Interferon for interferon nonresponding and relapsing patients with chronic hepatitis C

Hepatitis C virus: A critical approach to who really needs treatment

Introduction of effective drugs in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection has prompted the World Health Organization to declare a global eradication target by 2030. Propositions have been made to screen the general population and treat all HCV carriers irrespective of the disease status. A year ago the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus appeared causing a worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 disease. Huge financial resources were redirected, and the pandemic became the first priority in every country. In this review, we examined the feasibility of the World Health Organization elimination program and the actual natural course of HCV infection. We also identified and analyzed certain comorbidity factors that may aggravate the progress of HCV and some marginalized subpopulations with characteristics favoring HCV dissemination. Alcohol consumption, HIV coinfection and the presence of components of metabolic syndrome including obesity, hyperuricemia and overt diabetes were comorbidities mostly responsible for increased liver-related morbidity and mortality of HCV. We also examined the significance of special subpopulations like people who inject drugs and males having sex with males. Finally, we proposed a different micro-elimination screening and treatment program that can be implemented in all countries irrespective of income. We suggest that screening and treatment of HCV carriers should be limited only in these particular groups.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), e.g. sofosbuvir, are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). Sustained virological response (SVR) is used by investigators and regulatory agencies as a surrogate outcome for morbidity and mortality, based solely on observational evidence. However, there have been no randomised trials that have validated that usage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and SVR. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence, using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The trials were generally short-term trials and designed primarily to assess the effect of treatment on SVR. The trials evaluated 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered DAAs that were discontinued or withdrawn from the market. Study populations were treatment-naive in 95 trials, had been exposed to treatment in 17 trials, and comprised both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced individuals in 24 trials. The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.We could not reliably determine the effect of DAAs on the market or under development on our primary outcome of hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality. There were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and only limited data on mortality from 11 trials (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%); OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, very low-quality evidence). We did not perform Trial Sequential Analysis on this outcome.There is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events (DAA 5.2% versus control 5.6%; OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15 , 15,817 participants, 43 trials). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs reduce the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20% when compared with placebo. The only DAA that showed a lower risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development may reduce the risk of no SVR from 54.1% in untreated people to 23.8% in people treated with DAA (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, 6886 participants, 32 trials, low quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).There was insufficient evidence from trials on withdrawn or discontinued DAAs to determine their effect on hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, these DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73; 29 trials, very low-quality evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for our main outcomes of interest come from short-term trials, and we are unable to determine the effect of long-term treatment with DAAs. The rates of hepatitis C morbidity and mortality observed in the trials are relatively low and we are uncertain as to how DAAs affect this outcome. Overall, there is very low quality evidence that DAAs on the market or under development do not influence serious adverse events. There is insufficient evidence to judge if DAAs have beneficial or harmful effects on other clinical outcomes for chronic HCV. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs may reduce the number of people with detectable virus in their blood, but we do not have sufficient evidence from randomised trials that enables us to understand how SVR affects long-term clinical outcomes. SVR is still an outcome that needs proper validation in randomised clinical trials.

Direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Millions of people worldwide suffer from hepatitis C, which can lead to severe liver disease, liver cancer, and death. Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are relatively new and expensive interventions for chronic hepatitis C, and preliminary results suggest that DAAs may eradicate hepatitis C virus (HCV) from the blood (sustained virological response). However, it is still questionable if eradication of hepatitis C virus in the blood eliminates hepatitis C in the body, and improves survival and leads to fewer complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of DAAs in people with chronic HCV.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all published and unpublished trials in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and BIOSIS; the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China Network Knowledge Information (CNKI), the Chinese Science Journal Database (VIP), Google Scholar, The Turning Research into Practice (TRIP) Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency (EMA) (www.ema.europa.eu/ema/), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (www.fda.gov), and pharmaceutical company sources for ongoing or unpublished trials. Searches were last run in October 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing DAAs versus no intervention or placebo, alone or with co-interventions, in adults with chronic HCV. We included trials irrespective of publication type, publication status, and language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were hepatitis C-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, non-serious adverse events (each reported separately), and sustained virological response. We systematically assessed risks of bias, performed Trial Sequential Analysis, and followed an eight-step procedure to assess thresholds for statistical and clinical significance. The overall quality of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 138 trials randomising a total of 25,232 participants. The 138 trials assessed the effects of 51 different DAAs. Of these, 128 trials employed matching placebo in the control group. All included trials were at high risk of bias. Eighty-four trials involved DAAs on the market or under development (13,466 participants). Fifty-seven trials administered withdrawn or discontinued DAAs. Trial participants were treatment-naive (95 trials), treatment-experienced (17 trials), or both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced (24 trials). The HCV genotypes were genotype 1 (119 trials), genotype 2 (eight trials), genotype 3 (six trials), genotype 4 (nine trials), and genotype 6 (one trial). We identified two ongoing trials.Meta-analysis of the effects of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality (OR 3.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 26.18, P = 0.19, I² = 0%, 2,996 participants, 11 trials, very low-quality evidence). As there were no data on hepatitis C-related morbidity and very few data on mortality (DAA 15/2377 (0.63%) versus control 1/617 (0.16%)), it was not possible to perform Trial Sequential Analysis on hepatitis C-related morbidity or all-cause mortality.Meta-analysis of all DAAs on the market or under development showed no evidence of a difference when assessing serious adverse events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.15, P = 0.52, I² = 0%, 15,817 participants, 43 trials, very low-quality evidence). The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the cumulative Z-score crossed the trial sequential boundary for futility, showing that there was sufficient information to rule out that DAAs compared with placebo reduced the relative risk of a serious adverse event by 20%. The only DAA that showed a significant difference on risk of serious adverse events when meta-analysed separately was simeprevir (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.86). However, Trial Sequential Analysis showed that there was not enough information to confirm or reject a relative risk reduction of 20%, and when one trial with an extreme result was excluded, then the meta-analysis result showed no evidence of a difference.DAAs on the market or under development seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.52, P < 0.00001, I² = 77%, 6886 participants, 32 trials, very low-quality evidence) and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Only 1/84 trials on the market or under development assessed the effects of DAAs on health-related quality of life (SF-36 mental score and SF-36 physical score).Withdrawn or discontinued DAAs had no evidence of a difference when assessing hepatitis C-related morbidity and all-cause mortality (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.79, P = 0.40, I² = 0%; 5 trials, very low-quality evidence). However, withdrawn DAAs seemed to increase the risk of serious adverse events (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.73, P = 0.001, I² = 0%, 29 trials, very low-quality evidence), and Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed this meta-analysis result.Most of all outcome results were short-term results; therefore, we could neither confirm nor reject any long-term effects of DAAs. None of the 138 trials provided useful data to assess the effects of DAAs on the remaining secondary outcomes (ascites, variceal bleeding, hepato-renal syndrome, hepatic encephalopathy, and hepatocellular carcinoma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, DAAs on the market or under development do not seem to have any effects on risk of serious adverse events. Simeprevir may have beneficial effects on risk of serious adverse event. In all remaining analyses, we could neither confirm nor reject that DAAs had any clinical effects. DAAs seemed to reduce the risk of no sustained virological response. The clinical relevance of the effects of DAAs on no sustained virological response is questionable, as it is a non-validated surrogate outcome. All trials and outcome results were at high risk of bias, so our results presumably overestimate benefit and underestimate harm. The quality of the evidence was very low.

Improved Survival Among all Interferon-α-Treated Patients in HCV-002, a Veterans Affairs Hepatitis C Cohort of 2211 Patients, Despite Increased Cirrhosis Among Nonresponders

BACKGROUND

As the era of interferon-alpha (IFN)-based therapy for hepatitis C ends, long-term treatment outcomes are now being evaluated.

AIM

To more fully understand the natural history of hepatitis C infection by following a multisite cohort of patients.

METHODS

Patients with chronic HCV were prospectively enrolled in 1999-2000 from 11 VA medical centers and followed through retrospective medical record review.

RESULTS

A total of 2211 patients were followed for an average of 8.5 years after enrollment. Thirty-one percent of patients received HCV antiviral therapy, 15 % with standard IFN/ribavirin only, 16 % with pegylated IFN/ribavirin, and 26.7 % of treated patients achieved sustained virologic response (SVR). Cirrhosis developed in 25.8 % of patients. Treatment nonresponders had a greater than twofold increase in the hazard of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, compared to untreated patients, whereas SVR patients were only marginally protected from cirrhosis. Nearly 6 % developed hepatocellular carcinoma, and 27.1 % died during the follow-up period. Treated patients, regardless of response, had a significant survival benefit compared to untreated patients (HR 0.58, CI 0.46-0.72). Improved survival was also associated with college education, younger age, lower levels of alcohol consumption, and longer duration of medical service follow-up-factors typically associated with treatment eligibility.

