***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: CONTEXT Previous studies indicate that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw proindustry conclusions . OBJECTIVE To explore whether the association between funding and conclusions in r and omized drug trials reflects treatment effects or adverse events . DESIGN Observational study of 370 r and omized drug trials included in meta-analyses from Cochrane review s selected from the Cochrane Library , May 2001 . From a r and om sample of 167 Cochrane review s , 25 contained eligible meta-analyses ( assessed a binary outcome ; pooled at least 5 full-paper trials of which at least 1 reported adequate and 1 reported inadequate allocation concealment ) . The primary binary outcome from each meta- analysis was considered the primary outcome for all trials included in each meta- analysis . The association between funding and conclusions was analyzed by logistic regression with adjustment for treatment effect , adverse events , and additional confounding factors ( method ological quality , control intervention , sample size , publication year , and place of publication ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Conclusions in trials , classified into whether the experimental drug was recommended as the treatment of choice or not . RESULTS The experimental drug was recommended as treatment of choice in 16 % of trials funded by nonprofit organizations , 30 % of trials not reporting funding , 35 % of trials funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations , and 51 % of trials funded by for-profit organizations ( P<.001 ; chi2 test ) . Logistic regression analyses indicated that funding , treatment effect , and double blinding were the only significant predictors of conclusions . Adjusted analyses showed that trials funded by for-profit organizations were significantly more likely to recommend the experimental drug as treatment of choice ( odds ratio , 5.3 ; 95 % confidence interval , 2.0 - 14.4 ) compared with trials funded by nonprofit organizations . This association did not appear to reflect treatment effect or adverse events . CONCLUSIONS Conclusions in trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive due to biased interpretation of trial results . Readers should carefully evaluate whether conclusions in r and omized trials are supported by data Abstract Objectives : The purpose of this r and omized open-label study was to assess the efficacy of treatment with pegylated interferon-α-2a versus pegylated interferon-α-2b , both plus ribavirin , in inducing early and sustained virological response ( EVR and SVR ) in chronic hepatitis C non-responders . Patients and methods : A total of 108 patients with chronic hepatitis C who were non-responders to previous combined therapy ( st and ard interferon-α plus ribavirin for ≥3 months ) were enrolled and equally r and omized into two groups in this intention-to-treat analysis . The patients exhibited similar baseline features . One group received subcutaneous pegylated interferon-α-2a 180 μg once weekly , while the other was treated with subcutaneous pegylated interferon-α-2b 1.5 μg/ kg once weekly . Ribavirin 15 mg/kg/day was included in both protocol s. Treatment duration for EVR was 12 weeks . Patients who demonstrated non-detectable hepatitis C virus ( HCV ) RNA or a ≥2 log10 reduction in viral load at week 12 continued therapy up to 48 weeks , with assessment s every 3 months during a follow-up of 24 weeks . Results : All patients in both groups completed the EVR study , then seven patients receiving pegylated interferon-α-2a and seven patients receiving pegylated interferon-α2b discontinued treatment as a result of severe adverse effects . After 12 weeks of treatment , viral load reduction was > 2 log10 with both pegylated interferon-α-2a ( −2.53 ) and pegylated interferon-α-2b ( −2.48 ) with no significant difference . At the end of week 48 , HCV RNA was undetectable in 14 of 54 patients ( 25.9 % ) receiving pegylated interferon-α-2a and in 15 of 54 patients ( 27.7 % ) receiving pegylated