Ribavirin plus interferon versus interferon for chronic hepatitis C

Intracellular immunity: finding the enemy within--how cells recognize and respond to intracellular pathogens

Historically, once a cell became infected, it was considered to be beyond all help. By this stage, the invading pathogen had breached the innate defenses and was beyond the reach of the humoral arm of the adaptive immune response. The pathogen could still be removed by cell-mediated immunity (e.g., by NK cells or cytotoxic T lymphocytes), but these mechanisms necessitated the destruction of the infected cell. However, in recent years, it has become increasingly clear that many cells possess sensor and effector mechanisms for dealing with intracellular pathogens. Most of these mechanisms are not restricted to professional immune cells nor do they all necessitate the destruction of the host. In this review, we examine the strategies that cells use to detect and destroy pathogens once the cell membrane has been penetrated.

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.

Interferon for interferon nonresponding and relapsing patients with chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

The widely-accepted treatment outcome for chronic hepatitis C is the sustained viral response (that is, no measurable viral RNA in blood six months after treatment). However, this surrogate outcome (as well as the previously employed biochemical and histologic ones) has never been validated. This situation exists because there are very few randomized clinical trials that have used clinical events (mortality or manifestations of decompensated cirrhosis) as outcomes, because those clinical events only occur after many years of infection. Patients in whom initial therapy fails to produce sustained viral responses do become potential candidates for retreatment; some of these individuals are not candidates for ribavirin or protease inhibitors and consideration could be given to retreatment with interferon alone.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interferon monotherapy retreatment in chronic hepatitis C patients and to validate the currently employed surrogate outcomes in this group of patients.

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, and Science Citation Index Expanded until 16 August 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials comparing interferon versus placebo or no treatment in chronic hepatitis C nonresponders and relapsers to previous interferon.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcomes were mortality (all-cause and hepatic), quality of life, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were liver-related morbidity, sustained viral responses, biochemical responses, histologic improvements, and costs. We used both fixed-effect and random-effects model meta-analyses, reporting only the former if no difference existed.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials were identified. Two of them were at low risk of bias (the HALT-C and EPIC3 trials) and included 1676 patients. Both of these trials addressed the role of long-term low-dose pegylated interferon therapy in patients with severe fibrosis (demonstrated on liver biopsy) and were designed to assess the clinical outcomes. The remaining five trials included 300 patients and were at high risk of bias. Based on all trials reporting the outcomes, no significant difference was observed in either all-cause mortality (78/843 (9.3%) versus 62/867 (7.2%); risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.79; 3 trials) or hepatic mortality (41/532 (7.7%) versus 40/552 (7.2%); RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 2 trials); however, when only the two trials at low risk of bias were combined, all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the recipients of the pegylated interferon (78/828 (9.4%) versus 57/848 (6.7%); RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.96) although trial sequential analysis could not exclude the possibility of random error. There was less variceal bleeding in the recipients of the interferon (4/843 (0.5%) versus 18/867 (2.1%); RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 3 trials), although again trial sequential analysis could not exclude the presence of a type I error and the effect could not be confirmed in a random-effects model meta-analysis. No significant differences were seen with regard to the development of ascites, encephalopathy, hepatocellular carcinoma, or the need for liver transplantation. One trial reported quality of life data; the pain score was significantly worse in the recipients of the pegylated interferon. Adverse effects tended to be more common in the interferon recipients; the ones that were significantly more common included hematologic complications, infections, flu-like symptoms, and rash. The recipients of interferon had significantly more sustained viral responses (20/557 (3.6%) versus 1/579 (0.2%); RR 15.38, 95% CI 2.93 to 80.71; 4 trials) and a type I error was excluded by trial sequential analysis. The METAVIR activity score also improved (36/55 (65%) versus 20/46 (43.5%); RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.18; 2 trials). No significant differences were seen with regard to histologic fibrosis assessments.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The clinical data were limited to patients with histologic evidence of severe fibrosis who were retreated with pegylated interferon. In this scenario, retreatment with interferon did not appear to provide significant clinical benefit and, when only the trials at low risk of bias were considered, retreatment for several years may even have increased all-cause mortality. Such treatment also produced adverse events. On the other hand, the treatment did result in improvement in some surrogate outcomes, namely sustained viral responses and histologic evidence of inflammation. Interferon monotherapy retreatment cannot be recommended for these patients. No clinical data are available for patients with less severe fibrosis. The sustained viral response cannot be used as a surrogate marker for hepatitis C treatment in this clinical setting with low sustained viral response rates and needs to be validated in others in which higher sustained viral response rates are reported.

Antiviral therapy for prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis C: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether antiviral therapy reduces the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis C.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Prospective cohort studies were included in sensitivity analyses.

DATA SOURCES

Eligible trials were identified through electronic and manual searches.

