Using pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin to treat chronic hepatitis patients infected with hepatitis C virus genotype 1: Are nonresponders and relapsers different populations?

The combination of pegylated interferon (PEG-INF) and ribavirin is currently the best treatment for chronic hepatitis C, providing a sustained virological response (SVR) in 54%-63% of patients. In patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1, the SVR rate is 42%-52%. To evaluate the treatment efficacy of this drug combination, we conducted an open, prospective study of 58 consecutive treatment-naive patients infected with HCV genotype 1 and treated at a university hospital, comparing those presenting an SVR (SVRs), nonresponders (NRs), and relapsers (RELs). Among the intent-to-treat patients, an end-of-treatment virological response was achieved in 69 % of the sample as a whole and in 52 % of the SVRs. We found that being an SVR was significantly associated with mild fibrosis (p = 0.04) and with undetectable HCV RNA at weeks 12 and 24 of treatment (p < 0.0001). Comparing the SVR and REL groups, we observed that being older than 40 was significantly associated with being a REL (p = 0.04). Being an NR was found to be associated with severe fibrosis and moderate inflammatory infiltrates (portal or periportal). In the polytomous logistic regression, no independent factors were associated with the REL group when compared with the SVR group. We conclude that RELs and NRs differ in comparison with SVRs. The RELs accounted for 17% of the sample. The HCV RNA test results at weeks 12 and 24 of treatment, although independent predictors of non-response (OR: 4.8 and 8.2, respectively), did not differ between SVRs and RELs.

The results of a randomized trial looking at 24 weeks vs 48 weeks of treatment with peginterferon alpha-2a (40 kDa) and ribavirin combination therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1

Peginterferon-alpha plus ribavirin is the most effective therapy for chronic hepatitis C. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of peginterferon alpha-2a (40 kDa) plus ribavirin on sustained virological response (SVR) when administered for 24 vs 48 weeks in genotype 1 naive patients. One hundred and seventeen patients were enrolled in this controlled trial. Genotype 1 patients were randomized to 24 weeks treatment vs 48 weeks treatment. Genotype non-1 patients received 24 weeks treatment as an observational group. Outcomes were SVR (defined by hepatitis C virus-RNA-negative at week 24 of follow-up) and tolerability across the study period. The end-of-treatment response was 59% for genotype 1 (24 weeks treatment), 80% for genotype 1 (48 weeks treatment) and 92% for genotype non-1 (24 weeks treatment). The end-of-follow-up response was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI): 7.2-36.4) (genotype 1, 24 weeks) and 48% (95% CI: 30.2-66.9; P = 0.0175) (genotype 1, 48 weeks). Among genotype non-1, SVR was 76% (95% CI: 62.3-86.5). There were no unexpected adverse events.Almost half of the genotype 1 patients achieved an SVR after 48 weeks treatment with peginterferon alpha-2a (40 kDa) and low-dose ribavirin and confirmed that they should be treated for 48 weeks. Safety profile was acceptable.

Exaggerating, mislabeling or simulating obsessive-compulsive symptoms: Case reports of patients claiming to have obsessive-compulsive disorder

Background: There are no reported cases of factitious or simulated obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). However, over the last years, our clinic has come across a number of individuals that seem to exaggerate, mislabel or even intentionally produce obsessive and/or compulsive symptoms in order to be diagnosed with OCD.Methods: In this study, experienced clinicians working on a university-based OCD clinic were requested to provide clinical vignettes of patients who, despite having a formal diagnosis of OCD, were felt to display non-genuine forms of this condition.Results: Ten non-consecutive patients with a self-proclaimed diagnosis of OCD were identified and described. Although patients were diagnosed with OCD according to various structured interviews, they exhibited diverse combinations of the following features: (i) overly technical and/or doctrinaire description of their symptoms, (ii) mounting irritability, as the interviewer attempts to unveil the underlying nature of these descriptions; (iii) marked shifts in symptom patterns and disease course; (iv) an affirmative yes pattern of response to interview questions; (v) multiple Axis I psychiatric disorders; (vi) cluster B features; (vii) an erratic pattern of treatment response; and (viii) excessive or contradictory drug-related side effects.Conclusions: In sum, reliance on overly structured assessments conducted by insufficiently trained or naive personnel may result in invalid OCD diagnoses, particularly those that leave no room for clinical judgment. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.