Optimal drug administration manner would rescue partial virological response in chronic hepatitis B patients with entecavir or tenofovir treatment

Not all treatment‐naïve patients receiving entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) therapy can achieve complete virological response, and many factors may be related with the outcome of partial virological response. This study aimed to determine whether the manner of drug administration affects the antiviral efficacy of ETV/TDF monotherapy. All eligible patients were divided into complete or partial response cohorts based on their virological response following 24‐week therapy. Factors related with partial response were evaluated. Patients with partial response were further grouped depending on whether they later adjusted the manner of drug administration, and the antiviral efficacy was compared between the two groups during prolonged treatment. A total of 518 patients were enrolled. Suboptimal drug administration (OR 77.511, P = .000), positive‐HBeAg (OR 3.191, P = .000) and ETV treatment (OR 2.537, P = .001) were identified as independent risk factors for partial response. Among patients with partial response, 213 were in the adjusted group and 76 were in the unadjusted group. The percentages of patients with undetectable serum HBV DNA (78.9% vs 31.6%, P < .001) and with normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (88.7% vs 68.4%, P < .001) were both higher in the adjusted group than that in unadjusted group following a further 6‐month therapy. In conclusion, the manner of drug administration is an important factor influencing the efficacy of ETV/TDF therapy, and optimal drug administration manner can help to increase antiviral efficacy and rescue patients with partial response.     

Differential Relapse Patterns After Discontinuation of Entecavir vs Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in Chronic Hepatitis B

Background and AimsWhether entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) differentially affect relapse and outcomes following treatment discontinuation across different patient subpopulations remains unclear. We aimed to compare rates of off-therapy hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss, virological and clinical relapse, and retreatment between chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who discontinued TDF or ETV therapy.MethodsThis study included 1402 virally suppressed CHB patients who stopped either ETV (n = 981) or TDF (n = 421) therapy between 2001 and 2020 from 13 participating centers across North America, Europe, and Asia. All patients were hepatitis B e antigen–negative at treatment discontinuation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the treatment groups. Outcomes were analyzed using survival methods.ResultsDuring a median off-treatment follow-up of 18 months, HBsAg loss occurred in 96 (6.8%) patients overall. Compared with ETV, TDF was associated with a higher rate of HBsAg loss (P = .03); however, the association was no longer significant after statistical adjustment (P = .61). Virological relapse occurred earlier among TDF-treated patients (P < .01); nonetheless, rates became comparable after the first year off therapy (P = .49). TDF was significantly associated with a higher clinical relapse rate than ETV throughout follow-up (P < .01). The development of a virological or clinical relapse did not affect the rate of HBsAg loss. Retreatment rates were not significantly different between the treatment groups.ConclusionsTDF and ETV have differential relapse patterns but are associated with similar rates of HBsAg loss and retreatment following discontinuation. Finite therapy can be considered for CHB patients on either TDF or ETV therapy.     

Comparison of 48‐week efficacy of tenofovir vs entecavir for patients with chronic hepatitis B: A network meta‐analysis

Both tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are accepted as first‐line treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few randomized studies comparing their efficacy. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of TDF and ETV using a network meta‐analysis of randomized trials. The secondary aim was to additionally include propensity‐matched cohort studies in a conventional meta‐analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for published English‐language randomized and propensity‐matched studies between 1/1/2000 and 4/2/2020. Outcomes included undetectable HBV DNA, ALT normalization and HBeAg seroconversion at 48 weeks. We excluded patients who had co‐infection or significant prior treatment with antivirals. 13 517 participants from 16 studies (11 RCTs, n = 2675; five propensity‐matched cohort studies, n = 10 842) were included. Virological response at 48 weeks was higher in patients receiving TDF compared to ETV using both the network meta‐analytic approach (OR 1.69, P < .001) and the conventional meta‐analysis including propensity‐matched cohort studies (OR 1.40, P < .001). On subgroup analysis, this difference was only significant in HBeAg‐positive patients (OR 1.81, P = .037). There was limited evidence to suggest a higher rate of ALT normalization with ETV (OR 0.74, P = .07). There was no difference in rates of HBeAg seroconversion between the two antivirals. TDF is more likely than ETV to induce virological response at 48 weeks in treatment‐naïve CHB patients. Future studies should focus on elucidating associations between early and sustained virological response with adverse patient outcomes including development of HCC or cirrhosis.     

Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate,Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Entecavir: Which is the Most Effective Drug for Chronic Hepatitis B? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background and AimsThe therapeutic effect of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) on chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients remains inconsistent. The aim of this study was to explore the differences in virological responses to TAF, TDF and ETV in patients with CHB.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted of the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies published up to July 21, 2020. Statistical comparisons of virological response between TDF, ETV, and TAF were carried out with pooled odds ratio (OR) values.ResultsThe virological response in TDF-treated CHB patients was notably superior to that of the ETV-treated CHB patients after 12-weeks [OR=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89–1.41], 24-weeks (OR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.11–1.61), 48-weeks (OR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.16–2.25), 72-weeks (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 0.78–2.62), and 96-weeks (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 0.87–2.81) treatment. No significant difference was observed for the virological responses in CHB patients after 48-weeks treatment with TAF or TDF. The virological response in TDF+ETV-treated CHB patients was superior to that of TDF-treated CHB patients after 24-weeks, 48-weeks (OR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.17–2.02), 96-weeks, and 144-weeks.ConclusionsThe virological response in TDF-treated CHB patients was superior to that in ETV-treated CHB patients, but there was no significant difference between TAF and TDF. In addition, the therapeutic effect of TDF+ETV was superior to TDF alone.     

Tenofovir versus tenofovir plus entecavir for chronic hepatitis B with lamivudine resistance and entecavir resistance

We compared the viral suppressive efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) mono‐rescue therapy (TDF group) and TDF plus entecavir (ETV) combination‐rescue therapy (TDF + ETV group) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine resistance and entecavir resistance. One hundred and thirty‐three CHB patients with lamivudine and entecavir resistance were investigated. Ninety‐six patients were treated with TDF and 37 with TDF + ETV for at least 6 months. We compared the virologic response rate (HBV DNA level <20 IU/mL) between the two groups and identified the predictive factors of treatment outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups in demographic characteristics. Up to 24 months [median: 18 (range 6‐24) months], 85.4% and 89.2% of the TDF group and TDF + ETV group, respectively, achieved a virologic response (P=.068). Only the HBV DNA level at baseline was significantly associated with a virologic response in the multivariate analysis. In a subanalysis of patients with HBV DNA levels ≥4 log (IU/mL) at baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the TDF + ETV group than the TDF group achieved a virologic response (92.9% vs 68.3%; P<.001), while 90% of patients with HBV DNA (IU/mL) levels <4 log in all both TDF and TDF + ETV groups achieved a virologic response. TDF mono‐rescue therapy is a reasonable option in patients with lamivudine resistance and entecavir resistance. However, the combination strategy should be considered in patients with high baseline HBV DNA levels.     

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs adefovir dipivoxil in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B after 48 weeks: a randomized controlled trial

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) has demonstrated long‐term efficacy and a high barrier to resistance in multiple chronic hepatitis B (CHB) populations outside of China. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TDF compared with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) in Chinese patients with CHB during 48 weeks of treatment (ClinicalTrial.gov number, NCT01300234). A Phase 3, multicentred, randomized, double‐blind, controlled trial compared the efficacy and safety of TDF with ADV in Chinese patients with CHB. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HBV DNA <400 copies/mL in each treatment group at Week 48, using an unpooled Z‐test for superiority. Secondary endpoints included viral suppression, serologic response, histological improvement, normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels and the emergence of resistance mutations. A total of 509 patients, 202 hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)‐positive and 307 HBeAg‐negative, with HBV DNA ≥10⁵ copies/mL received either TDF 300 mg od or ADV 10 mg od. At Week 48, TDF demonstrated superior viral suppression compared with ADV in both HBeAg‐positive (76.7% vs 18.2%, P < 0.0001) and HBeAg‐negative (96.8% vs 71.2%, P < 0.0001) patients. The majority of patients in both treatment arms achieved ALT normalization (>85%). No resistance to TDF was observed. The frequency of adverse events was comparable between treatment arms (TDF 3.9% vs ADV 4.8%). In this double‐blind, randomized, clinical trial, TDF demonstrated superiority over ADV with respect to viral suppression in Chinese patients with CHB at 48 weeks of treatment and without the development of resistance.     

