JAC Advance Access originally published online on April 10, 2009
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 2009 63(6):1256-1263; doi:10.1093/jac/dkp106
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Original research |
Pegylated interferon
2a plus ribavirin versus pegylated interferon
2b plus ribavirin for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C in HIV-infected patients



1 Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain 2 Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain 3 Hospital La Fé, Valencia, Spain 4 Hospital Donostia, San Sebastián, Spain 5 Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain 6 Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain 7 Hospital Príncipe de Asturias, Alcalá de Henares, Spain 8 Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain 9 Hospital General Universitario, Valencia, Spain 10 Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain 11 Hospital La Princesa, Madrid, Spain 12 Agencia de Ensayos Clínicos de Gesida, Madrid, Spain
Received 20 October 2008; returned 11 December 2008; revised 16 January 2009; accepted 27 February 2009
* Corresponding author. Unidad de Enfermedades Infecciosas/VIH (4100), Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Doctor Esquerdo 46, 28007 Madrid, Spain. Tel: +34-91-586-8592; Fax: +34-91-426-5177; E-mail: juaberber{at}terra.es
Objectives: The two currently available types of pegylated interferon (peg-IFN) used to treat hepatitis C have different pharmacokinetic properties. It is unclear how these differences affect response to therapy. We compared the effectiveness and safety of peg-IFN-
2a and peg-IFN-
2b, both with ribavirin, against chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in HIV-infected patients.
Methods: From the GESIDA HIV/HCV cohort, we analysed patients treated with peg-IFN-
2a (n = 315) or peg-IFN-
2b (n = 242). The primary endpoint was a sustained virological response (SVR).
Results: Both groups were well matched in baseline characteristics except for a higher frequency of injection drug users in the peg-IFN-
2b group than in the peg-IFN-
2a group (85% versus 76%; P = 0.01) and a higher frequency of bridging fibrosis and cirrhosis (F3–F4) in the peg-IFN-
2b group than in the peg-IFN-
2a group (42% versus 33%; P = 0.04). End-of-treatment response was significantly lower among patients treated with peg-IFN-
2b [40% versus 52%; odds ratio (OR), 1.63; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.16–2.29; P < 0.01]. However, no significant differences were found in SVR between patients treated with peg-IFN-
2b and those treated with peg-IFN-
2a (31% versus 33%; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75–1.59; P = 0.655). Therapy was interrupted due to adverse events in 33 (14%) patients treated with peg-IFN-
2b and 47 (15%) patients treated with peg-IFN-
2a.
Conclusions: No differences in effectiveness and safety were found between peg-IFN-
2b and peg-IFN-
2a for the treatment of chronic HCV infection in HIV-infected patients.
Keywords: comparative study , IFN , HCV , effectiveness , safety , infections
J. B. and J. G.-G. contributed equally to this study.
Members of the GESIDA HIV/HCV cohort are listed in the Acknowledgements section.