CONCLUSIONS

As more hepatitis C patients are now being assessed for all-oral combination therapy, these results highlight that patient compliance and limiting harmful behaviors contribute a significant proportion of the survival benefit in treated patients and that the long-term clinical benefits of SVR may be less profound than previously reported.

Health state utilities associated with attributes of treatments for hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Cost-utility analyses are frequently conducted to compare treatments for hepatitis C, which are often associated with complex regimens and serious adverse events. Thus, the purpose of this study was to estimate the utility associated with treatment administration and adverse events of hepatitis C treatments.

DESIGN

Health states were drafted based on literature review and clinician interviews. General population participants in the UK valued the health states in time trade-off (TTO) interviews with 10- and 1-year time horizons. The 14 health states described hepatitis C with variations in treatment regimen and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 182 participants completed interviews (50% female; mean age = 39.3 years). Utilities for health states describing treatment regimens without injections ranged from 0.80 (1 tablet) to 0.79 (7 tablets). Utilities for health states describing oral plus injectable regimens were 0.77 (7 tablets), 0.75 (12 tablets), and 0.71 (18 tablets). Addition of a weekly injection had a disutility of -0.02. A requirement to take medication with fatty food had a disutility of -0.04. Adverse events were associated with substantial disutilities: mild anemia, -0.12; severe anemia, -0.32; flu-like symptoms, -0.21; mild rash, -0.13; severe rash, -0.48; depression, -0.47. One-year TTO scores were similar to these 10-year values.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events and greater treatment regimen complexity were associated with lower utility scores, suggesting a perceived decrease in quality of life beyond the impact of hepatitis C. The resulting utilities may be used in models estimating and comparing the value of treatments for hepatitis C.

Type I interferons for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Interferons (IFNs) are cytokines which possess immunoregulatory properties and have been used to successfully treat a number of chronic inflammatory disorders. It has been postulated that Type I IFNs may be able to re-establish the Th1/Th2 balance in Th2 predominant diseases like ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of type I IFN therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialised register, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to August 8, 2014. Reference lists of trials and review articles, as well as recent proceedings from major gastroenterology meetings were manually searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of type I IFNs for induction of remission in UC were included. The study population included patients of any age with active ulcerative colitis. There were no exclusions based on type, dose or duration of IFN treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent authors reviewed studies for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The primary outcome was induction of remission of ulcerative colitis. Secondary outcomes included: time to remission, mean change in disease activity index score, clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement, improvement in quality of life, and adverse events. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. We calculated the mean difference and corresponding 95% confidence interval for continuous outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3.5 software.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies were eligible for inclusion (517 patients). Five studies compared type I IFNs to placebo injections (485 patients) and a single study compared IFNs to prednisolone enemas in patients with left-sided colitis (32 patients). The active comparator study was rated as high risk of bias due to an open-label design. Three studies were rated as unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Two studies described as double blind were rated as unclear risk of bias for blinding. There was no significant benefit of type I IFNs over placebo for inducing clinical remission or improvement in patients with active ulcerative colitis. Thirty-six per cent (87/242) of patients in the type I IFNs group achieved clinical remission by 8 to 12 weeks compared to 30% (36/120) of placebo patients (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.58; 4 studies, 362 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcome clinical remission was moderate due to sparse data (123 events). Fifty-six per cent (149/264) of patients in the type I IFNs group improved clinically by 8 to 12 weeks compared to 48% (77/161) of placebo patients (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.40; 4 studies, 425 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcome clinical improvement was moderate due to sparse data (226 events). Patients who received type I IFNs were significantly more likely to withdraw from the studies due to adverse events than those who received placebo. Seven per cent (18/42) of type I IFNs patients withdrew due to adverse events compared to 2% (3/152) of placebo patients (RR 3.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 9.40). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcome withdrawal due to adverse events was low due to very sparse data (21 events). The study comparing type I IFNs to prednisolone enemas found no difference between the treatment groups in quality of life or disease activity scores. Common adverse events included headaches, arthralgias, myalgias, fatigue, back pain, nausea, application site reactions, rigors, and fevers. There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence suggests that type I IFNs are not effective for the induction of remission in UC. In addition, there are concerns regarding the tolerability of this class of treatment.