Sequential therapy with entecavir and PEG‐INF in patients affected by chronic hepatitis B and high levels of HBV‐DNA with non‐D genotypes

Complete eradication of hepatitis B virus (HBV) is rarely achieved. Treatment options include currently available nucleos(t)ide analogues and pegylated interferon. The aim of our exploratory study was to assess the effectiveness of sequential therapy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) vs the current standard of care. We evaluated an association with entecavir and pegylated interferon alfa‐2a (PEG‐IFN) in 20 patients with hepatitis B, high HBV viremia and genotypes A, B, C and E. Patients received entecavir alone for 12 weeks, then entecavir and PEG‐IFN for 12 weeks, lastly PEG‐IFN alone for 36 weeks. The results were compared with 20 patients (control group) treated in the past with 48 weeks of PEG‐IFN monotherapy. Our results show that complete sustained virological response (SVR) and partial SVR were, respectively, 60% and 80% in the study group and 10% and 30% in the control group; anti‐HBe seroconversion rate were 76.9% vs 15%, and anti‐HBs seroconversion were 20% vs 0%, respectively. We found a correlation among different genotypes and virological and serological outcomes – genotype C has a better virological response, while genotype A had a better serological response, and E genotype had a poor response. These results show that a sequential approach is a promising strategy of treatment in patients with CHB and high viremia in comparison with PEG‐IFN monotherapy. The E genotype seems to have the worse rate of response and requires other treatment strategies.     

Long-term efficacy and safety of switching from lamivudine + adefovir to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in virologically suppressed patients

Background and AimTenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is recommended as first-line monotherapy for nucleos(t)ide (NA)-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients and as a second-line rescue therapy for NA-experienced patients with a previous treatment failure. However, data regarding the efficacy of TDF monotherapy in patients with lamivudine resistance (LAM-R) successfully treated with LAM + adefovir (ADV) are limited. Herein, the efficacy and safety of switching from LAM + ADV to TDF monotherapy in clinical practice have been evaluated.MethodsSixty LAM-R HBeAg-negative CHB patients treated with ADV add-on therapy and stable viral suppression, were switched to TDF monotherapy and prospectively evaluated for virological response, liver and renal function, and bone mineral density.ResultsDuring a median period of 57 months of TDF monotherapy, all patients maintained a virological response, four of whom cleared HBsAg (6.6%) and discontinued treatment. Monitoring of renal function showed no case of the Fanconi syndrome, no significant alterations of median serum creatinine, eGFR and phosphate levels, although a reduction of TDF dosage was required in five patients (8.3%). Despite the stable virological suppression, five cirrhotic patients and one CHB patient developed hepatocellular carcinoma.ConclusionsOur results demonstrate the efficacy of switching to TDF monotherapy in virologically suppressed CHB patients receiving long-term LAM + ADV therapy, with a low rate of adverse events.     

Loss of intrahepatic HBsAg expression predicts sustained response to peginterferon and is reflected by pronounced serum HBsAg decline

