Antiviral effect of entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue‐naïve and nucleos(t)ide analogue‐experienced chronic hepatitis B patients without virological response at week 24 or 48 of therapy

We investigated the antiviral effect of entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA)‐naïve and NA‐experienced chronic hepatitis B patients without virological response (VR, HBV DNA < 300 copies/mL) at week 24 or 48. A total of 369 NA‐naïve and 181 NA‐experienced patients treated with entecavir monotherapy were analysed. Of the 369 NA‐naïve patients, 34 did not achieve VR at week 48. Of them, patients with HBV DNA ≤2000 copies/mL at week 48 achieved a higher VR rate than those with HBV DNA >2000 copies/mL (18/23 vs 3/11, P = 0.004). Two naïve patients with HBV DNA >2000 copies/mL developed entecavir‐ or lamivudine‐resistant mutants. In 98 lamivudine‐experienced patients without ever having lamivudine resistance, most patients with VR (72/72) and partial VR (300–10⁴ copies/mL; 20/23) at week 24 or VR at week 48 (89/91) could maintain or achieve VR after prolonged therapy. In 75 patients with prior resistance to lamivudine, prolonged entecavir therapy led to low VR rate in those without VR at week 24 (13/45) or 48 (4/34) and high entecavir‐resistance rate in those with or without VR at week 24 (6/30 with and 23/45 without) and 48 (8/41 with and 21/34 without). VR at week 48 was an independent predictor (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06–0.33) for entecavir‐resistant mutant development among the 75 patients with prior lamivudine‐resistant mutants. In conclusion, prolonged entecavir treatment resulted in a poor response in naïve patients with HBV DNA >2000 copies/mL at week 48 and patients with prior lamivudine‐resistant mutants without VR at week 24 or 48.     

Loss of HBsAg antigen during treatment with entecavir or lamivudine in nucleoside‐naïve HBeAg‐positive patients with chronic hepatitis B*

Summary. This retrospective analysis was conducted to describe the characteristics of nucleoside‐naïve hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)‐positive patients with chronic hepatitis B, who achieved hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss during entecavir or lamivudine therapy. HBeAg‐positive adults with chronic hepatitis B, elevated serum alanine aminotransferase, and compensated liver disease were randomized to double‐blind treatment for up to 96 weeks with entecavir 0.5 mg/day or lamivudine 100 mg/day. HBsAg and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA were measured at regular intervals during and off‐treatment follow‐up. Through a maximum duration of 96 weeks on‐treatment and 24 weeks off‐treatment, HBsAg loss was confirmed in 18/354 (5.1%) patients treated with entecavir and 10/355 (2.8%) patients treated with lamivudine. Among the 28 patients with confirmed HBsAg loss, 27 (96%) achieved HBV DNA <300 copies/mL, and 27 (96%) achieved confirmed HBeAg loss. All entecavir recipients with HBsAg loss had HBV DNA <300 copies/mL. Caucasian patients, and those infected with HBV genotype A or D, were significantly more likely to lose HBsAg. This retrospective analysis of data from a randomized, global phase three trial shows that confirmed loss of HBsAg occurred in 5% of nucleoside‐naïve HBeAg‐positive patients treated with entecavir, and that HBsAg loss is associated with sustained off‐treatment suppression of HBV DNA.     

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B with nucleos(t)ide analogues

