Tenofovir (TDF) has stronger antiviral effect than adefovir (ADV) against lamivudine (LAM)-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV)

Test All for Hepatitis B Virus: Link to Care and Treatment if Quantitative DNA Positive, Vaccinate if Susceptible

Hepatitis B infection affects approximately 262 million people worldwide and is responsible for 900,000 deaths annually. This article reviews the major factors limiting HBV elimination, which includes limited linkage to care and complicated HBV testing and treatment guidelines. The article then provides solutions to these pressing issues.

Effectiveness and Safety of Low Dose of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in Malagasy Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B

Background

Accessibility of full dose daily of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is limited in Madagascar with an estimated cost well above the purchasing power of Malagasy population.

Objective

The study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of low-dose tenofovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

Methods

This prospective cohort study from January 2018 to December 2020 was conducted in the Department of Hepato-Gastroenterology, University Hospital Joseph Raseta Befelatanana, Antananarivo, Madagascar. The patients enrolled in the study received low dose of TDF 900 mg/week (300 mg daily, three days per week).

Results

A total of 45 patients (male/female: 31/14) were included. The mean age was 45.1 ± 11.5 years. Fifteen patients were nucleos(t)ide (NA)-naïve, and 30 patients had prior NA therapy (NA-experienced). Thirty patients were HBeAg positive. A complete virological response (CVR) was achieved in 36/45 patients (80%) at 3 months, 41/45 (91.1%) at 6 months, and 43/45 (95.6%) at 12 months. High viral load at baseline was negative predictive factor of CVR at 3 months (HR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.022-0.92; p: 0.041). There was no significant difference in response between HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients, NA-naïve and NA-experienced patients, and cirrhotic and noncirrhotic patients. Low dose of tenofovir was well tolerated. Ten patients (22.22%) had mild side effects. Mild renal failure was observed in 3 patients (6.7%) during follow-up.

Conclusion

Low dose of tenofovir is effective, safe, and well tolerated in a Malagasy population sample. These results still require verification in a large population.

Hepatitis B infection among HIV infected individuals in Gabon: Occult hepatitis B enhances HBV DNA prevalence

In Gabon, a central African country, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) are endemic. In a recent study, conducted in a semi-urban area (Franceville, Gabon), HBV infection was found to be more prevalent among HIV infected individuals. This study aims to investigate the prevalence and genetic diversity of hepatitis B virus infection among HIV infected individuals, predominantly under antiretroviral therapy, living in fully urbanized area: Libreville, capital of Gabon. Serological and molecular tests were performed to detect HBV infection among patients living with HIV/AIDS (PLHA). We used Monolisa HBsAg ULTRA, Anti-HBc Plus and Anti-HBs Plus EIA kits for serological analyses. HBV DNA viral load (HBV DNA VL) was determined by real time PCR and molecular characterization of HBV strains was performed by sequencing and phylogenetic analysis of partial HBV surface and core genes. At all, 70.2% of patients were under antiretroviral therapy. The prevalence of HBsAg was 8.8% (43/487). Detectable HBV DNA was found in 69.7% (30/43) of HBsAg positive patients and in 17.5% (24/137) HBsAg negative patients. HBV DNA VL was significantly higher among patient with CD4 cell counts less than 200 cells/mm³ than those with CD4 cell counts greater than 500 cells/mm³ (p = 0.008). We confirmed the presence of HBV sub-genotypes QS-A3 (40%), and A4 (20%) and HBV-E genotype (40%). The percentage of resistance to Lamivudine was high (40%) and varied according to the M204V/I motif. Occult hepatitis B infection (OBI) was found in patients with isolated HBcAb and among patients who had completed their HBsAg seroconversion. We detected HBV DNA for one patient without any HBV serological marker. This study provides a new landmark for the comprehension of HBV infection in PLHA in urban areas. OBI enhances HBV DNA prevalence and should be investigated in all HBsAg negative individuals.

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.

Antiviral Therapy in Lamivudine-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

The relative efficacy of different strategies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine resistance (LAM-R) has not yet been systematically studied. Clinical trials were searched in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CNKI databases up to February 15, 2016. Nine trials including 764 patients met the entry criteria. In direct meta-analysis, TDF showed a stronger antiviral effect than any one of ETV, LAM/ADV, and ADV against LAM-R hepatitis B virus. LAM/ADV therapy was superior to ADV in suppressing viral replication. ETV achieved similar rate of HBV DNA undetectable compared to ADV or LAM/ADV. In network meta-analysis, TDF had higher rates of HBV DNA undetectable compared to ETV (OR, 24.69; 95% CrI: 5.36–113.66), ADV (OR, 37.28; 95% CrI: 9.73–142.92), or LAM/ADV (OR, 21.05; 95% CrI: 5.70–77.80). However, among ETV, ADV, and LAM/ADV, no drug was clearly superior to others in HBV DNA undetectable rate. Moreover, no significant difference in the rate of ALT normalization or HBeAg loss was observed compared the four rescue strategies with each other. TDF appears to be a more effective rescue therapy than LAM/ADV, ETV, or ADV. LAM plus ADV therapy was a better treatment option than ETV or ADV alone for patients with LAM-R.

Efficacy of tenofovir-based rescue therapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no conclusive results on the efficacy of Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) monotherapy in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine-resistant (LAM-R).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy between TDF and TDF-based combination therapy against LAM-R HBV in CHB patients.

