Journal of Hepatology
Volume 51, Issue 1 , Pages 4-7, July 2009

What offers the best prediction of sustained virologic response during combination therapy with interferon and ribavirin: Viral dynamics, viral levels at certain time points, or a combination of both?☆

  • Ola Weiland

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationTel.: +46 8 58580000; fax: +46 8 58581916.

Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases, 173 Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge at Karolinska Institutet, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden

published online 17 April 2009.

Associate Editor: M. Colombo

Article Outline

Abbreviations: HCV, hepatitis C virus, PEG-IFN, pegylated interferon, RBV, ribavirin, CHC, chronic hepatitis C, SVR, sustained virologic response, NPV, negative predictive value, PPV, high positive predictive value, VD, viral decline, VL, viral load

 

Methods to predict the final outcome have been sought and continuously refined during the evolution of standard of care (SOC) treatment for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection with interferon (IFN) and ribavirin.

It was realised early on that genotype and viral load were baseline factors of major importance for achieving a final sustained virologic response (SVR), and that ribavirin was needed in combination with interferon to improve the results [1]. In the pivotal studies evaluating pegylated interferon and ribavirin treatment, it was noted that genotypes 2 and 3 were “easy to treat” and that patients with these genotypes responded much better than patients with “difficult to treat” genotypes 1 and 4 [2], [3], [4]. Thus, patients with the “easy to treat” genotypes 2 and 3 responded with high SVR rates (overall 80%), substantially higher than patients with the “difficult to treat” genotypes 1 and 4 (some 50%) [2], [4]. A landmark study refined the treatment length so that SOC for genotype 2 and 3 was set at 24weeks, whereas genotypes 1 and 4 needed 48weeks’ treatment [3]. In addition to genotype, other baseline factors influence the SVR rate, such as gender, extent of fibrosis, age at onset of the disease and race besides genotype and viral load [2], [3], [4].

When the viral kinetics during treatment were studied, it was noted that the viral decline during initial interferon treatment was much more pronounced for genotypes 2 and 3 than for genotype 1 [5], [6]. The viral decline could be split into at least two phases with an initial very rapid 1st phase reduction during the first days of treatment reflecting a direct antiviral effect of IFN. The slower 2nd phase decline is considered to represent the elimination of infected hepatocytes and typically begins at day 3–4 [5], [6]. It was also noted that the viral decay was IFN dose-dependant and steeper with higher doses. Overall, genotype 1 patients had a 1 log decline in HCV RNA levels during the 1st phase, whereas genotype 2 and 3 infections had a 3 log decline, reflecting that these genotypes are easier to treat.

The presently used time points utilized to decide whether treatment should be stopped or continued are treatment weeks 4, 12 and 24. They constitute the basis for guidelines used for treatment of chronic HCV infection [7], [8]. Patients with rapid viral response (RVR) meaning HCV RNA negativity already by treatment week 4 can be treated for a shorter-than-standard treatment. This means 24 weeks for genotype 1 and 12-16 weeks for genotypes 2 and 3, a treatment duration which offers nearly the same results as treatment lasting 48 and 24weeks, respectively [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. How long patients with genotypes 2 or 3 who do not achieve RVR should be treated is not well defined, but patients who achieve RVR will have higher SVR rates than those who do not, also when treated with shorter-than-standard treatment schedules irrespective of genotype [14], [15], [16]. For genotype 1 infections which respond less favourably to treatment, guidelines on when to stop treatment that will not be successful are needed.

Today, a stopping rule is generally applied in patients who fail to achieve early viral response (EVR), meaning at least a 2 log drop of HCV RNA levels from baseline treatment week 12. This is advocated since the negative predictive value (NPV) is over 95% and very few patients who continue treatment will achieve SVR [2]. Patients with EVR who have genotype 1 infection and become HCV RNA negative for the first time at treatment week 24, so called slow viral response, will achieve higher SVR rates if treatment is prolonged to 72 weeks [17], [18], [19].