interferon-α-2b . When terminating follow-up , an SVR was observed in 11 of 54 patients ( 20.4 % ) who received pegylated interferon-α-2a and 10 of 54 patients ( 18.4 % ) receiving pegylated interferon-α-2b  . The incidence and severity of adverse events was similar in both groups . Conclusions : Our results seem to show that in chronic hepatitis C patients who are non-responsive to previous therapy , EVR to the two pegylated interferons did not significantly differ with a similar therapeutic efficacy defined as SVR AIM The therapy of chronic hepatitis C genotype 4 ( HCV-4 ) has not been optimized yet . This r and omized , prospect i ve , parallel-group clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon α-2a ( PEG-IFN α-2a ) plus ribavirin and PEG-IFN α-2b plus ribavirin and assessed the health-related quality of life ( HRQOL ) in patients with chronic HCV-4 . METHODS Eligible patients with proven chronic HCV-4 were r and omized to receive either a weekly dose of PEG-IFN α-2a ( 180 μg ) or PEG-IFN α-2b ( 1.5 μg/kg ) and a daily dose of ribavirin ( 1000 - 1200 mg ) for 48 weeks with 24 weeks post-treatment follow-up . The primary end point was sustained virological response ( SVR ) defined by undetectable HCV RNA 24 weeks after treatment . The Short form-36 Health Survey version 2 ( SF-36v2 ) and the Chronic Liver Disease question naires ( CLDQ ) were assessed before , during and after therapy . RESULTS The overall SVR rate of the entire cohort was 59.9 % . The SVR rates were significantly higher in patients treated with PEG-IFN α-2a and ribavirin ( Group A ; n=109 ) compared with those treated with PEG-IFN α-2b and ribavirin ( Group B ; n=108 , 70.6 vs. 54.6 % , respectively ; P=0.017 ) . The relapse rates were 5.1 % for PEG-IFN α-2a and 15.7 % for PEG-IFN α-2b ( P=0.0019 ) . The SF-36v2 and CLDQ were low during therapy and improved significantly after therapy successful therapy . CONCLUSION Pegylated interferon α-2a plus ribavirin was significantly more effective than PEG-IFN α-2b and ribavirin therapy in the treatment of chronic HCV-4 patients . The tolerability and adverse events were comparable between the two regimens . The HRQOL improved significantly after successful PEG-IFN α-2a plus ribavirin therapy UNLABELLED Although two pegylated interferons ( Peg-IFN ) are available to treat chronic hepatitis C virus ( HCV ) infection , no head-to-head comparative studies have been published . We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of PEG IFN alfa-2b ( PEG 2b ) versus PEG IFN alfa-2a ( PEG 2a ) , plus ribavirin ( RBV ) . A prospect i ve , r and omized , multi-center , open-label clinical trial including 182 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-hepatitis C virus ( HCV ) patients naïve for HCV therapy was performed . Patients were assigned to PEG 2b ( 80 - 150 mug/week ; n = 96 ) or PEG 2a ( 180 mug/week ; n = 86 ) , plus RBV ( 800 - 1200 mg/day ) for 48 weeks . The primary endpoint was sustained virological response ( SVR : negative HCV-RNA 24 weeks after completion of treatment ) . At baseline , both groups were well balanced : 73 % male ; 63 % HCV genotype 1 or [ corrected ] 4 ; 29 % had fibrosis index of 3 or greater . The overall SVR was 44 % ( 42 % PEG 2b versus 46 % PEG 2a , P = 0.65 ) . Among genotypes 1 or [ corrected ] 4 , SVRs were 28 % versus 32 % ( P = 0.67 ) and 62 % versus 71 % ( P = 0.6 ) in genotypes 2 or [ corrected ] 3 for PEG 2b and PEG 2a , respectively . Early virological response ( EVR ; > or=2 log reduction from baseline or negative HCV-RNA at week 12 ) was 70 % in the PEG 2b group and 80 % in the PEG 2a group ( P = 0.13 ) , reaching a positive predictive value of SVR of 64 % and a negative predictive value of 100 % in both arms . Side effects were present in 96 % of patients but led to treatment discontinuation in 10 % of patients ( 8 % on PEG 2b and 13 % on PEG 2a , P = 0.47 ) . CONCLUSION In patients with HIV , HCV therapy with PEG 2b or PEG 2a plus RBV had no significant differences in efficacy and safety BACKGROUND / AIMS To compare the pharmacokinetics , pharmacodynamics , and antiviral activity of  peginterferon alfa-2b and peginterferon alfa-2a in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1 . METHODS Thirty-six patients were r and omised to peginterferon alfa-2b ( 1.5 microg/kg/week ) or peginterferon alfa-2a ( 180 microg/week ) for 4 weeks , then in combination with ribavirin ( 13 mg/kg/day ) for a further 4 weeks . The pharmacokinetic profile of both peginterferons , mRNA expression of a selected group of interferon-induced gene transcripts , and serum HCV-RNA levels were assessed . RESULTS Patients receiving peginterferon alfa-2b had significantly greater up-regulation of interferon-alfa response genes compared with those receiving peginterferon alfa-2a . Correspondingly , patients treated with peginterferon alfa-2b also had a significantly greater log10 maximum and log10 time-weighted average decrease in serum HCV-RNA . A greater proportion of peginterferon alfa-2b patients achieved a > or = 2.0 log10 reduction in serum HCV-RNA levels by week 8 ( 72 % vs 44 % of peginterferon alfa-2a patients , P = 0.09 ) . There was an approximately 16-fold greater exposure to peginterferon in the serum of patients treated with peginterferon alfa-2a . CONCLUSIONS These findings suggest that the biological activity , measured by early interferon-induced gene transcripts and early antiviral responsiveness , may have been greater in patients treated with peginterferon alfa-2b despite their lower exposure to the drug compared with patients treated with peginterferon alfa-2a BACKGROUND & AIMS Ribavirin ( RBV ) combined with either pegylated interferon ( PegIFN ) alpha2a or PegIFNalpha2b is the st and ard of care for chronic hepatitis C virus ( HCV ) infection . Due to the lack of head-to-head studies , the 2 PegIFNs have not been directly compared . The endpoints of our study were safety and antiviral efficacy of the 2 regimens . METHODS Treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C were r and omly ( 1:1 ) assigned after stratification for HCV genotype to receive either 1.5 mcg/Kg/week PegIFNalpha2b plus RBV 800 - 1200 mg/day or 180 mcg/week PegIFNalpha2a plus RBV 800 - 1200 mg/day for 24 or 48 weeks according to HCV genotype . The study was powered to detect a difference of at least 10 % in safety and efficacy of the 2 regimens . RESULTS The 212 patients on PegIFNalpha2a and the 219 patients on PegIFNalpha2b had similar baseline characteristics , including cirrhosis ( 20 % vs 18 % , respectively ) . By intention to treat , the 2 groups showed similar rates of treatment-related serious adverse events ( 1 % vs 1 % , respectively ) and drop out rates for adverse effects ( 7 % vs 6 % , respectively ) . Overall , sustained virologic response ( SVR ) rate was higher in PegIFNalpha2a than in PegIFNalpha2b patients ( 66 % vs 54 % , respectively , P = .02 ) , being 48 % vs 32 % in the 222 HCV-1 and -4 patients ( P = .04 ) , and 96 % vs 82 % , respectively , in the 143 HCV-2 patients ( P = .01 ) . PegIFNalpha2a independently predicted SVR in the logistic regression analysis ( odds ratio , 1.88 ; 95 % confidence interval : 1.20 - 2.96 ) . CONCLUSIONS Although the 2 regimens showed a similar 
    Output:
    
Trial sequential analyses supported the results in patients with genotypes 1 and 4 , but not in patients with genotypes 2 and 3 .
There is lack of evidence on patient-important outcomes and paucity of evidence on adverse events .
Moderate quality evidence suggests that peginterferon alpha-2a is associated with a higher sustained virological response in serum than with peginterferon alpha-2b .
The clinical consequences of peginterferon alpha-2a versus peginterferon alpha-2b are unknown , and we can not translate an effect on sustained virological response into comparable clinical effects because sustained virological response is still an unvali date d surrogate outcome for patient-important outcomes .
The lack of evidence on patient-important outcomes and the paucity of evidence on adverse events means that we are unable to draw any conclusions about the effects of one peginterferon over the other