Peginterferon plus ribavirin versus interferon plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C

Outcome of hepatitis C patients in a community with predominant genotype 3 with standard-of-care treatment before and after advent of direct-acting antivirals: A retrospective-cum-prospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma are mainly caused by hepatitis C infection. It is a worldwide predominant pathogen and is one of the main causes of healthcare problem in Asia. In the last few decades, there has been a considerable change in the treatment regimen for hepatitis C virus. The objective of this research was to relate the treatment response with sustained viral response in various therapies which have been the standard of care from time to time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This hospital-based, retrospective-cum-prospective research span over a period of 2 years; we enrolled hepatitis C patients who attended the Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Government Medical College, Srinagar, since June 2015 till May 2017. Subsequently, the database was prepared, containing all the relevant information about these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

(i) In retrospective group: The overall efficacy (sustained viral response at 24 weeks [SVR-24]) of pegylated interferon a2a and ribavirin regimen was 90.96%. (ii) In prospective group: The efficacy (SVR) of different regimens was found to be as: sofosbuvir + ribavirin + daclatasvir (SVR-24, 83.33%); sofosbuvir + ribavirin (SVR-12, 94.57%); and sofosbuvir + daclatasvir (SVR-12, 98.00%).

Reinforced reasoning in medicine

Some philosophers have argued that evidence of underlying mechanisms does not provide evidence for the effectiveness of a medical intervention. One such argument appeals to the unreliability of mechanistic reasoning. However, mechanistic reasoning is not the only way that evidence of mechanisms might provide evidence of effectiveness. A more reliable type of reasoning may be distinguished by appealing to recent work on evidential pluralism in the epistemology of medicine. A case study from virology provides an example of this so-called reinforced reasoning in medicine. It is argued that in this case study, the available evidence of underlying mechanisms did in fact play a role in providing evidence in favour of a medical intervention. This paper therefore adds a novel and recent case study to the literature in support of evidential pluralism in medicine.

Prevalence of Hepatitis C virus genotypes in nine selected European countries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a global health problem especially for its increasing level of mortality. Detailed knowledge of HCV genotypes prevalence has clinical relevance since the efficacy of therapies is impacted by genotypes and subtypes distribution. Moreover, HCV exhibits a great genetic variability regionally. To date, there are no published studies assessing HCV genotypes distribution in specific countries of the Mediterranean basin. The aim of this study was to review data published from 2000 to 2017 with the purpose to estimate genotypes distribution of HCV infection in nine European countries all located in the Mediterranean basin.

METHODS

A systematic research of peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases selected if containing data regarding distribution of HCV genotypes in nine selected European countries (Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Spain) was performed.

RESULTS

Genotype 1 is the most common (61.0%), ranging from 80.0% in Croatia to 46.0% in Greece, followed by genotype 3 (20.0%), varying from 38.0% in Slovenia to 7.0% and 8.0%, respectively, in Italy and in Albania and by genotype 4 (10.0%) that shows an increase of 1.1% with respect to data obtained till 2014 probably due to the increasing migrants arrivals to Southern Europe. G2, the fourth most frequent genotype (8.5%), particularly common in Italy (27.0%) and Albania (18.0%) might be probably introduced in Southern Italy as a result of Albanian campaign during Second World War and more and more increased by the migration flows from Albania to Italy in the 90s.

CONCLUSION

Epidemiology of HCV infection shows a high variability across the European countries that border the Mediterranean Sea. HCV genotyping is a relevant tool to monitor the dynamic process influenced by both evolving transmission trends and new migration flows on HCV scenario.

Prevalence of Hepatitis C virus genotypes in nine selected European countries: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a global health problem especially for its increasing level of mortality. Detailed knowledge of HCV genotypes prevalence has clinical relevance since the efficacy of therapies is impacted by genotypes and subtypes distribution. Moreover, HCV exhibits a great genetic variability regionally. To date, there are no published studies assessing HCV genotypes distribution in specific countries of the Mediterranean basin. The aim of this study was to review data published from 2000 to 2017 with the purpose to estimate genotypes distribution of HCV infection in nine European countries all located in the Mediterranean basin.