Long-Term Treatment Outcomes of Patients Infected With Hepatitis C Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Survival Benefit of Achieving a Sustained Virological Response

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that there is a significant survival benefit of achieving an sustained virologic response compared with unsuccessful treatment in the general hepatitis C virus-infected population. This benefit is held in patients with cirrhosis and those coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus.

Background. Achievement of a sustained virologic response (SVR) after treatment for Hepatitis C infection is associated with improved outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the impact of SVR on long-term mortality risk compared with nonresponders in a range of populations.

Methods. An electronic search identified all studies assessing all-cause mortality in SVR and non-SVR patients. Eligible articles were stratified into general, cirrhotic, and populations coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus. The adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval [CI]) for mortality in patients achieving SVR vs non-SVR, and pooled estimates for the 5-year mortality in each group were calculated.

Results. 31 studies (n = 33 360) were identified as suitable for inclusion. Median follow-up time was 5.4 years (interquartile range, 4.9–7.5) across all studies. The adjusted hazard ratio of mortality for patients achieving SVR vs non-SVR was 0.50 (95% CI, .37–.67) in the general population, 0.26 (95% CI, .18–.74) in the cirrhotic group, and 0.21 (.10–.45) in the coinfected group. The pooled 5-year mortality rates were significantly lower for patients achieving SVR compared with non-SVR in all 3 populations.

Conclusions. The results suggest that there is a significant survival benefit of achieving an SVR compared with unsuccessful treatment in a range of populations infected with hepatitis C virus.

Overview and recent trends of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in hepatology

A systematic review (SR) is a research methodology that involves a comprehensive search for and analysis of relevant studies on a specific topic. A strict and objective research process is conducted that comprises a systematic and comprehensive literature search in accordance with predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and an assessment of the risk of bias of the selected literature. SRs require a multidisciplinary approach that necessitates cooperation with clinical experts, methodologists, other experts, and statisticians. A meta-analysis (MA) is a statistical method of quantitatively synthesizing data, where possible, from the primary literature selected for the SR. Review articles differ from SRs in that they lack a systematic methodology such as a literature search, selection of studies according to strict criteria, assessment of risk bias, and synthesis of the study results. The importance of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the decision-making for public policy has recently been increasing thanks to the realization that it should be based on scientific research data. SRs and MAs are essential for EBM strategy and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. This review addresses the current trends in SRs and MAs in the field of hepatology via a search of recently published articles in the Cochrane Library and Ovid-MEDLINE.

Aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus infection affects around 3% of the world population or approximately 160 million people. A variable proportion (5% to 40%) of the infected people develop clinical symptoms. Hence, hepatitis C virus is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality with hepatic fibrosis, end-stage liver cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma as the dominant clinical sequelae. Combination therapy with pegylated (peg) interferon-alpha and ribavirin achieves sustained virological response (that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitivity testing six months after the end of treatment) in approximately 40% to 80% of treated patients, depending on viral genotype. Recently, a new class of drugs have emerged for hepatitis C infection, the direct acting antivirals, which in combination with standard therapy or alone can lead to sustained virological response in 80% or more of treated patients. Aminoadamantanes, mostly amantadine, are antiviral drugs used for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C. We have previously systematically reviewed amantadine versus placebo or no intervention and found no significant effects of the amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C. Overall, we did not observe a significant effect of amantadine on sustained virological response. In this review, we systematically review aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes versus other antiviral drugs for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11 of 12, 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013. Furthermore, full text searches were conducted until December 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in participants with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. RevMan Analysis was used for statistical analysis of dichotomous data using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological domains were used to assess the risk of systematic errors ('bias'). We used trial sequential analysis to assess risk of random errors ('play of chance').