STUDY SELECTION

Eight randomised controlled trials comparing antiviral therapy (interferon or pegylated interferon alone or with ribavirin) versus placebo or no intervention were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of studies and extracted data. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. Subgroup, sensitivity, regression and sequential analyses were performed to evaluate sources of intertrial heterogeneity, the risk of bias and the robustness of the results after adjusting for multiple testing.

RESULTS

Random effects meta-analysis showed that antiviral therapy reduced the risk of HCC (81/1156 vs 129/1174; risk ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.81). In subgroup analyses, antiviral therapy was more beneficial (test for subgroup differences p=0.03) in virological responders (0.15, 0.05 to 0.45) than in non-responders (0.57; 0.37 to 0.85). No evidence of bias was seen in regression analyses. Sequential analysis confirmed the overall result. The sensitivity analyses showed that the cohort studies found that antiviral therapy reduced the risk of HCC. There was clear statistical evidence of bias in the cohort studies (p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Antiviral therapy may reduce the risk of HCC in hepatitis C-related fibrosis and cirrhosis. The effect may be seen irrespective of the virological response, but is more pronounced among virological responders compared with non-responders.

Antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C in patients with human immunodeficiency virus

BACKGROUND

Antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C may be less effective if patients are co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C in patients with HIV.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified through manual and electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded. The last search was May 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing at least 12 weeks of any anti-HCV treatment versus another treatment regimen or no treatment. Included patients had chronic hepatitis C and stable HIV irrespective of previous antiviral therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were done in duplicate. Analysis was by intention-to-treat.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials were included. None of the included 2269 patients were previously treated for chronic hepatitis C. Peginterferon (either 2a, 180 microgram, or 2b, 1.5 microgram/kg, once weekly) plus ribavirin was more effective in achieving end of treatment and sustained virological response compared with interferon plus ribavirin (5 trials, 1340 patients) or peginterferon (2 trials, 714 patients). The benefit of peginterferon plus ribavirin was seen irrespective of HCV genotype although patients with genotype 1 or 4 had lower response rates (27%) than patients with genotype 2 or 3 (56%). The remaining trials compared different treatment regimens in patients who were treatment naive or had no virological response after three months of treatment, but overall they had not enough power to show any effect of increasing the dose of interferon or adding both amantadine or ribavirin. The overall mortality was 23/2111 patients with no significant differences between treatment regimens. Treatment increased the risk of adverse events including anaemia and flu-like symptoms, and several serious adverse events occurred including fatal lactic acidosis, liver failure, and suicide due to depression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Peginterferon plus ribavirin may be considered a treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C and stable HIV who have not received treatment for hepatitis C as the intervention may clear the blood of HCV RNA. Supporting evidence comes mainly from the analysis of this non-validated surrogate outcome assessed in comparisons against other antiviral treatments. There is no evidence on treatment of patients who have relapsed or did not respond to previous therapy. Careful monitoring of adverse events is warranted.

Ribavirin monotherapy for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C is a major cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality. A high proportion of patients never experience symptoms. Peginterferon plus ribavirin is the recommended treatment for chronic hepatitis C. However, ribavirin monotherapy may be considered for some patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of ribavirin monotherapy for patients with chronic hepatitis C.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We identified trials through electronic databases, manual searches of bibliographies and journals, authors of trials, and pharmaceutical companies until March 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status comparing ribavirin versus no intervention, placebo, or interferon for chronic hepatitis C.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measures were serum sustained virological response (loss of hepatitis C virus RNA at least six months after treatment), liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality, and adverse events. Secondary outcome measures were end of treatment virological response, biochemical response (transaminase activity), and histological response. Randomisation methods, blinding, data handling, and funding were extracted as measures of bias control. Random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes. We only present the results of the fixed-effect model if both models provide the same result regarding statistical significance. We present data as risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 randomised trials with 657 patients. The majority of trials had unclear control of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, ribavirin had no significant effect on the sustained virological response (RD 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%, five trials) or end of treatment virological response (RD 0% 95% CI -3% to 3%, ten trials). Ribavirin had no significant effect on liver-related morbidity plus mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -2% to 3%, 11 trials). Ribavirin significantly increased the risk of adverse reactions, including anaemia. Ribavirin significantly improved end of treatment biochemical and histological response but not the sustained biochemical response. Ribavirin was significantly inferior to interferon regarding virological and biochemical responses (five trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ribavirin seems without beneficial effects on serum virological response and liver-related morbidity or mortality, and significantly increased the risk of adverse reactions. Ribavirin monotherapy seems significantly inferior to interferon monotherapy. The total number of included patients is small, and more trials are perhaps needed. The use of ribavirin monotherapy for chronic hepatitis C cannot be recommended outside randomised trials.

