Article

Short versus standard treatment with pegylated interferon alfa-2A plus ribavirin in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3: the cleo trial.

Liver Unit San Camillo Forlanini Hospital, Rome, Italy.
BMC Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 2.11). 02/2010; 10:21. DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-21
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 or 3, 24 weeks' treatment with pegylated interferon alfa (PEG-IFN-alpha) and ribavirin induces a sustained virological response (SVR) in almost 80% of cases. Evidence suggests that a similar response rate may be obtained with shorter treatment periods, especially in patients with a rapid virological response (RVR). The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 12 or 24 weeks of treatment in patients with chronic HCV genotype 2 or 3 and to identify patients suitable for 12 weeks treatment.
Two hundred and ten patients received PEG-IFN-alpha-2a (180 ug/week) and ribavirin (800-1200 mg/day) for 4 weeks. Patients with a RVR (HCV RNA not detectable) were randomized (1:1) to either 12 (group A1) or 24 (group A2) weeks of combination therapy. Patients without a RVR continued with 24-weeks' combination therapy (group B). HCV RNA was monitored at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 24, and at week 24 post-treatment.
At study end, end of treatment response (ETR) was observed in 62 (86%) patients of group A1 and in 55 (77%) patients of group A2 (p < 0.05) Relapse rate was 3% each in groups A1 and A2, and 6% in group B. Among patients with a HCVRNA test 24 weeks after the end of treatment, SVR was observed in 60 (83%) of group A1 patients and in 53 (75%) of group A2 patients. Rapid virological response, low baseline HCV RNA levels, elevated alanine aminotransferase levels and low fibrosis score, were the strongest covariates associated with SVR, independent of HCV genotype. No baseline characteristic was associated with relapse.
In HCV patients with genotype 2 or 3, 12-week combination therapy is as efficacious as 24-week therapy and several independent covariates were predictive of SVR.
Trial number ISRCTN29259563.

0 Followers
 · 
136 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Previous trials have often defined genotype 2 and 3 patients as an “easy to treat” group and guidelines recommend similar management. Aims The present study looks for differences between the two genotypes and analyzes predictive factors for SVR. Methods Prospective, community-based cohort study involving 421 physicians throughout Germany. The analysis includes 2,347 patients with untreated chronic HCV genotype 2 (n = 391) and 3 (n = 1,956) infection treated with PEG-IFN α-2a plus ribavirin between August 2007 and July 2012. Results When compared with genotype 2 patients, those with genotype 3 were younger, had a shorter duration of infection, lower values of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI, a higher frequency of drug use as infection mode and male gender (p<0.0001, respectively), and a higher APRI score (p<0.005). SVR was higher in genotype 2 when compared with genotype 3 (64.7% vs. 56.9%, p = 0.004). By multivariate analysis of genotype 2 patients, low baseline γ -GT and RVR predicted SVR. In genotype 3 age ≤45 years, cholesterol>130 mg/dl, a low APRI score, and a γ-GT ≥3-times ULN, RVR, and RBV starting dose were associated with SVR by multivariate analysis. Conclusions The present study corroborates that liver fibrosis is more pronounced in genotype 3 vs. 2. SVR is higher in genotype 2 versus genotype 3 partly because of follow-up problems in genotype 3 patients, in particular in those infected by drug use. Thus, subgroups of genotype 3 patients have adherence problems and need special attention also because they often have significant liver fibrosis. Trial Registration Verband Forschender Arzneimittelhersteller e.V., Berlin, Germany ML21645 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02106156
    PLoS ONE 09/2014; 9(9):e107592. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0107592 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Affecting 2-3% of the world's population, hepatitis C is a common viral infection which is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Hepatitis C genotype 1 is the dominant viral genotype among Western patients. For the last 20 years, in the era of interferon-based therapy, it was far more difficult to treat relative to genotypes 2 and 3. Accordingly, a significant focus of research was on new antiviral agents for the dominant genotype 1 patient. Now, as promising specific treatments are being introduced for genotype 1, the attention of clinicians and researchers has turned back to the 50-70 million patients infected with a nongenotype 1 hepatitis C. Furthermore, after recent, larger randomized trials, we have realized that genotype 2 is truly interferon sensitive while genotype 3 patients are far less successful with therapy. In this fundamentally altered landscape, genotype 3 is now potentially the most difficult to treat genotype and an area of intense research for new drug development. Herein we review the virology, natural history and the treatment of genotype 3 hepatitis C.
    Journal of Viral Hepatitis 10/2013; 20(10):669-77. DOI:10.1111/jvh.12168 · 3.31 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The approval of the first direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs for treatment of HCV in 2011 has lead to improved sustained viral response (SVR) rates up to 79% in treatment-naïve or relapse genotype 1 (G1) patients, and up to 59% for non-responder G1 patients. This review discusses the clinical skills required for the use of direct-acting anti-viral drugs (DAA), the use of genetic tests and HCV RNA assays, resistance-associated variants (RAV), treatment of special populations, and future directions. The results of the pivotal phase 3 trials with both telaprevir and boceprevir are summarized, including the efficacy, safety and tolerability, drug-drug interactions and management of the most common side-effects. Treatment strategies implemented in order to minimize the development of resistance with these first-generation protease inhibitors are explored. The use of these drugs ushers in a new era for the treatment of HCV but should be done with both care and caution.
    Current Hepatitis Reports 03/2012; 11(1). DOI:10.1007/s11901-011-0122-2

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
33 Downloads
Available from
May 27, 2014