Display options
Share it on

Comp Hepatol. 2005 Dec 21;4:9. doi: 10.1186/1476-5926-4-9.

Kinetics of hepatitis C virus RNA load during pegylated interferon alpha-2a and ribavirin treatment in naïve genotype 1 patients.

Comparative hepatology

Denis Ouzan, Hacène Khiri, Guillaume Pénaranda, Hélène Joly, Philippe Halfon

Affiliations

  1. Arnault Tzanck Institut, Saint Laurent du Var, France. [email protected]

PMID: 16371151 PMCID: PMC1343582 DOI: 10.1186/1476-5926-4-9

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pegylated interferon given for 24 or 48 weeks constitutes the most effective initial therapy for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. It has been shown that viral load at week 2 appears the best time for predicting response to treatment. The objectives of this study were to assess whether the hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA viral decline is predictive of sustained virological response (SVR) and to determine the best time for predicting complete response in our cohort of naïve patients treated with pegylated interferon alpha-2a (Peg-IFN alpha-2a) and ribavirin.

RESULTS: Twenty patients treated with Peg-IFN alpha-2a and ribavirin for 48 weeks were studied. Six months after the end of treatment, a SVR (negative HCV RNA measured by PCR six months after the end of therapy) was obtained in 9 patients. Samples were obtained before and at week 2, 4, 8, and 12. At the end of week 2, viral load decreased more than 1.39 log in 8 out of the 9 patients with SVR and in 1 out of the 11 other patients. When we considered the viral load reduction from baseline to each week of treatment, week 2 appeared to be the best point time for predicting SVR, with a sensitivity of 91% (95%CI: 59;99), a specificity of 89% (52;98), a positive predictive value of 91% (59;99) and a negative predictive value of 89% (57;98).

CONCLUSION: During treatment with Peg-IFN alpha-2a plus ribavirin in genotype 1 patients, when the main objective of the treatment is viral eradication, viral kinetics showed that week 2 appeared to be the best time point for predicting SVR. Our results must be further confirmed on a larger cohort.

References

  1. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Oct;15(10):1067-71 - PubMed
  2. Hepatology. 2001 Feb;33(2):419-23 - PubMed
  3. J Hepatol. 1999;31 Suppl 1:237-43 - PubMed
  4. Hepatology. 2004 Jun;39(6):1709-20 - PubMed
  5. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2003 Apr;18(4):404-10 - PubMed
  6. J Hepatol. 2001 Jan;34(1):100-7 - PubMed
  7. Hepatology. 2003 Jun;37(6):1343-50 - PubMed
  8. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Mar 2;140(5):346-55 - PubMed
  9. J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Jun;40(6):2031-6 - PubMed
  10. J Clin Virol. 2002 Dec;25 Suppl 3:S23-9 - PubMed
  11. J Viral Hepat. 2004 Sep;11(5):448-54 - PubMed
  12. Hepatol Res. 2002 Feb;22(2):152-160 - PubMed
  13. J Hepatol. 1996 Sep;25(3):307-11 - PubMed
  14. Rev Gastroenterol Disord. 2004;4 Suppl 1:S8-S13 - PubMed
  15. Lancet. 2001 Sep 22;358(9286):958-65 - PubMed
  16. Gastroenterology. 2001 May;120(6):1438-47 - PubMed
  17. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2004 Jan;53(1):15-8 - PubMed
  18. Antivir Ther. 2004 Aug;9(4):491-7 - PubMed
  19. Hepatology. 2003 Jun;37(6):1351-8 - PubMed
  20. J Viral Hepat. 2003 Sep;10(5):351-3 - PubMed
  21. Dig Dis Sci. 2001 Nov;46(11):2389-95 - PubMed
  22. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2004 Feb;6(1):17-21 - PubMed
  23. J Hepatol. 2001 Mar;34(3):435-40 - PubMed
  24. Gastroenterology. 2002 Jan;122(1):237-8 - PubMed
  25. N Engl J Med. 2002 Sep 26;347(13):975-82 - PubMed
  26. J Med Virol. 2005 Jan;75(1):27-34 - PubMed
  27. Ann Hepatol. 2002 Apr-Jun;1(2):56-63 - PubMed
  28. J Clin Microbiol. 2001 May;39(5):1771-3 - PubMed

Publication Types