METHODS

Randomized and non-randomized control trials directly comparing TDF and TDF-based therapy for treatment of LAM-R CHB patients, were searched in Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, database up to June 15, 2015. The data were analyzed with Review Manager (v.5.3).

RESULTS

Five articles (683 patients in total) met entry criteria. The overall efficacy of tenofovir-based combination therapy was not significantly better with regard to the rates of virological response (85.5% vs. 81.5%; RR=0.95, 95%CI=0.88-1.03, P=0.25), ALT normalization (61.9% vs.72.0%; RR=1.18, 95%CI=0.96-1.44, P=0.11) and HBeAg loss (17.0% vs. 18.1%; RR=1.40, 95%CI=0.78-2.49, P=0.26) compared with TDF monotherapy through 48-week treatment. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that no significant difference was determined as TDF group compared to TDF-based group at 48weeks, in terms of rates of HBV DNA undetectability, ALT normalization and HBeAg loss in the treatment of LAM-R patients with prior failure of LAM monotherapy. Moreover, the rates of HBV DNA suppression between groups were similar through 24 or 48weeks of treatment in LAM-R patients with prior failure of LAM/ADV therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF monotherapy is as effective as TDF-based combination therapy in maintaining viral suppression in LAM-R patients with prior failure of LAM or LAM/ADV therapy.

Three-year efficacy and safety of tenofovir in nucleos(t)ide analog-naïve and nucleos(t)ide analog-experienced chronic hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study compared the efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) up to 3 years of innucleos(t)ide analog (NA)-naïve and NA-experienced chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.

METHODS

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-treated NA-naïve and NA-experienced CHB patients were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

After 3 years of TDF therapy, 97.7%, 71%, and 45.5% NA-naïve patients achieved a virological response, alanine aminotransferase normalization, and hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion, respectively. Compared with NA-naïve patients, NA-experienced patients without drug resistance and infected with lamivudine/telbivudine-resistant mutants showed similar results. In contrast, patients previously infected with adefovir-resistant mutants and with a suboptimal entecavir response showed significantly lower rates of virological response and hepatitis B e antigen loss/seroconverion than NA-naïve patients. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate markedly reduced within 12 months of TDF therapy; however, it did not decrease significantly during 12-36 months of treatment. Diabetes mellitus was an independent predictor of a ≥ 0.5 mg/dL increase above baseline in serum creatinine level, and age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and baseline creatinine level were independent factors for > 20% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline. Liver stiffness measurements improved significantly, but bone mineral density did not change significantly during treatment. Hepatocellular carcinoma incidence was low at 36 months. Age of > 60 years, cirrhosis, a low baseline platelet count and a high α-fetoprotein level at 12 months were significant predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma development.

CONCLUSIONS

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is effective and safe for NA-naïve and NA-experienced CHB patients and should be used cautiously in patients with comorbidities because of a renal dysfunction risk.

Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

Background/Aims:

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) exhibits similar antiviral efficacy against treatment-naïve and lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few clinical reports on the antiviral effects of TDF–LAM combination therapy compared to TDF monotherapy in patients with LAM-resistant CHB.

Methods:

We investigated the antiviral efficacy of TDF monotherapy vs. TDF–LAM combination therapy in 103 patients with LAM-resistant CHB.

Results:

The study subjects were treated with TDF alone (n=40) or TDF–LAM combination therapy (n=63) for ≥6 months. The patients had previously been treated with TDF-based rescue therapy for a median of 30.0 months (range, 8–36 months). A virologic response (VR) was achieved in 99 patients (96.1%): 95.0% (38/40) of patients in the TDF monotherapy group and 96.8% (61/63) of patients in the TDF–LAM combination therapy group. The VR rates were not significantly different between the TDF monotherapy and TDF–LAM combination therapy groups (88.9 vs. 87.3% at month 12, and 94.4 vs. 93.7% at month 24, log-rank p=0.652). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that none of the pretreatment factors were significantly associated with VR.

Conclusions:

TDF monotherapy was as effective as TDF–LAM combination therapy for maintaining viral suppression in the vast majority of patients with LAM-resistant CHB, which suggests that TDF add-on therapy with LAM is unnecessary.

Detection and analysis of resistance mutations of hepatitis B virus

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationships of resistance mutations of hepatitis B virus (HBV) with replication and genotypes of HBV and to understand the common resistance mutations and mutation pattern.

METHODS

The mutation patterns related to resistance to nucleoside drugs were analyzed, and the relationships of resistance mutations with HBV genotypes, Ct value, HBeAg, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), age and gender were evaluated.

RESULTS

Genotype B was found in 52 patients (73.2%) and genotype C in 19 patients (26.8%). In addition, 32 patients (45.07%) had resistance mutations at different loci, of which single base mutation accounted for 56.25% (18/32) and multi-base mutation for 43.75% (14/32). Of single base mutation, L180M, M204I, M204V and V173L had higher prevalence, and the incidence of L180M was closely related to the genotype of HBV. L180M, M204I and M204V were associated with the resistance to lamivudine and telbivudine; L180M, M204I, M204V and V173L were associated with the resistance to entecavir; A181T, N236T and N/H238T were related to the resistance to adefovir. Of multi-base mutations, L180M combined M204V had a high prevalence and were frequently found in patients with resistance to lamivudine and telbivudine. There was cross-resistance between lamivudine and telbivudine, between lamivudine and entecavir, and between entecavir and telbivudine. The Ct value of HBV DNA, HBeAg, ALT, age and gender were comparable among patients with different resistance mutations and HBV genotypes.