Recently antiviral therapies for chronic hepatitis B using nucleos(t)ide analogues have become standard treatment modalities on the basis of several independent guidelines, starting with those of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) and other such organizations and bodies, including the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW)'s research team. The philosophies underlying such treatment strategies are considered basically equivalent. MHLW's guidelines define subjects for medical intervention to be cases measuring alanine aminotransferase (ALT) ≥31 IU/L, with serological hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level ≥5 log copies/mL for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)‐positive cases, and serological HBV DNA level ≥4 log copies/mL for HBeAg‐negative cases. These Japanese guidelines advocate entecavir as the first‐line treatment option for nucleos(t)ide‐naïve patients, and combination treatment of lamivudine and adefovir as the basis of treatment for patients with lamivudine‐ and/or entecavir‐resistant viruses. Of particular note for patients undergoing lamivudine treatment with persistent HBV DNA level < 2.1 log copies/mL is the recommendation of a switch to entecavir. Early detection of drug‐resistant virus is desirable after initiation of nucleos(t)ide analogue treatment, but such a procedure is not uniformly available at all medical institutions. Nevertheless, timely estimation of potential early‐stage drug‐resistant virus development is crucial for getting a head start on treatment. HBV core‐related antigen (HBcrAg) level or HBV DNA level are considered useful markers for the appearance of such drug‐resistant viruses.     

Large-scale survey of naturally occurring HBV polymerase mutations associated with anti-HBV drug resistance in untreated patients with chronic hepatitis B

Summary. Drug resistance is a major limitation for the long‐term efficacy of antiviral therapy with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Antiviral resistance mutations may pre‐exist in the overall viral population of untreated patients. We aimed to assess the prevalence of such hepatitis B virus (HBV) variants in a large cohort of NAs‐naïve patients with CHB and to explore possible association with viral and host variables. Serum samples from 286 NAs‐naïve consecutive patients with CHB were tested for serum HBV‐DNA, and 255 of them having HBV‐DNA > 1000 IU/mL were further analysed for drug resistance mutations by INNO‐LiPA HBV DRv2/v3. NAs‐naïve patients analysed were mainly men (73%), Caucasians (85%), hepatitis B e Antigen (HBeAg) negative (79%) and genotype D (69%), with a mean age of 43.2 ± 13.4 years. HBV mutations associated with antiviral drug resistance were detected in 13 (5%) patients: three patients infected with HBV genotype C had the rtM204V + rtL180M mutations associated with lamivudine (LMV) resistance. Four patients had the rtI233V mutation that may reduce sensitivity to adefovir, and three patients had the rtM250L/V mutation typical of entecavir resistance. LMV compensatory mutations rtL80V and rtV173L were seen in two and one patients, respectively. No relationship was seen between presence of resistant or compensatory mutations and HBV‐DNA levels, HBeAg/anti‐HBe status or previous IFN therapy. These results confirm that HBV mutations, which confer resistance against currently available anti‐HBV NAs, may already exist in patients who have never received the drug.     

Resistance is no Longer a Problem with Entecavir and Tenofovir

The treatment of chronic hepatitis B has been transformed with the advent of nucleos(t)ide analogues. With this came the recognition of viral resistance which was defined as rebound of viral HBV DNA >1 log from nadir associated with genotypic mutations of viral resistance. Resistance was associated with loss of efficacy, with the clinical consequences of viral relapse, reactivation of chronic hepatitis B, increased risk of hepatitis B flares, liver decompensation, and increased mortality especially in cirrhotic patients. Resistance rates varied between different nucleos(t)ide analogues and were generally classified as low or high genetic barrier to resistance. Different pathways to development of viral resistance were recognized, with therapeutic options for rescue therapy determined by such pathways. The two high genetic barrier drugs, entecavir and tenofovir showed remarkably low or absence of viral resistance in treatment naïve patients over 5 years or longer of therapy. However in treatment-experienced patients, particularly those with viral resistance, results were less optimal. For entecavir, prior lamivudine resistance conferred an entecavir resistance rate of 43 % over 5 years while with tenofovir, although resistance did not seem apparent, patients with prior adefovir resistance had suboptimal responses to tenofovir therapy. In cases of multiresistant hepatitis B virus defined as resistance to at least two nucleos(t)ide analogues in the same viral strain, rescue with a combination of tenofovir and entecavir appeared highly efficacious. Consequently, the optimistic view that these new drugs lead to absence of resistance needs to be tempered by the larger burden of drug experienced and drug resistant patients compared to treatment naïve patients. Furthermore, it is unclear whether resistance may be a concern with high genetic barrier drugs after one or two decades of therapy. In time, it is possible that with the increasing use of high genetic barrier drugs, viral resistance will be a lesser problem, but unlikely to disappear completely.     

