Clinical trial: a randomized trial of pegylated-interferon-alpha-2a plus ribavirin with or without amantadine in treatment-naïve or relapsing chronic hepatitis C patients

A meta-analysis platform methodology for determining the comparative effectiveness of antihepatitis C virus regimens

AIM

Many hepatitis C virus regimens are unlikely to be compared head to head. In more difficult to treat populations where there is no standard of care, trials are single arm. We describe a flexible meta-analysis platform in this setting.

METHODS

Our meta-analysis is literature based. We illustrate our methodology and show how inference can be extended to single-arm trials.

RESULTS

As an example, in the single arm setting, a regimen with response rates of 84, 72 and 54% in genotype 1a across treatment naive, previous partial responders and previous null responders, respectively, would have 95% probability of superiority to IFN-α + RBV + TPV.

CONCLUSION

This is a rigorous approach to comparative effectiveness that accounts for varying patient populations and plans for the incorporation of emerging treatments.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

BACKGROUND

Influenza is an acute respiratory illness caused by influenza A and B viruses. Complications may occur, especially among children and the elderly.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of amantadine and rimantadine in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE (1966 to September week 4, 2014) and EMBASE (1980 to October 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing amantadine and/or rimantadine with no intervention, placebo, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of amantadine or rimantadine in children and the elderly with influenza A.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results. We extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 12 studies (2494 participants: 1586 children and 908 elderly) comparing amantadine and rimantadine with placebo, paracetamol (one trial: 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials: 545 elderly) to treat influenza A.Amantadine was effective in preventing influenza A in children (773 participants, risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza A in the control group was 10 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). Nevertheless, the quality of the evidence was low and the safety of the drug was not well established.For treatment, rimantadine was beneficial in abating fever on day three of treatment in children: one selected study with low risk of bias, moderate evidence quality and 69 participants (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 14 per 100 (95% CI 5 to 34).Rimantadine did not show any prophylactic effect in the elderly. The quality of evidence was very low: 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41). The assumed risk was 17 per 100. The corresponding risk in the rimantadine group was 7 per 100 (95% CI 2 to 23).There was no evidence of adverse effects caused by treatment with amantadine or rimantadine.We found no studies assessing amantadine in the elderly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence combined with a lack of knowledge about the safety of amantadine and the limited benefits of rimantadine, do not indicate that amantadine and rimantadine compared to control (placebo or paracetamol) could be useful in preventing, treating and shortening the duration of influenza A in children and the elderly.

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.

Protective role of amantadine in mitochondrial dysfunction and oxidative stress mediated by hepatitis C virus protein expression

Amantadine is an antiviral and antiparkinsonian drug that has been evaluated in combination therapies against hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Controversial results have been reported concerning its efficacy, and its mechanism of action remains unclear. Data obtained in vitro suggested a role of amantadine in inhibiting HCV p7-mediated cation conductance. In keeping with the fact that mitochondria are responsible to ionic fluxes and that HCV infection impairs mitochondrial function, we investigated a potential role of amantadine in modulating mitochondrial function. Using a well-characterized inducible cell line expressing the full-length HCV polyprotein, we found that amantadine not only prevented but also rescued HCV protein-mediated mitochondrial dysfunction. Specifically, amantadine corrected (i) overload of mitochondrial Ca²⁺; (ii) inhibition of respiratory chain activity and oxidative phosphorylation; (iii) reduction of membrane potential; and (iv) overproduction of reactive oxygen species. The effects of amantadine were observed within 15 min following drug administration and confirmed in Huh-7.5 cells transfected with an infectious HCV genome. These effects were also observed in cells expressing subgenomic HCV constructs, indicating that they are not mediated or only in part mediated by p7. Single organelle analyzes carried out on isolated mouse liver mitochondria demonstrated that amantadine induces hyperpolarization of the membrane potential. Moreover, amantadine treatment increased the calcium threshold required to trigger mitochondrial permeability transition opening. In conclusion, these results support a role of amantadine in preserving cellular bioenergetics and redox homeostasis in HCV-infected cells and unveil an effect of the drug which might be exploited for a broader therapeutic utilization.