Bile acids for viral hepatitis

BACKGROUND

Trials have assessed bile acids for patients with viral hepatitis, but no consensus has been reached regarding their usefulness.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bile acids for viral hepatitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches were performed in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (July 2007), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (July 2007), EMBASE (July 2007), Science Citation Index Expanded (July 2007), and Chinese Biomedical Database (July 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing any dose or duration of bile acids versus placebo or no intervention for viral hepatitis were included, irrespective of language, publication status, or blinding. Co-interventions were allowed in the included randomised clinical trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors extracted the data independently. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated with respect to generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and follow-up. The outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 29 randomised trials of bile acids for hepatitis B or C; none were of high methodological quality. We were unable to extract data from two trials. In one trial, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) versus placebo for acute hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of hepatitis B surface antigen positivity at the end of treatment and serum HBV DNA level at the end of follow-up. In another trial, UDCA versus no intervention for chronic hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of having abnormal serum transaminase activities at the end of treatment. Twenty-five trials compared bile acids (21 trials UDCA; four trials tauro-UDCA) versus placebo or no intervention with or without co-interventions for chronic hepatitis C. Bile acids did not significantly reduce the risk of having detectable serum HCV RNA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07), cirrhosis, or portal and periportal inflammation score at the end of treatment. Bile acids significantly decreased the risk of having abnormal serum alanine aminotransferase activity at the end of treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90) and follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98). Bile acids significantly increased the Knodell score (WMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.31) at the end of treatment. No severe adverse events were reported. We did not identify trials including patients with hepatitis A, acute hepatitis C, hepatitis D, or hepatitis E.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Bile acids lead to a significant improvement in serum transaminase activities in hepatitis B and C but have no effects on the clearance of virus. There is insufficient evidence either to support or to refute effects on long-term outcomes including hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatic decompensation, and liver related mortality. Randomised trials with high methodological quality are required before clinical use is considered.

Milk thistle for alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases

BACKGROUND

Alcohol and hepatotoxic viruses cause the majority of liver diseases. Randomised clinical trials have assessed whether extracts of milk thistle, Silybum marianum (L) Gaertneri, have any effect in patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of milk thistle or milk thistle constituents versus placebo or no intervention in patients with alcoholic liver disease and/or viral liver diseases (hepatitis B and hepatitis C).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and full text searches were combined (July 2007). Manufacturers and researchers in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials in patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases (acute and chronic) were included. Interventions encompassed milk thistle at any dose or duration versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double blind, single blind, or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published and no language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was mortality. Binary outcomes are reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed with regard to methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen randomised clinical trials assessed milk thistle in 1088 patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases. The methodological quality was low: only 28.6% of the trials reported high methodological quality characteristics. Milk thistle versus placebo or no intervention had no significant effect on mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15), complications of liver disease (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09), or liver histology. Liver-related mortality was significantly reduced by milk thistle in all trials (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.88), but not in high-quality trials (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19). Milk thistle was not associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results question the beneficial effects of milk thistle for patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases and highlight the lack of high-quality evidence to support this intervention. Adequately conducted and reported randomised clinical trials on milk thistle versus placebo are needed.

Hepatology may have problems with putative surrogate outcome measures

A surrogate outcome measure is a laboratory measurement, a physical sign, or another intermediate substitute that is able to predict an intervention's effect on a clinically meaningful outcome. A clinical outcome detects how a patient feels, functions, or survives. Surrogate outcome measures occur faster or more often, are cheaper, and/or are less invasively achieved than the clinical outcome. In practice, validation is surprisingly often overlooked, especially if a biologic plausible rationale is proposed. Surrogate outcomes must be validated before use. The first step in validation is to demonstrate a correlation between the putative surrogate and the clinical outcome, e.g., the higher the surrogate the shorter time to death. However, a correlation is not sufficient to validate the surrogate. The second step is to establish if the intervention's effect on the surrogate outcome accurately predicts the intervention's effect on the clinical outcome. In hepatology a number of putative surrogate outcomes are used both in clinical research and in clinical practice without having been properly validated. Sustained virological response to interferons and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C, serum bilirubin concentration following ursodeoxycholic acid or immunosuppressants for patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, and nutritional outcomes following artificial nutrition for liver patients may not be valid surrogates for morbidity or mortality. The challenge is to develop reliable surrogates, both to facilitate the development of new interventions and to ensure our patients and us that these interventions are effective clinically.

Bicyclol for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Bicyclol is a novel synthetic 'anti-hepatitis' drug, used in China for chronic hepatitis C. Until now, systematic reviews on bicyclol therapy have not been performed.