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised clinical trials with 581 participants with chronic hepatitis C were included. All trials had high risk of bias. The included trials compared amantadine versus other antiviral drugs: ribavirin, mycophenolate mofetil, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. Standard antiviral therapy (interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, or peg interferon alpha) was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in five trials, depending on when the trial was conducted. Four trials compared amantadine versus ribavirin. There were no deaths or liver-related morbidity in the two intervention groups (0/216 (0%) versus 0/211 (0%); 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). The lower estimated risk for (serious) adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation with amantadine was imprecise (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.16; based on 10/216 (5%) versus 18/211 (9%) participants in 4 trials; very low quality of the evidence). There were more participants with failure of sustained virological response in the amantadine group than in the ribavirin group (206/216 (96%) versus 176/211 (84%); RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22, 4 trials; low quality of the evidence). Amantadine versus ribavirin more often failed to achieve end-of follow-up biochemical response (41/46 (89%) versus 31/46 (67%); RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.63; 2 trials; very low quality of the evidence). One trial compared amantadine versus mycophenolate mofetil. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except that amantadine was inferior to mycophenolate mofetil regarding the outcome failure to achieve end-of treatment virological response (low quality of evidence). One trial each compared amantadine versus interferon-alpha or interferon-gamma. Both comparisons showed no significant differences in the treatment outcomes (very low quality of the evidence). The observed effects could be due to real effects, systematic errors (bias), or random errors (play of chance). This possible influence on the observed effect by play of chance is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses on failure of histological improvement and quality of life due to lack of valid data in all trial comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review has identified evidence of very low quality for the key outcomes of all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity and adverse events in people with chronic hepatitis C when treated with amantadine compared with ribavirin, mycophenolate, interferon-alpha, or interferon-gamma. The timeframe for measuring the composite outcome was insufficient in the included trials. There was low quality evidence that amantadine led to more participants who failed to achieve sustained virological response compared with ribavirin. This observation may be real or caused by systematic errors (bias), but it does not seem to be caused by random error (play of chance). Due to the low quality of the evidence, we are unable to determine definitively whether amantadine is less effective than other antivirals in patients with chronic hepatitis C. As it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine or potentially other aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C would show strong benefits, it is probably better to focus on the assessments of other direct acting antiviral drugs. We found no evidence assessing other aminoadamantanes in randomised clinical trials in order to recommend or refute their use.

Aminoadamantanes for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Around 3% of the world's population (approximately 160 million people) are chronically infected with hepatitis C virus. The proportion of infected people who develop clinical symptoms varies between 5% and 40%. Combination therapy with pegylated interferon-alpha plus ribavirin eradicates the virus from the blood six months after treatment (sustained virological response) in approximately 40% to 80% of infected patients, depending on the viral genotype. New antiviral agents, such as boceprevir and telaprevir, in combination with standard therapy, can increase sustained virological response in genotype 1 infected patients to at least 70%. There is therefore an unmet need for drugs that can achieve a higher proportion of sustained virological response. Aminoadamantanes are antiviral drugs used for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of aminoadamantanes for patients with chronic hepatitis C infection by conducting a systematic review with meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials, as well as trial sequential analyses.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (1996 to December 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2013, Issue 11 of 12 (1995 to December 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to December 2013), EMBASE (1974 to December 2013), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to December 2013), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp), Google Scholar, and Eudrapharm up to December 2013 and checked the reference lists of identified publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials assessing aminoadamantanes in patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data. We assessed for risks of systematic errors ('bias') using the 'Risk of bias' tool. We analysed dichotomous data with risk ratio (RR) and continuous data with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used trial sequential analysis to assess the risk of random errors ('play of chance'). We assessed quality using the GRADE system.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 randomised clinical trials with 6193 patients with chronic hepatitis C. All trials had high risk of bias. All included trials compared amantadine versus placebo or no intervention. Standard antiviral therapy was administered equally to the intervention and the control groups in 40 trials. The standard antiviral therapy, which was administered to both intervention groups, was interferon-alpha, interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, and peg interferon-alpha plus ribavirin, depending on the time when the trial was conducted.When we meta-analysed all trials together, the overall results demonstrated no significant effects of amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, on our all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome (5/2353 (0.2%) versus 6/2264 (0.3%); RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.17; I² = 0%; 32 trials; very low quality). There was also no significant effect on adverse events (288/2869 (10%) versus 293/2777 (11%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I² = 0%; 35 trials; moderate quality). We used both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (1821/2861 (64%) versus 1737/2721 (64%); RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.02; I² = 35%; 35 trials; moderate quality). However, in the subgroup using interferon plus ribavirin, amantadine decreased the number of patients who failed to achieve a sustained virological response (422/666 (63%) versus 447/628 (71%); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96; I² = 41%; 11 trials; low quality). Similar results were found for failure to achieve an end of treatment virological response. Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, significantly decreased the number of patients without normalisation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) serum levels at the end of treatment (671/1141 (59%) versus 732/1100 (67%); RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; I² = 47%; 19 trials; low quality). Amantadine, when compared with placebo or no intervention, did not significantly influence the end of follow-up biochemical response (1133/1896 (60%) versus 1151/1848 (62%); RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.00; I² = 49%; 21 trials; low quality).The observed beneficial effects could be true effects but could also be due to both systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). The latter is due to the fact that trial sequential analyses could not confirm or refute our findings. We were not able to perform meta-analyses for failure of histological improvement or quality of life due to a lack of valid data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review does not demonstrate any significant effects of amantadine on all-cause mortality or liver-related morbidity composite outcome and on adverse events in patients with hepatitis C; however, the median trial duration was 12 months, with a median follow-up of six months, which is not long enough to assess the composite outcome sufficiently. Overall, we did not see an effect of amantadine on failure to achieve a sustained virological response. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that the combination of amantadine plus interferon-alpha and ribavirin seems to increase the number of patients achieving a sustained virological response. This finding may be caused by both systematic errors (bias) and risks of random errors (play of chance), but it could also be real. Based on the results of the overall evidence, it appears less likely that future trials assessing amantadine for patients with chronic hepatitis C will show strong benefits. Therefore, it is probably advisable to wait for the results of trials assessing other direct-acting antiviral drugs. In the absence of convincing evidence of benefit, the use of amantadine is justified in the context of randomised clinical trials assessing the effects of combination therapy. We found a lack of evidence on other aminoadamantanes than amantadine.

Peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

A combination of weekly pegylated interferon (peginterferon) alpha and daily ribavirin still represents standard treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection in the majority of patients. However, it is not established which of the two licensed peginterferon products, peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b, is the most effective and has a better safety profile.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the benefits and harms of peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b in head-to-head randomised clinical trials in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, and LILACS until October 2013. We also searched conference abstracts, journals, and grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b given with or without co-intervention(s) (for example, ribavirin) for chronic hepatitis C. Quasi-randomised studies and observational studies as identified by the searches were also considered for assessment of harms. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, liver-related morbidity, serious adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, other adverse events, and quality of life. The secondary outcome was sustained virological response in the blood serum.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently used a standardised data collection form. We meta-analysed data with both the fixed-effect and the random-effects models. For each outcome we calculated the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on intention-to-treat analysis. We used domains of the trials to assess the risk of systematic errors (bias) and trial sequential analyses to assess the risks of random errors (play of chance). Intervention effects on the outcomes were assessed according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 randomised clinical trials which compared peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin versus peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin in 5847 patients. All trials had a high risk of bias. Very few trials reported data on very few patients for the patient-relevant outcomes all-cause mortality, liver-related morbidity, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Accordingly, we were unable to conduct meta-analyses on all-cause mortality, liver-related morbidity, and quality of life. Twelve trials reported on adverse events leading to discontinuation of treatment without clear evidence of a difference between the two peginterferons (197/2171 (9.1%) versus 311/3169 (9.9%); RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.22; I2 = 44%; low quality evidence). A trial sequential analysis showed that we could exclude a relative risk reduction of 20% or more on this outcome. Peginterferon alpha-2a significantly increased the number of patients who achieved a sustained virological response in the blood serum compared with peginterferon alpha-2b (1069/2099 (51%) versus 1327/3075 (43%); RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.18; I2= 0%, 12 trials; moderate quality evidence). Trial sequential analyses supported this result. Subgroup analyses based on risk of bias, viral genotype, and treatment history yielded similar results. Trial sequential analyses supported the results in patients with genotypes 1 and 4, but not in patients with genotypes 2 and 3.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is lack of evidence on patient-important outcomes and paucity of evidence on adverse events. Moderate quality evidence suggests that peginterferon alpha-2a is associated with a higher sustained virological response in serum than with peginterferon alpha-2b. This finding may be affected by the high risk of bias of the included studies . The clinical consequences of peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b are unknown, and we cannot translate an effect on sustained virological response into comparable clinical effects because sustained virological response is still an unvalidated surrogate outcome for patient-important outcomes. The lack of evidence on patient-important outcomes and the paucity of evidence on adverse events means that we are unable to draw any conclusions about the effects of one peginterferon over the other.

Is sustained virological response a marker of treatment efficacy in patients with chronic hepatitis C viral infection with no response or relapse to previous antiviral intervention?