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.     

Long‐term entecavir therapy results in falls in serum hepatitis B surface antigen levels and seroclearance in nucleos(t)ide‐naïve chronic hepatitis B patients

Entecavir (ETV) is reported to result in suppression of hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV DNA) replication with minimal drug resistance. However, information on the long‐term effect of such therapy on serum hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) level and elimination of HBsAg is not available. ETV therapy was started in 553 nucleos(t)ide‐naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B infection (HBeAg positive: 45%) in our hospital. Serum HBsAg levels were measured serially by the Architect assay. The median baseline HBsAg was 2180 IU/mL (0.12–243 000 IU/mL), and median follow‐up period was 3.0 years, with 529, 475, 355, 247 and 163 patients followed‐up for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years, respectively. At year 5, the mean log HBsAg decline from baseline was −0.48 log IU/mL, and the cumulative HBsAg clearance rate was 3.5%. Multivariate analysis identified HBV DNA level at baseline (<3.0 log copies IU/mL, odd ratio = 10.2; 95% confidence interval = 1.87–55.5, P = 0.007) and HBsAg level (<500 IU/mL, odd ratio = 29.4; 95% confidence interval = 2.80–333, P = 0.005) as independent predictors of HBsAg seroclearance. These results indicate that although serum HBsAg level declines gradually during ETV therapy, HBsAg seroclearance remains a rare event.     

Comparison between clevudine and entecavir treatment for antiviral‐naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B

Background and Aims: There has been no study comparing the clinical efficacy of clevudine and entecavir in antiviral‐naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods: A total of 128 antiviral‐naïve CHB patients were included to receive clevudine 30 mg (n=55) or entecavir 0.5 mg (n=73) once daily for a mean follow‐up period of 18.4 months. Results: Thirty‐three (60.0%) in the clevudine group and 40 (54.8%) in the entecavir group were HBeAg positive (P>0.05). At 6 months from the baseline, the mean decreases in HBV‐DNA were 4.86 and 4.72 log₁₀ copies/ml in the clevudine and entecavir groups respectively (P>0.05). The proportion of patients with undetectable serum HBV‐DNA (<300 copies/ml) at 6 months was 65.5 and 74.0% in the clevudine and entecavir groups respectively (P>0.05). The proportion of patients with normal alanine aminotransferase levels at 6 months was 74.5 and 84.9% in the clevudine and entecavir groups respectively. During the mean follow‐up of 18.4 months, genotypic resistance was noted in three patients (5.5%) in the clevudine group and no cases in the entecavir group. Eight patients (14.6%) in the clevudine group experienced symptoms, signs and laboratory abnormalities relevant to clevudine‐induced myopathy. Conclusions: Clevudine and entecavir treatment effectively suppresses HBV replication in most antiviral‐naïve patients with CHB. During a mean follow‐up of 18.9 months, a small proportion (5.5%) of patients in the clevudine group developed genotypic resistance. However, a substantial proportion (14.6%) of patients in the clevudine group had an adverse effect of clevudine‐induced myopathy.     

Relapse rates in chronic hepatitis B naïve patients after discontinuation of antiviral therapy with entecavir