METHODS

A systematic research of peer-reviewed journals indexed in PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE databases selected if containing data regarding distribution of HCV genotypes in nine selected European countries (Albania, Bosnia, Croatia, France, Greece, Italy, Montenegro, Slovenia, and Spain) was performed.

RESULTS

Genotype 1 is the most common (61.0%), ranging from 80.0% in Croatia to 46.0% in Greece, followed by genotype 3 (20.0%), varying from 38.0% in Slovenia to 7.0% and 8.0%, respectively, in Italy and in Albania and by genotype 4 (10.0%) that shows an increase of 1.1% with respect to data obtained till 2014 probably due to the increasing migrants arrivals to Southern Europe. G2, the fourth most frequent genotype (8.5%), particularly common in Italy (27.0%) and Albania (18.0%) might be probably introduced in Southern Italy as a result of Albanian campaign during Second World War and more and more increased by the migration flows from Albania to Italy in the 90s.

CONCLUSION

Epidemiology of HCV infection shows a high variability across the European countries that border the Mediterranean Sea. HCV genotyping is a relevant tool to monitor the dynamic process influenced by both evolving transmission trends and new migration flows on HCV scenario.

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.

Evidence of bias in randomized clinical trials of hepatitis C interferon therapies

INTRODUCTION

Bias may occur in randomized clinical trials in favor of the new experimental treatment because of unblinded assessment of subjective endpoints or wish bias. Using results from published trials, we analyzed and compared the treatment effect of hepatitis C antiviral interferon therapies experimental or control.

METHODS

Meta-regression of trials enrolling naïve hepatitis C virus patients that underwent four therapies including interferon alone or plus ribavirin during past years. The outcome measure was the sustained response evaluated by transaminases and/or hepatitis C virus-RNA serum load. Data on the outcome across therapies were collected according to the assigned arm (experimental or control) and to other trial and patient-level characteristics.

RESULTS

The overall difference in efficacy between the same treatment labeled experimental or control had a mean of +11.9% (p < 0.0001). The unadjusted difference favored the experimental therapies of group IFN-1 (+6%) and group IFN-3 (+10%), while there was no difference for group IFN-2 because of success rates from large multinational trials. In a meta-regression model with trial-specific random effects including several trial and patient-level variables, treatment and arm type remained significant (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0009 respectively) in addition to drug-schedule-related variables.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates the same treatment is more effective when labeled "experimental" compared to when labeled "control" in a setting of trials using an objective endpoint and even after adjusting for patient and study-level characteristics. We discuss several factors related to design and conduct of hepatitis C trials as potential explanations of the bias toward the experimental treatment.

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.

AS, Liz AL, Lisset GF, Sacha LDV, Elena FB. Clinical Evaluation of Terap C Vaccine in Combined Treatment with Interferon and Ribavirin in Patients with Hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

An estimated 170 million individuals worldwide are infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV). Although treatment options using a combination of pegylated interferon and ribavirin (P-IFN/RBV) are available, sustained clearance of the virus is only achieved in approximately 40% of individuals infected with HCV genotype 1. Recent advances in the treatment of HCV using directly acting antiviral agents have been achieved; however, treatment can be very expensive and is associated with substantial side effects. The development of a new treatment modality is needed. One possible modality could be specific immunotherapy. Terap C is a therapeutic vaccine candidate composed of pIDKE2, a plasmid expressing HCV structural antigens, with a recombinant HCV core protein, Co.120.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of concomitant therapy with the candidate vaccine, Terap C, IFN α-2b and ribavirin in untreated individuals with HCV genotype 1 infection.

METHODS

This was a Phase II randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of Terap C concomitant with IFN α-2b/RBV in 92 treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. The study was conducted at the Gastroenterology Institute in Havana, Cuba. Patients were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups. The control group (Group 1) received IFN α-2b/RBV and placebo for 48 weeks. Groups 2 and 3 were administered Terap C 6 and 9 times, respectively, in addition to standard IFN α-2b/RBV treatment. In groups 4 and 5, Terap C was introduced 12 weeks after the initiation of IFN α-2b/RBV and administered 6 and 9 times, respectively, concomitant with IFN α-2b/RBV.

