Response to higher dose of entecavir 1.0 mg daily in patients with partial response to entecavir 0.5 mg daily

Treatment Algorithm for Managing Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection in the United States: 2021 Update

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection remains the most frequent etiology of hepatocellular carcinoma globally as well as a major cause of cirrhosis. Despite vaccination, substantial numbers of persons have already been infected with hepatitis B virus and remain at risk of progressive liver disease.

METHODS

In 2004, a CHB management algorithm was developed by a panel of North American hepatologists, which was subsequently updated in 2006, 2008, and 2015. Since the most recent version, several developments have altered the management of CHB. Tenofovir alafenamide, with a more favorable safety profile than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, has been introduced as an initial antiviral choice as well as an alternative for long-term therapy. Quantitation of hepatitis B surface antigen is becoming more widely available in clinical practice, with implications for monitoring response to treatment. Additionally, there has been a shift in how the natural history of CHB is perceived, as newer evidence has challenged the concept that during the immunotolerant phase of infection disease progression is not a concern. Finally, recent analyses indicate that in the United States, the average age of patients with CHB has increased, implying that the presence of comorbidities, including metabolic liver disease, increasing use of biologics associated with aging will increasingly affect disease management.

RESULTS

This updated algorithm is intended to serve as a guide to manage CHB while new antiviral strategies are developed.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations have been based on evidence from the scientific literature, when possible, as well as clinical experience and consensus expert opinion. Points of continued debate and areas of research need are also described.

A Comparison Between Community and Academic Practices in the USA in the Management of Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Receiving Entecavir: Results of the ENUMERATE Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The management of chronic hepatitis B patients is not well characterized in real-world practice. We compared baseline characteristics of CHB patients on entecavir, the frequency of on-treatment monitoring, and the effectiveness of ETV treatment between academic and community practices.

METHODS

Treatment-naïve CHB patients ≥18 years old, treated with ETV for ≥12 months from 2005 to 2013, in 26 community and academic practices throughout the USA were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 841 patients enrolled, 658 (65% male, 83% Asian, median age 47, 9% with cirrhosis) met inclusion criteria. Half of the patients (52%) were from community practices. A lower percentage of patients in community practices had cirrhosis or liver cancer (5 vs. 14%). Community practices more often treated patients with baseline ALT < 2 × ULN. Over a median follow-up of 4 years, community practices were more likely to discontinue ETV with less frequent laboratory monitoring compared to academic practices. The 5-year cumulative probability of ALT normalization was greater among patients treated in community practices (70 vs. 50%, p < 0.001), but the 5-year cumulative probability of undetectable HBV DNA was lower (45 vs. 70%, p < 0.001) than those treated in academic practices.

CONCLUSION

Academic practices saw CHB patients with more advanced liver disease, more often followed AASLD guidelines, and monitored patients on ETV treatment more frequently than community practices. While patients in community practices were less likely to achieve undetectable HBV DNA and more likely to achieve ALT normalization, the rates of HBeAg loss and seroconversion as well as HBsAg loss were similar.

EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a global public health problem with changing epidemiology due to several factors including vaccination policies and migration. This Clinical Practice Guideline presents updated recommendations for the optimal management of HBV infection. Chronic HBV infection can be classified into five phases: (I) HBeAg-positive chronic infection, (II) HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis, (III) HBeAg-negative chronic infection, (IV) HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis and (V) HBsAg-negative phase. All patients with chronic HBV infection are at increased risk of progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), depending on host and viral factors. The main goal of therapy is to improve survival and quality of life by preventing disease progression, and consequently HCC development. The induction of long-term suppression of HBV replication represents the main endpoint of current treatment strategies, while HBsAg loss is an optimal endpoint. The typical indication for treatment requires HBV DNA >2,000IU/ml, elevated ALT and/or at least moderate histological lesions, while all cirrhotic patients with detectable HBV DNA should be treated. Additional indications include the prevention of mother to child transmission in pregnant women with high viremia and prevention of HBV reactivation in patients requiring immunosuppression or chemotherapy. The long-term administration of a potent nucleos(t)ide analogue with high barrier to resistance, i.e., entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil or tenofovir alafenamide, represents the treatment of choice. Pegylated interferon-alfa treatment can also be considered in mild to moderate chronic hepatitis B patients. Combination therapies are not generally recommended. All patients should be monitored for risk of disease progression and HCC. Treated patients should be monitored for therapy response and adherence. HCC remains the major concern for treated chronic hepatitis B patients. Several subgroups of patients with HBV infection require specific focus. Future treatment strategies to achieve 'cure' of disease and new biomarkers are discussed.