Registration studies show entecavir (ETV) to be effective and safe in NUC‐naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B, but relapse rates after treatment discontinuation have not been well established. Relapse rates and predictors of relapse were evaluated in naïve HBeAg‐positive and HBeAg‐negative patients treated with ETV. Treatment duration was defined according to international guidelines. Virological relapse was defined as reappearance in serum of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA to >2000 IU/mL after discontinuation of treatment. A hundred and sixty‐nine consecutive patients were treated for a median 181 weeks. 61% were HBeAg positive, 23% had cirrhosis, and mean HBV DNA level was 6.88 ± 1.74 log₁₀ IU/mL. Ninety‐two per cent became HBV DNA negative; 71% of HBeAg+ve patients became HBeAg negative and 68% anti‐HBe positive; 14% became HBsAg negative and 13% anti‐HBs positive. At the end of the study, 36 patients discontinued treatment: one due to breakthrough associated with resistant variants and 35 (20%) due to sustained virological response; 33 of these patients developed HBeAg seroconversion and 18 HBsAg seroconversion. Median off‐treatment time was 69 weeks. Nine patients (26%), all HBeAg positive at baseline, developed virological relapse after a median 48 weeks off‐treatment, 3 of them showed HBeAg reversion and 4 lost anti‐HBe. No patient with HBsAg seroconversion relapsed. HBeAg clearance after week 48 of treatment was associated with an increase risk of relapse. After ETV discontinuation, HBsAg seroconversion was maintained in 100% of the patients, HBeAg seroconversion maintained in 90%, and virological relapse rate was 24%.     

Hepatitis B virus pregenomic RNA status can reveal the long‐term prognoses of chronic hepatitis B patients treated with nucleos(t)ide analogues

We examined whether the hepatitis B virus (HBV) pregenomic RNA (pgRNA) status after nucleos(t)ide (NA) treatment can predict the long‐time prognoses of chronic hepatitis B patients. Patients with chronic hepatitis B (98) who were treatment‐naïve and had begun a 7‐year NA therapy regimen were enrolled in this study. Biochemical indicators and serological markers of HBV infection were performed during therapy. HBV pgRNA was quantified by real‐time quantitative PCR with specific primers. During treatment, HBV DNA undetectable rates increased. The aminotransferase (ALT) normalization (ALT < 50 IU/L) and HBeAg‐negative rates also increased. After 48 weeks’ NA treatment, 48.28% (28/58) of HBV DNA undetectable patients still had HBV pgRNA‐positive. After 7 years of treatment, more HBV pgRNA‐negative patients (n = 35) achieved HBeAg clearance than the patients who were HBV pgRNA‐positive (n = 63) (19/23 vs 19/56, P < .00). HBV pgRNA‐positive patients also had an increased risk of failing to achieve HBeAg clearance (OR = 9.25, 95% CI: 2.75‐31.08). The median time to HBeAg clearance in the HBV pgRNA‐positive patients was longer than that of the HBV pgRNA‐negative patients (152 weeks vs 72 weeks). The HBV pgRNA‐positive patients also required more time to achieve HBV DNA undetectable (124 weeks, 95% CI: 103.33‐144.67 vs 48 weeks, 95% CI: 34.80‐61.20). The HBV pgRNA status after NA treatment can predict the long‐term prognoses of patients with chronic HBV. Patients who remain HBV pgRNA‐positive after 48 weeks of NA treatment have an increased risk of not achieving HBeAg clearance, need more time to achieve HBeAg clearance and undetectable HBV DNA load.     

Peg‐interferon and nucleos(t)ide analogue combination at inception of antiviral therapy improves both anti‐HBV efficacy and long‐term survival among HBV DNA‐positive hepatocellular carcinoma patients after hepatectomy/ablation

