Reactivation of viral replication after replacement of tenofovir by adefovir

Hepatitis B virus reactivation or reinfection in a FEM-PrEP participant: a case report

INTRODUCTION

The FEM-PrEP trial was a pre-exposure prophylaxis clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of Truvada (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine) in the prevention of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Because Truvada can suppress hepatitis B virus replication, and withdrawal of Truvada can cause hepatic flares in patients with chronic hepatitis B, pre-enrollment screening included serological screening for hepatitis B virus markers. Women with chronic infections were not enrolled in the trial. Women found to be unprotected against hepatitis B were enrolled and offered three doses of hepatitis B vaccine. Reinfection and reactivation of previously resolved hepatitis B virus infections have been documented in immunosuppressed individuals but not in healthy individuals. We present the case of a participant enrolled in the FEM-PrEP clinical trial with baseline evidence of immunity against hepatitis B virus who subsequently developed acute hepatitis B.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 21-year-old Black non-pregnant woman was enrolled in the FEM-PrEP trial. She was human immunodeficiency virus-negative and a serological test for hepatitis B virus was negative. She had evidence of low levels of protection against hepatitis B virus and normal liver function. She had no hepatitis B vaccination history, thus it was concluded that she had post-infection immunity. At week 36 she presented with severely elevated liver enzyme levels that, upon further investigation, were a result of acute hepatitis B virus infection. The infection followed an asymptomatic course until full recovery of her liver enzymes a few weeks later. At study unblinding, the participant was found to be on the Truvada arm. Retrospective plasma drug level testing found low levels of study drugs from week 4. The participant remained human immunodeficiency virus-negative throughout the study.

CONCLUSION

Hepatitis B virus infection reactivation or reinfection is a rare phenomenon in healthy individuals. However, reactivations have been reported in patients being treated for chronic hepatitis B with the drugs contained in Truvada, after treatment had been withdrawn. This participant may have reactivated after stopping Truvada, or she may have reactivated spontaneously owing to relatively low levels of protective antibodies against hepatitis B. Alternatively, she may have been reinfected. Clinicians should be aware that hepatitis B virus reactivation or reinfection may cause elevated transaminases even in the presence of low baseline immunity.

The treatment of chronic hepatitis B: Focus on adefovir-like antivirals

Several options for the treatment of hepatitis B have been licensed in the last years: interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir, and telbivudine. In addition tenofovir has been licensed in the EU and is expected to be licensed in the USA in 2008. The antivirals can be divided into “lamivudine-like” and “adefovir-like”, which clinically differ in their capacity to induce “YMDD” mutants, which are the hallmark of lamivudine resistance. The differing resistance profile makes them good combination partners, even in the absence of synergy in antiviral potency.

Tenofovir for the treatment of hepatitis B virus

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is a nucleotide analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor recently approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in adults. Tenofovir has been available in the United States for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) since 2001. It blocks HBV replication in liver cells and is available as a once-daily oral formulation. The efficacy of tenofovir for the treatment of chronic HBV has been demonstrated to be superior to adefovir in randomized controlled trials, which led to its FDA approval for use in chronic HBV. Because of its potent antiviral activity, favorable safety profile, and higher barrier to the development of resistance, tenofovir should replace adefovir as a first-line monotherapy option in the treatment of HBV in monoinfected patients. In the HIV-HBV-coinfected population, tenofovir is already a preferred agent in combination with other anti-HBV agents (lamivudine or emtricitabine), which are cotreatments for HIV as well. In addition, tenofovir monotherapy or in combination with nucleoside analogs are options for patients who have developed resistance to other therapies for chronic HBV, including lamivudine and adefovir.

New approaches in the management of chronic hepatitis B: role of tenofovir

In the field of HIV management, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plays a pivotal role and has been demonstrated to be a safe and well-tolerated antiviral agent. Recent data showed the efficacy of TDF in the treatment of chronically hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients. TDF was superior to adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) in both nucleos(t)ide-naïve HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative HBV patients, and appeared to be one of the most potent antiviral agents so far. In addition, several reports showed that TDF was also effective in the nucleos(t)ide-experienced population, although conflicting results have been presented concerning patients with genotypic resistance to ADV. TDF seems to have a good resistance profile as well. The rtA194T mutation in association with lamivudine resistance may confer resistance to TDF, although both in vivo and in vitro studies regarding this mutation demonstrate conflicting results. As treatment with TDF may be associated with nephrotoxicity, all TDF-treated patients should be monitored for renal function at baseline and periodically thereafter. While the relative roles of interferon vs nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA) as initial anti-HBV therapy remains unclear, TDF will probably become one of the key factors in HBV management both as first-choice NA for nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients and as rescue therapy for nucleos(t)ide-experienced patients.

