Liver Unit, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 4N1
Keywords: hepatitis C, peginterferon, predictability, treatment
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
He made his arrows bright, he consulted with images, he looked in the liver.
Ezekiel 21: 21
Twenty-six centuries later, things have changed: ancient people wanted to predict future possibilities by means of the liver, whereas now we want to predict the future of the liver by any possible means. Today, hepatitis C virus (HCV), which probably did not exist at the time of the Babylonian Empire,1 chronically infects 170 million people worldwide, and can lead to liver failure and hepatocellular carcinoma.2,3 A mere decade ago, the best antiviral therapies produced a long-term virological remission (sustained virological response, SVR) in only 510% of treated patients, but significant advances in treatment have increased the SVR rate almost 10-fold to 5461%. These high response rates were obtained by modifying the standard interferon by attaching a polyethylene glycol (PEG) moiety (pegylation) to produce a longer-active peginterferon.
SVR, defined as undetectability of HCV RNA 6 months after stopping treatment, is a highly desirable outcome, as >95% of patients with SVR continue to show undetectable HCV RNA indefinitely, i.e. have permanent viral eradication. Unfortunately the peginterferon + ribavirin regimens have a number of drawbacks. Intolerable side effects necessitate prematurely stopping treatment in 15% of patients, and dose reductions in another 2040%. Moreover, the drug regimen is very expensive (
US$26 000 for a 48 week course), which means that most patients in countries such as Egypt, which has 1012 million infected individuals, cannot afford this therapy.4,5 For these reasons, cost-effective use of this therapy is essential. Accordingly, the ability to accurately predict the response of patients to antiviral therapy is of great interest. In general, predictors may be clinical, biochemical or histological. They can be assessed before therapy is started (pre-treatment predictors) or during therapy (on-treatment predictors). Preferably the on-treatment predictors should be available early in the treatment course so that patients who are unlikely to respond can have their treatment stopped and those who are likely to respond can be encouraged to complete therapy. In the following sections we briefly review the predictability of response to treatment in a non-exhaustive manner. Readers are referred to recent reviews6,7 for more detailed analyses.
![]() |
Pre-treatment predictors |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Several demographic, biochemical, virological and histological predictors of response have been identified from clinical trials of regular interferon-based therapies (Table 1). The two most important parameters are the HCV genotype and pre-treatment HCV RNA levels (viral load).812 HCV genotype 1 is the most difficult to treat, whereas genotypes 2 and 3 are the most susceptible to interferon therapy. A low baseline serum viral load (<2 million copies/mL or 800 000 IU/mL) is associated with a significantly higher probability of achieving SVR following interferon-based therapy. SVR rates with interferon + ribavirin combination treatment are increased 1.5-fold after 24 weeks of treatment in patients with <2 million copies/mL, compared with patients with higher viral loads.8 Other important, albeit less strong factors associated with SVR, include: shorter disease duration, age <40 years, lower body weight, absence of cirrhosis, mild or absent portal fibrosis, low hepatic iron concentration, low HCV genome heterogeneity (quasispecies), gender (women responding better than men) and levels of liver enzymes.812
|
Two forms of pegylated interferon are currently available, peginterferon -2a (40 kDa) (Pegasys) and peginterferon
-2b (12 kDa) (Pegintron). Factors predictive of SVR are summarized in Table 1. Non-1 HCV genotype and low viral load were also found to be important predictors of response to both forms of pegylated interferon monotherapy.13,14 In addition, for peginterferon
-2a, other factors shown to be useful predictors of response include: absence of cirrhosis or bridging fibrosis, body weight <85 kg, body surface area <2 m2, age <40 years, alanine aminotransferase levels >3 x ULN (upper limit of normal), and a Knodell histological activity index (HAI) score >10.1416 It is interesting that the last two factors are indices of hepatic necroinflammatory activity, suggesting that peginterferon, in contrast to standard interferon or interferon/ribavirin combination therapy, exerts a greater antiviral effect in those with more baseline liver inflammation, which is analogous to antiviral treatment in chronic hepatitis B.17
Combination therapy using pegylated interferon and ribavirin is now clearly the gold standard of treatment for chronic hepatitis C. The SVR rates induced by peginterferon + ribavirin therapy differ according to HCV genotype: in genotype 1 patients, 4251%, and in genotype 2/3 patients, 7682%. These differential response rates indicate that again HCV genotype is the strongest predictor of sustained response; however, there is a curious difference between the two peginterferons in prognostic implications of viral load.5
In patients treated for 48 weeks with two different dosages of pegylated interferon -2b (1.5 µg/kg or 1.5 µg/kg followed by 0.5 µg/kg) plus ribavirin, a viral load <2 million copies/mL was associated with responses 1.5- to two-fold better than cases with high viral load, whereas genotype 2/3 patients exhibited an approximately two-fold increase in SVR rate compared with genotype 1 patients.5 Logistic regression analysis demonstrated five baseline variables associated with SVR: genotype non-1, low viral load, lighter body weight, younger age and absence of bridging fibrosis/cirrhosis.
