Interferon for interferon nonresponding and relapsing patients with chronic hepatitis C

Antiviral treatment for chronic hepatitis C infections is currently judged as being successful if, at least six months after therapy, blood tests for hepatitis C viral RNA are negative; this has been called a sustained viral response. In the past, other outcomes for treatment have included improvements in biochemical tests (especially liver enzyme tests such as the serum alanine aminotransferase) or evidence of reduced inflammation and/or fibrosis on subsequent liver biopsies. All of these outcomes are tests, and it has been assumed that if the test gets better the patient will as well. However, there is no direct evidence that has proven that these outcomes are valid because there have been no long-term trials that have shown that an improvement in these tests translates into reduced mortality or morbidity. Patients who fail to have sustained viral responses after an initial course of therapy do become potential candidates for retreatment; some of them may be intolerant to ribavirin, and possibly even the newer protease inhibitors, so retreatment would have to be with interferon alone. It has also been speculated that long-term treatment (namely treatment for several years) might be beneficial; such long-term therapy would be further complicated if multiple drugs were used because of the additional drug toxicities and costs, so interferon alone could be considered. This review addressed the ability of interferon monotherapy to favorably alter the clinical course of chronic hepatitis C when it is used to retreat patients who failed at least one previous course of therapy. Seven trials were identified, including two large ones (a total of 1676 patients), known as "HALT-C" and "EPIC3", that specifically were designed to use low-dose pegylated interferon for three to five years in patients with evidence on liver biopsy of severe fibrosis and who had failed to have a sustained viral response to a course of standard combination (pegylated interferon plus ribavirin) therapy in the past. Both trials were at low risk of bias. A third trial designed to address the use of pegylated interferon monotherapy for 48 weeks in improving survival in patients with cirrhosis (Childs A or B) was terminated early because of the results of the HALT-C and EPIC3 trials, so three trials have provided mortality and hepatic morbidity data. When all three trials were considered, there was no significant effect of the treatment on either all-cause mortality (78/843 (9.3%) versus 62/867 (7.2%); risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.79; 3 trials) or hepatic mortality (41/532 (7.7%) versus 40/552 (7.2%); RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.63; 2 trials); however, all-cause mortality was higher in the recipients of the pegylated interferon (78/828 (9.4%) versus 5 7/848 (6.7%); RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.96) when only the two low risk of bias trials were considered. The excess deaths appeared to be from non-liver causes. Variceal bleeding occurred less often in the treated patients (4/843 (0.5%) versus 18/867 (2.1%); RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67), but there were no differences seen with regard to the subsequent development of other manifestations of end-stage liver disease (that is, encephalopathy, ascites, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation). One trial reported quality of life data; the treated patients had increases in their pain scores. No cost data were available. The recipients of the pegylated interferon generally had more adverse events; statistically significant differences were seen for the occurrence of hematologic complications, infections, flu-like symptoms, and rashes. Those receiving interferon were more likely to have sustained viral responses (20/557 (3.6%) versus 1/579 (0.2%); RR 15.38, 95% CI 2.93 to 80.71) and were also more likely to have improvements in markers of inflammation. No difference was demonstrated regarding the effect of the treatment on markers of fibrosis. The use of longer-term (several years) interferon monotherapy in patients with severe underlying hepatic fibrosis who have failed previous courses of treatment is not supported by the evidence; no trials providing data regarding clinical outcomes were identified in other potential treatment scenarios. Two of the commonly employed surrogate markers, sustained viral response and markers of inflammation, failed to be validated since they improved even though the clinical outcomes did not (or may even have become worse). This failure to validate the sustained viral response in this group of patients with a low sustained viral response rate suggests that the presumed validity of the use of sustained viral responses in other groups of patients with chronic hepatitis C viral infections who receive treatment must be formally validated.

Authors' conclusions: 

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

Read the full abstract...
Background: 

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

Objectives: 

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

Search strategy: 

We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded until 16 August 2012.

Selection criteria: 

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

Data collection and analysis: 

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

Main results: 

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

Share/Save