RESULTS

All patients showed some adverse events. Out of 3615 adverse events, only 18.8% were considered to be probably associated with administration of Terap C. Most events (47.4%) were considered to be improbably associated with of administration Terap C. Only 33.8% were considered possibly temporarily associated with Terap C, and can be explained by the use of conventional IFN α-2b + RBV or by HCV itself. The most common adverse events (≥65%) observed were pain at the injection site, headache, asthenia, psychiatric disturbances, fever, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Regarding sustained virological response, a 20% superiority was observed in the patients who received concomitant Terap C treatments from the beginning of the study compared with those who started after Week 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination with Terap C in patients with chronic HCV infection was safe and well tolerated. Clinical trial protocol code: IG/VHI/HC/0701; Public Register Code: RPCEC00000074.

Association of TNF-α and CCL5 with response to interferon-based therapy in patients with HCV 1 genotype

Aim of the study

To evaluate the role of potential genetic predictors –308G/A TNF-α and –403G/A CCL5 in treatment for HCV 1 genotype.

Material and methods

Treatment results of 130 patients with chronic hepatitis C 1 genotype according to different genotypes of IL28B, CCL5, and TNF-α were analysed using multiple logistic regression.

Results

IL28B genotypes CC/CT/TT were found in 27 (20.8%), 74 (56.9%), and 29 (22.3%) patients. Genotypes GG/GA/AA of –308G/A TNF-α were revealed in 98 (75.4%), 30 (23.1%), and 2 (1.5%) patients. Genotypes GG/GA/AA of –403G/A CCL5 were revealed in 86 (66.2%), 39 (30%), and 5 (3.8%) patients, respectively. The previously known effect of IL28B was observed. IL28B TT genotype decreased end of treatment response (EOTR) rates by a factor of 29.0 (95% CI: 6.4-183). The combination of CCL5 GG and IL28B CT genotypes increased the risk of failure to achieve EOTR by a factor of 28.5 (95% CI: 7.2-160). Genotypes GA and AA of TNF-α (–308) G/A SNP increased the risk of relapse in patients who achieved EOTR (OR = 9.4; 95% CI: 2.4-48).

Conclusions

Practitioners may benefit from using these predictors when considering indications for the antiviral therapy and deciding on the treatment regimen.

Hepatitis C treatment outcomes using interferon- and ribavirin-based therapy in Kigali, Rwanda

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment data in sub-Saharan Africa are limited. This study was to determine HCV sustained virologic response(SVR) at 24 weeks in patients undergoing HCV therapy in Kigali, Rwanda.

METHODS

The paper presents data for all patients treated for HCV with ribavirin/interferon at King Faisal Hospital in Kigali, Rwanda, from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2014.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

There were 69 evaluable patients. HCV genotype 4(61%, 42/69) predominated. 24-week SVR was 70%(26/37) by per-protocol and 32%(26/69) by intention-to-treat analysis. HCV treatment in Rwanda is feasible. SVR with interferon/ribavirin was acceptable in the per-protocol analysis. Transition to newer direct acting antivirals is urgently needed in Rwanda and sub-Saharan Africa more generally to improve treatment outcomes.

Evaluation of Dual Therapy in Real Life Setting in Treatment-Naïve Turkish Patients with HCV Infection: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Before the introduction of direct-acting antivirals in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C patients, the combination of peginterferon alpha and ribavirin was the standard therapy. Observational studies that investigated sustained virological response (SVR) rates by these drugs yielded different outcomes.

AIMS

The goal of the study was to demonstrate real life data concerning SVR rate achieved by peginterferon alpha plus ribavirin in patients who were treatment-naïve.

STUDY DESIGN

A multicenter, retrospective observational study.

