The efficacy of adefovir plus entecavir combination therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B refractory to both lamivudine and adefovir

The efficacy of tenofovir-based therapy in patients showing suboptimal response to entecavir-adefovir combination therapy

Background/Aims:

Before tenofovir (TDF) become available in South Korea, combination therapy with entecavir (ETV) and adefovir (ADV) was the most potent regimen for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who fail to respond to rescue therapy for drug resistance. We analyzed the efficacy of ETV-ADV combination therapy and investigated the clinical and clonal results of TDF-based rescue therapy in CHB patients refractory to this combination.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of CHB patients treated for up to 3 years with ETV-ADV combination therapy as a rescue therapy for drug resistance. In cases refractory to this combination, clinical and clonal analyses were performed for TDF-based rescue therapy.

Results:

The analysis was performed on 48 patients. Twelve patients achieved a virological response (VR) within 3 years. A VR was subsequently achieved in nine of the ten patients without a VR who switched to TDF monotherapy. A VR was also achieved in six of the seven patients who switched to lamivudine-TDF combination therapy, and in two of the two patients who switched to ETV-TDF combination therapy. In an in vitro susceptibility test, viral replication was detected with TDF monotherapy but not with ETV-TDF combination therapy.

Conclusions:

The efficacy of ETV-ADV combination therapy was insufficient in CHB patients who were refractory to rescue therapy. A more potent regimen such as ETV-TDF combination therapy may be considered in such refractory cases.

Recent Advances in the Management of Chronic Hepatitis B Including Suppression of Hepatocellular Carcinoma by Entecavir and Interferon

At present, for adults with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, two new analogues, entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir, are recommended as the first-line therapy by the EASL (European Association for the Study of the Liver), AASLD (American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases), and APASL (Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver) guidelines. The use of pegylated interferon-α (PEG IFN-α) is recommended as the first-line therapy instead of standard IFN-α according to the above 3 guidelines. In this paper, the aim was to assess: (1) the long-term efficacy and safety as well as the resistance to ETV and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF); (2) the efficacy of PEG IFN-α; (3) the role of combination therapy with IFN plus two analogues, such as lamivudine and ETV; (4) the efficacy and safety of two analogues with cirrhosis, and (5) suppression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by ETV and IFN treatment. The results are as follows: (1) both ETV and TDF showed long-term efficacy and safety; (2) PEG IFN-α resulted in a greater decline in HBV DNA levels and a higher rate of HBeAg seroconversion; (3) combination therapy with IFN plus two analogues did not elevate the rate of sustained responses; (4) both ETV and TDF showed efficacy and safety with cirrhosis (ETV especially displayed efficacy and safety with decompensated cirrhosis), and (5) suppression of HCC was observed by ETV and IFN.

Tenofovir rescue regimen following prior suboptimal response to entecavir and adefovir combination therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients exposed to multiple treatment failures

In clinical practice, establishing a subsequent optimum treatment for chronic hepatitis B patients with a history of multiple NAs treatment failures, including a suboptimal response to a final therapy with combined ETV and ADV, is a complicated but crucial challenge. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a tenofovir rescue regimen in these patients. A total of six eligible patients were enrolled and were switched to a tenofovir rescue regimen. At baseline, the genotypes and genotypic mutations of the reverse transcriptase and surface gene were determined by ultra-deep pyrosequencing, and further clonal analyses of the reverse transcriptase domain were performed to identify multidrug-resistant HBV strains. In addition, HBV DNA levels, serology, and biochemistry parameters were monitored at baseline and every 3 months, and abdominal ultrasonography was performed at baseline and every 6 months. All patients were confirmed to harbor LAM-related resistant HBV strains. After switching to the tenofovir rescue treatment, all patients had an undetectable level of HBV DNA within 6 months and achieved normalization of the ALT level within 9 months. These virological and biochemical responses persisted until the end of the observation period. None of the patients developed clinical deterioration or any adverse events related to the tenofovir therapy during the median 16.5-month follow-up. In conclusion, the tenofovir rescue regimen can be employed confidently as a highly effective and safe treatment choice following a suboptimal response to ETV plus ADV therapy for a subset of chronic hepatitis B patients with a history of multiple unsuccessful antiviral treatments.

Comparison of the efficacies of entecavir 0.5 and 1.0 mg combined with adefovir in patients with chronic hepatitis B who had failed on prior nucleos(t)ide analogue treatments

Entecavir (ETV) plus adefovir (ADV) combination therapy is one of the useful treatment option for the patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who had failed on prior nucleos(t) ide analogue (NA) treatments. This study compared the efficacies of the combinations of ETV 0.5 mg plus ADV and ETV 1.0 mg plus ADV in patients who had failed on prior multiple NA treatments. This retrospective analysis included 148 consecutive patients with CHB infection in Korea (n = 37 with ETV 0.5 mg plus ADV and n = 111 with ETV 1.0 mg plus ADV). The virological and biochemical responses were compared between the two groups. The cumulative probability of viral suppression of ETV 0.5 mg plus ADV was not inferior to that of ETV 1.0 mg plus ADV (hazard ratio [HR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-1.08; P = 0.094). The changes in serum HBV DNA level in the ETV 0.5 mg plus ADV group were not different between the two groups over 12 months. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in acquiring ETV-resistant variants between the two groups during the treatment (HR, 0.95; P = 0.953). This study suggests the proof-of-concept that the lower dose of NA in combination with other NA might be the theoretical option for rescue combination therapy in patients with CHB who had failed on prior multiple NA treatments in order to reduce systemic exposure and possible side effects of NA.