There is a lack of knowledge regarding the effect of peginterferon (PEG‐IFN) on the expression of intrahepatic hepatitis B core and surface antigen (HBcAg and HBsAg) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and its relation with response to therapy. Fifty‐two HBeAg‐positive and 67 HBeAg‐negative CHB patients with paired liver biopsies taken at baseline and after 1 year of PEG‐IFN therapy were studied. After PEG‐IFN therapy, HBeAg‐negative patients showed a significant reduction in both intrahepatic HBcAg (P = 0.04) and HBsAg expression (P < 0.001). In contrast, a reduction in intrahepatic HBcAg expression was not observed in HBeAg‐positive patients, while a trend in reduction of intrahepatic HBsAg staining was found (P = 0.09). Post‐treatment, 7 (13%) HBeAg‐positive and 9 (14%) HBeAg‐negative patients had no expression of intrahepatic HBsAg. Patients without any intrahepatic HBsAg expression post‐treatment were more likely to achieve a combined response (HBeAg loss with hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA <2000 IU/mL for HBeAg ‐positive and HBV DNA <2000 IU/mL and normal alanine aminotransferase for HBeAg‐negative CHB): 71% vs 5% for HBeAg‐positive (P < 0.001) and 60% vs 16% for HBeAg‐negative patients (P = 0.004), respectively. Moreover, a more profound decline of serum HBsAg was observed in patients with absence of intrahepatic HBsAg staining (3.1 vs 0.4 log IU/mL, P < 0.001 and 1.7 vs 0.4 log IU/mL, P = 0.005 for HBeAg‐positive and HBeAg‐negative CHB, respectively). In conclusion, PEG‐IFN reduces expression of intrahepatic HBsAg. Loss of HBsAg as assessed by immunohistochemistry from the liver predicts a sustained response and is reflected in a pronounced serum HBsAg decline.     

Long‐term entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate therapy in treatment‐naïve chronic hepatitis B patients in the real‐world setting

The aim of this study was to determine the long‐term efficacy of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) on the natural course of disease in chronic hepatitis B patients (CHB) with/without cirrhosis in clinical practice. A total of 355 treatment‐naïve CHB patients were enrolled into the study. The primary outcome measure was viral suppression as defined by serum HBV DNA level <20 IU/mL. A secondary outcome measure was to determine the development of Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Virological and biochemical responses were similar between the two treatment groups over time. The presence of cirrhosis and hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positivity did not appear to impact viral suppression. The cumulative probability of HBeAg loss was 41% at 4 years of therapy. Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss occurred in four patients. Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score was significantly improved from baseline to week 48 and 96 under antiviral therapy (P = 0.013, P = 0.01). HCC was diagnosed in 17 patients (4.8%). The cumulative probability of the development of HCC was 3.3% at 1 year and 7.3% at 4 years of therapy. The development of HCC was independently associated with older age (P = 0.031) and the presence of cirrhosis (P = 0.004). Serum creatinine levels and creatinine clearance remained stable over time. ETV and TDF effectively maintained virological and biochemical responses in long‐term follow‐up of CHB patients with/without cirrhosis. HCC may still develop, although at a lower rate, and is more likely to develop in patients with cirrhosis, especially in older patients.     

替诺福韦酯单独与联合恩替卡韦挽救治疗恩替卡韦治疗拉米夫定经治慢性乙型肝炎失败患者疗效比较

目的比较替诺福韦酯单药与联合恩替卡韦对恩替卡韦治疗慢性乙型肝炎拉米夫定经治患者仍应答不佳或发生病毒学突破的挽救方案的临床疗效及安全性。方法将80例恩替卡韦序贯治疗仍效果欠佳的拉米夫定经治慢性乙型肝炎患者随机分为单药组40例和联合组40例。单药组给予替诺福韦酯(300 mg/d)替换治疗;联合组使用替诺福韦酯(300 mg/d)和恩替卡韦(0.5 mg/d)治疗。所有患者均治疗48周,检测基线,治疗12、24和48周时病毒学、生化学、血清学指标。比较两组患者上述治疗时间点的完全病毒学应答率、ALT复常率、病毒学突破率和HBeAg血清学转换率及观察药物不良反应。结果单药组患者治疗48周后完全病毒学应答率、ALT复常率、病毒学突破率、HBeAg血清学转换率分别为85.0%(34/40)、76.2%(16/21)、0、13.1%(3/23),联合组分别为87.5%(35/40)、77.3%(17/22)、0、16.0%(41/25),两组比较差异无统计学意义(均P0.05)。两组患者耐受性均良好,无一例出现严重不良反应而导致停药。结论对于恩替卡序贯治疗后仍应答不佳或发生病毒学突破的拉米夫定经治慢性乙型肝炎患者,替诺福韦酯单药替换恩替卡韦的挽救治疗仍能有效抑制HBV DNA复制,是一种行之有效的优化治疗方案。     

