Emergence of adefovir-resistant mutants after reversion to YMDD wild-type in lamivudine-resistant patients receiving adefovir monotherapy

Entecavir plus tenofovir combination therapy for chronic hepatitis B in patients with previous nucleos(t)ide treatment failure

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who have failed on other nucleos(t)ide analogs (NUCs), the combination of entecavir (ETV) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), two potent agents with non-overlapping resistance profiles, may provide a single rescue regimen.

METHODS

In this single-arm, open-label study, 92 CHB patients with a primary non-response, partial response, or virologic breakthrough on their current NUC were switched to ETV (1 mg) plus TDF (300 mg) and treated for 96 weeks.

RESULTS

At baseline, 62 % of patients were HBeAg(+) and mean HBV DNA was 4.4 log10IU/mL. Patients had received ≥1 line of prior NUC therapy, with the latest regimen consisting of monotherapy with ETV (53 %), lamivudine (LVD 22 %), TDF (12 %), adefovir (ADV 4 %), or telbivudine (2 %), or combinations of these agents (7 %); 58 % had evidence of single- or multidrug resistance mutations (LVD 52 %, ETV 26 %; ADV 7 %). Response rates for HBV DNA <50 IU/mL were 76 % (70/92) at week 48 (primary endpoint), and 85 % (78/92) at week 96, including 80 % (16/20) in prior LVD failures, 100 % (4/4) in ADV failures, 82 % (9/11) in TDF failures, and 88 % (42/48) in ETV failures. No treatment-emergent resistance to ETV or ADV was observed. ETV/TDF was well tolerated, with no significant renal or additive toxicities observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In NUC-experienced patients who have failed prior NUC therapy, ETV/TDF was well tolerated and effective, achieving virologic suppression through 96 weeks in the majority (85 %), irrespective of prior NUC exposure, without occurrence of treatment-emergent resistance to either agent.

Clonal evolution of multidrug resistant hepatitis B virus during entecavir rescue therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Analysing the mutation pattern of multidrug resistance (MDR) is important in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). In this study, the evolutionary pattern of MDR mutations was investigated in patients receiving entecavir (ETV) rescue therapy.

METHODS

Eight CHB patients with lamivudine (LAM)- and adefovir (ADV)-resistant mutations showing suboptimal response to ETV and to subsequent ETV-plus-ADV therapy were enrolled. The clonal evolution of the mutation pattern was investigated through direct sequencing, multiplex restriction fragment mass polymorphism (RFMP), and clonal analysis and the utility of these methods was compared.

RESULTS

Among 160 clones at baseline, wild-type hepatitis B virus (HBV) was present in 62 (38.8%), LAM-resistant mutations in 92 (57.6%) and ADV-resistant mutations in 55 (34.4%). LAM-resistant mutations increased to 70.6% at the end of ETV therapy and increased to 74.4% at the 12th month of ETV-plus-ADV therapy. During the same time periods, ETV-resistant mutations were present in 46.3% and 38.8%, and ADV-resistant mutations were present in 3.1% and 9.4% respectively. When 256 nucleotides from 32 samples were examined for mutations, clonal analysis detected 93 mutations (36.3%), direct sequencing detected 36 mutations (14.1%) and RFMP detected 73 mutations (28.5%). The sensitivity (73.1%, 95% CI; 64.1-82.1%) and specificity (96.9%, 95% CI; 94.4-99.4%) of RFMP were high, showing a concordance rate of 88.3% with the results from clonal analysis. All mutations exceeding 40% of the total clones detected by clonal analysis were also detected by RFMP.

CONCLUSIONS

The clonal evolution of the mutation pattern in MDR HBV showed the selection of LAM-resistant (±ETV-resistant) HBV during ETV rescue therapy, which may be the primary reason for patients' suboptimal response. Multiplex RFMP is a useful method for detecting MDR mutations in clinical practice.

Multidrug-resistant hepatitis B virus resulting from sequential monotherapy with lamivudine, adefovir, and entecavir: clonal evolution during lamivudine plus adefovir therapy