OBJECTIVES

To study the benefits and harms of bicyclol for patients with chronic hepatitis C.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (July 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1994 to July 2005), EMBASE (1994 to July 2005), Science Citation Index Expanded (1994 to July 2005), The Chinese Biomedical Database (1994 to August 2005), Chinese Journals Full-article Database (1994 to August 2005), VIP Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (1994 to August 2005), and China National Infrastructure (CNKI) (1994 to August 2005). We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials on bicyclol versus no intervention, placebo, or other interventions in patients with chronic hepatitis C were included, irrespective of blinding, publication status, or language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measures were total and liver-related mortality and liver-related morbidity (eg, cirrhosis and carcinoma). Secondary outcome measures were viral response and liver histology.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified one randomised clinical trial comparing bicyclol with placebo for 39 patients with chronic hepatitis C. The follow-up was three months. In the trial, there was no evidence that bicyclol was superior to placebo for clearance of HCV RNA (RR 3.80, 95% CI 0.47 to 31.0) and anti-HCV antibodies, but bicyclol was associated with statistically significant decrease in alanine aminotransferase activity at 12-th week after treatment (WMD -69 IU/L, 95% CI -115 to -24).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one randomised clinical trial has examined bicyclol for patients with chronic hepatitis C. This small, short-term trial found no evidence to support or refute its use. Large, randomised, double-blind clinical trials with long-term follow-up are needed to examine the possible benefits and harms associated with bicyclol. Bicyclol can only be recommended for use in randomised trials.

Milk thistle for alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases

BACKGROUND

Alcohol and hepatotoxic viruses cause the majority of liver diseases. Randomised clinical trials have assessed whether extracts of milk thistle, Silybum marianum (L) Gaertneri, have any effect in patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of milk thistle or milk thistle constituents versus placebo or no intervention in patients with alcoholic liver disease and/or viral liver diseases (hepatitis B and hepatitis C).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and full text searches were combined (December 2003). Manufacturers and researchers in the field were contacted.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials in patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases (acute and chronic) were included. Interventions encompassed milk thistle at any dose or duration versus placebo or no intervention. The trials could be double blind, single blind, or unblinded. The trials could be unpublished or published and no language limitations were applied.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was mortality. Binary outcomes are reported as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses were performed with regard to methodological quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen randomised clinical trials assessed milk thistle in 915 patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases. The methodological quality was low: only 23% of the trials reported adequate allocation concealment and only 46% were considered adequately double-blinded. Milk thistle versus placebo or no intervention had no significant effect on mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.15), complications of liver disease (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09), or liver histology. Liver-related mortality was significantly reduced by milk thistle in all trials (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.88), but not in high-quality trials (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19). Milk thistle was not associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse events (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.50).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our results question the beneficial effects of milk thistle for patients with alcoholic and/or hepatitis B or C virus liver diseases and highlight the lack of high-quality evidence to support this intervention. Adequately conducted and reported randomised clinical trials on milk thistle versus placebo are needed.

Medicinal herbs for hepatitis C virus infection

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a serious health problem world-wide. Medicinal herbs are increasingly being used for hepatitis C.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of medicinal herbs for hepatitis C virus infection.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Searches were applied to The Controlled Trial Registers of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, and The Cochrane Library as well as MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Chinese and Japanese databases. Five Chinese journals and one Japanese journal were handsearched. No language restriction was used.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials comparing medicinal herbs (single herb or compound of herbs) versus placebo, no intervention, general non-specific treatment, other herbal medicine, or interferon and/or ribavirin treatment. Trials of medicinal herbs plus interferon and/or ribavirin versus interferon and/or ribavirin alone were also included. Trials could be double-blind, single-blind, or unblinded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated using the generation of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and the Jadad-scale. The outcomes were presented as relative risk or weighted mean difference, both with 95% confidence interval.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten randomised trials, including 517 patients with mainly chronic hepatitis C, evaluated ten different medicinal herbs versus various control interventions (four placebo, four interferon, two other herbs). The methodological quality was considered adequate in four trials and inadequate in six trials. Compared with placebo in four trials, none of the medicinal herbs showed positive effects on clearance of serum HCV RNA or anti-HCV antibody or on serum liver enzymes, except one short-term trial in which a silybin preparation showed a significant effect on reducing serum aspartate aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase activities. The herbal compound Bing Gan Tang combined with interferon-alpha showed significantly better effects on clearance of serum HCV RNA (relative risk 2.54; 95% confidence interval 1.43 to 4.49) and on normalisation of serum alanine aminotransferase activity (relative risk 2.54; 95% confidence interval 1.43 to 4.49) than interferon-alpha monotherapy. The herbal compound Yi Zhu decoction showed a significant effect on clearance of serum HCV RNA and normalisation of ALT levels compared to glycyrrhizin plus ribavirin. Yi Er Gan Tang showed a significant effect on normalising serum alanine aminotransferase compared to silymarin plus glucurolactone. There was no significant efficacy of the other examined herbs. The herbs were associated with adverse events.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

There is no firm evidence of efficacy of any medicinal herbs for HCV infection. Medicinal herbs for HCV infection should not be used outside randomised clinical trials.