Tenofovir,entecavir, and lamivudine in patients with severe acute exacerbation and hepatic decompensation of chronic hepatitis B

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of and mortality after lamivudine (LAM), tenofovir (TDF), and entecavir (ETV) treatment in patients with severe acute chronic hepatitis B (CHB) exacerbation.MethodsWe analyzed 91 patients with severe acute CHB exacerbation treated with LAM (n = 28), TDF (n = 26), or ETV (n = 37) for 10 years. The primary endpoint was overall mortality or liver transplantation (LT) by 48 weeks. The determined predictors of mortality, virologic and biochemical responses, and drug resistance were also evaluated.ResultsThe overall mortality or LT rate was not significantly different among the LAM (14.3%), ETV (10.8%), and TDF (3.8%) groups (P = 0.435). In the multivariate analysis, the occurrence of ascites (hazard ratio [HR] 10.467, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.596–68.645, P = 0.014) and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores above 25 (HR 28.920, CI 4.719-177.251, P = 0.000) increased the risk of mortality or LT. All groups showed similar biochemical responses (P = 0.134), virologic responses (HBV DNA <116 copies/mL, P = 0.151), and HBeAg seroconversion (P = 0.560). Antiviral resistance emerged in five patients treated with LAM by 48 weeks (17.9%, P = 0.003).ConclusionLAM, ETV, and TDF selection is not related with mortality and LT in patients with severe acute CHB exacerbation and hepatic decompensation. To reduce mortality, patients with ascites and MELD scores above 25 should be considered for LT.     

Long‐term follow‐up of patients treated with entecavir and peginterferon add‐on therapy for HBeAg‐positive chronic hepatitis B infection: ARES long‐term follow‐up

Addition of peginterferon alpha (PEG‐IFN add‐on) to entecavir (ETV) treatment after a short lead‐in phase results in more response than ETV monotherapy in HBeAg‐positive chronic hepatitis B infection (CHB). This study is the first to assess long‐term efficacy of this treatment strategy. Patients who received ETV ± 24 weeks of PEG‐IFN add‐on in a global trial (ARES study) and completed follow‐up were eligible to participate in this observational LTFU study if they had at least one combined HBeAg and HBV DNA measurement beyond week 96 of the ARES study. The primary endpoint was combined response (HBeAg loss and HBV DNA <200 IU/mL) at LTFU. In total, 48 patients treated with PEG‐IFN add‐on and 48 patients treated with ETV monotherapy were included. The median follow‐up duration was 226 (IQR 51) weeks, and 86/96 (90%) patients were initial non‐responders. At LTFU, combined response was present in 13 (27%) vs 11 (23%) patients (P = 0.81), and 1 log₁₀ HBsAg decline in 59% vs 28% (P = 0.02) for PEG‐IFN add‐on and ETV monotherapy, respectively. In 41 initial non‐responders who continued ETV therapy, combined response at LTFU was present in 9 patients (PEG‐IFN add‐on: 5/22 [23%]; ETV monotherapy: 4/19 [21%]). Beyond week 96 of follow‐up, rates of serological response became comparable between PEG‐IFN add‐on and ETV monotherapy. Although in this LTFU study initial non‐responders were overrepresented in the add‐on arm, PEG‐IFN add‐on possibly leads rather to accelerated HBeAg loss than to increased long‐term HBeAg loss rates.     

Randomized prospective study showing the non‐inferiority of tenofovir to entecavir in treatment‐naïve chronic hepatitis B patients

Aim

The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir hydrate (ETV) in nucleos(t)ide analog (NA)‐naïve Japanese chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.

Methods

This multicenter, randomized, double‐blinded study assessing the efficacy and safety of TDF 300 mg and ETV 0.5 mg in NA‐naïve CHB subjects was carried out from November 2011 to November 2014, and funded by GlaxoSmithKline. The subjects were assigned to the TDF arm or ETV arm in a 2:1 ratio. The primary efficacy endpoint was the non‐inferiority of TDF to ETV at week 24.