For peginterferon -2a + ribavirin, only three variables are significantly associated with SVR: genotype non-1, age <40 years and body weight <75 kg.4 With this form of peginterferon + ribavirin, viral load and presence of significant fibrosis/cirrhosis are not important predictive factors. The reasons for this disparity in predictive response factors between the two types of pegylated interferons remain unclear. In particular, the unimportance of viral load, which is generally the second strongest pre-treatment predictive factor (after genotype) for all other types of pegylated and standard interferons, and combination therapies, is surprising, and defies easy explanation. A type II error is unlikely, as the sample size for the combination peginterferon
-2a/ribavirin study was
1100 patients. We believe that the underlying explanation is that these two peginterferons are not interchangeably similar, as some have suggested, but rather differ in pharmacodynamics, bioavailability and perhaps antiviral efficacy.
Predictors of response after initiation of therapy
Although pre-treatment predictors are useful in making a general prediction of the efficacy of antiviral therapy, they are not accurate enough in individual patients to make clinical decisions. Most physicians would not withhold treatment based only on pre-treatment parameters. On the other hand, committing a patient to a potentially toxic and expensive therapy for nearly a year with only a small chance of virological response is also undesirable. For this reason, the ability to predict SVR based on biochemical or virological parameters early into therapy has been extensively investigated.
Many studies have conclusively shown that liver chemistry tests such as serum aminotransferase levels are an unreliable predictor of virological response. Although a rapid normalization of serum aminotransferases after starting therapy is often seen in those who go on to achieve SVR, the correlation between this phenomenon and SVR is not high enough to make this a reliable predictor in individual patients.7 Some preliminary or small studies have suggested the utility of other biochemical markers such as the cytokines tumour necrosis factor or interleukins as predictive factors but the results to date generally do not show superior results to aminotransferases.7 Instead, recent studies have indicated that viral kinetics during the early weeks of therapy are likely to be the best predictors of ultimate SVR. In these studies, the concept of early viral response, defined as undetectability or >2 log10 drop from baseline HCV RNA, at an early time point of treatment such as week 4 or week 12, has been validated. The positive predictive values (PPV; the chance of correctly identifying a virological responder) of early viral responses have ranged from
50% to 80%, i.e. fair to good, whereas the negative predictive values (NPV; chances of correctly identifying a virological non-responder) generally exceeded 90%. Therefore, the decision to continue or stop therapy using early on-treatment prediction criteria has focused on the high NPV, i.e. discontinuing treatment early in those patients who have little or no chance of being a sustained viral responder.
Regular interferon and ribavirin combination therapy
It is sadly probable that non-pegylated interferon + ribavirin therapy will, for economic reasons, continue as the standard treatment for the vast majority of the worlds HCV patients, who live in economically underdeveloped countries. Therefore prediction of outcome with this treatment continues to be clinically relevant in most of the world. Based on a seminal paper which showed that a positive HCV RNA test at week 24 of therapy could correctly identify 98% of patients who will not attain SVR,18 it was routinely recommended to continue therapy in all patients until this time point. However, that study has been criticized for several weaknesses,19 and alternative strategies may be more cost-effective. Specifically, measurement of viral load decline at week 4, 8 or 12 of therapy may allow much earlier identification of non-responders. In smaller studies, HCV RNA decline at these early time points showed very high NPV.20,21 Certainly worth examining is the predictability of a week 12 early viral response, which has been shown to have extremely high NPV in the peginterferon trials (see below); this issue could and should be formally tested in the interferon -2b + ribavirin database.
