates were higher in the pooled telaprevir versus placebo group for all IL28B genotypes; CC: 79% versus 29%, respectively; CT: 60% versus 16%, respectively; TT: 61% versus 13%, respectively. Within each prior response category (relapse, partial or null response), SVR and viral breakthrough rates with telaprevir-based treatment were comparable across IL28B genotypes. IL28B genotype did not significantly affect SVR (2-step multivariate analyses; p >0.16 in pairwise comparison among CC, TT, and CT). Variations in rapid virologic response and relapse rates were noted in certain patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that IL28B genotype has a limited impact on SVR rates with telaprevir-based therapy in treatment-experienced patients. IL28B genotyping may have limited utility in the baseline evaluation of similar patients considered for telaprevir-based therapy