The efficacy of entecavir therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients with suboptimal response to adevofir

Real World Experience of Telbivudine Versus Entecavir in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B, Including Long-Term Outcomes after Treatment Modification

PURPOSE

To estimate long-term outcomes after treatment modification in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treated with entecavir (ETV) and telbivudine (LdT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study enrolled 131 nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA)-naïve CHB patients treated with ETV or LdT. During the 3-year study, NA treatment history including the incidence, the type of treatment modification, reasons for the modification, and overall complete virologic response (CVR) rate were retrospectively evaluated using the patients' medical records.

RESULTS

Among the 131 patients, 84 and 47 were initially treated with ETV and LdT, respectively. During the course of 3-year study, 82 patients in the ETV group (97.6%) maintained initial treatment whereas only 19 in the LdT group (40.4%). In the LdT group, 26 patients (92.9%) switched to another NA and another NA was added in 2 (7.1%) patients. An assessment of the CVR rate at 3 years, including treatment modification, showed that 89.3% and 95.7% of patients in the ETV and LdT groups, respectively, had undetectable serum hepatitis B virus DNA levels (p=0.329). Among LdT patients with treatment modification, the cumulative incidence rate of a CVR for rescue therapy was significantly higher in the tenofovir than in the ETV group (p=0.009).

CONCLUSION

During the 3-year study, there were no significant differences in the CVR between the ETV and LdT groups if appropriate rescue therapy was considered.

A five years study of antiviral effect of entecavir in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients

Entecavir (ETV) is a potent viral replication inhibitor for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. To investigate the efficacy of ETV in Chinese nucleos(t)ide(NA)-experienced CHB patients. Among 89 CHB patients with ETV monotherapy for ≥6 months, 33/89 (37%) or 56/89 (73%) were NA-naïve or NA-experienced. During a median follow-up of 5.75 years, all NA-naïve CHB patients achieved VR without genotypic ETV-resistance. However, VR was observed in 50/56 (~90%) of NA-experienced CHB patients during a median follow-up of 4.75 years. Antiviral efficacy was not reduced in patients with previous lamivudine (LAM) with/without LAM-resistance (HR 0.465; 95% CI 0.196–1.100; p > 0.05) (HR 0.472; 95% CI 0.205–1.091; p > 0.05). Patients with a primary treatment failure to adefovir (ADV) had a reduced probability of achieving VR compared to NA-naïve (HR 0.496; 95% CI 0.287–0.857; p < 0.01). Previous ADV-experienced patients with a partial VR (HR 1.253; 95% CI 0.429–3.665; p > 0.05) did not influence antiviral response to ETV. The antiviral efficacy of ETV is not influenced by previous treatment LAM with/without LAM-resistance. ETV may still be an option in ADV-experienced patients with a partial VR, but not advised in patients with a primary treatment failure to ADV.

Comparable efficacy with entecavir monotherapy and tenofovir-entecavir combination in chronic hepatitis B patients

OBJECTIVES

The long-term goal for chronic hepatitis B patients is to maintain viral suppression in order to reduce disease progression risk. Because patients with previous treatment failure may have multiple viral resistance mutations, finding effective therapy is challenging. Because recent studies have shown that the combination of entecavir and tenofovir is effective in achieving virological response in many patients with prior treatment failure and multiple drug resistance mutations, we compared outcomes with this combination versus monotherapy.

METHODS

With a retrospective chart review we compared results in 35 patients with previous treatment failure treated with the entecavir-tenofovir combination to results in patients treated with entecavir monotherapy.

RESULTS

Although combination therapy resulted in significantly faster achievement of DNA negativity compared to entecavir monotherapy, the modest ten-week advantage is unlikely to be important for most patients since entecavir resistance develops extremely slowly. Significantly more patients on combination therapy experienced viral breakthroughs, most of which were attributed to non-adherence due to difficulties with the combination regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings of reasonably comparable efficacy over time in the combination and monotherapy arms combined with the increased costs and compliance issues related to combination therapy weigh in favor of entecavir monotherapy in patients with previous treatment failure. However, because our study was a retrospective analysis of a small patient population, it will be important to confirm these findings with a randomised, controlled trial that compares these treatment approaches in treatment-experienced patients.

Safety and efficacy of entecavir in adefovir-experienced patients

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Suboptimal viral suppression with adefovir (ADV) poses a challenge in managing chronic hepatitis B. Few studies have evaluated the efficacy of entecavir (ETV) in ADV-experienced patients. Our aim is to assess treatment effectiveness of ETV in ADV-experienced patients.

