Abstract: Six randomised trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two hundred and one randomised participants (male = 174) were included. The risk of bias in all the included trials was high. Five trials compared interferon alpha with no treatment in the control group. One of these trials had two treatment arms with a higher dose and lower dose of interferon alpha and a no-treatment control group. We analysed both treatment regimens as a single group in a primary analysis and as separate groups in the subgroup analysis of different interferon dosages. The sixth trial compared only a higher dose of interferon alpha with a lower dose. Meta-analysis of five trials comparing interferon alpha with no-treatment control group included 169 participants. There were seven drop-outs in the treatment group and nine in the control group. One patient out of 92 (1.1%) died in the interferon alpha group compared with zero out of 77 (0.0%) in the no-intervention control group (risk ratio (RR)) 3.00; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 66.5). Interferon alpha led to failure of end of treatment virological response in 62/92 (67.4%) of the patients compared with 71/77 (92.2%) in the untreated controls (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.87, P = 0.0001 by fixed-effect model and RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.16, P = 0.17 by random-effects model). Failure of normalisation of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) at the end of treatment was seen in 60/92 (65.2%) patients treated with interferon alpha versus 76/77 (98.7%) in the control group (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.80, P < 0.00001). Sustained virological response was not achieved in 76/92 (82.6%) of patients on interferon compared with 73/77 (94.8%) of controls (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, P = 0.02). Serum alanine aminotransferase was abnormal in 81/92 (88.0%) treated with interferon alpha patients at six months post-treatment follow-up compared with 76/77 (98.7%) in controls (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99, P = 0.04). There was no significant histological improvement in 67/92 (72.8%) patients treated with interferon alpha compared with 65/77 (84.4%) in controls (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.00, P = 0.06). Two trials comparing a higher dose of interferon alpha with the lower dose showed no significant difference in sustained virological response (76.7% compared with 90.0%) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.07, P = 0.16). Adverse events such as flu-like symptoms, asthenia, weight loss, alopecia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia were reported in all these trials and the adverse events were related to interferon alpha. These were common and sometimes severe. One patient in the treatment group was reported to have died by suicide towards the end of the study period. Interferon alpha does not seem to cure hepatitis D in most patients. The agent seems effective in suppressing viral and liver disease activity in some patients, but this improvement is not sustained in the majority of patients. We cannot exclude overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms due to high risk of bias (systematic errors) and high risk play of chance (random errors). Therefore, more randomised trials with large sample sizes and less risk of bias are needed before interferon can be recommended or refuted.

Plain-language summary: This meta analysis of six randomised clinical trials of interferon shows that even Interferon alpha is not an ideal drug for this infection. Among the 169 participants included in primary meta analysis, interferon alpha induced loss of virus, normalisation of liver tests, and improvement in the liver biopsy in more patients compared with those who were left untreated. Unfortunately, most of these patients did not have sustained response after stopping treatment. Additional analysis of two trials comparing a higher dose of interferon alpha with lower dose among randomly assigned participants showed no significant difference in outcome between the two groups. There were differences in dosage and duration of interferon alpha used among included trials as well as some other methodological weakness which places a high risk of bias in this meta analysis.