Meta-analysis: mortality and serious adverse events of peginterferon plus ribavirin therapy for chronic hepatitis C

BACKGROUND

Pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) plus ribavirin (RBV) therapy is the current standard of care for patients with chronic hepatitis C. Determining precisely the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) and mortality from a single study is rather difficult because of the infrequency of such events. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the rates of SAEs and the mortality of PEG-IFN/RBV therapy in a pooled large sample, and to assess the relationship between SAEs and mortality rates and therapeutic characteristics.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of PEG-IFN/RBV therapy. We calculated the crude mortality and SAE rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eighty studies with 153 treatment arms that included 27569 patients were enrolled (14401 patients treated with Peg-IFN alpha-2a/RBV and 13168 with Peg-IFN alpha-2b/RBV). All-cause and treatment-related deaths were observed in 50 (0.18%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.24%) and sixteen (0.058%; 95% CI 0.033-0.094%) patients, respectively. The crude SAE rate was 7.08% (95% CI 6.75-7.41%). Subgroup analysis revealed higher SAE rates in patients receiving PEG-IFN alpha-2a than in those with PEG-IFN alpha-2b (7.45 vs. 6.74%), and higher SAE rates with higher doses than with the lower doses in PEG-IFN-2a and 2b (11.94 vs. 6.99%, 7.10 vs. 5.05%, respectively), and with extended duration (> 48 weeks) than with standard duration (48 weeks) (15.5 vs. 6.67%) in PEG-IFN alpha-2a.

CONCLUSION

The mortality rate during PEG-IFN/RBV therapy was acceptably low, but the rate of SAEs was not negligible in a treatment for a benign disease, and the rate was affected by treatment regimens.

Resource use and cost of hepatitis C-related care

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis because of the hepatitis C virus (CHC) is a major health problem that can lead to decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and eventually death, all of which are associated with significant healthcare costs.

AIM

To update the cost of care of CHC according to the different severity stages of the disease in a west European country (Belgium).

METHODS

Medical records of 157 patients, who were referred to the medical specialist at different stages of disease, were reviewed to identify the medical costs over a follow-up period of 3 years or 2 years in the case of liver transplantation (LT). Six disease stages were defined on the basis of histology (Metavir classification) and/or clinical data.

RESULTS

In comparison with mild disease, the cost increased 1.6 times in the case of decompensated cirrhosis, 1.9 times in the case of hepatocellular carcinoma, and 3.4 in the case of LT. The costs for medication, hospitalization, and ambulatory care were, respectively, on the one hand, 81, 8, and 11% for mild disease and, on the other, 18, 79, and 3% for LT. In the case of a sustained viral response, the cost of follow-up within 3 years decreased by 45% for patients with mild and moderate disease.

CONCLUSION

Antiviral treatment is the most important factor governing cost in mild and moderate disease, but once complications of CHC occur, hospitalization costs far exceed the cost of antiviral therapy. Already during the first 3 years of follow-up, sustained viral response decreased the cost significantly. Treatment of patients with CHC in an early stage has the potential to be cost-effective.

Differences in clinical outcomes among hepatitis C genotype 1-infected patients treated with peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin: a meta-analysis

Background

With the development of new direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for hepatitis C, the backbone peginterferon alpha used may be of importance in maximizing treatment outcomes. To this end, the rates of sustained virologic response (SVR), relapse, and treatment discontinuation among hepatitis C genotype 1-infected patients given peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin or peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin were determined using a meta-analysis.

Methods

Randomized trials examining peginterferon alpha-2a or peginterferon alpha-2b co-administered with ribavirin for 48 weeks were included. Data were extracted on SVR, relapse, and treatment discontinuations for treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients. Pooled proportions using fixed and random effects meta-analysis were calculated.

Results

Twenty-six trials provided data on patients treated with peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin, and 19 trials provided data on patients treated with peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin. Five trials were direct head-to-head evaluations. In the subset of trials that included head-to-head evaluations, no significant differences were observed between the two treatments for treatment-naïve (relative risk [RR]: 1.07, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.97–1.18) and treatment-experienced patients (RR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.58–2.77). Using only active trial arms, a larger proportion of the treatment- naïve patients who were provided peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin achieved a SVR (47%), which is greater than that of treatment-naïve patients who were provided peginterferon alpha- 2b plus ribavirin (40% SVR achievement); however, a larger proportion of treatment- experienced patients who were provided peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin achieved a SVR (16%) when compared with treatment-experienced patients given peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin (12% SVR achievement). A larger proportion of relapses occurred among both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients given peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin, when compared with treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients taking peginterferon alpha-2b plus ribavirin. The proportion of patients discontinuing treatment was greater among treatment-naïve patients taking peginterferon alpha-2a plus ribavirin, but smaller among treatment-experienced patients.

