Randomized trial of peginterferon α-2a plus ribavirin versus peginterferon α-2b plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C in Japanese patients

Abstract

PegIFNα-2a plus ribavirin resulted in higher SVR rates than PegIFNα-2b plus ribavirin in Japanese patients. PegIFNα-2a-based treatment should therefore be the preferred choice for women, older or low-weight patients, and those with the IL28B TT genotype.

Comparison of the Safety Profiles of Pegylated Interferon α-2a and α-2b Administered in Combination with Ribavirin for Chronic Hepatitis C Infection: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study

“…[6][7][8] In clinical trials, over 60% of participants suffer from adverse events, including fatigue, anemia, and neutropenia. 6,7) Not only are adverse events frequent, they are also the second most common cause of withdrawal from treatment.…”

“…[6][7][8] In clinical trials, over 60% of participants suffer from adverse events, including fatigue, anemia, and neutropenia. 6,7) Not only are adverse events frequent, they are also the second most common cause of withdrawal from treatment. 6,7) Severe adverse events are especially common with HCV genotype 1 infection, because the sustained virologic response rate is relatively low.…”

“…6,7) Not only are adverse events frequent, they are also the second most common cause of withdrawal from treatment. 6,7) Severe adverse events are especially common with HCV genotype 1 infection, because the sustained virologic response rate is relatively low. [9][10][11] Studies investigating differences in adverse events between PEG-IFN α-2a combined with ribavirin and PEG-IFN α-2b combined with ribavirin, including the safety outcomes of randomized clinical trials in Japan and other countries, as well as the pooled analysis of these studies, have suggested that there are no or few differences between the two treatments.…”

“…[9][10][11] Studies investigating differences in adverse events between PEG-IFN α-2a combined with ribavirin and PEG-IFN α-2b combined with ribavirin, including the safety outcomes of randomized clinical trials in Japan and other countries, as well as the pooled analysis of these studies, have suggested that there are no or few differences between the two treatments. 6,7,12,13) However, these studies were conducted in clinical trial settings, and until now there have been no studies carried out in Japan using a nationwide database compiled from real world settings. 14) In addition, most of the previous studies did not consider confounding variables and time to withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events in their analyses.…”

“…14) In addition, most of the previous studies did not consider confounding variables and time to withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events in their analyses. 6,7,12,13) To assess the safety profile of the two types of PEG-IFN accurately, it is crucial to include adjustments for these variables. Furthermore, the results may be affected not only by patient characteristics, but also by regional differences in treatment outcomes, a concern that has been identified by several previous studies as being worthy of future investigation.…”