Antiviral therapy has been shown to improve the prognosis of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA‐positive hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after radical treatment, but antiviral treatments require further optimization. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacies of different antiviral strategies with HCC patients after hepatectomy/ablation. This prospective, randomized, controlled and multi‐centre trial enrolled HBV DNA‐positive primary HCC patients after hepatectomy/ablation between January 2007 and January 2009. Patients were divided into four groups: early combination (entecavir plus Peg‐interferon [IFN]α‐2a co‐administration during year 1); late combination (addition of Peg‐IFNα‐2a for 48 weeks after 1 year of entecavir); nucleos(t)ide analogue[NA] monotherapy; and non‐antiviral treatment. Primary endpoints included recurrence‐free survival and overall survival. A total of 447 patients were enrolled. The 2‐year and 8‐year recurrence‐free survival and 8‐year overall survival rates were significantly higher in the early combination group than in the other two antiviral groups (P < .05). After 48‐week treatment, more patients achieved an HBsAg reduction >1500 IU/mL and the mean HBsAg level was significantly lower in the early combination group compared with the late combination and NA monotherapy groups (P < .05). Multivariate analysis showed that early combination therapy and a reduction in HBsAg by >1500 IU/mL after 48 weeks of therapy correlated with reduced mortality and disease recurrence. Early introduction of combination antiviral treatment may represent a more effective therapeutic strategy for patients with HBV DNA‐positive HCC after hepatectomy/ablation. A reduction in HBsAg by >1500 IU/mL after 48‐week treatment is associated with reduced mortality and disease recurrence of HBV DNA‐positive HCC patients after hepatectomy/ablation.     

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection - Dutch national guidelines

The development of this guideline was initiated and coordinated by the Netherlands Association of Gastroenterologists and Hepatologists (Nederlandse Vereniging van Maag-Darm-Leverartsen). The aim is the establishment of national standards in the evaluation and antiviral treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This includes recommendations on the initial evaluation of patients, choice and duration of antiviral therapy, follow-up after antiviral therapy and monitoring of patients not currently requiring antiviral therapy. The initial evaluation of chronic HBV-infected patients should include testing of liver biochemistry, virus serology and abdominal imaging. In patients without cirrhosis, antiviral treatment is recommended for those with a serum HBV DNA of at least 1.0 x 105 c/ml (>or=2.0 x 10(4) IU/ml) in combination with: a) elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALAT) level above twice the upper limit of normal during at least three months, and/or b) histological evidence of porto-portal septa or interface hepatitis on liver histology. In patients with cirrhosis, antiviral treatment is recommended if serum HBV DNA is 1.0 x 10(4)c/ml (>or=2.0 x 10(3) IU/ml) or higher, independent of ALAT levels or histological findings. If the patient has decompensated cirrhosis, antiviral treatment is recommended if serum HBV DNA is 1000 c/ml (>or=200 IU/ml) or higher. Patients who do not have an indication for antiviral treatment should be monitored because there is a risk of (re)activation of disease activity. Monitoring every three to six months is recommended for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients with high viraemia (HBV DNA >or=1.0 x 10(5) c/ml or >or=2.0 x 10(4) IU/ml) and normal ALAT levels. For patients with serum HBV DNA below 1.0 x 10(5) c/ml (<2.0 x 10(4) IU/ml) the recommended frequency of monitoring is every three to six months for HBeAg-positive patients and every six to 12 months for HBeAg-negative patients. Peginterferon (PEG-IF N) therapy should be considered as initial therapy in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients without contraindications for treatment with this drug because of the higher chance of achieving sustained response compared with nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy. In patients starting nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy, the use of lamivudine is not preferred if long-term antiviral treatment is expected due to the high risk of antiviral resistance against this drug. Of the currently licensed nucleos(t)ide analogues, entecavir has the lowest risk of antiviral resistance (compared with lamivudine, adefovir and telbivudine), while suppression of viral replication seems most profound with either entecavir or telbivudine. The recommended duration of treatment with PEG-IF N is one year for both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. In HBeAg-positive patents, nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy should at least be continued until HBeAg seroconversion and a decline in HBV DNA to below 400 c/ml (80 IU/ml) has been achieved and maintained for six months during therapy. Whether nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy can be safely discontinued in HBeAg-negative patients is unknown; usually prolonged or indefinite antiviral treatment is necessary. Patients receiving PEG-IF N should be monitored once a month, while three monthly monitoring suffices for those receiving nucleos(t)ide analogues. Genotypic analysis of the HBV polymerase is indicated if an increase in serum HBV DNA of at least 1 log(10) c/ml (IU/ml) compared with the nadir value is observed during nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy. Antiviral therapy should be changed as soon as possible in case of confirmed genotypic resistance. Adding a second antiviral agent seems beneficial over switching to another agent. With the availability of multiple new antiviral drugs for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B, effective treatment is now possible for more patients and for longer periods. However, the complexity of HBV therapy has also increased. Nowadays, virtually all chronic HBV-infected patients can be effectively managed, either by inducing sustained off-treatment response or by maintaining an on-treatment response.     