Whether multidrug-resistant (MDR) hepatitis B virus (HBV) harbors mutations co-located in the same HBV clones that confer reduced sensitivity to antiviral therapy remains uncertain. This study investigated the evolution of MDR HBV strains developed from sequential monotherapy with lamivudine (LAM), adefovir (ADV), and entecavir (ETV) during LAM plus ADV salvage therapy. Sera were obtained from six patients who had developed sequential resistance to LAM, ADV, and ETV before and during LAM plus ADV therapy. The HBV genomes from each patient were amplified, cloned, and sequenced. Among 6 sets of 20 clones obtained before salvage therapy, all clones harbored the rtM204V mutation, and ETV-resistant mutations were detected with the rtM204V in 108 clones. The rtA181 mutation was not detected at baseline, but emerged in five patients during therapy. Among 9 sets of 20 clones obtained during salvage therapy, 39 clones harbored rtA181T/V ± rtN236T mutations, which were detected in the absence of rtM204 and ETV-resistant mutations in 37 clones (94.9%). Only two clones (5.1%) harbored both rtA181T/V and ETV-resistant mutations. The rtA181T/V mutation emerged after reversion from ETV-resistant mutants to wild-type HBV. Five patients achieved a partial virologic response to LAM plus ADV therapy. In conclusion, the majority of MDR mutations existed in different genomes. Suboptimal response to LAM plus ADV therapy may not result from the co-localization of MDR HBV mutations in the same genome, but instead the low antiviral potency of these drugs. Thus, more potent antiviral drug combinations may be an effective salvage therapy for patients infected with MDR HBV.

Laboratory evaluation of three regimens of treatment of chronic hepatitis B: tenofovir, entecavir and combination of lamivudine and adefovir

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis B is a disease of concern due to its life-threatening complications like cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 20-40% of patients. There are about 400 million people affected worldwide with HBV, and over 300,000 die every year from HBV-related diseases. Oral antivirals like lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir, and tenofovir are commonly used to treat chronic hepatitis B. In this study, we tried to evaluate the comparative efficacy of these drugs alone and in combination.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chronic hepatitis B patients with HBV-DNA more than 10⁴Copies/mL irrespective of their HBeAg status (n=60) were enrolled in a prospective study. 21, 20, and 19 patients were treated with lamivudine (100 mg/day) plus adefovir (10 mg/day) combination entecavir monotherapy (0.5 mg/day) and tenofovir monotherapy (300 mg/day), respectively and were followed up for 24 weeks with their virological, serological, and biochemical markers measured at 12 and 24 weeks.

RESULTS

After 24 weeks of treatment, there was no significant difference between the 3 groups in suppressing HBV-DNA to undetectable levels. The median decrease in HBV-DNA levels from baseline was better with tenofovir and entecavir monotherapies than lamivudine and adefovir combination, which was statistically significant. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups in HBsAg and HBeAg seroconversion and normalization of biochemical parameters.

CONCLUSION

Entecavir and tenofovir monotherapy were found to be more effective than lamivudine plus adefovir combination in reducing the HBV-DNA levels. However, lamivudine plus adefovir combination was not too inferior, especially when cost of treatment was taken into consideration.

Telbivudine in combination with adefovir versus adefovir monotherapy in HBeAg-positive, lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

PURPOSE

Lamivudine (LAM) resistance is common on lamivudine monotherapy for chronic hepatitis B. This study examined the safety and efficacy of telbivudine (LDT) given with adefovir (ADV) versus ADV monotherapy in patients with chronic, lamivudine-resistant HBV infection.

METHODS

An open-label, 96 week study with planned recruitment of 150 HBeAg-positive, lamivudine-experienced Asian patients with a confirmed YMDD resistance mutation, randomized 1:1 to receive ADV alone or with LDT. The study was terminated early due to difficulty in enrolling monotherapy patients. At termination, 42 patients had received study medication for 8-61 weeks. Due to incomplete enrolment, summary statistics only were prepared, without significance testing.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients underwent rescue therapy (switch to ADV or LDT + ADV; n = 21 per group). Median treatment duration was 48 weeks in both groups. HBV DNA changes from baseline were greater in the LDT + ADV arm at all time points (Week 48: -7.4 log10 vs. -4.9 log10 copies/ml), and serum DNA was undetectable (<300 copies/mL) at week 48 in 38.5% (5/13) on LDT + ADV versus 0% (0/9) on ADV monotherapy Two patients (9.6%) on ADV monotherapy experienced virologic breakthrough without evidence of ADV resistance, but none on LDT + ADV; and no confirmed ADV resistance was observed in any on-treatment sample. HBeAg loss occurred in three patients on LDT + ADV and one patient on ADV monotherapy through week 48. Safety profiles were similar between the arms.

CONCLUSION

LDT + ADV combination treatment showed better outcomes against lamivudine resistant HBV than ADV alone, with a similar safety profile.

[Add on lamivudine to adefovir monotherapy for the treatment of lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B patients]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Add on adefovir (ADV) to ongoing lamivudine (LAM) has been recommended as a standard therapy for the treatment of LAM resistance. In the past, switch to ADV monotherapy was suggested as an option for the treatment of LAM resistance, leading to frequent development of ADV resistance. However, ADV monotherapy has been still used in LAM-resistant patients because of low cost in Korea. The aims of this study were to evaluate the virologic response and virologic breakthrough during adding on LAM in LAM-resistant patients receiving ADV monotherapy.

