Simeprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin lessens time with fatigue,depressive symptoms and functional limitations in patients with chronic hepatitis C compared with peginterferon and ribavirin: results from 1161 patients in the QUEST‐1, QUEST‐2 and PROMISE studies

The value of adding simeprevir (SMV) vs placebo (PBO) to peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection was examined using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs); further, concordance of PROs with virology endpoints and adverse events (AEs) was explored. Patients (n = 768 SMV/PR, n = 393 PBO/PR) rated fatigue (FSS), depressive symptoms (CES‐D) and functional impairment (WPAI: Hepatitis C Productivity, Daily Activity and Absenteeism) at baseline and throughout treatment in three randomised, double‐blind trials comparing the addition of SMV or PBO during initial 12 weeks of PR. PR was administered for 48 weeks (PBO group) and 24/48 weeks (SMV group) using a response‐guided therapy (RGT) approach. Mean PRO scores (except Absenteeism) worsened from baseline to Week 4 to the same extent in both groups but reverted after Week 24 for SMV/PR and only after Week 48 for PBO/PR. Accordingly, there was a significantly lower area under the curve (baseline–Week 60, AUC₆₀) and fewer weeks with clinically important worsening of scores in the SMV/PR group at any time point. Incidences of patients with fatigue and anaemia AEs were similar in both groups, but FSS scores showed that clinically important increases in fatigue lasted a mean of 6.9 weeks longer with PBO/PR (P < 0.001). PRO score subgroup analysis indicated better outcomes for patients who met the criteria for RGT or achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks post‐treatment (SVR12); differences in mean PRO scores associated with fibrosis level were only observed with PBO/PR. Greater efficacy of SMV/PR enabled reduced treatment duration and reduced time with PR‐related AEs without adding to AE severity.     

Editorial: ‘The giant’s shoulders’: understanding Michael Rutter’s impact on science and society

The recent death of our colleague and friend Professor Sir Michael Rutter has quite rightly been greeted by an outpouring of gratitude and respect from distinguished commentators across the globe working in diverse fields of the basic, social and clinical sciences as well as from clinicians and policy makers. These have without exception highlighted his seminal role as a pioneer, perhaps The Pioneer, of the application of the scientific method to the study of child and adolescent mental health and disorder – the father of evidence-based Child Psychiatry and the most influential voice in the new field of Developmental Psychopathology (Stevenson, 2022). In this editorial, we will attempt to build on these commentaries. We will parse Mike’s scientific contributions to our field, in order to identify the personal characteristics and intellectual modus operandi that made him such a uniquely important figure, whose influence will resonate through the many fields he influenced for decades to come. We will also attempt something of a reframing of that contribution. Our thesis being that, although he never agitated for it politically or even stated it as a goal explicitly, Mike’s work was motivated by a desire for social reform and created the scientific catalyst for such reform to occur.