BACKGROUND

Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of antiviral interventions in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection use sustained virological response (SVR) as the main outcome. There is sparse information on long-term mortality from RCTs.

METHODS

We created a decision tree model based on a Cochrane systematic review on interferon retreatment for patients who did not respond to initial therapy or who relapsed following SVR. Extrapolating data to 20 years, we modelled the outcome from three scenarios: (1) observed medium-term (5 year) annual mortality rates continue to the long term (20 years); (2) long-term annual mortality in retreatment responders falls to that of the general population while retreatment non-responders continue at the medium-term mortality; (3) long-term annual mortality in retreatment non-responders is the same as control group non-responders (i.e., the increased treatment-related medium mortality "wears off").

RESULTS

The mean differences in life expectancy over 20 years with interferon versus control in the first, second, and third scenarios were -0.34 years (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.71 to 0.03), -0.23 years (95% CI -0.69 to 0.24), and -0.01 (95% CI -0.3 to 0.27), respectively. The life expectancy was always lower in the interferon group than in the control group in scenario 1. In scenario 3, the interferon group had a longer life expectancy than the control group only when more than 7% in the interferon group achieved SVR.

CONCLUSIONS

SVR may be a good prognostic marker but does not seem to be a valid surrogate marker for assessing HCV treatment efficacy of interferon retreatment. The SVR threshold at which retreatment increases life expectancy may be different for different drugs depending upon the adverse event profile and treatment efficacy. This has to be determined for each drug by RCTs and appropriate modelling before SVR can be accepted as a surrogate marker.

Treatment decisions and contemporary versus pending treatments for hepatitis C

The primary aim of antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) is the prevention of progressive disease. A response to interferon (IFN) treatment is associated with an improvement in all-cause mortality and liver-related mortality from hepatitis C. Unless contraindicated, patients with CHC are thus potential candidates for treatment. Improved response rates are observed in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection treated with first-generation protease inhibitors. However, treatment with current first-generation protease inhibitors and IFN is complex and can result in appreciable adverse effects. The advent of potent, pan-genotypic all-oral direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regimens necessitates a critical examination of the immediate application of PEG-IFN, ribavirin and DAA regimens in patients with CHC. Current guidelines and position statements do not make clear recommendations, and are behind the emerging data. Some aspects of the conundrums facing physicians and patients are summarized in this Review. Cirrhosis presents an immediate threat of disease, and ideally treatment should be targeted at those patients who have advancing or advanced disease; unfortunately, a disparity exists, as response rates are reduced in patients with cirrhosis and the risks of adverse events are increased. On balance, patients with mild disease could consider deferring treatment.

Nonresponse to interferon-α based treatment for chronic hepatitis C infection is associated with increased hazard of cirrhosis

Background

The long-term consequences of unsuccessful interferon-α based hepatitis C treatment on liver disease progression and survival have not been fully explored.

Methods and Findings

We performed retrospective analyses to assess long-term clinical outcomes among treated and untreated patients with hepatitis C virus in two independent cohorts from a United States Veterans Affairs Medical Center and a University Teaching Hospital. Eligible patients underwent liver biopsy during consideration for interferon-α based treatment between 1992 and 2007. They were assessed for the probability of developing cirrhosis and of dying during follow-up using Cox proportional hazards models, stratified by pretreatment liver fibrosis stage and adjusted for known risk factors for cirrhosis and characteristics affecting treatment selection. The major predictor was a time-dependent covariate for treatment outcome among four patient groups: 1) patients with sustained virological response to treatment; 2) treatment relapsers; 3) treatment nonresponders; and 4) never treated patients. Treatment nonresponders in both cohorts had a statistically significantly increased hazard of cirrhosis compared to never treated patients, as stratified by pretreatment liver fibrosis stage and adjusted for clinical and psychosocial risk factors that disproportionately affect patients who were ineligible for treatment (Veterans Affairs HR = 2.35, CI 1.18–4.69, mean follow-up 10 years, and University Hospital HR = 5.90, CI 1.50–23.24, mean follow-up 7.7 years). Despite their increased risk for liver disease progression, the overall survival of nonresponders in both cohorts was not significantly different from that of never treated patients.

Conclusion

These unexpected findings suggest that patients who receive interferon-α based therapies but fail to clear the hepatitis C virus may have an increased hazard of cirrhosis compared to untreated patients.