Pegylated interferons
Even more so than with unmodified interferon, the likely response of an individual patient to peginterferon -2a can be predicted by an early HCV RNA level. Analyses of the pooled data (814 patients) from three large controlled trials with peginterferon
-2a monotherapy showed that an early viral response after 12 weeks of therapy was the most accurate indicator of SVR when compared with corresponding values obtained at 4, 8 or 24 weeks.16 In this analysis, it was shown that although the PPVs of such HCV RNA changes ranged between 46% and 77%, the NPV was highest (98%) at the 12 week time period. This means that the decision to continue or stop peginterferon
-2a monotherapy can be made at the 12 week time period.
Recent studies indicate that the early viral response at 12 weeks with combination peginterferon and ribavirin therapy also offers excellent predictability, especially NPV. A recent analysis by Davis,6 who accessed the combined peginterferon -2a and
-2b + ribavirin databases, showed that an early viral response at week 12 would result in missing almost none of the non-responders (i.e. 9899% NPV), and result in cost savings of 16% compared with the strategy of treating all genotype 2/3 patients for 24 weeks and treating all genotype 1 patients for 48 weeks. Thus, as with pegylated interferon monotherapy, the decision to stop or continue therapy for pegylated interferon + ribavirin combination treatment can be made at 12 weeks.
This strategy can be further refined according to the HCV genotype. The week 12 early viral response produces a 98% NPV in genotype 1 patients, so clearly the 12 week stop rule is applicable in this group. In genotype 2/3 patients, 97% show an early viral response, so calculating NPV becomes unreliable because of the minute sample sizes (in the peginterferon -2a + ribavirin database, only four genotype 2/3 patients did not show an early viral response). Given these considerations, the recent NIH consensus conference recommended, quite appropriately, that genotype 2 and 3 patients simply be treated for 24 weeks without bothering to check week 12 HCV RNA.6,22
![]() |
Future directions |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
If the week 12 early viral response results in a modest 16% cost savings, the potential cost saving with a week 4 response would be much more impressive, if the predictability parameters were improved. Indeed for peginterferon -2a monotherapy, the combined PPVs and NPVs were highest for the week 4 early viral response,16 but the NPV was only 91%, indicating that stopping therapy at this time point would mean that one of every 11 patients who could attain SVR would have their treatment prematurely discontinued. The NPV at week 8 was 95%, so perhaps the week 8 strategy might be the most cost-effective. These different strategies could be subjected to detailed economic analysis by modelling techniques.
Because almost all the Phase 2 and 3 trials of interferon-based therapy were carried out in North American and Western European centres, HCV genotypes 1, 2 and 3 accounted for >95% of the patient sample. Thus, information about predictors, and even SVR rates, in genotype 4, 5 and 6 patients is limited. Moreover, other subgroups under-represented in the clinical trials included Asian and Black patients, as well as those with compensated cirrhosis. For example, peginterferon -2a + ribavirin in cirrhotic patients using the week 12 early viral response showed a 100% NPV, but this was based on only 56 patients. Both pre-treatment and on-treatment predictive factors in these subgroups clearly require further study.
![]() |
Acknowledgements |
---|
![]() |
Footnotes |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2 . EASL International Consensus Conference on Hepatitis C. (2002). Consensus statement. Journal of Hepatology 30, 95661.[CrossRef]
3 . Seeff, L. B. (2002). Natural history of hepatitis C. Hepatology 36, Suppl. 1, S3546.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
4
.
Fried, M. W., Shiffman, M. L., Reddy, K. R., Smith, C., Marinos, G., Goncales, F. L. et al. (2002). Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. New England Journal of Medicine 347, 97582.
5 . Manns, M. P., McHutchison, J. G., Gordon, S. C., Rustgi, V. K., Shiffman, M., Reindollar, R. et al. (2001). Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomized trial. Lancet 358, 95865.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
6 . Davis, G. L. (2002). Monitoring of viral levels during therapy of hepatitis C. Hepatology 36, Suppl. 1, S14551.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
7 . Lee, S. S. (2003). Indicators and predictors of response to antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis C. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, in press.
8 . Poynard, T., Marcellin, P., Lee, S. S., Niederaum, C., Minuk, G. S., Ideo, G. et al. (1998). Randomized trial of interferon alpha2b plus ribavirin for 48 weeks or for 24 weeks versus interferon alpha2b plus placebo for 48 weeks for treatment of chronic infection with hepatitis C virus. Lancet 352, 142632.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
9
.