A Treatment Algorithm for the Management of Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection in the United States: 2015 Update

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) continues to be an important public health problem worldwide, including in the United States. An algorithm for managing CHB was developed by a panel of United States hepatologists in 2004 and subsequently updated in 2006 and 2008. Since 2008, additional data on long-term safety and efficacy of licensed therapies have become available and have better defined therapeutic options for CHB. The evidence indicates that potent antiviral therapy can lead to regression of extensive fibrosis or even cirrhosis, thus potentially altering the natural history of CHB. In addition, appropriate choice of antiviral agent can minimize the risk of resistance. This updated algorithm for managing CHB is based primarily on evidence from the scientific literature. Where data were lacking, the panel relied on clinical experience and consensus expert opinion. The primary aim of antiviral therapy for CHB is durable suppression of serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA to low or undetectable levels. CHB patients who have HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL, elevated alanine aminotransferase level, and any degree of fibrosis should receive antiviral therapy regardless of their hepatitis B e antigen status. CHB patients with HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL and elevated alanine aminotransferase level but no evidence of fibrosis may also be considered for antiviral therapy. Approved antiviral therapies for CHB are interferon alfa-2b, peginterferon alfa-2a, lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir, telbivudine, and tenofovir, although the preferred first-line treatment choices are peginterferon alfa-2a, entecavir, and tenofovir. In determining choice of therapy, considerations include efficacy, safety, rate of resistance, method of administration, duration, and cost.

Tenofovir-based alternate therapies for chronic hepatitis B patients with partial virological response to entecavir

Entecavir (ETV) is a first-line antiviral therapy for treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, some patients have suboptimal response to ETV. Currently, there are limited data on how to approach these patients. Therefore, our aim was to compare the effectiveness of two alternate therapies--tenofovir (TDF) monotherapy and combination therapy of ETV+TDF--in CHB patients with ETV partial virological response. We conducted a retrospective study of 68 patients who had partial virological response to ETV, defined as having detectable HBV DNA following at least 12 months of ETV, and were switched to TDF monotherapy (n = 25) or ETV+TDF (n = 43). Patients were seen in seven US liver/community-based clinics and started on ETV between 2005 and 2009. The majority of patients were male; the vast majority were Asian and had positive hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg). Patients in both groups had similar pretreatment characteristics. Complete viral suppression (CVS) rates with TDF monotherapy and ETV+TDF were similar after 6 months (71% vs 83%, P = 0.23) and 12 months (86% vs 84%, P = 0.85), and there was no statistically significant difference in CVS rates even when only patients with higher HBV DNA levels at switch (>1000 IU/mL) were evaluated. Multivariate analysis indicated that ETV+TDF was not an independent predictor of CVS compared to TDF monotherapy (OR = 1.19, P = 0.63). In conclusion, TDF monotherapy and ETV+TDF are comparable in achieving CVS in CHB patients with partial virological response to ETV. Long-term alternate therapy with one pill (TDF monotherapy) vs two pills (ETV+TDF) could lead to lower nonadherence rates and better treatment outcomes.

Tenofovir monotherapy after achieving complete viral suppression on entecavir plus tenofovir combination therapy

OBJECTIVES

It is unclear whether patients with chronic hepatitis B with partial response to entecavir (ETV) who have achieved complete viral suppression (CVS) with ETV plus tenofovir (TDF) combination therapy maintain CVS if switched to TDF or ETV. Our goal was to examine virologic outcomes in such patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of 57 ETV partial responders with chronic hepatitis B who showed CVS on ETV+TDF combination therapy, who were switched back to monotherapy with either ETV (n=16) or TDF (n=18), or continued on combination therapy (n=23). The majority of patients were Asian (91%) and male (65%), with a mean age of 41±12 years.

RESULTS

The patients switched back to ETV had significantly higher rates of virologic breakthrough by 6 months after the switch compared with their TDF counterparts (88 vs. 39%, P=0.004). Patients who remained on ETV+TDF also had virologic breakthrough, due to either confirmed or suspected nonadherence. On multivariate analysis inclusive of age, sex, and hepatitis B virus DNA levels at initiation of combination therapy, ETV (compared with TDF) was found to be an independent predictor for virologic breakthrough (odds ratio 112.7, P=0.03), as well as duration of CVS of less than 12 months while on ETV+TDF (odds ratio 60.2, P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

TDF monotherapy, especially in those who have had CVS for at least 12 months on combination therapy, may be considered for some ETV partial responders who have achieved CVS with combination therapy, given the financial advantage and convenience of monotherapy.