Conclusion

There are small differences in treatment outcomes for different types of peginterferon- alpha. Patient status and complexity of administration may differentiate clinical outcomes.

Amantadine and rimantadine for influenza A in children and the elderly

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness and safety of amantadine (AMT) and rimantadine (RMT) for preventing and treating influenza A in adults has been systematically reviewed. However, little is known about these treatments in children and the elderly.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of AMT and RMT in preventing and treating influenza A in children and the elderly.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1966 to June week 3, 2011) and EMBASE (1980 to June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing AMT and/or RMT with placebo, control, other antivirals or different doses or schedules of AMT or RMT, or both, or no intervention, in children and the elderly.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and assessed methodological quality. We resolved disagreements by consensus. In all comparisons except for one, we separately analysed the trials in children and the elderly using Review Manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 12 studies involving 2494 participants (1586 children and adolescents and 908 elderly) compared AMT and RMT with placebo, paracetamol (one trial; 69 children) or zanamivir (two trials; 545 seniors). All studies were RCTs but most were still susceptible to bias. Two trials in the elderly had a high risk of bias because of incomplete outcome data. In one of those trials there was also a lack of outcome assessment blinding. Risk of bias was unclear in 10 studies due to unclear random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Only two trials in children were considered to have a low risk of bias.AMT was effective in preventing influenza A in children. A total of 773 participants were included in this outcome (risk ratio (RR) 0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.30). The assumed risk of influenza in the control group was 10 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was one per 100 (95% CI 0 to 3). The quality of the evidence was considered low. For treatment purposes, RMT was beneficial for abating fever on day three of treatment. For this purpose one study was selected with low risk of bias and included 69 children (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.91). The assumed risk was 38 per 100 and the corresponding risk in the RMT group was 14 per 100, 95% CI 5 to 34. The quality of the evidence was moderate.RMT did not show a prophylactic effect against influenza in the elderly, but the quality of evidence was considered very low. There were 103 participants (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.14 to 1.41, for an assumed risk of 17 per 100 and a corresponding risk in the RMT group of 7 per 100, 95% CI 2 to 23). We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.There was no evidence of adverse effects of AMT and RMT in children or an adverse effect of RMT in the elderly. We did not identify any AMT trials in the elderly that met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

AMT is effective in preventing influenza A in children but the NNTB is high (NNTB: 12 (95% CI 9 to 17). RMT probably helps the abatement of fever on day three of treatment, but the quality of the evidence is poor. Due to the small number of available studies, we could not reach a definitive conclusion on the safety of AMT or the effectiveness of RMT in preventing influenza in children and the elderly.

Efficacy of interferon-based antiviral therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C infected with genotype 5: a meta-analysis of two large prospective clinical trials

The characteristics and response rate to pegylated interferon and ribavirin (PEG-INF + RBV) of patients with chronic hepatitis C infected with genotype 5 are poorly documented. A meta-analysis of two large phase III/IV prospective randomized clinical trials conducted in Belgium in patients with chronic hepatitis C (n = 1,073 patients) was performed in order to compare the response to antiviral therapy of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 5 with that of other HCV genotypes. A subset of HCV-1 infected patients selected from within the study database were selected to match the HCV-5 sample for known prognostic factors. In Belgium HCV-5 is responsible for a significant minority of cases of chronic hepatitis C CHC (4.5%) and is characterized by a more advanced age (58.4 years), a high frequency of cirrhosis (27.7%), a specific mode of HCV acquisition, and a particular geographic origin (66.7% of patients from West Flanders). The primary comparative analysis showed that response to treatment with PEG-INF + RBV of HCV-5 is similar to HCV-1 and lower compared to HCV-2/3. The analysis of the matched patient subgroup demonstrates that the HCV-5 "intrinsic sensitivity" to PEG-IFN + RBV therapy is identical to HCV-1, with a sustained virological response of 55% in both groups. In contrast to previous publications, this meta-analysis suggests that HCV-5 response to treatment is closer to HCV-1 than to HCV-2/3 and suggests that in Belgium HCV-5 infection should be treated with the same antiviral regimen as HCV-1.