CONCLUSION

Detection of mutations of multiloci resistance genes is helpful for timely identification of HBV resistance and the clinical anti-virus therapy.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is superior to lamivudine plus adefovir in lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B patients

AIM: To assess the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in lamivudine (LAM)-resistant patients with a suboptimal response to LAM plus adefovir (ADV).

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of switching to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in suboptimal responders to lamivudine plus adefovir. Charts were reviewed for LAM-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who visited the Zhejiang Province People’s Hospital and The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, from June 2009 to May 2013. Patients whose serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA remained detectable despite at least 6 mo of LAM plus ADV combination therapy were included. Patients with a suboptimal response to LAM plus ADV were randomized to switch to TDF monotherapy (300 mg/d orally; TDF group) or to continuation with LAM (100 mg/d orally) plus ADV (10 mg/d orally; LAM plus ADV group) and were followed for 48 wk. Serum HBV DNA was determined at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48. HBV serological markers and biochemistry were assessed at baseline and weeks 12, 24, and 48. Resistance surveillance and side effects were monitored during therapy.

RESULTS: Fifty-nine patient were randomized to switch to TDF (n = 28) or continuation with LAM plus ADV (n = 31). No significant differences were found between the groups at baseline. Prior to TDF therapy, all patients had been exposed to LAM plus ADV for a median of 11 mo (range: 6-24 mo). No difference was seen in baseline serum HBV DNA between the two groups [5.13 ± 1.08 log₁₀ copies/mL (TDF) vs 5.04 ± 31.16 log₁₀ copies/mL (LAM + ADV), P = 0.639]. There was no significant difference in the rates of achieving complete virological response (CVR) at week 4 between the TDF and LAM + ADV groups (17.86% vs 6.45%, P = 0.24). The rate of achieving CVR in the TDF and LAM plus ADV groups was 75% vs 16.13% at week 12, 82.14% vs 22.58% at week 24, 89.29% vs 25.81% at week 36, and 96.43% vs 29.03% at week 48, respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of alanine aminotransferase normalization was significantly higher in the TDF than in the LAM plus ADV group at week 12 (75% vs 17.86%, P < 0.001), but not at week 24 (78.57% vs 54.84%, P = 0.097) or 48 (89.26% vs 67.74%, P = 0.062). Patients were hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive at baseline. There was no significant difference in HBeAg negativity between the TDF and LAM plus ADV groups at week 48 (4% vs 0%, P = 0.481). There were no drug-related adverse effects at week 48 in either group.

CONCLUSION: Switching to TDF monotherapy was superior to continuous add-on therapy in patients with LAM-resistant CHB with a suboptimal response to LAM plus ADV.

Long-term efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate therapy after multiple nucleos(t)ide analogue failure in chronic hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients following prior treatment failure with multiple nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) is not well defined, especially in Asian populations. In this study we investigated the efficacy and safety of TDF rescue therapy in CHB patients after multiple NA treatment failure.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed 52 CHB patients who experienced failure with two or more NAs and who were switched to regimens containing TDF. The efficacy and safety assessments included hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA undetectability, hepatitis B envelop antigen (HBeAg) seroclearance, alanine transaminase (ALT) normalization and changes in serum creatinine and phosphorus levels.

RESULTS

The mean HBV DNA level at baseline was 5.4 ± 1.76 log10 IU/mL. At a median duration of 34.5 months of TDF treatment, the cumulative probabilities of achieving complete virological response (CVR) were 25.0%, 51.8%, 74.2%, and 96.7% at 6, 12, 24, and 48 months, respectively. HBeAg seroclearance occurred in seven of 48 patients (14.6%). ALT levels were normalized in 27 of 31 patients (87.1%) with elevated ALT at baseline. Lower levels of HBV DNA at baseline were significantly associated with increased CVR rates (p < 0.001). However, CVR rates did not differ between TDF monotherapy or combination therapy with other NAs, and were not affected by mutations associated with resistance to NAs. No significant adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF is an efficient and safe rescue therapy for CHB patients after treatment failure with multiple NAs.

No resistance to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate through 96 weeks of treatment in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A recent study compared the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs the combination of emtricitabine and TDF (FTC/TDF) in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B who were treated for as long as 96 weeks. We report findings from resistance analyses conducted for this study.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and lamivudine resistance (confirmed by INNO-LiPA Multi-DR) were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups treated with TDF or FTC/TDF. The HBV reverse transcriptase domain from the polymerase gene from all patients was sequenced at baseline and from 18 viremic patients at week 96 or early discontinuation.

RESULTS

At screening for the efficacy study, 99% of patients were found to have lamivudine resistance. Prior exposure to entecavir or entecavir resistance was observed in 12% of patients, and 22% of patients had been previously exposed to adefovir; 1.8% were resistant to adefovir. Only 18 patients (6.4%) qualified for sequence analysis, including 1 patient who experienced virologic breakthrough and 17 with persistent viremia. Six of these patients did not have any sequence changes from baseline in HBV reverse transcriptase (33%), and sequence analysis could not be performed for 5 patients (28%). In 2 patients who qualified for phenotypic analysis (1 given TDF and 1 given FTC/TDF), no resistance to TDF was observed. Neither previous treatment exposure nor resistance to entecavir or adefovir affected viral kinetics. However, the mean baseline level of HBV DNA was significantly higher in viremic patients than in patients with viral suppression by week 96 (7.28 log10 IU/mL vs 5.62 log10 IU/mL; P = .0003).