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B: recommendations from an Italian workshop

The changing scenario of hepatitis B virus therapy has encouraged the organisation of a workshop, endorsed by three Italian scientific societies, aimed at defining the current recommendations for hepatitis B virus treatment. Liver histology and stage of disease remain fundamental for treatment decisions; interferon and nucleoside/nucleotide analogues-based therapy represent different strategies for different phases of the hepatitis B virus disease. The recommendations defined: new and lower cut-off of hepatitis B virus-DNA for eligibility to therapy according to disease stage, how to optimise the use of nucleoside/nucleotide analogues and to individualise the monitoring of response and what to do with treatment failures. Specific recommendations have also been given for cirrhosis patients, those immune suppressed and co-infected with HIV and other hepatitis viruses.

Switching patients with lamivudine resistant chronic hepatitis B virus from tenofovir to adefovir results in less potent HBV-DNA suppression

The nucleotide analogues, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and adefovir dipivoxil, inhibit viral replication and are both effective against the hepatitis B virus (HBV). In our department, tenofovir was prescribed in addition to lamivudine for the treatment of lamivudine resistant chronic hepatitis B. After registration of adefovir, 10 patients were switched to adefovir monotherapy. We studied changes in HBV-DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in these patients. The median treatment duration with tenofovir was 78 weeks resulting in a median viral load reduction of 5.4 (range 6.8-2.3) log(10) copies/mL compared to baseline (P = 0.005). Two patients had an increase >1 log(10) copies/mL during tenofovir treatment. After the switch to adefovir, six out of 10 patients had an HBV-DNA >4 log(10) copies/mL and the median HBV-DNA increased from 2.8 to 4.5 log(10) copies/mL (P = 0.017). The factors associated with relapse were HBV-DNA PCR positivity at the time of switch and genotype B or D. ALT levels at the beginning of tenofovir treatment also might be a factor. Retreatment with tenofovir (n = 3) resulted in a rapid decline in HBV-DNA. Tenofovir is a potent antiviral drug. Switching to adefovir resulted in viral relapse in 60% of patients and retreatment with tenofovir resulted again in viral decline, which suggests that tenofovir is a more potent antiviral agent.

Hepatitis B virus containing the I233V mutation in the polymerase reverse-transcriptase domain remains sensitive to inhibition by adefovir

An isoleucine-to-valine change at position 233 (rtI233V) of hepatitis B virus (HBV) polymerase was recently reported to cause decreased in vitro susceptibility to, and treatment failure of, adefovir dipivoxil (ADV). To further evaluate these findings, we screened our ADV clinical-study sequence database of 853 patients and identified 4 who, at baseline, had HBV with this mutation. All 4 patients responded to treatment with ADV, with a median change in HBV DNA levels of 4.0 log(10) copies/mL after 48 weeks of treatment. Phenotypic evaluation of clinical isolates and of a laboratory strain with the rtI233V mutation demonstrated their full susceptibility to adefovir in vitro, and HBV with the rtI233V mutation developed in none of the patients.

Low-dose tenofovir is more potent than adefovir and is effective in controlling HBV viremia in chronic HBeAg-negative hepatitis B

AIM: To study the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) at low dose in a small open trial of chronic hepatitis B patients with advanced stage disease.

METHODS: Eleven patients were treated with TDF 75 mg for a median period of 80 (range, 24-576) wk and then 7 cases were shifted to an adefovir 10 mg treatment group. All patients had been pre-treated with lamivudine: 5 had YMDD resistant mutants and 6 wild-type virus. When TDF was started, 4 patients had low-level viremia and 6 were PCR-negative.

RESULTS: During TDF treatment, PCR remained negative in 10 patients, transaminase levels were normal and no significant viral breakthrough was observed. The drug was well tolerated in all cases. When TDF 75 mg was substituted with adefovir 10 mg, 3 out of 7 patients had a persistent viral rebound (2700-130 000 copies/mL), in whom lamivudine had to be reintroduced.

CONCLUSION: Low-dose TDF monotherapy can control HBV viremia for an extended period of time without the emergence of resistance and is more potent than adefovir at the standard dosage. The use of a reduced dose of TDF could diminish the cost of therapy in low-income countries, but further studies in a larger population and in HBeAg-positive subjects are needed.