Prevention of lamivudine‐resistant hepatitis B recurrence after liver transplantation with entecavir plus tenofovir combination therapy and perioperative hepatitis B immunoglobulin only

T. Karlas, J. Hartmann, A. Weimann, M. Maier, M. Bartels, S. Jonas, J. Mössner, T. Berg, H.L. Tillmann, J. Wiegand. Prevention of lamivudine‐resistant hepatitis B recurrence after liver transplantation with entecavir plus tenofovir combination therapy and perioperative hepatitis B immunoglobulin only.
Transpl Infect Dis 2011: 13: 299–302. All rights reserved Abstract: Combination therapy with antivirals plus hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIg) has become the standard treatment for prevention of post‐liver transplant hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence. However, HBIg therapy is inconvenient and expensive. Alternative therapeutic approaches with modern nucleos(t)ide analogues are limited so far. The present case report describes prevention of HBV recurrence with entecavir and tenofovir. A 48‐year‐old male patient with hepatitis B‐induced decompensated liver cirrhosis initially improved on lamivudine (LAM) until LAM resistance (rtL180M and rtM204V) emerged followed by renewed decompensation. Therefore, tenofovir was added to LAM leading to undetectable HBV DNA (<200 copies/mL). Six months later, low‐level viremia (479 copies/mL) was detected. Treatment was escalated to tenofovir plus entecavir. HBV DNA became negative again, and the patient underwent orthotopic liver transplantation. HBIg was administered during transplantation (10,000 IU) and on the second and third postoperative days (total dose 26,000 IU). Subsequently, the anti‐hepatitis B surface (HBs) titer rose to 1477 IU/L at day 4 post transplantation. Although HBIg should have been continued, the patient remained on combination therapy with tenofovir plus entecavir only. The anti‐HBs titer decreased and became negative 4 months later. However, under continued combination therapy with oral antivirals, HBV DNA and hepatitis B surface antigen remained negative during the entire follow‐up of 21 months after liver transplantation. Combination therapy with entecavir plus tenofovir may prevent post‐liver transplant hepatitis B recurrence even without HBIg maintenance therapy. This case illustrates that combination oral antiviral therapy might substitute for HBIg as indefinite prophylactic regimen due to profound antiviral efficacy and low risk of viral resistance. Efficacy and safety must be further investigated in randomized controlled trials.     

Clinical course of 161 untreated and tenofovir‐treated chronic hepatitis B pregnant patients in a low hepatitis B virus endemic region

Hepatitis B immunoprophylaxis failure is linked to high maternal viraemia. There is limited North American data on hepatitis B outcomes in pregnancy. Pregnant hepatitis B carriers were enrolled January 2011–December 2014 and offered tenofovir in the 3rd trimester if hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐DNA was >7‐log IU/mL. Outcomes were determined in treated vs untreated patients. In total, 161 women with 169 pregnancies (one twin, 170 infants; median age 32 years), 18% (29/161) HBeAg+ and median HBV‐DNA 2.51 log IU/mL (IQR 1.66–3.65; range 0.8–8.1) were studied. 14.3% (23/161) received tenofovir due to high viral load (16/23, median 74 days, IQR 59–110) or due to liver disease (7/23). In 10/16 treated due to high viraemia, with confirmed adherence, follow‐up HBV‐DNA showed a 5.49 log decline (P = 0.003). In treatment naïve mothers, median alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased from 17 IU/L (IQR 12–24) to 29 (IQR 18–36) post‐partum (P = 1.5e‐7). In seven highly viraemic mothers who declined therapy (HBV‐DNA >8‐log IU/mL); median ALT increased ~3X from baseline (P < 0.01). 26% (44/169) had Caesarean section with no difference in treated vs untreated subjects. No tenofovir‐treated mothers had renal dysfunction. Data were available on 167/170 infants; in 50.8% (85/167) who completed immunoprophylaxis, 98.8% (84/85, including 12 exposed to tenofovir in utero) were HBV immune. One infant born to an HBeAg+ mother with HBV‐DNA >8‐log IU/mL failed immunoprophylaxis. In this prospective Canadian cohort study, most untreated mothers experienced mild HBV flares. Tenofovir in pregnancy is well tolerated and reduces viral load prior to parturition.     