CONCLUSIONS

No resistance to TDF was detected through 96 weeks of treatment in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B. Prior treatment or resistance to entecavir or adefovir did not affect viral kinetics through 96 weeks. No additional benefit was observed with the addition of emtricitabine vs TDF monotherapy. ClinicalTrial.gov number: NCT00737568.

Management of antiviral drug resistance in chronic hepatitis B

Rescue antiviral treatment for patients with resistance to preexisting nucleos(t)ide analogues remains a clinical challenge. The correct choice of a first-line treatment of high potency and with a high genetic barrier to achieve sustained long-term suppression of viral replication provides the best chance of preventing treatment failure and the emergence of drug resistance. The management of treatment failure and drug resistance requires a precise and accurate clinical and virologic monitoring. Combination treatment with antiviral drugs that belong to different groups is associated with a lower chance of developing resistance to rescue drugs. To guarantee better control of viral replication in patients with drug resistance, the addition of another drug without a cross resistance profile should be given as early as possible, preferably at the time when genotypic resistance emerges. Long-term surveillance for treatment efficacy and possible emergence of drug resistance should be continued to prevent the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains.

Molecular diagnosis and treatment of drug-resistant hepatitis B virus

Oral antiviral agents have been developed in the last two decades for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, antiviral resistance remains an important challenge for long-term CHB therapy. All of the clinically available oral antiviral agents are nucleoside or nucleotide analogues that target the activity of viral reverse transcriptase (RT), and all are reported to have resistant mutations. Since the hepatitis B virus (HBV) RT, like other viral polymerases, lacks proofreading activity, the emergence of drug-resistance occurs readily under selective pressure from the administration of antiviral agents. The molecular diagnosis of drug-resistant HBV is based on sequence variations, and current diagnostic methods include sequencing, restriction fragment polymorphism analysis, and hybridization. Here, we will discuss the currently available molecular diagnosis tools, in vitro phenotypic assays for validation of drug-resistant HBV, and treatment options for drug-resistant HBV.

Randomized comparison of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is active against lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, but data to support its clinical efficacy in this setting are limited.

METHODS

In a prospective, double-blind, 96-week trial, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups given TDF (300 mg, n = 141) or a combination of emtricitabine (FTC, 200 mg; n = 139) and TDF (300 mg, FTC/TDF). Patients were hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative, with levels of HBV DNA ≥3 log10 IU/mL and lamivudine resistance mutations (HBV polymerase or reverse transcriptase amino acid substitutions rtM204I/V ± rtL180M by INNO-LiPA Multi-DR v3; Innogenetics, Inc, Alpharetta, GA). The primary end point was proportion with HBV DNA <69 IU/mL (Roche COBAS Taqman assay; Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, Pleasanton, CA).

RESULTS

Patient groups were well matched for demographic and disease characteristics, including region (60% from Europe), HBV genotype (45% genotype D), HBeAg status (47% HBeAg-positive), and duration of lamivudine treatment (mean, 3.8 years). At week 96 of treatment, 89.4% of patients in the TDF group and 86.3% in the FTC/TDF group had levels of HBV DNA <69 IU/mL (P = .43). HBeAg loss and seroconversion did not differ between groups; only 1 patient (0.7%) in the FTC/TDF group lost hepatitis B surface antigen. Treatment was well tolerated; confirmed renal events (creatinine increase of ≥0.5 mg/dL [>44 umol/L], creatinine clearance <50 mL/min, or level of PO4 <2 mg/dL [<0.65 mmol/L]) were generally mild and infrequent (<1%). Small reductions (<2%) in mean bone mineral density of hip and spine were detected by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry in both groups. No TDF resistance developed through 96 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF alone is safe and effective for treatment of patients with lamivudine-resistant, chronic HBV infection. Clinical Trials.gov No, NCT00737568.

Advances in Nucleotide Antiviral Development from Scientific Discovery to Clinical Applications: Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate for Hepatitis B

Exploration of naturally occurring chemical structures for medicinal uses has received significant interest in drug discovery and development research in the past few decades. None have had more success or products of greater clinical efficacy than synthetic analogs of nucleosides and nucleotides, especially as antiviral drugs. Nucleos(t)ide antivirals are synthetic analogs of the natural building blocks of DNA or RNA. This review focuses on the developmental path of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a prodrug of a nucleotide analog and its clinical applications as a first-line antiviral for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Tenofovir is a potent antiviral compound, but has poor oral availability. The disoproxil fumarate (DF) prodrug moiety greatly enhances intestinal absorption allowing it to become an oral medication. Tenofovir is activated intracellularly, and the incorporation into HBV DNA prevents further elongation thus terminating replication. In patients with CHB, TDF has demonstrated broad, potent and sustained virologic response. Maintenance of viral suppression for up to 5 years resulted in regression of fibrosis and cirrhosis. No tenofovir-resistant HBV variants have been detected in patients after long-term use. The efficacy and safety profiles reported from cohort studies of clinical practices were consistent with those observed in registration trials. Continuous development includes a new oral prodrug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), which has enhanced delivery of tenofovir to target cells compared to TDF.

