Seyed-Moayed Alavian1, Bita Behnava, Seyed Vahid Tabatabaei. 1. Baqiyatallah Research Center for Gastroenterology and Liver Disease, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Ground floor of Baqiyatallah Hospital, Mollasadra Ave., Vanak Sq., P.O. Box 14155-3651, Tehran, Iran. editor@hepmon.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: About one-half of patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 and one-third with genotype 2/3 have treatment failure with peginterferon alpha and ribavirin. Consensus interferon (CIFN) is an option for retreatment of these patients. OBJECTIVE: To summarize comparative safety and efficacy of different regimens of CIFN for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C infection. DATA SOURCE: Medline, Scopus, ISI, and Cochran Central Register of Clinical Trials were used. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in the study. PARTICIPANTS: HIV and HBV seronegative patients with positive HCV-RNA during the 6 months before the start of the study were eligible for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: Different regimens of CIFN were studied. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies were appraised based on methods of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding. The random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird was employed to run the meta-analysis. The end-point was sustained virological response (SVR). RESULTS: Data of 10 RCTs including 1,600 subjects were extracted. High daily induction dose regimen of CIFN did not yield a higher rate of SVR than low daily induction dose treatment regimen, RR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.58-1.17). A dose of 9 μg thrice weekly (tiw) was associated with a significantly higher rate of SVR compared with 3 μg [RR = 3.14 (95% CI 1.68-5.58)][Symbol: see text]. Withdrawal rate was similar [RR = 1.28 (95% CI 0.65-2.50)] but dose modification was higher in 9 μg [RR = 3.22 (95% CI 1.08-9.60)]. A dose of 18/15 μg tiw was not more effective than 9 μg over a similar treatment duration [RR = 1.02 (95% CI 0. 87-1.19)]. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include inadequate reporting of methodological information and side effects, lack of publication bias assessment due to the small number of studies in each analysis. CONCLUSIONS: High dose daily induction therapy with CIFN is not superior to low dose therapy in terms of SVR. It seems that 9 μg tiw is the optimal treatment dose of CIFN for treatment of HCV infection. Optimal duration and safety profile of CIFN therapy have yet been elucidated.
BACKGROUND: About one-half of patients with hepatitis C genotype 1 and one-third with genotype 2/3 have treatment failure with peginterferon alpha and ribavirin. Consensus interferon (CIFN) is an option for retreatment of these patients. OBJECTIVE: To summarize comparative safety and efficacy of different regimens of CIFN for the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C infection. DATA SOURCE: Medline, Scopus, ISI, and Cochran Central Register of Clinical Trials were used. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion in the study. PARTICIPANTS: HIV and HBV seronegative patients with positive HCV-RNA during the 6 months before the start of the study were eligible for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: Different regimens of CIFN were studied. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies were appraised based on methods of random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding. The random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird was employed to run the meta-analysis. The end-point was sustained virological response (SVR). RESULTS: Data of 10 RCTs including 1,600 subjects were extracted. High daily induction dose regimen of CIFN did not yield a higher rate of SVR than low daily induction dose treatment regimen, RR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.58-1.17). A dose of 9 μg thrice weekly (tiw) was associated with a significantly higher rate of SVR compared with 3 μg [RR = 3.14 (95% CI 1.68-5.58)][Symbol: see text]. Withdrawal rate was similar [RR = 1.28 (95% CI 0.65-2.50)] but dose modification was higher in 9 μg [RR = 3.22 (95% CI 1.08-9.60)]. A dose of 18/15 μg tiw was not more effective than 9 μg over a similar treatment duration [RR = 1.02 (95% CI 0. 87-1.19)]. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include inadequate reporting of methodological information and side effects, lack of publication bias assessment due to the small number of studies in each analysis. CONCLUSIONS: High dose daily induction therapy with CIFN is not superior to low dose therapy in terms of SVR. It seems that 9 μg tiw is the optimal treatment dose of CIFN for treatment of HCV infection. Optimal duration and safety profile of CIFN therapy have yet been elucidated.
Authors: Paul J Gaglio; Maribel Rodriguez-Torres; Robert Herring; Bhupinder Anand; Terry Box; Mordechai Rabinovitz; Robert S Brown Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.062
Authors: Peter Ferenci; Elisabeth Formann; Hermann Laferl; Michael Gschwantler; Franz Hackl; Harald Brunner; Rainer Hubmann; Christian Datz; Rudolf Stauber; Petra Steindl-Munda; Harald H Kessler; Anton Klingler; Alfred Gangl Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2005-11-07 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Giuseppe Alaimo; Vito Di Marco; Donatella Ferraro; Rosa Di Stefano; Salvatore Porrovecchio; Francesca D'Angelo; Vincenza Calvaruso; Antonio Craxì; Piero Luigi Almasio Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: T Poynard; P Marcellin; S S Lee; C Niederau; G S Minuk; G Ideo; V Bain; J Heathcote; S Zeuzem; C Trepo; J Albrecht Journal: Lancet Date: 1998-10-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephanos J Hadziyannis; Hoel Sette; Timothy R Morgan; Vijayan Balan; Moises Diago; Patrick Marcellin; Giuliano Ramadori; Henry Bodenheimer; David Bernstein; Mario Rizzetto; Stefan Zeuzem; Paul J Pockros; Amy Lin; Andrew M Ackrill Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-03-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Erick H Turner; Annette M Matthews; Eftihia Linardatos; Robert A Tell; Robert Rosenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J G McHutchison; S C Gordon; E R Schiff; M L Shiffman; W M Lee; V K Rustgi; Z D Goodman; M H Ling; S Cort; J K Albrecht Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-11-19 Impact factor: 91.245