It is obvious that the earlier a patient becomes HCV RNA negative during treatment the higher the likelihood to achieve SVR [8]. In fact, the viral decline and slope during the 2nd phase HCV RNA decline might be used to predict response and calculate the time needed for treatment to achieve SVR. A single standard IFN dose can be used to calculate the likelihood of a non-response: Jessner et al. measured the viral load within 24h after one dose of 5 or 10MU interferon alfa-2b in 29 consecutive patients with chronic HCV infection caused by genotype 1. A 24h viral load decline of less than 70% of baseline after 5MU interferon was the best pre-treatment measure to identify non-responders (specificity 100%, n=10, 95% CI 74-100, sensitivity 83% (15/18), 59–96) [20]. Furthermore, Drusano and Preston calculated that a negative HCV RNA test in serum for at least 36weeks was needed to obtain SVR with 90% probability during SOC treatment of genotype 1 infections [21]. This has been further refined by Lindh et al., who from data obtained in a pilot study, suggested that the calculated HCV RNA slope can be used to decide the length of SOC treatment that is needed to obtain SVR [22]. These authors found a strong correlation between the 2nd phase slope and SVR. Patients with a slope steeper than 0.7 log units/week obtained SVR in 95% and those with a slope between 0.35 and 0.7 log units/week in 64%, whereas patients with slopes below 0.35 log units/week all became non-SVR patients with SOC treatment [22].

In this issue of the Journal, Neumann et al. have utilized the HCV RNA decline and HCV RNA levels at different time points during combination treatment with albinterferon alfa-2b or peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin to calculate the positive and negative predictive value of SVR with a linear exhaustive search algorithm [23]. The authors claim that improved SVR prediction was possible when both the HCV RNA reduction (VD) and levels of HCV RNA (VL) treatment week 2 and 4 were used in this algorithm. For these calculations they used the results from 368 patients (80%) treated per protocol or treated until discontinuation due to non-response in the four-armed study [23]. As expected, most patients with a larger initial viral decline (VD) week 2 and 4 achieved SVR whereas those with low VD failed to do so. The authors used an exhaustive search computer program to identify the thresholds of VD and viral load (VL) at weeks 0, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 and their combinations.

Overall, the VL thresholds were better for NPV calculations than VD, whereas the latter were better for a positive prediction of SVR than VL.

The best NPV for SVR was obtained when VD and VL data were combined. Hence, at treatment week 4, a VL>5.5 log10 IU/mL and VD <2 log10 IU/mL provided a 100% NPV in all treatment arms.

Patients who the authors claimed to have rapid initial viral response (RIVR) meaning VD >2 log10 IU/mL treatment week 2 had a high PPV for SVR (88–97%) comparable to figures found for RVR (a negative HCV RNA treatment week 4) and included a larger group at an earlier time point than RVR. By using the less stringent threshold VD >3 log10 IU/mL at week 4, a PPV of 88–94% was seen in one-third to half of the number of patients.

To complicate the calculations further, the authors used a sequential prediction algorithm from weeks 2, 4 and 12 and divided the response patterns into 4 categories: rapid initial virologic response, partial initial virologic response, no initial virologic response and low initial virologic response. Some 28–35% of the patients could, however, not be properly classified and for these patients assessment of complete EVR is still needed for prediction of SVR.

Overall, the authors found that by integrating VD and VL data obtained sequentially at weeks 2 and 4, totally 65–72% of the patients in the four treatment arms demonstrated high PPV or NPV. These patients could be identified already by treatment week 4.

What are the implications of these findings? Are they likely to be used on a daily basis for deciding when to stop or continue treatment during SOC treatment for chronic HCV infection? Probably not, since most clinicians would find them too cumbersome and difficult to use. They do, however, indicate that VD and VL data during the first 4 weeks of treatment in patients with genotype 1, particularly when combined, can be used to categorize patients in different response groups, and indicate the possibility that a subgroup who have a very small chance to respond to SOC during 48weeks treatment can stop treatment already at week 4. This is at an earlier time point than treatment week 12 used in the currently operating guidelines, and can save unnecessary adverse events and costs for society [7], [24]. This, however, needs to be confirmed in a larger prospective study, which is not likely to be performed since the addition of STAT-C drugs to SOC treatment offers a promise to increase the RVR rates in genotype 1 from some 10–15% of today to 80–100%, making shorter treatment schedules possible [25].