METHODS

The study population comprised 99 patients with LAM-resistance. We divided them into 3 groups (Group 1: switch to ADV monotherapy, N=58, Group 2: add on ADV to ongoing LAM, N=25, Group 3: add on LAM to ADV monotherapy, N=16). HBV DNA levels were assessed at baseline and every 3 months during therapy. Serum HBV DNA levels were measured by bDNA assay or the COBAS TaqMan(TM) HBV test.

RESULTS

The median treatment duration for group 1, group 2, and group 3 was 42.0, 20.6, and 31.8 (18.7 mon. of ADV13.1 mon. of LAM) months, respectively. Cumulative rate of virologic breakthrough in group 1 was 5.2%, 19.0%, and 25.9% at 12, 24, and 36 months of treatment, respectively. Virologic breakthrough was not detected in group 2 and group 3 (p=0.016, group 1 vs. group 2 or 3). In group 3, median serum HBV DNA levels were 4.22 log10 copies/mL prior to LAM administration. Median serum HBV DNA changes from baseline (log10 copies/mL) were -0.91, -1.93, -1.87 and -1.74 at week 12, 24, 36 and 48, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Later add on LAM to ADV monotherapy prevented the development of ADV resistance in patients with LAM resistance effectively, comparable to ADV add on to continuing LAM therapy.

Monitoring of therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to evaluate therapy with lamivudine (LAM) and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) monotherapy in chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients with frequent measurements of DNA levels, to characterize HBV genotypes, and to determine the emergence of nucleos(t)ide analogue mutants before and during the therapy by direct-sequencing the reverse transcriptase region and by INNO-LiPA HBV DR v3.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 15 chronic HBV patients were analysed: 11 were treated with ADV and four were treated with LAM.

RESULTS

Viral genotype was determined, showing the presence of genotype D (73%) in 11 patients and genotype A (27%) in four patients. In the viral response to treatment, three patients developed substitutions at rtM204I associated with LAM resistance and one of these patients presented rtM204V/I plus rtL180M mutation. In contrast, of the 11 patients treated with ADV, three patients developed mutations (rtN236T; rtA181V; rtA181V plus rtN236T). With regard to this case, the same results were observed by INNO-LiPA HBV DR v3 and direct sequencing, but by direct sequencing we detected an extra mutation rtQ215S that was present in two patients: one patient who was on treatment with LAM had an rtQ215S mutation in addition to an rtM204I, and the second patient treated with ADV had rtA181V.

CONCLUSION

Direct sequence analysis is an essential tool to optimize therapeutic management of HBV chronic infection in clinical practice to choose the appropriate nucleos(t)ide analogues and to detect extra mutations that are not included in the commercial kit.

Monotherapy versus combination therapy for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Nucleos(t)ide analogues, active against hepatitis B polymerase, suppress viral replication and improve clinical outcome. However, the emergence of drug-resistant mutants can result in treatment failure.

OBJECTIVES

We describe how the choice of first-line therapy is critical to long-term treatment success.

METHODS

A review of current drug therapies is provided.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Monotherapy with early-generation drugs (lamivudine or adefovir) was associated with a high rate of viral drug resistance and combination therapy with these agents was shown to reduce the incidence of resistance. The latest-generation drugs (entecavir and tenofovir) are potent inhibitors of viral replication and, in treatment-naive subjects, viral resistance to entecavir is uncommon and is not yet reported to tenofovir. Therefore, monotherapy with either entecavir or tenofovir is the current preferred option in treatment-naive patients. Combination therapy is appropriate in those with drug-resistant HBV infection, where drug choice is guided by the viral drug-resistance genotype/phenotype. Although combination therapy has been advocated in other patient groups (e.g., those with decompensated cirrhosis and following liver transplantation), there are, as yet, no data to mandate the use of combination therapy in such patients and any perceived benefit must be weighed against increased cost and risk for toxicity.

Meta-analysis: adefovir dipivoxil in combination with lamivudine in patients with lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus

Background

Currently, there are no conclusive results on the efficacy of adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) plus lamivudine (LAM) in LAM-resistant patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The aim of study was to evaluate the efficacy of rescue therapy with ADV plus LAM compared to ADV monotherapy in LAM-resistant CHB patients.

Results

We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI (National Knowledge Infrastructure), VIP database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Six eligible trials (442 patients in total) were included and evaluated for methodologic quality and heterogeneity. Greater virological response and lower emergence rate of ADV-associated mutants was observed in ADV plus LAM compared to ADV monotherapy (both P < 0.05). On the contrary, the rate of ALT normalization, HBeAg clearance and seroconversion were all similar between ADV plus LAM and ADV (all P > 0.05). Additionally, adding-on or switch-to ADV was both well tolerated.

Conclusion

The combination of ADV with LAM was superior in inhibiting HBV replication and preventing drug resistance as compared to ADV alone for LAM-resistant CHB patients.