Results

A total of 166 subjects (TDF arm, 110; ETV arm, 56) were enrolled. The change (mean ± SE) in serum hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐DNA levels from baseline to week 24 was ?4.63 ± 0.044 and ?4.50 ± 0.063 log₁₀ copies/mL in the TDF and ETV arms, respectively, indicating the non‐inferiority of TDF to ETV (P < 0.0001). The proportion of subjects with undetectable HBV‐DNA increased from 54 to 77% and 39 to 66% in the TDF and ETV arms with continuation of the treatment from week 24 to 48, respectively. Reduction in hepatitis B surface antigen level was greater in subjects with hepatitis B envelope antigen (+) and high alanine aminotransferase levels (≥80 IU/L). Prevalence of drug‐related adverse events at week 48 was 20% and 18% in the TDF and ETV arms, respectively.

Conclusions

The study is the first to report that TDF has non‐inferiority to ETV in treatment effectiveness (lowering of serum HBV‐DNA level) at week 24. ClinicalTrials.gov trial registration nos. NCT01480284 and GSK LOC115409.     

Role of CYP27B1+2838 promoter polymorphism in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B HBeAg negative with PEG‐interferon

In HBV‐infected patients, the vitamin D deficiency has been related to chronic liver diseases, progression of hepatic fibrosis and poor response to the treatment. The CYP27B1 gene, which encodes the 1‐α‐hidroxylase and involved in the 1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D synthesis, was recently associated to type‐1 diabetes, autoimmune disorders and treatment response in HCV. Then, we aimed to investigate the role of CYP27B1 polymorphisms in HBV treatment with PEG‐IFN. We retrospectively enrolled 190 patients with chronic hepatitis B HBeAg negative treated for 48 weeks with PEG‐IFN α‐2a. We examined the role of rs4646536 CYP27B1 SNP (CYP27B1+2838) according to virological and serological response. Our results showed that the TT genotype of CYP27B1+2838 was significantly prevalent in patients with end‐of‐therapy virological response (37.6%) vs CT/CC (9.4%) (P < 0.001). Virological relapse was prevalent in patients with CT/CC genotype (12.6%) vs TT genotype (2.1%) (P < 0.001). TT genotype was also related to HBsAg loss (P = 0.004) and anti‐HBs appearance (P = 0.002). In the multivariate analysis, the TT genotype resulted to be a good positive predictor of sustained virological response (OR = 5.632, IC = 1.938–16.368, P = 0.001) and serological response (OR = 6.161, IC = 1.856–20.457, P = 0.003). The CYP27B1+2838 polymorphism may be useful as pretreatment factor to selection of patients with higher probability of response to therapy.     

Response to tenofovir monotherapy in chronic hepatitis B patients with prior suboptimal response to entecavir

