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?

Expression Profiling of the Tripartite Motif Family Genes in Chronic Hepatitis C Patients

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is one of the most prevalent pathogens which causes significant morbidity and mortality in 2% of the world's population. Several interferon-stimulated genes (ISGs) are involved in HCV clearance by interacting with the viral proteins. Among these ISGs, the tripartite motif (TRIM) family genes are elevated during HCV infection. This study aims to evaluate the expression of three TRIM family genes in chronic hepatitis C patients, distributed among different groups, including TRIM11, TRIM14, and TRIM25. A total of 242 participants were recruited in this study, including 182 infected patients, 37 naïve individuals, and 23 control individuals. Out of 182 infected patients, 100 achieved sustained virologic response (SVR), 61 achieved rapid virologic response (RVR), and 21 patients developed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), showing no response to the given treatments. Our results indicate highest expression levels of TRIM mRNA transcripts in the RVR group with the highest increase of 7.5 folds in TRIM25, 6.68 folds in TRIM14, followed by the data from patients of the SVR group. The elevation was also evident in other groups, i.e., SVR and HCC, in different patterns among all the three TRIM genes. In addition to elevation in expression levels, a linear correlation is observed between the TRIM mRNAs and viral loads of HCV. These results showed the potential role of TRIM family genes in HCV restriction.

Hepatitis C virus: Virology, diagnosis and treatment

More than twenty years of study has provided a better understanding of hepatitis C virus (HCV) life cycle, including the general properties of viral RNA and proteins. This effort facilitates the development of sensitive diagnostic tools and effective antiviral treatments. At present, serologic screening test is recommended to perform on individuals in the high risk groups and nucleic acid tests are recommended to confirm the active HCV infections. Quantization and genotyping of HCV RNAs are important to determine the optimal duration of anti-viral therapy and predict the likelihood of response. In the early 2000s, pegylated interferon plus ribavirin became the standard anti-HCV treatment. However, this therapy is not ideal. To 2014, boceprevir, telaprevir, simeprevir, sofosbuvir and Harvoni are approved by Food and Drug Administration for the treat of HCV infections. It is likely that the new all-oral, interferon-free, pan-genotyping anti-HCV therapy will be available within the next few years. Majority of HCV infections will be cured by these anti-viral treatments. However, not all patients are expected to be cured due to viral resistance and the high cost of antiviral treatments. Thus, an efficient prophylactic vaccine will be the next challenge in the fight against HCV infection.

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.

Nitazoxanide for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C infection is a disease of the liver caused by the hepatitis C virus. The estimated number of chronically infected people with hepatitis C virus worldwide is about 150 million people. Every year, another three to four million people acquire the infection. Chronic hepatitis C is a leading cause of liver-related mortality and morbidity. It is estimated that around 5% to 20% of people with the infection will develop liver cirrhosis, which increases the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and liver failure. Until 2011, the combination therapy of pegylated interferon-alpha (peginterferon) and ribavirin was the approved standard treatment for chronic hepatitis C. In 2011, first-generation direct-acting antivirals have been licensed, for use in combination with peginterferon and ribavirin for treating hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection. Nitazoxanide is another antiviral drug with broad antiviral activity and may have potential as an effective alternative, or an addition to standard treatment for the treatment of the hepatitis C virus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nitazoxanide in people with chronic hepatitis C virus infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (last searched April 2013), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 3), MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1948 to April 2013), EMBASE (Ovid SP, 1980 to April 2013), LILACS (1983 to April 2013), and Science Citation Index EXPANDED (ISI Web of Knowledge, 1900 to April 2013), using the search strategies and the expected time spans. We also scanned reference lists of identified studies.We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal for registered trials, either completed or ongoing (April 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials that examined the effects of nitazoxanide versus placebo, no intervention, or any other intervention in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We considered any co-intervention, including standard treatment, if delivered to all intervention groups of the randomised trial concerned.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently. We assessed the risk of systematic errors ('bias') by evaluation of bias risk domains. We used Review Manager 5.2 for the statistical analyses of dichotomous outcome data with risk ratio (RR) and of continuous outcome data with mean difference (MD). For meta-analyses, we used a fixed-effect model and a random-effects model, along with an assessment of heterogeneity. We assessed risk of random errors ('play of chance') using trial sequential analysis. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to present review results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven randomised clinical trials with a total of 538 participants with chronic hepatitis C. Participants were 18 years of age or older, all diagnosed with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 or 4. All of the trials had a high risk of bias. All of the trials compared nitazoxanide with placebo or no intervention, and six out of seven of the trials included different antiviral co-interventions administered equally to all intervention groups. Only one trial, comparing nitazoxanide plus peginterferon and ribavirin versus no intervention plus peginterferon and ribavirin, provided information that there were no deaths due to any cause or due to chronic hepatitis C (100 participants, very low quality evidence). The relative effect of nitazoxanide versus placebo or no intervention on adverse events was uncertain (37 out of 179 (21%) versus 30 out of 152 (20%); RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.71; I(2) = 65%; four trials; very low quality evidence). Nitazoxanide decreased the risk of failure to achieve sustained virological response when compared with placebo or no intervention (159 out of 290 (55%) versus 133 out of 208 (64%); RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; I(2) = 0%; seven trials; low quality evidence) and also the risk of failure to achieve virological end-of-treatment response (125 out of 290 (43%) versus 110 out of 208 (53%); RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.96; I(2) = 46%; seven trials; low quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis supported the meta-analysis result for sustained virological response, but not the meta-analysis for virological end-of-treatment response. Meta-analysis also showed that nitazoxanide did not decrease the number of participants who showed no improvement in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase serum levels when compared with placebo or no intervention (52 out of 97 (54%) versus 47 out of 95 (49%); RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.42; I(2) = 0%; three trials; very low quality evidence). None of the included trials assessed the effects of nitazoxanide on morbidity or on quality of life. Histological changes were only reported on a subset of three participants out of thirteen participants included in a long term-follow-up trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low quality, or no, evidence on nitazoxanide for clinically- or patient-relevant outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, chronic hepatitis C-related mortality, morbidity, and adverse events in participants with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1 or 4 infection. Our results of no improvement in alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase serum levels were also uncertain. No conclusion could be drawn about liver histology because of a lack of data. Our results indicate that nitazoxanide might have an effect on sustained virological response and virological end-of-treatment response. However, both results could be influenced by systematic errors because all the trials included in the review had a high risk of bias. Furthermore, only the beneficial effect on number of participants achieving sustained virological response was supported when we applied trial sequential analysis. The results on virological end-of-treatment response might, therefore, be caused by a random error. We totally lack information on the effects of nitazoxanide in participants with chronic hepatitis C genotypes 2 or 3 infection. More randomised clinical trials with a low risk of bias are needed to assess the effects of nitazoxanide for chronic hepatitis C.

Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Pegylated interferon (peginterferon) plus ribavirin is the recommended treatment for patients with chronic hepatitis C, but systematic assessment of the effect of this treatment compared with interferon plus ribavirin is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the benefits and harms of peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for 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), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index-Expanded, and LILACS. We also searched conference abstracts, journals, and grey literature. The last searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised clinical trials comparing peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin with or without co-intervention(s) (e.g., other antiviral drugs) for chronic hepatitis C. Quasi-randomised and observational studies retrieved through the searches for randomised clinical trials were also considered for reports of harms. Our primary outcomes were liver-related morbidity, all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation, other adverse events, and quality of life. Our secondary outcome was sustained virological response in serum, that is, undetectable hepatitis C virus RNA in serum by sensitive tests six months after the end of treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently used a standardised data collection form. We meta-analysed data with both fixed-effect and random-effects models. For each outcome, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) (for liver-related morbidity or all-cause mortality) or the risk ratio (RR) along 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 risk of random errors (play of chance).For each outcome, we calculated the RR with 95% CI based on intention-to-treat analysis. Effects of interventions on outcomes were assessed according to GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 randomised trials with 5938 participants. All trials had high risk of bias. We considered that the risk of bias did not impact on the quality of evidence for liver-related mortality and adverse event outcomes, but it did for virological response. All trials compared peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for participants with chronic hepatitis C. Three trials administered co-interventions (amantadine hydrochloride 200 mg daily to both intervention groups), and 24 trials were conducted without co-interventions. The effect observed between the two intervention groups regarding liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality (5/907 (0.55%) versus 4/882 (0.45%) was imprecise: OR 1.14 ( 95% CI 0.38 to 3.42; five trials; low quality of evidence), as was the risk of adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 15 trials; low quality of evidence) or regarding adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (332/2692 (12.3%) versus 409/2176 (18.8%); RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.12; 17 trials; low quality of evidence). However, peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin significantly increased the risk of neutropenia (332/2202 (15.1%) versus 117/1653 (7.1%); RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.76 to 2.61; 13 trials), thrombocytopenia (65/1113 (5.8%) versus 23/1082 (2.1%); RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.68 to 4.11; 10 trials), arthralgia (517/1740 (29.7%) versus 282/1194 (23.6%); RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; four trials), injection site reaction (627/1168 (53.7%) versus 186/649 (28.7%); RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.93; four trials), and nausea (606/1784 (34.0%) versus 354/1239 (28.6%); RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.26; four trials). The most frequent adverse event was fatigue, which occurred in 57% of participants (2024/3608). No significant difference was noted between peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin in terms of fatigue (1177/2062 (57.1%) versus 847/1546 (54.8%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.07; 12 trials). No significant differences were reported between the two treatment groups regarding anaemia, headache, rigours, myalgia, pyrexia, weight loss, asthenia, depression, insomnia, irritability, alopecia, pruritus, skin rash, thyroid malfunction, decreased appetite, or diarrhoea. We were unable to identify any data on quality of life. Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seemed to significantly increase the number of participants achieving sustained virological response (1673/3300 participants (50.7%) versus 1081/2804 patients (36.7%); RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.56; I2 = 64%; 27 trials; very low quality of evidence). However, the risk of bias in the 13/27 (48.1%) trials reporting on this outcome was high and was considered only 'lower' in the remainder. Because the conventional meta-analysis did not reach its required information size (n = 14,486 participants), we used trial sequential analysis to control for risks of random errors. Again, in this analysis, the estimated effect was statistically significant in favour of peginterferon. Subgroup analyses according to risk of bias, viral genotype, baseline viral load, past treatment history, and type of intervention yielded similarly significant results favouring peginterferon over interferon on the outcome of sustained virological response.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin seems to significantly increase the proportion of patients with sustained virological response, as well as the risk of certain adverse events. However, we have insufficient evidence to recommend or reject peginterferon plus ribavirin for liver-related morbidity plus all-cause mortality compared with interferon plus ribavirin. The clinical consequences of achieved sustained virological response are unknown, as sustained virological response is still an unvalidated surrogate outcome. We found no evidence of the potential benefits on quality of life in patients with achieved sustained virological response. Further high-quality research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of patient-relevant outcomes and is likely to change our estimates.There is very low quality evidence that peginterferon plus ribavirin increases the proportion of patients with sustained virological response in comparison with interferon plus ribavirin. There is evidence that it also increases the risk of certain adverse events.