Partial virological response to entecavir treatment in nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B is not caused by reduced sensitivity

Some patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) receiving entecavir (ETV) exhibit partial virological response (PVR) to ETV and the mechanism is not clear. In this study, we aim to investigate the in vitro susceptibility of residual clinical strains isolated from the sera of nucleos(t)ide-naïve hepatitis B virus e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients with CHB and PVR to ETV, and to evaluate the clinical and virological responses to prolonged ETV monotherapy in these patients. We followed 69 nucleos(t)ide-naïve HBeAg-positive CHB patients receiving ETV treatment, with 13 partial responders to ETV. And we found that no genotypic resistance mutants were detected among the 13 PVR patients. Phenotypic analysis revealed that the residual HBV strains had normal replication capacity, and were as susceptible to ETV as wild-type HBV. All PVR patients continued to receive ETV monotherapy, and serum HBV DNA of the majority became undetectable after prolonged treatment. However, none of these patients achieved HBeAg loss. In contrast, 25.6% and 23.2% of the patients with virological response achieved HBeAg loss (P < 0.001) and HBeAg seroconversion (P < 0.001) at week 144, respectively. Thus, we conclude suboptimal response to ETV might not be due to reduced HBV susceptibility to ETV, and prolonging ETV monotherapy in patients with PVR is recommended.

The 104-week efficacy and safety of telbivudine-based optimization strategy in chronic hepatitis B patients: a randomized, controlled study

An optimization strategy based on the Roadmap concept is supposed to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with suboptimal antiviral response. The aim of this study was to prove the concept with a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled study. In all, 606 hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive, nucleos(t)ide-naive chronic hepatitis B patients were randomized to the Optimize or Mono group. Patients in the Optimize group were treated with telbivudine for 24 weeks, after which those suboptimal responders with HBV DNA ≥300 copies/mL at week 24 received telbivudine plus adefovir until week 104, while the early virological responders continued telbivudine monotherapy. Patients in the Mono group received telbivudine monotherapy. All patients with telbivudine monotherapy had adefovir added if viral breakthrough developed. Sixty-eight percent (204/300) of patients in the Optimize group had adefovir added due to suboptimal response. At week 104, compared to the Mono group, more patients in the Optimize group achieved HBV DNA <300 copies/ml (76.7% versus 61.2%, P < 0.001) with less genotypic resistance (2.7% versus 25.8%, P < 0.001). The rates of HBeAg seroconversion and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization were comparable between the two groups (23.7% versus 22.1%; 80.7% versus 79.2%). For week 24 suboptimal responders, telbivudine plus adefovir showed an additive antiviral potency, with 71.1% achieving virological response at week 104 and only 0.5% developing genotypic resistance, compared with 46.6% who achieved virological response and 37.8% who developed genotypic resistance with telbivudine monotherapy. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated, with an observed persistent increase of the glomerular filtration rate.

CONCLUSION

For suboptimal virological responders to telbivudine at week 24, adjusting the treatment strategy is recommended. Adding adefovir can benefit these patients with additive antiviral potency and low resistance without increased side effects.

Tenofovir is superior to entecavir for achieving complete viral suppression in HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B patients with high HBV DNA

BACKGROUND

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are the two first-line anti-viral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, there are limited studies directly comparing their effectiveness.

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of ETV and TDF in nucleos(t)ide-naïve CHB patients with high hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels, defined as serum HBV DNA greater than 6 log10  IU/mL.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult CHB patients who were seen between 2009 and 2012 at four Northern California community gastroenterology and hepatology clinics.

RESULTS

We identified 59 consecutive patients treated with TDF and 216 patients treated with ETV. Pre-treatment characteristics were similar between the two groups. Among HBeAg-negative patients, there was no significant difference in viral suppression rates between ETV and TDF (P = 0.72). In contrast, among HBeAg-positive patients, those treated with TDF achieved viral suppression significantly more rapidly than those treated with ETV (P < 0.0001); the Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of complete suppression was 18% vs. 11% at 6 months, 51% vs. 28% at 12 months and 72% vs. 39% at 18 months respectively. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that treatment with TDF compared to ETV was a significant predictor of viral suppression, but only for HBeAg-positive patients (HR = 2.59; 95% CI 1.58-4.22; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Tenofovir is significantly more effective than entecavir for achieving complete viral suppression in HBeAg-positive, nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients with HBV DNA greater than 6 log10  IU/mL.