Glecaprevir/Pibrentasvir in patients with chronic HCV genotype 3 infection: An integrated phase 2/3 analysis

Glecaprevir coformulated with pibrentasvir (G/P) is approved to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and was highly efficacious in phase 2 and 3 studies. Treating HCV genotype (GT) 3 infection remains a priority, as these patients are harder to cure and at a greater risk for liver steatosis, fibrosis progression and hepatocellular carcinoma. Data were pooled from five phase 2 or 3 trials that evaluated 8‐, 12‐ and 16‐week G/P in patients with chronic HCV GT3 infection. Patients without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis were either treatment‐naïve or experienced with interferon‐ or sofosbuvir‐based regimens. Safety and sustained virologic response 12 weeks post‐treatment (SVR12) were assessed. The analysis included 693 patients with GT3 infection. SVR12 was achieved by 95% of treatment‐naïve patients without cirrhosis receiving 8‐week (198/208) and 12‐week (280/294) G/P. Treatment‐naïve patients with cirrhosis had a 97% (67/69) SVR12 rate with 12‐week G/P. Treatment‐experienced, noncirrhotic patients had SVR12 rates of 90% (44/49) and 95% (21/22) with 12‐ and 16‐week G/P, respectively; 94% (48/51) of treatment‐experienced patients with cirrhosis treated for 16 weeks achieved SVR12. No serious adverse events (AEs) were attributed to G/P; AEs leading to study drug discontinuation were rare (<1%). G/P was well‐tolerated and efficacious for patients with chronic HCV GT3 infection, regardless of cirrhosis status or prior treatment experience. Eight‐ and 12‐week durations were efficacious for treatment‐naïve patients without cirrhosis and with compensated cirrhosis, respectively; 16‐week G/P was efficacious in patients with prior treatment experience irrespective of cirrhosis status.     

Cost‐effectiveness analysis of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir in patients with chronic hepatitis C: Treatment of patients with absence or mild fibrosis compared to patients with advanced fibrosis

To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (LDV/SOF) in treatment‐naïve patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) genotype 1 (GT1) in the absence or mild fibrosis (F0‐F1) versus advanced fibrosis (F2‐F4), from the perspective of the Spanish Health System. A Markov model was developed to simulate disease progression, estimating costs and outcomes [life years gained (LYG) and quality‐adjusted life years (QALY)] derived from starting with LDV/SOF in patients with F0‐F1 compared with F2‐F4. Therapy duration was 8 weeks in noncirrhotic patients with viral load <6 million IU/mL and 12 weeks in the remaining patients. Sustained virologic response rates were obtained from real‐world cohort studies. Transition probabilities, utilities and direct costs were obtained from the literature. A 3% annual discount rate was applied to costs and outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed. LDV/SOF in F0‐F1 patients was a dominant strategy, being more effective (19.85 LYG and 19.80 QALY) than beginning treatment in F2‐F4 patients (18.63 LYG and 16.25 QALY), generating savings of €9228 per patient (€3661 due to disease management and monitoring). In a cohort of 1000 patients, LDV/SOF in F0‐F1 patients decreased the number of cases of decompensated cirrhosis (93%), hepatocellular carcinoma (97%) and liver‐related deaths (95%) and prevented 6 liver transplants compared to initiating LDV/SOF in F2‐F4 patients. In CHC treatment‐naïve GT1 patients, starting treatment with LDV/SOF in patients with F0‐F1 compared to those with F2‐F4 increases effectiveness by 1.22 LYG and 3.55 QALY gained and reduces disease burden and it is associated with cost savings.     