Tenofovir-emtricitabine therapy for the prevention of hepatitis B recurrence in four patients after liver transplantation

In patients infected with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) that goes untreated, therapeutic options are limited once the disease decompensates, and orthotopic liver transplantation is often the only treatment available to save the patient's life. After liver transplantation, combined therapy with hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) and a nucleos(t)ide analog is the standard of practice for the prevention of HBV recurrence. Historically, nucleos(t)ide analogs such as lamivudine and adefovir have been used with low-dose HBIG for the prevention of HBV recurrence after liver transplantation. However, these analogs are ineffective when used alone due the emergence of resistance mutations. Newer nucleos(t)ide analogs such as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have demonstrated higher resistance thresholds and effective viral suppression when paired with low-dose HBIG. In this case series, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of switching four patients from low-dose HBIG plus nucleos(t)ide analog therapy for the prevention of HBV recurrence to a combination tenofovir-emtricitabine regimen. At the end of follow-up, all patients remained hepatitis B surface antigen negative and had HBV DNA levels of less than 10 IU/ml. Additionally, no tenofovir-associated nephrotoxicity was observed among the four patients. Tenofovir-emtricitabine monotherapy in lieu of HBIG plus nucleos(t)ide analog therapy demonstrated prevention of HBV recurrence without tenofovir-associated nephrotoxicity after 9 months of follow-up in all four patients and up to 15 months in one patient.

Tenofovir rescue therapy for chronic hepatitis B patients after multiple treatment failures

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients after multiple failures.

METHODS: A total of 29 CHB patients who had a suboptimal response or developed resistance to two or more previous nucleoside/nucleotide analogue (NA) treatments were included. Study subjects were treated with TDF alone (n = 13) or in combination with lamivudine (LAM, n = 12) or entecavir (ETV, n = 4) for ≥ 6 mo. Complete virologic response (CVR) was defined as an achievement of serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level ≤ 60 IU/mL by real-time polymerase chain reaction method during treatment. Safety assessment was based on serum creatinine and phosphorus level. Eleven patients had histories of LAM and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) treatment and 18 patients were exposed to LAM, ADV, and ETV. Twenty-seven patients (93.1%) were hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive and the mean value of the baseline serum HBV DNA level was 5.5 log IU/mL ± 1.7 log IU/mL. The median treatment duration was 16 mo (range 7 to 29 mo).

RESULTS: All the patients had been treated with LAM and developed genotypic and phenotypic resistance to it. Resistance to ADV was present in 7 patients and 10 subjects had a resistance to ETV. One patient had a resistance to both ADV and ETV. The cumulative probabilities of CVR at 12 and 24 mo of TDF containing treatment regimen calculated by the Kaplan Meier method were 86.2% and 96.6%, respectively. Although one patient failed to achieve CVR, serum HBV DNA level decreased by 3.9 log IU/mL from the baseline and the last serum HBV DNA level during treatment was 85 IU/mL, achieving near CVR. No patients in this study showed viral breakthrough or primary non-response during the follow-up period. The cumulative probability of HBeAg clearance in the 27 HBeAg positive patients was 7.4%, 12%, and 27% at 6, 12, and 18 mo of treatment, respectively. Treatment efficacy of TDF containing regimen was not statistically different according to the presence of specific HBV mutations. History of prior exposure to specific antiviral agents did not make a difference to treatment outcome. Treatment efficacy of TDF was not affected by combination therapy with LAM or ETV. No patient developed renal toxicity and no cases of hypophosphatemia associated with TDF therapy were observed. There were no other adverse events related to TDF therapy observed in the study subjects.

CONCLUSION: TDF can be an effective and safe rescue therapy in CHB patients after multiple NA therapy failures.

Do different lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B genotypes carry the same risk of entecavir resistance?

Entecavir switch is one of the treatment options for lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B (HBV) patients in Asia. This study examined the outcome of patients with different baseline resistance genotypes in a cohort study. In this study, 14 patients with chronic HBV were treated with entecavir 1 mg/day for 5 years. Enrolment criteria include: documented lamivudine resistant mutations, treatment with adefovir 10 mg/day for at least 24 weeks, and Child-Pugh score <7. Most had previous failed adefovir therapy and compensated cirrhosis of the liver. Clinical outcomes, liver biochemistries, and HBV DNA were monitored regularly. Patients with virologic breakthrough were rescued with add-on adefovir. At the end of the treatment period, the mean HBV DNA fell from 5.92 × 10(6) (baseline) to 3.67 × 10(1)  IU/ml. The presence of a HBV polymerase rtM204V mutation at the baseline was found to be the major risk factor for adverse outcomes. Compared to the patients with the rtM204I mutant, patients with the rtM204V mutant had increased risk of virologic breakthrough (80% vs. 0%, P = 0.010) requiring add-on adefovir, slower virologic responses (log rank test, P = 0.0011), failure to reach undetectable HBV DNA levels (60% vs. 0%, P = 0.045), and higher risk of entecavir-resistance (60% vs. 0%, P = 0.045). All the patients with rtM204I and rtA181 mutants had undetectable HBV DNA from 18th month. In summary, lamivudine-resistant HBV patients with the rtM204V mutation have the highest risk of developing entecavir resistance, and entecavir monotherapy should be avoided. Those with the rtM204I and rtA181V mutations may have lower risks, but regular surveillance for viral breakthrough is required.

Substitution of tenofovir/emtricitabine for Hepatitis B immune globulin prevents recurrence of Hepatitis B after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIg) with or without nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) inhibitors has been shown to prevent recurrence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). However, the use of HBIg has many disadvantages.