A favourable outcome of treatment is, however, also to a very large extent dependent on a good compliance of the patients to the treatment length and to ribavirin and peg-IFN doses given, as indicated by the 80/80/80 rule [26].

In summary, the results of the study by Neumann et al. indicate that VD data can be used to calculate PPV better than VL determinations at certain time points, and that the combination of VD and VL data can do this even better. These calculations, however, are likely to be regarded as complicated and expensive and not practical for the every day care of patients. Calculations of the VD or the 2nd phase slope during the initial 4weeks of treatment might, however, offer a possibility to individualize the treatment duration for genotype 1 patients, from the categorized 24, 48 or 72 weeks’ treatment used today based on RVR or EVR, to more flexible treatment periods spanning from 24 to 72weeks.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Reichard O, Norkrans G, Fryden A, Braconier JH, Sonnerborg A, Weiland O. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of interferon alpha-2b with and without ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C. The Swedish Study Group. Lancet. 1998;351:83–87
  2. Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Reddy KR, Smith C, Marinos G, Goncales FL, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a plus ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:975–982
  3. Hadziyannis SJ, Sette H, Morgan TR, Balan V, Diago M, Marcellin P, et al. Peginterferon-alpha2a and ribavirin combination therapy in chronic hepatitis C: a randomized study of treatment duration and ribavirin dose. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:346–355
  4. Manns MP, McHutchison JG, Gordon SC, Rustgi VK, Shiffman M, Reindollar R, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin compared with interferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin for initial treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;358:958–965
  5. Neumann AU, Lam NP, Dahari H, Davidian M, Wiley TE, Mika BP, et al. Differences in viral dynamics between genotypes 1 and 2 of hepatitis C virus. J Infect Dis. 2000;182:28–35
  6. Neumann AU, Lam NP, Dahari H, Gretch DR, Wiley TE, Layden TJ, et al. Hepatitis C viral dynamics in vivo and the antiviral efficacy of interferon-alpha therapy. Science. 1998;282:103–107
  7. Läkemedelsbehandling av kronisk hepatit C hos vuxna och barn – uppdaterad rekommendation. Information från Läkemedelsverket (Information from the Swedish medical Product Agency) 2008;6:14–26.
  8. Ferenci P, Fried MW, Shiffman ML, Smith CI, Marinos G, Goncales FL, et al. Predicting sustained virological responses in chronic hepatitis C patients treated with peginterferon alfa-2a (40 KD)/ribavirin. J Hepatol. 2005;43:425–433
  9. Dalgard O, Bjoro K, Ring-Larsen H, Bjornsson E, Holberg-Petersen M, Skovlund E, et al. Pegylated interferon alfa and ribavirin for 14 versus 24weeks in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3 and rapid virological response. Hepatology. 2008;47:35–42
  10. Ferenci P, Laferl H, Scherzer TM, Gschwantler M, Maieron A, Brunner H, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin for 24weeks in hepatitis C ype 1 and 4 patients with rapid virological response. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:451–458
  11. Jensen DM, Morgan TR, Marcellin P, Pockros PJ, Reddy KR, Hadziyannis SJ, et al. Early identification of HCV genotype 1 patients responding to 24weeks peginterferon alpha-2a (40 kd)/ribavirin therapy. Hepatology. 2006;43:954–960
  12. Lagging M, Langeland N, Pedersen C, Farkkila M, Buhl MR, Morch K, et al. Randomized comparison of 12 or 24weeks of peginterferon alpha-2a and ribavirin in chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 2/3 infection. Hepatology. 2008;47:1837–1845
  13. Mangia A, Minerva N, Bacca D, Cozzolongo R, Agostinacchio E, Sogari F, et al. Determinants of relapse after a short (12weeks) course of antiviral therapy and re-treatment efficacy of a prolonged course in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 2 or 3 infection. Hepatology. 2009;49:358–363