Summary. Both entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF) are potent antiviral agents for hepatitis B virus (HBV). Suboptimal response (SOR) following antiviral therapy is associated with an increased risk of subsequent treatment failure and viral resistance. It remains unclear whether switching to TDF is a reasonable approach in patients with SOR to ETV treatment. This study was aimed to determine how HBV patients with SOR to ETV respond to TDF monotherapy. Data of patients with SOR to ETV (failure to achieve >1 log₁₀ HBV‐DNA reduction during the last 24 weeks of ETV treatment) who were switched to TDF monotherapy during 2005 and 2010 were reviewed. Treatment adherence was assessed by pill‐count. Fourteen patients (2.9%) were identified from a total cohort of 482 ETV‐treated patients. All 14 patients were Chinese and were infected with HBV genotype C (71%) or B (29%). Nine patients were men, and the median age was 41.5 years (19–64). Twelve were treatment naïve (one lamivudine‐ and one peginterferon‐experienced patient); 85.7% were HBeAg positive. The median baseline HBV‐DNA was 7.55 (5.30–9.40) log₁₀ copies/mL, and 57% had abnormal serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. Precore and/or basal core promoter mutations were detected in four patients, whereas no genotypic resistance was detected at baseline and before switching to TDF. The median duration of ETV treatment was 64.5 (26–126) weeks. The median HBV‐DNA at the time of switching to TDF was 3.69 (3.00–4.90) log₁₀ copies/mL. The median HBV‐DNA reduction from baseline and during the last 6‐month observation period prior to switching to TDF was 4.04 (0.51–6.06) log₁₀ and 0.43 (?0.09–1.13) log₁₀ copies/mL, respectively. After the switching to TDF, all 14 patients (100%) achieved undetectable HBV‐DNA and ALT normalization within a median duration of 30 weeks. In 12 patients who were HBeAg positive, HBeAg seroconversion was observed in two patients after TDF treatment of 75‐ and 84‐weeks duration. There was no virological breakthrough observed after switching to TDF with a median follow‐up period of 50 (24–160) weeks. TDF treatment was safe and well tolerated. In conclusion, suboptimal response to ETV is rare (approximately 3%). TDF monotherapy is safe and very effective in the management of HBV patients with SOR to ETV.     

Telbivudine protects renal function in patients with chronic hepatitis B infection in conjunction with adefovir‐based combination therapy

Previous studies have demonstrated that the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection with adefovir (ADV) can impair renal function. In contrast, treatment with telbivudine (LdT) improves renal function in CHB patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the renoprotective effect of LdT in CHB patients receiving ADV‐based combination therapy. The effects of treatment with ADV + LdT on renal function were compared to those resulting from treatment with ADV + entecavir (ETV), ADV + lamivudine (LAM), ADV alone and ETV alone. The consecutive cohort analysis included 831 CHB patients who received ADV + LdT, ADV + LAM, ADV + ETV, ADV alone or ETV alone for 96 weeks. Alterations in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were compared between the five groups using a linear mixed‐effects model. HBV DNA levels were also compared between the five groups during the 96‐week period. Among the five treatment groups, significant improvements in eGFR were observed in the ADV + LdT and ADV + LAM groups over time (P < 0.001 for each group compared with baseline eGFR). In patients with a baseline eGFR between 50 and 90 mL/min, the change in eGFR was the most significant in the ADV + LdT group (+0.641 mL/min; P < 0.001). Age, gender, baseline eGFR and treatment option were significant predictive factors for eGFR changes. In conclusion, our results suggest that the combination therapy of LdT and ADV is significantly associated with renoprotective effects in CHB patients when compared with other ADV‐based combination or single therapies.     

Entecavir treatment for chronic hepatitis B: adaptation is not needed for the majority of naïve patients with a partial virological response

Entecavir (ETV) is a potent inhibitor of viral replication in nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA)-na?ve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the long term efficacy and safety of ETV in NA-na?ve CHB patients, particularly in those with detectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA after 48 weeks, in whom treatment adaptation is suggested by current guidelines. In a multicenter cohort study, we investigated 333 CHB patients treated with entecavir monotherapy. The NA-na?ve population consisted of 243 patients, whereas 90 were NA-experienced. Virological response (VR) (HBV DNA<80 IU/mL) was achieved in 48%, 76%, and 90% of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive and in 89%, 98%, and 99% of HBeAg-negative NA-na?ve patients at weeks 48, 96, and 144, respectively. Thirty-six of 175 (21%) NA-na?ve patients with at least 48 weeks of follow-up had a detectable load at week 48 (partial virological response [PVR]). Twenty-nine (81%) patients with PVR reached VR during prolonged ETV monotherapy, and none of them developed ETV-resistance. Among 22 patients with HBV DNA<1,000 IU/mL at week 48, VR was achieved in 21 (95%) patients, compared with eight of 14 (57%) patients with HBV DNA≥1,000 IU/mL. Continuous HBV DNA decline was observed in most patients without VR during follow-up, and in three patients adherence was suboptimal according to the treating physician. ETV was safe and did not affect renal function or cause lactic acidosis. CONCLUSION: ETV monotherapy can be continued in NA-na?ve patients with detectable HBV DNA at week 48, particularly in those with a low viral load because long-term ETV leads to a virological response in the vast majority of patients.     