AIMS

The present study was performed to determine if converting patients from HBIg ± NA to combination NA therapy could prevent recurrence of HBV.

METHODS

Twenty-one recipients without evidence of HBV recurrence on HBIg ± NA for ≥ 6 months were enrolled. Patients received their last injection of HBIg at the time they initiated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC; Truvada(®) ) and were followed up for 31.1 ± 9.0 [range 15-47] months.

RESULTS

After 1 year, 3 patients (14%) had detectable HBsAg, one of whom was non-compliant. Two of 3 with recurrence cleared HBsAg by last follow-up on TDF/FTC; the non-compliant patient became HBV DNA-undetectable with re-institution of TDF/FTC. TDF/FTC saved $12,469/year over our standard-of-care, monthly intramuscular HBIg/lamivudine. There was no evidence of a general adverse effect of TDF/FTC on renal function. However, 3 patients developed reversible acute renal failure; on renal biopsy, 1 had possible TDF/FTC-induced acute tubular necrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Substitution of TDF/FTC for HBIg prevented recurrence of HBV DNA in 100% (20/20) of patients who were compliant with the medication and led to substantial cost savings over HBIg-containing regimens.

KASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of chronic hepatitis B

The guideline on the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) was first developed in 2004 and revised in 2007 by the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver (KASL). Since then there have been many developments, including the introduction of new antiviral agents and the publications of many novel research results from both Korea and other countries. In particular, a large amount of knowledge on antiviral resistance--which is a serious issue in Korea--has accumulated, which has led to new strategies being suggested. This prompted the new guideline discussed herein to be developed based on recent evidence and expert opinion.

TARGET POPULATION

The main targets of this guideline comprise patients who are newly diagnosed with CHB and those who are followed or treated for known CHB. This guideline is also intended to provide guidance for the management of patients under the following special circumstances: malignancy, transplantation, dialysis, coinfection with other viruses, pregnancy, and children.

Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2012 update

Large volume of new data on the natural history and treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have become available since 2008. These include further studies in asymptomatic subjects with chronic HBV infection and community-based cohorts, the role of HBV genotype/naturally occurring HBV mutations, the application of non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis and quantitation of HBV surface antigen and new drug or new strategies towards more effective therapy. To update HBV management guidelines, relevant new data were reviewed and assessed by experts from the region, and the significance of the reported findings was discussed and debated. The earlier "Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B" was revised accordingly. The key terms used in the statement were also defined. The new guidelines include general management, indications for fibrosis assessment, time to start or stop drug therapy, choice of drug to initiate therapy, when and how to monitor the patients during and after stopping drug therapy. Recommendations on the therapy of patients in special circumstances, including women in childbearing age, patients with antiviral drug resistance, concurrent viral infection, hepatic decompensation, patients receiving immune suppression or chemotherapy and patients in the setting of liver transplantation and hepatocellular carcinoma, are also included.

Tenofovir therapy in hepatitis B virus-positive solid-organ transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Tenofovir therapy has been found to be efficient in treating hepatitis B virus (HBV) in nontransplant patients. However, in the setting of solid-organ transplantation, the efficacy of tenofovir has not been tested. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the clinical and biologic response and tolerance to tenofovir therapy in HBV-positive organ transplant recipients.

METHODS

Seven patients, three kidney, three liver, and one cardiac transplant recipients, with chronic HBV infection were partial responders to adefovir (n=7), lamivudine (n=7), or entecavir (n=5) therapy. Consequently, they were placed on tenofovir therapy (245 mg daily, which was adapted to renal function) alone (n=4) or in combination with lamivudine (n=3). Tenofovir therapy was assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postinitiation or at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

HBV DNA viral load (4.16 [2.03-5.56] log10 copies/mL at baseline) became significantly decreased to 3.15 (1.08-5.17), 2.88 (1.3-4.3), 3.53 (1.3-5.75), 3.33 (1.3-7.57), and 2.31 (1.3-4.81) log copies/mL at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months posttenofovir initiation and at last follow-up, respectively (P=0.02). Three patients were HBV DNA negative at the last follow-up. Liver enzyme levels did not change significantly throughout the follow-up period. Clinical and biologic tolerance was excellent.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though HBV DNA clearance was not achieved in all patients, the results of this pilot study are encouraging and demonstrate that tenofovir therapy is safe and efficacious in treating HBV-positive organ transplant patients. However, a larger trial is needed to confirm these preliminary results.

[Analogs combination therapy in chronic hepatitis B: when and how?]

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) genomic variability is responsible for the complexity of the viral quasi-species and its evolution during the course of infection. The persistence of infected cells promotes the selection of drug-resistant strains. The development of nucleoside analogs without cross-resistance has provided a rationale for combination therapy. De novo combination, with low genetic barrier drugs, prevents the emergence of resistance in the short-term for drugs with a low genetic barrier and improves the control of infection. Long-term studies are needed to determine whether de novo combination is beneficial for analogs with a high genetic barrier as well. The add-on strategy is a standard in case of emergence of resistant mutants. This strategy needs to be implemented as early as possible before the virological breakthrough, especially if the viral suppression is sub-optimal. Clinical trials are mandatory in order to assess whether a) de novo combination is better than an early add-on strategy; and b) whether in case of sub-optimal viral suppression, an early add-on strategy is better in the long-term than a switch to a more potent drug with a high genetic barrier.

Comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review

Chronic viral hepatitis B remains a global public health concern. Currently, several drugs, such as tenofovir and adefovir, are recommended for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B. tenofovir is a nucleoside analog with selective activity against hepatitis b virus and has been shown to be more potent in vitro than adefovir. But the results of trials comparing tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B were inconsistent. However, there was no systematic review on the comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. To evaluate the comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. We searched PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, CNKI, VIP database, WANFANG database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. Finally six studies were left for analysis which involved 910 patients in total, of whom 576 were included in tenofovir groups and 334 were included in adefovir groups. At the end of 48-week treatment, tenofovir was superior to adefovir at the HBV-DNA suppression in patients[RR = 2.59; 95%CI(1.01-6.67), P = 0.05]. While there was no significant difference in the ALT normalization[RR = 1.15; 95%CI(0.96-1.37), P = 0.14], HBeAg seroconversion[RR = 1.32; 95%CI(1.00-1.75), P = 0.05] and HBsAg loss rate[RR = 1.19; 95%CI(0.74-1.91), P = 0.48]. More high-quality, well-designed, randomized controlled, multi-center trails are clearly needed to guide evolving standards of care for chronic hepatitis B.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B

Tenofovir is a nucleotide analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor approved recently by the US FDA for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in adult patients based on the results of two double-blind randomized trials demonstrating superiority of tenofovir compared with adefovir. Tenofovir is available orally as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (ester pro-drug of tenofovir) and inhibits replication of both hepatitis B virus and HIV-1. Owing to its potent antiviral activity, favorable safety profile, and higher barrier to the development of resistance, tenofovir has replaced adefovir as a first-line oral monotherapy option in the treatment of CHB in the 2009 update of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Guidelines. Additionally, tenofovir monotherapy or in combination with nucleoside analogs are options for patients who have developed resistance to other CHB therapies including lamivudine and adefovir.

Three-year efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), a nucleotide analogue and potent inhibitor of hepatitis B virus (HBV) polymerase, showed superior efficacy to adefovir dipivoxil in treatment of chronic hepatitis B through 48 weeks. We evaluated long-term efficacy and safety of TDF monotherapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B who were positive or negative for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg(+) or HBeAg(-)).

METHODS

After 48 weeks of double-blind comparison of TDF to adefovir dipivoxil, patients who underwent liver biopsy were eligible to continue the study on open-label TDF for 7 additional years; data presented were collected up to 3 years (week 144) from 85% of participants. Primary efficacy end points at week 144 included levels of HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase, development of resistance mutations, and presence of HBeAg or hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg).

RESULTS

At week 144, 87% of HBeAg(-) and 72% of HBeAg(+) patients treated with TDF had levels of HBV DNA <400 copies/mL. Among patients who had previously received adefovir dipivoxil and then received TDF, 88% of the HBeAg(-) and 71% of the HBeAg(+) patients had levels of HBV DNA <400 copies/mL; overall, 81% and 74%, respectively, maintained normalized levels of alanine aminotransferase and 34% had lost HBeAg. Amino acid substitutions in HBV DNA polymerase that are associated with resistance to tenofovir were not detected in any patient. Cumulatively, 8% of HBeAg(+) patients lost HBsAg. TDF maintained a favorable safety profile for up to 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF was safe and effective in the long-term management of HBeAg(+) and HBeAg(-) patients with chronic hepatitis B.

Antiviral therapy for hepatitis B in special populations

There has been much progress in antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis B; however, antiviral therapy for hepatitis B in special populations is still very challenging. Here, we review antiviral therapy for hepatitis B in special populations, including children and pregnant patients, patients with hepatitis-B-related cirrhosis, patients with acute hepatitis B and chronic hepatitis B surface antigen carriers who receive immunosuppressive or cytotoxic therapy. Major advances have been made in antiviral therapy for hepatitis B in these special populations because of recent increasing availability of oral nucleoside/nucleotide analogues that are well-tolerated and highly effective; however, the findings are mostly based on small uncontrolled short-term studies. More well-designed clinical studies on antiviral therapy for hepatitis B in these special populations are urgently needed to obtain more evidence-based high-quality data.

Is there Emergence of Clinical HBV Resistance Under Long-Term HBV Combination Therapy? A Challenging Case Report

A first case of clinical tenofovir (TDF) HBV resistance in an HIV/HBV coinfected patient who developed an acute flare of hepatitis B is reported. The clinical course was accompanied by signs of acute liver failure after being on successful HBV treatment with tenofovir and persistently undetectable HBV-DNA viral load for over five years.

A Review of Oral Antiretroviral Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B

Objective:

To describe the current evidence for the use of oral antiretroviral (ARV) agents in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

Data Sources:

A search from 1950 to April 2010 was conducted using the databases PubMed and MEDLINE with the search terms chronic hepatitis B, lamivudine, entecavir, adefovir, telbivudine, tenofovir, emtricitabine, clevudine, and pradefovir. The search was limited to trials conducted in humans that were published in the English language.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Studies were included if they evaluated the use of oral ARVs in patients with CHB infection who were not coinfected with hepatitis C, hepatitis D, or HIV.

