Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
J Viral Hepat. 2008 Aug;15(8):551-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2008.00984.x. Epub 2008 May 14.
Dual therapy with pegylated interferon and ribavirin is recommended for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection who meet criteria for treatment, but it is unclear whether pegylated interferon alfa-2a or pegylated interferon alfa-2b is more effective or associated with fewer adverse events. Because data from head-to-head trials of pegylated interferon regimens are sparse, we performed adjusted indirect analysis using trials comparing dual therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2a or pegylated interferon alfa-2b vs dual therapy with non-pegylated interferon. We searched for potentially relevant randomized controlled trials using electronic databases and reference lists. A total of 16 trials met inclusion criteria. Adjusted indirect comparisons found no statistically significant differences between dual therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2a and dual therapy with pegylated interferon alfa-2b on the outcomes sustained virologic response [relative risk (RR) = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.56-4.46], withdrawal due to adverse events (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.29-2.55), anaemia (RR = 1.67, 95% CI: 0.32-8.84), depression (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.41-2.90) or flu-like symptoms (RR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.53-2.29). Adjusting for potential publication bias and stratifying analyses by indicators of methodological quality, human immunodeficiency virus infection status, hepatitis C virus genotype, dose of ribavirin or dose of pegylated interferon did not change conclusions. There is insufficient evidence to support conclusions that dual therapy with one pegylated interferon is superior to the other. However, because estimates are imprecise, our results also do not rule out a clinically significant difference. Head-to-head trials are needed to verify the results of indirect analyses and provide additional guidance on optimal treatment choices.
聚乙二醇干扰素与利巴韦林联合治疗适用于符合治疗标准的慢性丙型肝炎病毒感染者,但目前尚不清楚聚乙二醇干扰素 α-2a 或聚乙二醇干扰素 α-2b 更为有效或相关不良事件更少。由于头对头比较聚乙二醇干扰素方案的临床试验数据稀缺,我们使用比较聚乙二醇干扰素 α-2a 或聚乙二醇干扰素 α-2b 联合治疗与非聚乙二醇干扰素联合治疗的临床试验进行了调整后的间接分析。我们通过电子数据库和参考文献列表搜索了可能相关的随机对照试验。共有 16 项试验符合纳入标准。调整后的间接比较发现,聚乙二醇干扰素 α-2a 联合治疗与聚乙二醇干扰素 α-2b 联合治疗在持续病毒学应答方面无统计学显著差异[相对风险(RR)=1.59,95%可信区间(CI):0.56-4.46],因不良事件停药(RR=0.86,95%CI:0.29-2.55)、贫血(RR=1.67,95%CI:0.32-8.84)、抑郁(RR=1.09,95%CI:0.41-2.90)或流感样症状(RR=1.10,95%CI:0.53-2.29)方面也无统计学显著差异。调整潜在发表偏倚和按方法学质量指标、人类免疫缺陷病毒感染状态、丙型肝炎病毒基因型、利巴韦林剂量或聚乙二醇干扰素剂量分层分析,并未改变结论。目前尚无足够证据支持一种聚乙二醇干扰素优于另一种的结论。但是,由于估计值不精确,我们的结果也不能排除临床显著差异。需要进行头对头试验来验证间接分析的结果,并为最佳治疗选择提供额外的指导。