Methodological issues in papers on IFN therapy: time for reappraisal

We conducted an analytical review of 194 full papers on interferon (IFN) therapy for chronic hepatitis C to evaluate current methodology (i.e. study design, criteria for evaluating the efficacy of therapy and predictors of response). Of the papers evaluated, 64 were randomized controlled trials (RCT), 40 were non-randomized controlled trials (NRCT) and 90 were observational studies (OS). The methodological analysis was focused mainly on clinical trials. The number of patients enrolled in RCT was higher compared with the number enrolled in NRCT. Uniform enrolment criteria were used in less than 50% of the trials. Only 20% of RCT and 2.5% of NRCT used criteria for defining sample size. The response rate was calculated on an intention-to-treat basis in 36 of the RCT and in 14 of the NRCT. The outcome of treatment and the criteria employed to define the response to treatment were found to be far from standardized. In 51.5% of the RCT and 42.5% of the NRCT, normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level at the end of follow-up was the only marker of response studied. Only 57.6% of the trials considered histological evidence as an important outcome. Among the clinical trials, 71.1% evaluated predictors of good response to IFN therapy. In 51% of the OS, ALT normalization by the end of follow-up was the only criterion for defining response. In conclusion, to ensure a high level of reliability in comparing or combining the results of different studies, some basic general requirements must be followed when planning trials on antiviral therapy.