[Current treatment of hepatitis B infection: where do the new nucleos(t)ide analogues fit in?]

Targeting chronic liver diseases: Molecular markers, drug delivery strategies and future perspectives

Chronic liver inflammation, a pervasive global health issue, results in millions of annual deaths due to its progression from fibrosis to the more severe forms of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This insidious condition stems from diverse factors such as obesity, genetic conditions, alcohol abuse, viral infections, autoimmune diseases, and toxic accumulation, manifesting as chronic liver diseases (CLDs) such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), alcoholic liver disease (ALD), viral hepatitis, drug-induced liver injury, and autoimmune hepatitis. Late detection of CLDs necessitates effective treatments to inhibit and potentially reverse disease progression. However, current therapies exhibit limitations in consistency and safety. A potential breakthrough lies in nanoparticle-based drug delivery strategies, offering targeted delivery to specific liver cell types, such as hepatocytes, Kupffer cells, and hepatic stellate cells. This review explores molecular targets for CLD treatment, ongoing clinical trials, recent advances in nanoparticle-based drug delivery, and the future outlook of this research field. Early intervention is crucial for chronic liver disease. Having a comprehensive understanding of current treatments, molecular biomarkers and novel nanoparticle-based drug delivery strategies can have enormous impact in guiding future strategies for the prevention and treatment of CLDs.

Present and future management of viral hepatitis

Viral hepatitis can result in important morbidity and mortality, with its impact on health conditioned by the specific type of hepatitis, the geographical region of presentation and the development and access to new drugs, among other factors. Most acute presentation forms are self-limiting and may even go unnoticed, with just a small percentage of cases leading to acute liver failure that may necessitate transplantation or even cause the death of the patient. However, when they become chronic, as in the case of hepatitis B virus and C virus, unless they are diagnosed and treated adequately they may have severe consequences, like cirrhosis or hepatocarcinoma. Understanding of the mechanisms of transmission, the pathogenesis, the presence of vaccinations and the development over recent years of new highly-efficient, potent drugs have meant that we are now faced with a new scenario in the management of viral hepatitis, particularly hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus. The spectacular advances in hepatitis C virus treatment have led the World Health Organization to propose the objective of its eradication by 2030. The key aspect to achieving this goal is to ensure that these treatments reach all the more vulnerable population groups, in whom the different types of viral hepatitis have a high prevalence and constitute a niche that may perpetuate infection and hinder its eradication. Accordingly, micro-elimination programs assume special relevance at the present time.

Adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization, and cost benefits of guideline-recommended hepatitis B pharmacotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To compare pharmacotherapy adherence, persistence, and healthcare utilization/costs among US patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) initiated on an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current national (US) guidelines vs an oral antiviral not recommended as first-line monotherapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 18-64 with medical claims for CHB who initiated an oral antiviral monotherapy for CHB between 07/01/05 and 01/31/10 were identified from a large US commercial health insurance claims database. Patients were continuously enrolled for a 6-month baseline period and ≥90 days follow-up. They were assigned to 'currently recommended first-line therapy' (RT: entecavir or tenofovir) or 'not currently recommended first-line therapy' (NRT: lamivudine, telbivudine, or adefovir) cohorts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Multivariate analyses were conducted to compare treatment adherence, persistence, healthcare utilization, and costs for RT vs NRT cohorts.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between RT (n=825) and NRT (n=916) cohorts. In multivariate analyses, RT patients were twice as likely as NRT patients to be adherent (OR=2.09; p<0.01) and persistent (mean: RT=361 days, NRT=298 days; p<0.01) and half as likely to have an inpatient stay (OR=0.527; p<0.01). Between the two oral antivirals recommended as first-line treatment, even though pharmacy cost was higher for entecavir, mean total healthcare costs for entecavir and tenofovir were similar ($1214 and $1332 per patient per month, respectively). Similar results were also observed with regard to adherence, persistence, and healthcare use for entecavir and tenofovir.

CONCLUSIONS

A limitation associated with analysis of administrative claims data is that coding errors can be mitigated but are typically not fully eradicated by careful study design. Nevertheless, the current findings clearly indicate the benefits of initiating CHB treatment with an oral antiviral monotherapy recommended as first-line treatment by current guidelines.