Hepatitis C treatment in the elderly: New possibilities and controversies towards interferon-free regimens

Table 1 Studies on conventional interferon/ribavirin-based regimens in aged patients

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

¹Elderly defined > 60 years; PEG: Pegylated; IFN: Interferon; RBV: Ribavirin; NA: Not available; NS: Not statistically significant.