Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 28, 2015; 21(24): 7412-7426
Published online Jun 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7412
Published online Jun 28, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7412
Author and year | Study design | Number of aged patients treated | Genotype 1/non-1 (available data) | Type of IFN ± RBV | SVR of aged patients vs SVR of younger patients (available data) | Discontinuation or dose reduction of aged patients vs discontinuation or dose reduction of younger patients (available data) |
Bresci et al[87], 1993 | Prospective | 22 | NA | IFN-α2b | NA | 4% |
Horiike et al[32], 1995 | Prospective | 19 | 0/19 | IFN-α2a/2b; β-IFN | NA | NA |
Van Thiel et al[88], 1995 | Prospective | 25 | Na | IFN-α2b | NA | NA |
Alessi et al[89], 2003 | Retrospective | 50 | 43/7 | IFN-α | 18% vs 20% P = 0.9 | NA |
Imai et al[90], 2004 | Retrospective | 649 | NA | IFN (unspecified) | 25% vs 43% P = 0.03 | NA |
Iwasaki et al[50], 2006 | Prospective | 73 | 50/23 (only 1/2) | IFN α2b + RBV | 32% vs 50% P = 0.078 | 77% vs 38%P < 0.001 |
Koyama et al[91], 2006 | Prospective | 84 | 35/49 | IFN-α2a IFN-α2b | 35.7% | 13.1% |
Honda et al[92], 20071 | Prospective | 66 | 54/12 | IFN-α2b + RBV | 31.8% vs 38.3% P = 0.3589 | 21.2% vs 14.9%P = 0.2540 |
Arase et al[93], 20071 | Prospective | NA (236 all patients) | NA | IFN-αIFN-β | 28% | NA |
Tsui et al[94], 20081 | Prospective | 35 | NA | IFN-α2b + RBV | 20% vs 18.5%P = 0.79 | 31% vs 31%P = 0.9 |
Arase et al[95], 2012 | Retrospective | 33 | 0/33 | IFN-β + RBV | 75.8% | 0% |
Zeuzem et al[96], 2004 | Prospective | 2 | 0/2 | PEG-IFN-α2b | 50% | NA |
Nudo et al[25], 2006 | Retrospective | 30 | 8/22 | IFN IFN + RBV PEG-IFN + RBV | 33.3% vs 51.2%P = 0.13 | 53% vs 34%P = 0.17 |
Floreani et al[97], 2006 | Prospective | 33 | NA | PEG-IFN + RBV | 45.5 vs 69.7%P = 0.02 | 24% vs 12.2%NS |
Thabut et al[43], 2006 | Prospective | 166 (281 treatments) | 141/104 | IFN, IFN + RBV, PEG-IFN alone, PEG-IFN + RBV, RBV alone | IFN 7%RBV 7%Peg-IFN alone 0%IFN + RBV 16%peg-IFN + RBV 45% | 20% |
Antonucci et al[42], 2007 | Retrospective | 30 | 11/19 | PEG-IFN + RBV | 70% vs 84% | 16.7% vs 15.8% |
Honda et al[26], 2010 | Prospective | 115 | 93/22 | PEG-IFN α2b + RBV | 37.4% vs 51.5%P = 0.0067 | 32.2% vs 17.0%P = 0.0003 |
Gramenzi et al[98], 2010 | Cross sectional | 34 | NA | IFNPEG-IFN + RBV | NA | 32% vs 20%NS |
Kainuma et al[48], 2010 | Prospective | 314 | 253/61 | PEG-IFN α2b + RBV | 31.2% | 36.3% |
Huang et al[99], 2010 | Prospective | 70 | 27/43 | PEG-IFN α2a + RBV | 67.1% vs 78.6%P = 0.07 | 21.4% vs 6.4%P = 0.001 |
Oze et al[100], 2011 | Prospective | 240 | 185/55 | PEG-IFN α2b + RBV | 35.4% | 23.9% |
Ebinuma et al[101], 20011 | Prospective | 101 | 102 | PEG-IFN + RBV | 41.5% vs 54.3%P = 0.0245 | NA |
Gramenzi et al[102], 2012 | Cross-sectional | 378 | NA | All types | 33% | NA |
Kim et al[103], 2012 | Retrospective | 38 | 13/25 | PEG-IFN α2a/2b + RBV | 65.8% vs 76.2%P = 0.15 | 21.1 vs 9.1%P = 0.05 |
Hu et al[104], 2013 | Prospective case control | 91 | 56/35 | PEG-IFN + RBV | 40.7% vs 61.5%P = 0.005 | 14.3% vs 3%P = 0.034 |
Frei et al[44], 2014 | Prospective | 98 | 63/35 | PEG-IFN + RBV | 46.5% vs 57.2%P = 0.0970 | 21.1% vs 18.4%NS |
- Citation: Vespasiani-Gentilucci U, Galati G, Gallo P, De Vincentis A, Riva E, Picardi A. Hepatitis C treatment in the elderly: New possibilities and controversies towards interferon-free regimens. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(24): 7412-7426
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i24/7412.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i24.7412