Data Synthesis:

Oral ARVs have revolutionized the treatment of CHB. Studies conducted comparing ARVs have favored entecavir and tenofovir with respect to their ability to decrease hepatitis B virus DNA viral load while minimizing the development of resistance. However, low seroconversion rates, recurrent viremia when ARV therapy is discontinued, and increased resistance rates with longer treatment durations limit the benefit of oral ARVs in the treatment of CHB. Combination therapy has been a suggested solution; however, studies have yet to prove additional benefit over currently recommended monotherapy.

Conclusions:

Oral ARVs should continue to be used in the treatment of CHB; however, research is needed to define the optimal duration of therapy, evaluate the utility of combination therapy, and explore novel targets within the hepatitis B life cycle.

Current therapeutic strategies for recurrent hepatitis B virus infection after liver transplantation

Hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related liver disease is the leading indication for liver transplantation (LT) in Asia, especially in China. With the introduction of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) and oral antiviral drugs, the recurrent HBV infection rate after LT has been evidently reduced. However, complete eradication of recurrent HBV infection after LT is almost impossible. Recurrent graft infection may lead to rapid disease progression and is a frequent cause of death within the first year after LT. At present, the availability of new oral medications, especially nucleoside or nucleotide analogues such as adefovir dipivoxil, entecavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, further strengthens our ability to treat recurrent HBV infection after LT. Moreover, since combined treatment with HBIG and antiviral agents after liver re-transplantation may play an important role in improving the prognosis of recurrent HBV infection, irreversible graft dysfunction secondary to recurrent HBV infection in spite of oral medications should no longer be considered an absolute contraindication for liver re-transplantation. Published reviews focusing on the therapeutic strategies for recurrent HBV infection after LT are very limited. In this article, the current therapeutic strategies for recurrent HBV infection after LT and evolving new trends are reviewed to guide clinical doctors to choose an optimal treatment plan in different clinical settings.

Hepatitis B therapies and antiviral resistance detection and management

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is an important health problem and a major cause of chronic hepatitis that can lead to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Durable viral suppression has been documented to lower the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and disease progression. Treatment of chronic HBV infection remains a major clinical challenge because long-term use with approved oral antiviral agents is associated with drug resistance. Antiviral resistance can result in poor clinical outcomes; therefore first-line therapy with the most potent agent(s) is recommended to lower the risk. Early detection of resistance is paramount to possibly reduce the risk of liver-related morbidity and mortality. It is important that clinicians monitor for therapeutic efficacy and resistance, so as to optimize the management of chronic HBV.

Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2008 update

Large amounts of new data on the natural history and treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have become available since 2005. These include long-term follow-up studies in large community-based cohorts or asymptomatic subjects with chronic HBV infection, further studies on the role of HBV genotype/naturally occurring HBV mutations, treatment of drug resistance and new therapies. In addition, Pegylated interferon alpha2a, entecavir and telbivudine have been approved globally. To update HBV management guidelines, relevant new data were reviewed and assessed by experts from the region, and the significance of the reported findings were discussed and debated. The earlier "Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B" was revised accordingly. The key terms used in the statement were also defined. The new guidelines include general management, special indications for liver biopsy in patients with persistently normal alanine aminotransferase, time to start or stop drug therapy, choice of drug to initiate therapy, when and how to monitor the patients during and after stopping drug therapy. Recommendations on the therapy of patients in special circumstances, including women in childbearing age, patients with antiviral drug resistance, concurrent viral infection, hepatic decompensation, patients receiving immune-suppressive medications or chemotherapy and patients in the setting of liver transplantation, are also included.

Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2008 update

Large amounts of new data on the natural history and treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have become available since 2005. These include long-term follow-up studies in large community-based cohorts or asymptomatic subjects with chronic HBV infection, further studies on the role of HBV genotype/naturally occurring HBV mutations, treatment of drug resistance and new therapies. In addition, Pegylated interferon alpha2a, entecavir and telbivudine have been approved globally. To update HBV management guidelines, relevant new data were reviewed and assessed by experts from the region, and the significance of the reported findings were discussed and debated. The earlier "Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B" was revised accordingly. The key terms used in the statement were also defined. The new guidelines include general management, special indications for liver biopsy in patients with persistently normal alanine aminotransferase, time to start or stop drug therapy, choice of drug to initiate therapy, when and how to monitor the patients during and after stopping drug therapy. Recommendations on the therapy of patients in special circumstances, including women in childbearing age, patients with antiviral drug resistance, concurrent viral infection, hepatic decompensation, patients receiving immune-suppressive medications or chemotherapy and patients in the setting of liver transplantation, are also included.

Time for an active antiviral therapy for hepatitis B: An update on the management of hepatitis B virus infection

Significant advances in the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) have been made over the past decade. During this period we have witnessed improvements in survival as well as reduction of disease progression in CHB patients due to the introduction of effective antiviral therapy. The need for effective antiviral therapy is underscored by the results of the REVEAL-HBV study in which 3653 hepatitis B virus (HBV) carriers were followed over 12 year period. This study demonstrated that a persistently elevated serum HBV DNA level was the most important risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The ultimate goal of antiviral therapy for CHB patients should include halting the progression to cirrhosis and its life threatening complications and in preventing/reducing the development of HCC. An earlier study of 651 CHB patients with cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis from countries in Asia also demonstrated that treatment with lamivudine (LVD) not only delayed disease progression but also reduced the development of HCC. These landmark studies reaffirm the need for active antiviral therapy for CHB. Current treatment options for patients with CHB include interferon and nucleos(t)ide analogues. As we gain experience with these agents, it has become increasingly clear that long-term therapy benefits patients with CHB.

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.