METHODS

ADV-experienced patients switched to ETV were enrolled from six US clinics. Patients completed a median of 24 months of ETV after switch. Patients were categorized into partial responders (detectable HBV-DNA at switch) or complete responders (undetectable HBV-DNA at switch) to ADV. Primary and secondary outcome measurements were complete viral suppression (CVS, HBV-DNA < 60 IU/mL) and biochemical response (BR, alanine aminotransferase [ALT] < 40 U/L), respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were included in the analysis (80 ADV partial responders; 40 ADV complete responders). In partial responders, CVS rate was 84% after 24 months of ETV. BR rate was 58% at switch to ETV and increased to 90% after 24 months. All complete responders continued to experience CVS after switch. On multivariate analysis inclusive of age, male gender, ALT level at switch, and history of lamivudine (LAM) exposure, we identified positive, hepatitis B e antigen status before ADV and higher HBV-DNA level at time of switch as significant independent negative predictors of CVS. In eight patients with ADV resistance, seven achieved CVS after 24 months of ETV, and all achieved BR.

CONCLUSION

In ADV-experienced patients, high rates of CVS and BR can be achieved/sustained after switching to ETV, including those with ADV resistance or with prior exposure to LAM.

Treatment cessation in noncirrhotic, e-antigen negative chronic hepatitis B is safe and effective following prolonged anti-viral suppression with nucleosides/nucleotides

BACKGROUND

The treatment of HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is considered to be open-ended, with no guidelines for treatment cessation.

AIM

To evaluate biochemical and virological relapse requiring retreatment in noncirrhotic HBeAg-negative CHB in patients who stopped treatment following a period of prolonged viral suppression with nucleotides/nucleosides.

METHODS

We performed a single-centre retrospective chart review of patients with HBeAg-negative CHB who maintained viral suppression for 4-5 years on anti-viral treatment, and thus subsequently stopped treatment. The primary end point of composite relapse was defined by an increase in HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL, ALT elevation above 1.25 × normal or doubling of ALT from cessation, and re-initiation of anti-viral therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 33 patients with HBeAg-negative CHB who stopped treatment following viral suppression. Mean treatment duration was 5.28 ± 2.73 years. Patients were treated with lamivudine (3), adefovir (14), entecavir (4), and tenofovir (12). Eleven (33%) patients met the primary end point of composite relapse. For individual end points, 21 (63%) patients had a viral relapse, 16 (48%) had a biochemical relapse, and 16 (48%) restarted treatment, leaving 17 (52%) patients who remained treatment-free over a median 36 months of follow-up. Lower pre-treatment ALT and detectable HBV DNA within the first month after treatment discontinuation were associated with increased rates of composite relapse (HR 1.01; P = 0.022 for ALT and HR 1.01; P = 0.038 for HBV DNA).

CONCLUSION

Patients with noncirrhotic HBeAg-negative CHB can stop treatment after greater than 4-5 years of suppressive therapy with nucleosides/nucleotides with more than 50% remaining treatment-free.

Mutations in HBV DNA polymerase associated with nucleos(t)ide resistance are rare in treatment-naive patients

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Prior studies have detected hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA polymerase mutations in treatment-naive patients. However, most of these studies used either direct polymerase chain reaction sequencing, which detects these mutations with low levels of sensitivity, or patient cohorts that were not well-characterized. We investigated the prevalence of HBV mutations in DNA polymerase by using a line probe assay.

METHODS

In a prospective, cross-sectional study, we enrolled 198 treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B (52.5% male; mean age, 41 years) from February 2009 to May 2011 from 3 gastroenterology and liver clinics in Northern California. Exclusion criteria included infection with hepatitis C or D viruses or human immunodeficiency virus. All patients completed a questionnaire (to determine demographics, history of liver disease, prior treatments, family medical history, drug and alcohol use, and environmental risk factors for hepatitis) that was administered by a research coordinator; mutations in HBV DNA polymerase were detected by using the INNO-LiPA HBV DR v.3 assay.

RESULTS

Most patients were Vietnamese (48.5%) or Chinese (36.4%) and were infected with HBV genotypes B (67.5%) or C (24.2%). Mutations in HBV DNA polymerase were found in 2 patients (1%), rtI233V (n = 1) and rtM250M/L (n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

In a multicenter prospective study of treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B, we detected mutations in HBV DNA polymerase in only 1%. Because of the low prevalence of these mutations and the uncertain clinical significance of such quasispecies, routine HBV DNA polymerase mutation analysis cannot be recommended before initiation of antiviral therapy for treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B. The analysis requires further molecular and clinical studies.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy of Lamivudine plus adefovir versus entecavir in the treatment of Lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis B virus infection remains 1 of the major health threats worldwide. Currently, lamivudine plus adefovir combination therapy or entecavir monotherapy is usually used for the treatment of patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few systematic comparisons between the efficacy of lamivudine plus adefovir and the efficacy of entecavir in the treatment of these patients.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this systematic study and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of lamivudine plus adefovir compared with entecavir for the treatment of patients with lamivudine-resistant CHB.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PUBMED, Web of Science, WANFANG database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, were screened to obtain citations from January 1990 to January 2012 in this study. Data analysis was done by using the Review Manager Software 5.1.