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.

Antiviral prophylaxis for the prevention of chronic hepatitis C virus in patients undergoing liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether prophylactic antiviral therapy is indicated to improve patient and graft survival in patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic decompensated hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the benefits and harms of different prophylactic antiviral therapies for patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2013), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded to February 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised clinical trials irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status and comparing various prophylactic antiviral therapies (alone or in combination) in the prophylactic treatment of patients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors collected the data independently. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed-effect and the random-effects models based on available case analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 501 liver transplant recipients undergoing liver transplantation for chronic HCV infection were randomised in 12 trials to various experimental interventions and control interventions. The proportion of genotype I varied between 49% and 100% in the seven trials that reported the genotype. Only one or two trials were included under each comparison. All the trials were of high risk of bias. Ten trials including 441 liver transplant recipients provided data for this review.There were no significant differences in the 90-day mortality (1 trial; 81 participants; 5/35 (adjusted proportion: 14.2%) in interferon group versus 5/46 (10.9%) in control group; RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.41 to 4.19); mortality at maximal follow-up (2 trials; 105 participants; 7/47 (adjusted proportion: 14.8%) in interferon group versus 10/58 (17.2%) in control group; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.36 to 2.08); long-term mortality (1 trial; 81 participants; HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.56); mortality at maximal follow-up (1 trial; 54 participants; 1/26 (3.9%) in pegylated interferon group versus 2/28 (7.1%) in control group; RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.59); 90-day mortality (1 trial; 115 participants; 5/55 (9.1%) in pegylated interferon plus ribavirin group versus 3/60 (5.0%) in control group; RR 1.82; 95% 0.46 to 7.25); 90-day mortality (3 trials; 53 participants; 3/37 (adjusted proportion: 4.3%) in HCV antibody group versus 1/16 (6.3%) in placebo group; RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.15 to 3.11); or 90-day mortality (2 trials; 31 participants; 2/14 (adjusted proportion: 16.2%) in HCV antibody high-dose group versus 1/17 (5.9%) in HCV antibody low-dose group; RR 2.75; 95% CI; 0.30 to 25.35). There were no significant differences in the retransplantation at maximal follow-up (2 trials; 105 participants; 2/47 (adjusted proportion: 4.0%) in interferon group versus 2/58 (3.4%) in control group; RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.22 to 6.2); 90-day retransplantation (1 trial; 18 participants; 1/12 (8.3%) in HCV antibody group versus 0/6 (0%) in control group; RR 1.71; 95% CI 0.09 to 32.93); or 90-day retransplantation (1 trial; 12 participants; 1/6 (17.7%) in HCV antibody high-dose group versus 0/6 (0%) in HCV antibody low-dose group; RR 3.00; 95% CI 0.15 to 61.74). There were no significant differences in serious adverse events, graft rejection, worsening of fibrosis, or HCV recurrence between intervention and control groups in any of the comparisons that reported these outcomes. None of the trials reported quality of life, liver decompensation, intensive therapy unit stay, or hospital stay. Life-threatening adverse events were not reported in either group in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently no evidence to recommend prophylactic antiviral treatment to prevent recurrence of HCV infection either in primary liver transplantation or retransplantation. Further randomised clinical trials with adequate trial methodology and adequate duration of follow-up are necessary.