High dose daily interferon-alpha induction and secondary adjunction of ribavirin in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C. A multicentric, randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate in naive patients with chronic hepatitis C 1- the efficacy and safety of one month interferon alpha (IFN-alpha) induction regimen; 2- the potential virological benefit of a secondary adjunction of ribavirin among HCV RNA negative patients after 20 weeks of IFN therapy, with or without an initial 4-week IFN induction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 151 naive HCV-RNA positive patients presenting with biopsy- proven chronic hepatitis C and elevated ALT were randomised in a 2: 1 ratio in two arms: IFN-alpha 3 MU thrice a week (tiw) for 24 weeks (non-induced patients); IFN-alpha 6 MU daily for two weeks, then 3 MU daily for two weeks then 3 MU tiw for 20 weeks (induced patients). At week 24, HCV-RNA negative patients were randomised to receive in addition or not ribavirin 1-1.2 g daily for 24 additional weeks. Induction efficacy was assessed on the early viral response (EVR) defined as undetectable HCV RNA at week 4 then week 20. Ribavirin efficacy was assessed on the proportion of maintained complete response until the end of follow-up, 24 weeks after discontinuation of treatment. Data were analysed on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Efficacy of IFN-alpha induction: 104 patients were randomised to the non-induction group, 47 to the induction group. Gender, age, genotype distribution and HCV viral load at baseline did not differ significantly between the two groups. There was one treatment discontinuation because of adverse events in induced patients versus four in non-induced patients (P > 0.05). The 4 week EVR was significantly greater in induced patients in patients with HCV genotype 1, 4 or 5 (47% vs 12%, P=0.0002) only. There was no impact of induction in patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3. Efficacy of ribavirin: at week 24, 28 and 26 HCV-RNA negative patients were randomised to addition of ribavirin or not, respectively. Patients randomised to secondary additive ribavirin were more often HCV-RNA negative at the end of follow-up than patients treated with IFN-alpha alone: 18/28 (64%) vs 10/26 (39%); P=0.06. Among patients randomised to bitherapy, the relapse rate was significantly lower in patients with genotype 2 or 3 (0/12 vs 6/13, P=0.01) and not in those with genotype 1, 4 or 5 (5/11 vs 3/6, P=0.99). CONCLUSION: A 4 week IFN-alpha induction significantly increases the EVR rate in patients with HCV genotype 1, 4 or 5. Late secondary adjunction of ribavirin to IFN-alpha for 6 months in HCV-RNA negative patients after 6 months of IFN-alpha significantly decreases the relapse rate in patients with HCV genotype 2 or 3, but not in patients with genotypes 1, 4 or 5.

Management of hepatitis C in active drugs users: experience of an addiction care hepatology unit.

OBJECTIVE: Recent guidelines on the management of patients chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection recommend the same anti-HCV therapy for active intravenous drug users and other patients, however some physicians are reluctant to treat active drug users. The aim of this study was to compare hepatitis C management practices and clinical outcome after treatment between active intravenous drug users and other patients. METHODS: Four hundred and thirty-five naive HCV seropositive patients were recruited from 1990 to 2000 and followed up for a mean period of 2.5 years (SD 1 Year). At the beginning of the study, 116 of the patients were active intravenous drug users. Social, clinical, biological and histological data were collected. The different steps of HCV management and responses to treatment were compared between active intravenous drug users and other patients. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in HCV management practices and compliance between active intravenous drug users and other patients: search for viral RNA (85% versus 67%), liver biopsy performed when indicated (82% versus 87%), initiation of anti-HCV treatment (33.6% versus 43.2%), loss to follow up during treatment (24% vs 16%). The rate of sustained viral response was not significantly different between active intravenous drug users and other patients (28% versus 21%). At multivariate analysis, factors independently associated with sustained viral response were female gender (OR=5.6 [1.02-41.2]), genotype 3 (OR=29.7 [1.4-61.7]), low viral load (OR=33.3 [2.25-100]), low fibrosis score (OR=1.4 [1.0-2.0]), elevated transaminase level (OR=12.7 [0.9-97.2]), and bitherapy protocol (OR=10 [1.18-85.3]). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates that active intravenous drug use does not affect either patient compliance with proposed management or viral response to treatment, but pluridisciplinary care should focus both on drug addiction and HCV infection.

Telaprevir- and boceprevir-based tritherapies in real practice for F3-F4 pretreated hepatitis C virus patients.

AIM: To assess, in a routine practice setting, the sustained virologic response (SVR) to telaprevir (TPV) or boceprevir (BOC) in hepatitis C virus (HCV) null-responders or relapsers with severe liver fibrosis. METHODS: One hundred twenty-five patients were treated prospectively for 48 wk with TPV or BOC + pegylated-interferon (peg-INF) α2a + ribavirin (PR) according to standard treatment schedules without randomization. These patients were treated in routine practice settings in 10 public or private health care centers, and the data were prospectively collected. Only patients with severe liver fibrosis (Metavir scores of F3 or F4 upon liver biopsy or liver stiffness assessed by elastography), genotype 1 HCV and who were null-responders or relapsers to prior PR combination therapy were included in this study. RESULTS: The Metavir fibrosis scores were F3 in 35 (28%) and F4 in 90 (72%) of the patients. In total, 62.9% of the patients were null-responders and 37.1% relapsers to the previous PR therapy. The overall SVR rate at 24 wk post-treatment withdrawal was 59.8%. The SVR was 65.9% in the TPV group and 44.1% in the BOC group. Independent predictive factors of an SVR included a response to previous treatment, relapsers vs null-responders [OR = 3.9; (1.4, 10.6), P = 0.0084], a rapid virological response (RVR) [OR 6.9 (2.6, 18.2), P = 0.001] and liver stiffness lower than 21.3 kPa [OR = 8.2 (2.3, 29.5), P = 0.001]. During treatment, 63 patients (50.8%) had at least one severe adverse event (SAE) of grade 3 or 4. A multivariate analysis identified two factors associated with SAEs: female gender [OR = 2.4 (1.1, 5.6), P = 0.037] and a platelet count below 150 × 10(3)/ mm(3) [OR = 5.3 (2.3, 12.4), P ≤ 0.001]. CONCLUSION: More than half of these difficult-to-treat patients achieved an SVR and had SAEs in an actual practice setting. The SVR rate was influenced by the response to previous PR treatment, the RVR and liver stiffness.