McHutchison, J. G., Gordon, S. C., Schiff, E. R., Shiffman, M. L., Lee, W. M., Rustgi, V. K. et al. (1998). Interferon alfa-2b alone or in combination with ribavirin as initial treatment for chronic hepatitis C. New England Journal of Medicine 339, 148592.
10
.
Davis, G. L., Esteban-Mur, R., Rustgi, V., Hoefs, J., Gordon, S. C., Trepo, C. et al. (1998). Interferon alfa-2b alone or in combination with ribavirin for the treatment of relapse of chronic hepatitis C. International Hepatitis Interventional Therapy Group. New England Journal of Medicine 339, 14939.
11 . Shiratori, Y., Kato, N., Yokosuka, O., Imazeki, F., Hashimoto, E., Hayashi, N. et al. (1997). Predictors of the efficacy of interferon therapy in chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Tokyo-Chiba Hepatitis Research Group. Gastroenterology 113, 55866.[ISI][Medline]
12 . Martinot-Peignoux, M., Boyer, N., Pouteau, M., Castelnau, C., Giuily, N., Duchatelle, V. et al. (1998). Predictors of sustained response to alpha interferon therapy in chronic hepatitis C. Journal of Hepatology 29, 21423.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
13 . Lindsay, K. L., Trepo, C., Heintges, T., Shiffman, M. L., Gordon, S. C., Hoefs, J. C. et al. (2001). A randomized, double-blind trial comparing pegylated interferon alfa-2b to interferon alfa-2b as initial treatment for chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 34, 395403.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
14
.
Zeuzem, S., Feinman, S. V., Rasenack, J., Heathcote, E. J., Lai, M. Y., Gane, E. et al. (2000). Peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C. New England Journal of Medicine 343, 166672.
15
.
Heathcote, E. J., Shiffman, M. L., Cooksley, W. G., Dusheiko, G. M., Lee, S. S., Balart, L. et al. (2000). Peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C and cirrhosis. New England Journal of Medicine 343, 167380.
16 . Lee, S. S., Heathcote, E. J., Reddy, K. R., Zeuzem, S., Fried, M. W., Wright, T. et al. (2002). Prognostic factors and early predictability of sustained viral response with peginterferon alfa-2a (40KD). Journal of Hepatology 37, 5006.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
17
.
Wong, D. K., Cheung, A. M., ORourke, K., Naylor, C. D., Detsky, A. S. & Heathcote, J. (1993). Effect of alpha-interferon treatment in patients with hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B. A meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 119, 31223.
18 . Poynard, T., McHutchison, J. G., Goodman, Z. D., Ling, M. H. & Albrecht, J. (2000). Is an a la carte combination interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin regimen possible for the first line treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis C? Hepatology 31, 2118.[ISI][Medline]
19 . Marcellin, P., Benhamou, J., Heathcote, J., Bismuth, H., Desmet, V., Guardia, J. et al. (2000). A la carte interferon for hepatitis C. Hepatology 32, 6789.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
20 . Bekkering, F. C., Brouwer, J. T., Hansen, B. E. & Schalm, S. W. (2001). Hepatitis C viral kinetics in difficult to treat patients receiving high dose interferon and ribavirin. Journal of Hepatology 34, 43540.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
21 . Castro, F. J., Esteban, J. I., Juarez, A., Sauleda, S., Viladomiu, L., Martell, M. et al. (2002). Early detection of nonresponse to interferon plus ribavirin combination treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Journal of Viral Hepatology 9, 2027.[CrossRef]
22 . National Institute of Health. (2002). Recommendations from the National Institute of Health consensus development conference statement: management of hepatitis C. Hepatology 36, S320.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
23 . Neumann, A. U., Zeuzem, S. & Brunda, M. (2000). Rapid viral response to treatment with pegylated (40 kDa) interferon alfa-2a is strongly predictive of a sustained virological response in patients with chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 32, 318A (abstract).[CrossRef]
24 . Magalini, A., Puoti, M., Putzolu, V., Quiros-Roldan, E., Forleo, M. A., Rossi, S. et al. (2000). Decrease of HCV-RNA after three days of daily interferon treatment is predictive of the virological response at one month. Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis 14, 1204.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]