Objectives Anaemia is the most common side effect associated with ribavirin (RBV). This study intended to assess its incidence and determine its predictive factors in patients with hepatitis C virus on RBV plus direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs). Methods A retrospective study of patients receiving RBV+DAA was conducted. Serum haemoglobin (Hb) was determined at baseline and monitored 4 weekly. Anaemia was defined as a single occurrence of Hb <10 g/dL. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the occurrence of anaemia and the following factors: age, gender, FibroScan score, viral load, cirrhotic status (yes/no), RBV dose, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), alanine amino transferase, albumin, treatment duration (12 vs ≥12 weeks), baseline Hb, and Hb% drop (weeks 0–2). Results 152 patients were included, of which 15.1% experienced anaemia. The analysis revealed that estimated GFR (eGFR), baseline Hb, 12-week treatment duration and Hb% drop (weeks 0–2) were significantly associated with the likelihood of developing anaemia (p<0.05). Two mathematical models were subsequently developed to predict patients at risk of anaemia: a pretreatment model (positive predictive value 86.6%) which included eGFR, baseline Hb and 12-week treatment duration and an intratreatment model (positive predictive value of 90.48%) which in addition included the Hb% drop (weeks 0–2). Conclusion Anaemia was found to be less significant in this cohort compared with studies on RBV plus pegylated interferon, telaprevir or boceprevir combinations, but higher than those on newer DAAs. Baseline Hb, eGFR, 12-week treatment duration and Hb% drop (weeks 0–2) significantly predicted the risk of anaemia and were used to construct two predictive models.

Background: Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and diroximel fumarate (DRF) are two treatments used for multiple sclerosis (MS) that have been shown to be effective in controlling MS patients. DRF was introduced in 2019 with the aim of decreasing the gastrointestinal side effects caused by DMF. Few real-life studies verify the data provided in the clinical trials. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted on MS patients at the Hospital Universitario Torrecárdenas under treatment with DRF and DMF. Demographic, clinical, and analytical variables were studied and compared between groups. Results: A total of 60 patients were recruited, 30 with each treatment, observing similar baseline characteristics. Fewer gastrointestinal (GI) effects were observed in the DRF group, while more infections were detected in the DMF group. We recorded lower levels in the DRF group, with four cases of moderate-severe lymphopenia in the DRF group vs. none in the DMF group. In addition, we observed a decrease in lymphocytes after the change from DMF to DRF in patients with a change. Conclusions: Our real-life analysis of patients treated with DMF or DRF supports several studies’ findings regarding decreased GI side effects with DRF vs. DMF without decreasing efficacy. However, our data show a greater reduction in lymphocytes in patients with DRF compared to DMF, so more studies are necessary.

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and diroximel fumarate (DRF) are two treatments used in multiple sclerosis (MS), that have been shown to be effective in controlling MS patients. DRF was intro-duced in 2019, with the aim of decreasing the gastrointestinal side effects caused by DMF. Few real-life studies verify the data provided in the clinical trials. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study was conducted in MS patients at the Hospital Universitario Torrecárdenas under treatment with DRF and DMF. Demographic, clinical, and analytical variables were studied and compared between groups. Results: 60 patients were recruited, 30 with each treatment, observing similar baseline characteristics. Fewer gastrointestinal (GI) effects were observed in the DRF group, while more infections were detected in the DMF group. We recorded lower levels in the DRF group, with 4 moderate-severe lymphopenia in the DRF group vs. none in the DMF group. In addition, we observed a decrease in lymphocytes after the change from DMF to DRF in patients with a change. Conclusions: Our real-life analysis of patients treated with DMF or DRF supports studies’ findings of decreased GI side effects with DRF vs. DMF, without decreasing efficacy. However, our data show greater reduction in lymphocytes in patients with DRF compared to DMF, so more studies are necessary.