Very interesting - and confusing. The authors repeatedly state there was no
significant difference in virologic response, and yet this graph from the
study seems to show otherwise:

http://images.medscape.com/images/564/003/art-jvh564003.fig2.gif

Plus, this graph seems in conflict with the previous graph:

http://images.medscape.com/images/564/003/art-jvh564003.fig3.gif

The first graph shows the responders, the second graph shows non-responders,
but when you add them together the numbers don't add up to the size of the
respective cohorts - until you add in the discontinuations which were *much*
higher in the 2b group. I think they could have found a better way to present
that data, but that's just the engineer in me.

It certainly appears Peg-Intron beats patients down faster and further than
Pegasys, at least as evidenced by the discontinuations in the respective
groups. This is something many of us have suspected, and I think this study
bears that out.

Curiously, however, the reasons for the higher discontinuation rates (for
"safety", per the study) aren't strongly supported by the blood count plots,
which were similar for neuts, hemoglobin and plates between the two groups. In
fact the only measurably significant difference was in the number of patients
suffering grade 3 neutropenia - which was higher in the Pegasys group - yet
there were far more dropouts in the Peg-Intron group (?!?)

<sigh> It's still very confusing, but if someone were to ask me which Peg to
use, I'd still say 2b (Peg-Intron) but warn that the ride could be a lot
rougher than with 2a...

Cheers - and thanks for posting the link, Thomas. Hope you're still hanging in
there with your treatment, and that it leads to success!

/greyhackles

Interesting.  At hepatitisdoctor.com the doctor says he usually starts
with 2a because treatment results are similar for both interferons but
the sides rougher for 2b.  Maybe he has something there.

Don