Risk of hepatitis B virus reactivation in hepatitis B virus + hepatitis C virus‐co‐infected patients with compensated liver cirrhosis treated with ombitasvir,paritaprevir/r + dasabuvir + ribavirin

Hepatitis B virus may reactivate in patients with chronic hepatitis C treated with direct‐acting antivirals. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in HBV + hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐co‐infected patients with compensated liver cirrhosis treated with paritaprevir/ombitasvir/ritonavir, dasabuvir with ribavirin. We reviewed prospectively gathered data from a national cohort of 2070 hepatitis C virus patients with compensated liver cirrhosis who received reimbursed paritaprevir/ombitasvir/r, dasabuvir with ribavirin for 12 weeks from the Romanian National Health Agency during 2015‐2016. Twenty‐five patients in this cohort were HBs antigen positive (1.2%); 15 untreated with nucleotide analogues agreed to enter the study. These patients were followed up: ALT monthly, serology for HBV and DNA viral load at baseline, EOT and SVR at 12 weeks. Hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐co‐infected patients were all genotype 1b and 52% females, with a median age of 60 years (51 ÷ 74); 76% were pretreated with peginterferon + ribavirin; 72% were with severe necroinflammatory activity on FibroMax assessment; 40% presented comorbidities; and all were HBe antigen negative. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) SVR response rate was 100%. Hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐DNA viral load was undetectable in 7/15 (47%) before therapy, and for the other 8 patients, it varied between below 20 and 867 IU/mL. Five patients (33%) presented virological reactivation (>2 log increase in HBV‐DNA levels) during therapy. One patient presented with hepatitis associated with HBV reactivation, and two started anti‐HBV therapy with entecavir. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) virological reactivation was present in 33% in our patients. Generally, HBV‐DNA elevations were mild (<20 000 IU/mL); however, we report one case of hepatitis associated with HBV reactivation.     

The efficacy and safety of nucleos(t)ide analogues in the treatment of HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: a meta-analysis

Introduction. The application of nucleos(t)ide analogues in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has not yet been widely accepted. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies to examine the efficacy and safety of nucleos(t)ide analogues in treating HBV-related ACLF.Material and methods. Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies through electronic, and manual searches, and contact with experts. Three-month mortality was defined as the primary efficacy measure. ACLF reactivation and HBV DNA inhibition were secondary efficacy measures. Quantitative meta-analyses were performed to compare differences between nucleos(t)ide analogue and control groups.Results. Five eligible studies were identified. Antiviral treatment with nucleos(t)ide analogues led to significant reduction of HBV DNA [HBV DNA reduction > 2 log: 70.4 vs. 29%, RR = 2.29, 95%CI (1.49, 3.53), P < 0.01]. ACLF patients receiving nucleos(t)ide analogue had significantly lower 3-month mortality [44.8 vs. 73.3%, RR = 0.68, 95%CI (0.54, 0.84), P < 0.01] as well as incidence of reactivation [1.80 vs. 18.4%, RR = 0.11, 95%CI (0.03, 0.43), P < 0.01] compared to those who did not. There was no significant difference in the prognosis of patients treated with entecavir or lamivudine [36.4 vs. 40.5%, RR = 0.77, 95%CI (0.45, 1.32), P = 0.35]. No drug-related adverse events were reported during follow-up.Conclusion. Our findings suggest that nucleos(t)ide analogue treatment reduces short-term mortality as well as reactivation of HBV-related ACLF patients. Nucleos(t)ide analogues are well-tolerated during therapy, and suggestive evidence indicates that entecavir and lamivudine confer comparable short-term benefits in these patients. However, further studies are needed to clarify these observations.