A randomized clinical trial of peginterferon alpha‐2b with or without entecavir in patients with HBeAg‐negative chronic hepatitis B: Role of host and viral factors associated with treatment response

Combining peginterferon (PEG‐IFN) and a potent nucleoside/nucleotide analogue might improve treatment response in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of PEG‐IFN alpha‐2b with or without entecavir in HBeAg‐negative CHB and to investigate predictors of response. A total of 126 treatment‐naïve patients were randomly assigned to receive monotherapy (n = 63) or combination therapy (n = 63) for 48 weeks. Virological response (VR) was defined as HBV DNA level <2000 IU/mL at week 96. Baseline factors including polymorphisms in the IFNL3 (rs12979860) and HLA‐DPA1 (rs3077) genes and on‐treatment viral kinetics were determined. At week 48, rates of undetectable HBV DNA were lower in the monotherapy than combination groups, but rates of HBsAg clearance and decline were comparable. At week 96, there was no difference between the corresponding groups regarding virological response (41.3% vs 38.1%, P = 0.856), HBsAg clearance (9.5% vs 4.8%, P = 0.491) and HBsAg decline. Baseline HBsAg level [odds ratio (OR): 3.14 (1.34–7.69), P = 0.012] and rs3077 polymorphism [OR: 2.78 (1.27–6.11), P = 0.011] were independent predictors of response. Patients carried GG genotype of rs3077 with low baseline HBV (<1000 IU/mL) had high probability of achieving VR (76.5%) and HBsAg clearance (29.4%). None of the patients without decrease in HBsAg combined with <2 log₁₀ HBV DNA decline at week 12 achieved a virological response. In conclusion, the combination therapy lead to greater on‐treatment HBV DNA suppression but did not improve virological response and HBsAg clearance/decline over monotherapy. Host and viral factors could help optimize decision‐making at baseline and during PEG‐IFN‐based therapy.     

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of antiviral regimens for entecavir-resistant hepatitis B: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BackgroundChronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who had exposed to lamivudine (LAM) and telbivudine (LdT) had high risk of developing entecavir (ETV)-resistance after long-term treatment. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and a network meta-analysis on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness on antiviral regimens in CHB patients with ETV-resistance.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies on nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) treatment [including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based rescue therapies, adefovir (ADV)-based rescue therapies and double-dose ETV therapy] in CHB patients with ETV-resistance. The network meta-analysis was conducted for 1-year complete virological response (CVR) and biological response (BR) rates using GeMTC and ADDIS. A cost-effective analysis was conducted to select an economic and effective treatment regimen based on the 1-year CVR rate.ResultsA total of 6 studies were finally included in this analysis. The antiviral efficacy was estimated. On network meta-analysis, the 1-year CVR rate in ETV-TDF [odds ratio (OR) = 22.30; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.78-241.93], LAM-TDF (OR  = 70.67; 95 % CI: 5.16-1307.45) and TDF (OR = 16.90; 95 % CI: 2.28-186.30) groups were significantly higher than that in the ETV double-dose group; the 1-year CVR rate in the LAM-TDF group (OR = 14.82; 95 % CI: 1.03-220.31) was significantly higher than that in the LAM/LdT-ADV group. The 1-year BR rate of ETV-TDF (OR = 28.68; 95 % CI: 1.70-1505.08) and TDF (OR = 21.79; 95 % CI: 1.43-1070.09) therapies were significantly higher than that of ETV double-dose therapy. TDF-based therapies had the highest possibility to achieve the CVR and BR at 1 year, in which LAM-TDF combined therapy was the most effective regimen. The ratio of cost/effectiveness for 1-year treatment was 8 526, 17 649, 20 651 Yuan in the TDF group, TDF-ETV group, and ETV-ADV group, respectively.ConclusionsTDF-based combined therapies such as ETV-TDF and LAM-TDF therapies were the first-line treatment if financial condition is allowed.