Future prospectives for the management of chronic hepatitis B

Chronic hepatitis B virus infection affects about 400 million people around the globe and causes approximately one million deaths a year. Since the discovery of interferon-α as a therapeutic option the treatment of hepatitis B has evolved fast and management has become increasingly complicated. The amount of viral replication reflected in the viral load (HBV-DNA) plays an important role in the development of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The current treatment modalities for chronic hepatitis B are immunomodulatory (interferons) and antiviral suppressants (nucleoside and nucleotide analogues) all with their own advantages and limitations. An overview of the treatment efficacy for both immunomodulatory as antiviral compounds is provided in order to provide the clinician insight into the factors influencing treatment outcome. With nucleoside or nucleotide analogues suppression of viral replication by 5-7 log₁₀ is feasible, but not all patients respond to therapy. Known factors influencing treatment outcome are viral load, ALT levels and compliance. Many other factors which might influence treatment are scarcely investigated. Identifying the factors associated with response might result in stopping rules, so treatment could be adapted in an early stage to provide adequate treatment and avoid the development of resistance. The efficacy of compounds for the treatment of mutant virus and the cross-resistance is largely unknown. However, genotypic and phenotypic testing as well as small clinical trials provided some data on efficacy in this population. Discontinuation of nucleoside or nucleotide analogues frequently results in viral relapse; however, some patients have a sustained response. Data on the risk factors for relapse are necessary in order to determine when treatment can be discontinued safely. In conclusion: chronic hepatitis B has become a treatable disease; however, much research is needed to tailor therapy to an individual patient, to predict the sustainability of response and determine the best treatment for those failing treatment.

Variant of hepatitis B virus with primary resistance to adefovir

The reverse-transcriptase inhibitor lamivudine (Zeffix, GlaxoSmithKline) is often used to treat chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) until resistance develops. Treatment may then be switched to the reverse-transcriptase inhibitor adefovir (Hepsera, Gilead), which has a lower frequency of resistance. Here, we describe three cases of primary adefovir resistance that were sensitive to tenofovir (Viread, Gilead). All three cases involved a rare HBV variant with a valine at position 233 of the reverse-transcriptase domain instead of isoleucine (rtI233V), as in the wild-type virus. This HBV variant also displayed resistance to adefovir and sensitivity to tenofovir in vitro.

Telomerase activation in human hepatocarcinogenesis

Active telomerase is present in the majority of malignant human tumors, including most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT), the catalytic subunit of telomerase, has been found to be expressed in HCCs, dysplastic (precancerous) nodules (DNs), and regenerative nodules arising in cirrhosis. In a study reported in this issue of the journal, hTERT mRNA levels were assessed by quantitative real-time RT-PCR in various nodular lesions dissected from liver specimens of patients with chronic hepatitis B. High levels of hTERT mRNA were present in HCCs, high-grade DNs, and occasional low-grade DNs, whereas low levels were found in normal livers, livers with chronic hepatitis B (with or without cirrhosis), large regenerative nodules, and most low-grade DNs. Therefore, quantitative assessment of hTERT mRNA may provide a useful adjunct to histopathologic evaluation of large hepatic nodules. Indeed, emerging data from gene expression analyses of DNs and HCCs suggest that hTERT can be included in sets of select genes that provide "molecular signatures" with utility in the diagnosis and management of nodular hepatic lesions. Most importantly, tackling the mechanisms of telomerase activation may provide new means of therapy for HCC and other cancers.

Virologic response and resistance to adefovir in patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

The incidence and risk factors for adefovir-resistant HBV have not been clearly defined.

AIMS

To characterize the virologic response to adefovir, to determine the rate of adefovir resistance and to explore factors associated with initial virologic response (IVR) and adefovir resistance.

METHODS

All hepatitis B patients who received adefovir for > or =6 months at our center were prospectively monitored for virologic response and adefovir resistance.

RESULTS

Forty three patients were included; mean treatment duration was 18 months (range 6-45). Thirty four (79%) patients had prior lamivudine. IVR was observed in 44% patients and associated with higher pretreatment ALT (P = 0.05) and the absence of HBeAg (P = 0.02). Six (14%) patients were found to have adefovir-resistant mutations. The cumulative probability of genotypic resistance to adefovir at month 24 was 22%. Patients with adefovir resistance were more likely to have been switched from lamivudine to adefovir monotherapy (P = 0.01), to be older (P = 0.04), and to be infected with HBV genotype D (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Roughly 50% of patients failed to achieve IVR on adefovir. The cumulative probability of adefovir resistance at 2 years was 22%. Our data suggest that combination of lamivudine and adefovir may prevent emergence of adefovir resistance in patients with lamivudine-resistant HBV.