Over the past decade, significant improvements have been made in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C （CHC）, especially with the introduction of combined therapy using both interferon and ribavarin. The optimal dose...Over the past decade, significant improvements have been made in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C （CHC）, especially with the introduction of combined therapy using both interferon and ribavarin. The optimal dose and duration of treatment is still a matter of debate and, importantly, the efficacy of this combined treatment varies with the viral genotype responsible for infection. In general, patients infected with viral genotypes 2 or 3 more readily achieve a sustained viral response than those infected with viral genotype 1. The introduction of a pegylated version of interferon in the past decade has produced better clinical outcomes in patients infected with viral genotype 1. However, the published literature shows no improvement in clinical outcomes in patients infected with viral genotypes 2 or 3 when they are treated with pegylated interferon as opposed to nonpegylated interferon, both given in combination with ribavarin. This is significant because the cost of a 24-wk treatment with pegylated interferon in lessdeveloped countries is between six and 30 times greater than that of treatment with interferon. Thus, clinicians need to carefully consider the cost-versusbenefit of using pegylated interferon to treat CHC, particularly when there is no evidence for clinically measurable benefits in patients with genotypes 2 and 3 infections.展开更多
文摘Over the past decade, significant improvements have been made in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C （CHC）, especially with the introduction of combined therapy using both interferon and ribavarin. The optimal dose and duration of treatment is still a matter of debate and, importantly, the efficacy of this combined treatment varies with the viral genotype responsible for infection. In general, patients infected with viral genotypes 2 or 3 more readily achieve a sustained viral response than those infected with viral genotype 1. The introduction of a pegylated version of interferon in the past decade has produced better clinical outcomes in patients infected with viral genotype 1. However, the published literature shows no improvement in clinical outcomes in patients infected with viral genotypes 2 or 3 when they are treated with pegylated interferon as opposed to nonpegylated interferon, both given in combination with ribavarin. This is significant because the cost of a 24-wk treatment with pegylated interferon in lessdeveloped countries is between six and 30 times greater than that of treatment with interferon. Thus, clinicians need to carefully consider the cost-versusbenefit of using pegylated interferon to treat CHC, particularly when there is no evidence for clinically measurable benefits in patients with genotypes 2 and 3 infections.