RESULTS

Eight studies were suitable for analysis. A total of 696 patients with lamivudine-resistant CHB were studied and grouped according to treatment: 341 patients in the entecavir group and 355 patients in the lamivudine plus adefovir group. The results found that the rates of undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA levels, alanine aminotransferase normalization, hepatitis B e antigen loss, and hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion were not significantly different between the lamivudine plus adefovir group and the entecavir group. Moreover, the rate of adverse reactions was also not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, virologic breakthrough for the patients with lamivudine resistance was higher in the entecavir group than in the lamivudine plus adefovir group.

CONCLUSIONS

For these CHB patients with lamivudine resistance, lamivudine plus adefovir was a better treatment option than entecavir alone.

Long-term efficacy of entecavir plus adefovir combination therapy versus entecavir monotherapy in adefovir refractory chronic hepatitis B patients with prior lamivudine resistance

OBJECTIVES

We investigated the long-term efficacy of entecavir (ETV) + adefovir (ADV) combination therapy versus ETV monotherapy in lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who failed to respond to ADV rescue therapy.

METHODS

A total of 91 ADV refractory patients with prior LAM resistance received ETV (1.0 mg/day) + ADV (10 mg/day) combination therapy (group A, n = 45) or ETV (1.0 mg/day) monotherapy (group B, n = 46) for more than 48 weeks.

RESULTS

The rates of undetectable serum hepatitis B virus DNA levels (≤20 IU/ml) at weeks 48 and 96 were not significantly different between group A and group B (31.1 vs. 23.9% at week 48, p = 0.442, and 44.7 vs. 34.5% at week 96, p = 0.457). However, the incidence of virological breakthrough in group A was significantly lower than that in group B (0 vs. 17.4% at week 48, p = 0.006, and 2.6 vs. 44.8% at week 96, p < 0.001). ETV monotherapy was the only independent factor significantly associated with virologic breakthrough (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

ETV + ADV combination therapy is a better therapeutic option than ETV monotherapy for ADV refractory CHB patients with prior LAM resistance.

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

BACKGROUND

Despite its high potency against hepatitis B virus (HBV), entecavir (ETV) 0.5 mg daily may not be sufficient to induce complete viral suppression in some patients with very high pretreatment viremia. It is not clear whether ETV 1.0 mg daily would have additive effect in such patients.

GOALS

Our goal was to examine virologic outcome of ETV 1.0 mg daily in patients with partial response to ETV 0.5 mg daily.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 31 consecutive treatment-naive patients who were switched to ETV 1.0 mg daily after partial response [reduction of HBV DNA ≥2 log10 IU/mL but with detectable HBV DNA levels (>100 IU/mL) after 24 weeks of therapy or longer] with ETV 0.5 mg daily from January 2005 to January 2010 at 2 clinics.

RESULTS

All patients were Asians and 90% had positive hepatitis B e antigen. Mean HBV DNA was 8.04±0.65 log10 IU/mL before therapy and 3.64±0.91 log10 IU/mL at the time of switch. Overall rate of complete viral suppression were 29% (n=9/31) after 24 weeks of ETV 1.0 mg daily and 22% (n=5/23) after 48 weeks. Complete viral suppression after 24 weeks with ETV 1.0 mg daily was significantly higher in patients with lower HBV DNA (<3 log10 IU/mL) at time of switch: 75% versus 5%, P<0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with partial response to ETV 0.5 mg daily did not achieve complete viral suppression with the higher dose of ETV 1.0 mg daily except those with minimal residual viremia (HBV DNA <3 log10 IU/mL).

Updated thresholds for serum alanine aminotransferase level in a large-scale population study composed of 34 346 subjects

BACKGROUND

The sensitivity of current upper limit of normal (ULN) of serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels for detecting chronic liver disease has been challenged recently.

AIM

To identify modulating factors for serum ALT levels and to refine its ULN threshold.

METHODS

We enrolled 34 346 consecutive subjects who completed the health check-up at Taipei Veterans General Hospital from 2002 to 2009. ULN was set for healthy ALT level to the 95th percentile of the reference healthy population.

RESULTS

A group of 21 282 subjects were used as a training set to define an ULN with the highest sensitivity; afterwards, this ULN was validated in another set of 13 064 subjects. A reference healthy population was selected from the training set after excluding subjects with any abnormalities in independent risk factors associated with elevated serum ALT level (>40 IU/L) by multivariate analysis like body mass index, waist circumference, glucose, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglyceride, hepatitis B virus surface antigen, anti-hepatitis C virus antibody and fatty liver. The new ULN of serum ALT level defined as the 95% percentile in the healthy population were 21 IU/L and 17 IU/L for men and women respectively. These cut-off values had the highest Youden's index and areas under the corresponding receiver operating curves among four widely applied thresholds in both the training and validation sets.

CONCLUSIONS

The suggested threshold of upper limit of normal provides better discrimination between healthy and unhealthy status. Viral hepatitis, metabolic syndrome and fatty liver are the major risk factors of elevated serum alanine aminotransferase levels.