  14. Zeuzem S, Buti M, Ferenci P, Sperl J, Horsmans Y, Cianciara J, et al. Efficacy of 24weeks treatment with peginterferon alfa-2b plus ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C infected with genotype 1 and low pretreatment viremia. J Hepatol. 2006;44:97–103
  15. Lagging M, Langeland N, Pedersen C, Farkkila M, Buhl MR, Morch K, et al. Weight-adjusted dosing of ribavirin and importance of hepatitis C virus RNA below 1000IU/mL by day 7 in short-term peginterferon therapy for chronic genotype 2/3 hepatitis C virus infection. Hepatology. 2008;48:695
  16. Weiland O, Hollander A, Mattsson L, Glaumann H, Lindahl K, Schvarcz R, et al. Lower-than-standard dose peg-IFN alfa-2a for chronic hepatitis C caused by genotype 2 and 3 is sufficient when given in combination with weight-based ribavirin. J Viral Hepat. 2008;15:641–645
  17. Pearlman BL, Ehleben C, Saifee S. Treatment extension to 72weeks of peginterferon and ribavirin in hepatitis c genotype 1-infected slow responders. Hepatology. 2007;46:1688–1694
  18. Sanchez-Tapias JM, Diago M, Escartin P, Enriquez J, Romero-Gomez M, Barcena R, et al. Peginterferon-alfa2a plus ribavirin for 48 versus 72weeks in patients with detectable hepatitis C virus RNA at week 4 of treatment. Gastroenterology. 2006;131:451–460
  19. Berg T, von Wagner M, Nasser S, Sarrazin C, Heintges T, Gerlach T, et al. Extended treatment duration for hepatitis C virus type 1: comparing 48 versus 72weeks of peginterferon-alfa-2a plus ribavirin. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:1086–1097
  20. Jessner W, Gschwantler M, Steindl-Munda P, Hofer H, Watkins-Riedel T, Wrba F, et al. Primary interferon resistance and treatment response in chronic hepatitis C infection: a pilot study. Lancet. 2001;358:1241–1242
  21. Drusano GL, Preston SL. A 48-week duration of therapy with pegylated interferon alpha 2b plus ribavirin may be too short to maximize long-term response among patients infected with genotype-1 hepatitis C virus. J Infect Dis. 2004;189:964–970
  22. Lindh M, Alestig E, Arnholm B, Eilard A, Hellstrand K, Lagging M, et al. Response prediction and treatment tailoring for chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection. J Clin Microbiol. 2007;45:2439–2445
  23. Neumann AU, Pianko S, Zuezem S, Yoshida EM, Benhamou Y, Mishan M, et al. Positive and negative prediction of sustained virologic response at weeks 2 and 4 of treatment with albinterferon alfa-2b or peginterferon alfa-2a in treatment-naïve patients with genotype 1, chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol. 2009;51:21–28
  24. Anonymous. NIH consensus development conference statement:management of hepatitis C 2002 (June 10–12, 2002). Hepatology 2002;36(Suppl. 1):S3–S20.
  25. Soriano V, Peters MG, Zeuzem S. New therapies for hepatitis C virus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48:313–320
  26. McHutchison JG, Manns M, Patel K, Poynard T, Lindsay KL, Trepo C, et al. Adherence to combination therapy enhances sustained response in genotype-1-infected patients with chronic hepatitis C. Gastroenterology. 2002;123:1061–1069

☆ The author has declared that he has received grants from Schering-Plough, Roche, Tibotec and Swedish Orphans and has declared that that he has been on the Speakers Bureau for Schering-Plough, Roche, Tibotec, Swedish Orphans, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead and Novartis. He also declared that he is the P.I. in Sweden for studies run by Roche, Schering-Plough, Merch Sharp; Dome Limited and Swedish Orphans.

PII: S0168-8278(09)00240-2

doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2009.04.002

Refers to article:

  • Positive and negative prediction of sustained virologic response at weeks 2 and 4 of treatment with albinterferon alfa-2b or peginterferon alfa-2a in treatment-naïve patients with genotype 1, chronic hepatitis C , 12 March 2009

    Avidan U. Neumann, Stephen Pianko, Stefan Zeuzem, Eric M. Yoshida, Yves Benhamou, Moshe Mishan, John G. McHutchison, Erik Pulkstenis, G. Mani Subramanian
    Journal of Hepatology July 2009 (Vol. 51, Issue 1, Pages 21-28)

Journal of Hepatology
Volume 51, Issue 1 , Pages 4-7, July 2009

Article Tools