METHODS

The study was conducted retrospectively on 1214 treatment naïve-patients, being treated with peginterferon alpha-2a or 2b plus ribavirin in respect of the current guidelines between 2005 and 2013. The patients' data were collected from 22 centers via a standard form, which has been prepared for this study. The data included demographic and clinical characteristics (gender, age, body weight, initial Hepatitis C virus RNA (HCV RNA) level, disease staging) as well as course of treatment (duration of treatment, outcomes, discontinuations and adverse events). Renal insufficiency, decompensated liver disease, history of transplantation, immunosuppressive therapy or autoimmune liver disease were exclusion criteria for the study. Treatment efficacy was assessed according to the patient's demographic characteristics, baseline viral load, genotype, and fibrosis scores.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 50.74 (±0.64) years. Most of them were infected with genotype 1 (91.8%). SVR was achieved in 761 (62.7%) patients. SVR rate was 59.1% in genotype 1, 89.4% in genotype 2, 93.8% in genotype 3, and 33.3% in genotype 4 patients. Patients with lower viral load yielded higher SVR (65.8% vs. 58.4%, p=0.09). SVR rates according to histologic severity were found to be 69.3%, 66.3%, 59.9%, 47.3%, and 45.5% in patients with fibrosis stage 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. The predictors of SVR were male gender, genotype 2/3, age less than 45 years, low fibrosis stage, low baseline viral load and presence of early virological response. SVR rates to each peginterferon were found to be similar in genotype 1/4 although SVR rates were found to be higher for peginterferon alpha-2b in patients with genotype 2/3. The number of patients who failed to complete treatment due to adverse effects was 33 (2.7%). The number of patients failed to complete treatment due to adverse effects was 33 (2.7%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed that the rate of SVR to dual therapy was higher in treatment-naïve Turkish patients than that reported in randomized controlled trials. Also peginterferon alpha-2a and alpha-2b were found to be similar in terms of SVR in genotype 1 patients.

Polymerization of Ethylene Oxide, Propylene Oxide, and Other Alkylene Oxides: Synthesis, Novel Polymer Architectures, and Bioconjugation

The review summarizes current trends and developments in the polymerization of alkylene oxides in the last two decades since 1995, with a particular focus on the most important epoxide monomers ethylene oxide (EO), propylene oxide (PO), and butylene oxide (BO). Classical synthetic pathways, i.e., anionic polymerization, coordination polymerization, and cationic polymerization of epoxides (oxiranes), are briefly reviewed. The main focus of the review lies on more recent and in some cases metal-free methods for epoxide polymerization, i.e., the activated monomer strategy, the use of organocatalysts, such as N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs) and N-heterocyclic olefins (NHOs) as well as phosphazene bases. In addition, the commercially relevant double-metal cyanide (DMC) catalyst systems are discussed. Besides the synthetic progress, new types of multifunctional linear PEG (mf-PEG) and PPO structures accessible by copolymerization of EO or PO with functional epoxide comonomers are presented as well as complex branched, hyperbranched, and dendrimer like polyethers. Amphiphilic block copolymers based on PEO and PPO (Poloxamers and Pluronics) and advances in the area of PEGylation as the most important bioconjugation strategy are also summarized. With the ever growing toolbox for epoxide polymerization, a "polyether universe" may be envisaged that in its structural diversity parallels the immense variety of structural options available for polymers based on vinyl monomers with a purely carbon-based backbone.

Chronic fatigue syndrome and circulating cytokines: A systematic review

There has been much interest in the role of the immune system in the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), as CFS may develop following an infection and cytokines are known to induce acute sickness behaviour, with similar symptoms to CFS. Using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, a search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and PsycINFO, for CFS related-terms in combination with cytokine-related terms. Cases had to meet established criteria for CFS and be compared with healthy controls. Papers retrieved were assessed for both inclusionary criteria and quality. 38 papers met the inclusionary criteria. The quality of the studies varied. 77 serum or plasma cytokines were measured without immune stimulation. Cases of CFS had significantly elevated concentrations of transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β) in five out of eight (63%) studies. No other cytokines were present in abnormal concentrations in the majority of studies, although insufficient data were available for some cytokines. Following physical exercise there were no differences in circulating cytokine levels between cases and controls and exercise made no difference to already elevated TGF-β concentrations. The finding of elevated TGF-β concentration, at biologically relevant levels, needs further exploration, but circulating cytokines do not seem to explain the core characteristic of post-exertional fatigue.

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.

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.

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.