Prabhu Ravindra A, Nair Sreekumar, Pai Ganesh, Reddy Nageswara P, Suvarna Deepak
Department of Nephrology, Kasturba Medical College and Hospital Manipal, Manipal University, PO Box 7 Madhav Nagar, Manipal, Karnataka, India, 576104.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 19;2015(8):CD007003. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007003.pub2.
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients on dialysis, causes chronic liver disease, increases mortality and impacts kidney transplant outcomes. Sustained response to the preferred treatment with standard or pegylated (PEG) interferon is seen in 39% with side effects necessitating treatment discontinuation in 20%. We collated evidence for treatment response and harms of interventions for HCV infection in dialysis.
We aimed to look at the benefits and harms of various interventions for HCV infection in CKD patients on HD or peritoneal dialysis, specifically on mortality, disease relapse, response to treatment, treatment discontinuation, time to recovery, quality of life, cost effectiveness,adverse effects, and other outcomes. We aimed to study comparisons of available interventions with a placebo or control group, combinations of interventions with placebo or control group, interventions with each other singly and in combination, available standard interventions with newer treatment modalities.
We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 24 March 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator. We also checked references of reviews, studies and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, first period of randomised cross-over studies on interventions for HCV in CKD on dialysis were considered.
We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration and also collected adverse effects data listed in included RCTs.
Ten RCTs (361 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Five RCTs (152 participants, 134 analysed) with low to moderate quality of evidence compared standard recombinant interferon with placebo or control. There was no significant difference for mortality (5 studies (134 participants): RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.23), relapses (1 study (36 participants): RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.88), sustained virological response (4 studies (98 participants): RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.81 to 13.07), treatment discontinuation (4 studies (116 participants): RR 4.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 42.69) and number with adverse events (5 studies (143 participants): RR 3.56, 95% CI 0.98 to 13.01). End of treatment response was significantly more for standard interferon (5 studies (132 participants): RR 8.62, 95% CI 3.03 to 24.55). There was overall low to unclear risk of bias and no significant heterogeneity.One RCT (50 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared PEG interferon and standard interferon. There was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.81), relapses (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25), sustained virological response (RR 2.40, 95% CI 0.99 to 5.81), treatment discontinuation (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96) and number with major adverse events (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.96). End of treatment response was significantly more for PEG interferon (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.15). There was overall low risk of bias.Two RCTs (97 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared two doses of two different preparations of PEG interferon. Subgroup analysis comparing high and low doses of PEG interferon alpha-2a (135 µg/week versus 90 µg/week) and PEG interferon alpha-2b (1 µg/kg versus 0.5 µg/kg body weight/week) found no significant difference in mortality (2 studies (97 participants): RR 4.30, 95% CI 0.76 to 24.33), relapses (1 study (81 participants): RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.77), end of treatment response (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.90), sustained virological response (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.07), treatment discontinuation (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.28), patients with adverse events (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.83) or serious adverse events (2 studies (97 participants): RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.14). Both had overall low risk of bias and no significant subgroup differences.Two RCTs (62 participants) with moderate quality of evidence compared standard or PEG interferon alone or in combination with ribavirin. The only reported outcome in both was treatment discontinuation which was significantly more with ribavirin in the one study (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.84) and pooled 7/10 in the second.No RCTs had data on time to recovery, cost-effectiveness, quality of life, and other outcomes and in peritoneal dialysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrated that in CKD patients on haemodialysis with HCV infection treatment with standard interferon brings about an end of treatment but not a sustained virological response and is relatively well tolerated. PEG interferon is more effective than standard interferon for end of treatment response but not for sustained response; both were equally tolerated. Increasing doses of PEG interferon did not improve responses but high and low doses are equally tolerated. Addition of ribavirin results in more treatment discontinuation.
丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)感染在接受透析的慢性肾脏病(CKD)患者中很常见,会导致慢性肝病,增加死亡率,并影响肾移植结果。采用标准或聚乙二醇化(PEG)干扰素进行的首选治疗的持续应答率为39%,20%的患者因副作用而需要停药。我们整理了透析患者HCV感染干预措施的治疗应答和危害的证据。
我们旨在研究针对接受血液透析(HD)或腹膜透析的CKD患者HCV感染的各种干预措施的益处和危害,特别是对死亡率、疾病复发、治疗应答、治疗中断、恢复时间、生活质量、成本效益、不良反应及其他结局的影响。我们旨在研究现有干预措施与安慰剂或对照组的比较、干预措施与安慰剂或对照组的联合应用、干预措施之间的单独及联合应用、现有标准干预措施与新型治疗方式的比较。
我们通过与试验检索协调员联系,检索了截至2015年3月24日的Cochrane肾脏和移植专业注册库。我们还检查了综述、研究的参考文献,并联系研究作者以识别其他研究。
考虑采用随机对照试验(RCT)、半随机对照试验、透析CKD患者HCV干预措施的随机交叉研究的第一阶段。
我们采用了Cochrane协作网期望的标准方法程序,并收集了纳入RCT中列出的不良反应数据。
10项RCT(361名参与者)符合我们的纳入标准。5项RCT(152名参与者,134名进行分析)证据质量低至中等,比较了标准重组干扰素与安慰剂或对照组。死亡率(5项研究(134名参与者):RR 0.89,95%CI 0.06至13.23)、复发率(1项研究(36名参与者):RR 0.72,95%CI 0.28至1.88)、持续病毒学应答率(4项研究(98名参与者):RR 3.25,95%CI 0.81至13.07)、治疗中断率(4项研究(116名参与者):RR 4.59,95%CI 0.49至42.69)和不良事件数量(5项研究(143名参与者):RR 3.56,95%CI 0.98至13.01)无显著差异。标准干扰素的治疗结束时应答率显著更高(5项研究(132名参与者):RR 8.62,95%CI 3.03至24.55)。总体偏倚风险低至不明确,且无显著异质性。1项RCT(50名参与者)证据质量中等,比较了PEG干扰素和标准干扰素。死亡率(RR 0.33,95%CI 0.01至7.81)、复发率(RR 0.72,95%CI 0.41至1.25)、持续病毒学应答率(RR 2.40,95%CI 0.99至5.81)、治疗中断率(RR 0.11,95%CI 0.01至1.96)和主要不良事件数量(RR 0.11,95%CI 0.01至1.96)无显著差异。PEG干扰素的治疗结束时应答率显著更高(RR 1.53,95%CI 1.09至2.15)。总体偏倚风险低。2项RCT(97名参与者)证据质量中等,比较了两种不同制剂的两剂PEG干扰素。比较PEG干扰素α-2a高剂量和低剂量(135μg/周与90μg/周)以及PEG干扰素α-2b(1μg/kg与0.5μg/kg体重/周)的亚组分析发现,死亡率(2项研究(97名参与者):RR 4.30,95%CI 0.76至24.33)、复发率(1项研究(81名参与者):RR 1.11,95%CI 0.45至2.77)、治疗结束时应答率(2项研究(97名参与者):RR 1.42,95%CI 0.51至3.90)、持续病毒学应答率(2项研究(97名参与者):RR 1.19,95%CI 0.68至2.07)、治疗中断率(2项研究(97名参与者):RR 1.20,95%CI 0.63至2.28)、不良事件患者(2项研究(97名参与者):RR 1.05,95%CI 0.61至1.83)或严重不良事件(2项研究(97名参与者):RR 1.24,95%CI 0.72至2.14)无显著差异。两者总体偏倚风险低,且无显著亚组差异。2项RCT(62名参与者)证据质量中等,比较了单独使用标准或PEG干扰素或与利巴韦林联合使用的情况。两项研究中唯一报告的结局都是治疗中断,一项研究中利巴韦林导致的治疗中断显著更多(RR 0.34,95%CI 0.14至0.84),第二项研究汇总为7/10。没有RCT有关于恢复时间、成本效益、生活质量和其他结局以及腹膜透析的数据。
我们的综述表明,在HCV感染的血液透析CKD患者中,使用标准干扰素治疗可带来治疗结束时的应答,但不能带来持续病毒学应答,且耐受性相对良好。PEG干扰素在治疗结束时应答方面比标准干扰素更有效,但在持续应答方面并非如此;两者耐受性相当。增加PEG干扰素剂量并未改善应答,但高剂量和低剂量耐受性相同。添加利巴韦林会导致更多治疗中断。