Entecavir plus adefovir versus adefovir plus lamivudine in hepatitis B virus e antigen-positive, lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of antiviral regimens for entecavir-resistant hepatitis B: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who had exposed to lamivudine (LAM) and telbivudine (LdT) had high risk of developing entecavir (ETV)-resistance after long-term treatment. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and a network meta-analysis on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness on antiviral regimens in CHB patients with ETV-resistance.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies on nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) treatment [including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based rescue therapies, adefovir (ADV)-based rescue therapies and double-dose ETV therapy] in CHB patients with ETV-resistance. The network meta-analysis was conducted for 1-year complete virological response (CVR) and biological response (BR) rates using GeMTC and ADDIS. A cost-effective analysis was conducted to select an economic and effective treatment regimen based on the 1-year CVR rate.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies were finally included in this analysis. The antiviral efficacy was estimated. On network meta-analysis, the 1-year CVR rate in ETV-TDF [odds ratio (OR)  = 22.30; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.78-241.93], LAM-TDF (OR  = 70.67; 95 % CI: 5.16-1307.45) and TDF (OR  = 16.90; 95 % CI: 2.28-186.30) groups were significantly higher than that in the ETV double-dose group; the 1-year CVR rate in the LAM-TDF group (OR  = 14.82; 95 % CI: 1.03-220.31) was significantly higher than that in the LAM/LdT-ADV group. The 1-year BR rate of ETV-TDF (OR = 28.68; 95 % CI: 1.70-1505.08) and TDF (OR = 21.79; 95 % CI: 1.43-1070.09) therapies were significantly higher than that of ETV double-dose therapy. TDF-based therapies had the highest possibility to achieve the CVR and BR at 1 year, in which LAM-TDF combined therapy was the most effective regimen. The ratio of cost/effectiveness for 1-year treatment was 8 526, 17 649, 20 651 Yuan in the TDF group, TDF-ETV group, and ETV-ADV group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF-based combined therapies such as ETV-TDF and LAM-TDF therapies were the first-line treatment if financial condition is allowed.

Laparoscopic major hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: a multicentric propensity score‑based analysis

BACKGROUND

Considering the increase in overall life expectancy and the rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), more elderly patients are considered for hepatic resection. Traditionally, major hepatectomy has not been proposed to the elderly due to severe comorbidities. Indeed, only a few case series are reported in the literature. The present study aimed to compare short-term and long-term outcomes between laparoscopic major hepatectomy (LMH) and open major hepatectomy (OMH) in elderly patients with HCC using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

We performed a multicentric retrospective study including 184 consecutive cases of HCC major liver resection in patients aged ≥ 70 years in _8 European Hospital Centers. Patients were divided into LMH and OMH groups, and perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 122 patients were enrolled, 38 in the LMH group and 84 in the OMH group. Postoperative overall complications were lower in the LMH than in the OMH group (18 vs. 46%, p < 0.001). Hospital stay was shorter in the LMH group than in the OMH group (5 vs. 7 days, p = 0.01). Mortality at 90 days was comparable between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

LMH for HCC is associated with appropriate short-term outcomes in patients aged ≥ 70 years as compared to OMH. LMH is safe and feasible in elderly patients with HCC.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate monotherapy is superior to entecavir-adefovir combination therapy in patients with suboptimal response to lamivudine-adefovir therapy for nucleoside-resistant HBV: a 96-week prospective multicentre trial

BACKGROUND

A complete virological response is closely related to the long-term outcome of patients with chronic hepatitis B and prevention of emerging HBV mutations. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) monotherapy compared to entecavir-adefovir dipivoxil (ETV-ADV) combination therapy in patients with suboptimal responses to long-term lamivudine-adefovir dipivoxil (LAM-ADV) therapy for nucleoside analogue-resistant chronic hepatitis B.

METHODS

Patients (n=60) were randomized to TDF monotherapy or ETV-ADV combination therapy for 96 weeks. All patients had the rt204I/V mutation and serum HBV DNA was measured (>60 IU/ml) during LAM-ADV therapy. The primary end point was a complete virological response (HBV DNA <20 IU/ml) at week 96.

RESULTS

The median duration of prior LAM-ADV rescue therapy was 43 (7-108) months. A complete virological response was achieved in 86.6% and 53.3% of patients in the TDF and ETV-ADV groups, respectively, at week 96 (P=0.005). Reduction in serum HBV DNA was significantly greater in the TDF group than in ETV-ADV group (-3.2 ±1.2 versus -2.6 ±1.2; P=0.01). Hepatitis B e antigen loss (22.2% versus 16.6%; P=0.731) and biochemical responses (76.7% versus 73.3%; P=0.766) were not different between the TDF and ETV-ADV groups. No newly emerged mutations were detected. Both therapies demonstrated favourable safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF therapy achieved a better complete virological response than ETV-ADV therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients with suboptimal response to long-term LAM-ADV rescue therapy. (KCT0000627).

Prediction of virologic response to tenofovir mono-rescue therapy for multidrug resistant chronic hepatitis B

Most guidelines suggest combination therapy including nucleoside and nucleotide analogues for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) with multidrug resistance (MD-R). However, long-term combination treatment can evoke high costs and safety problems. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) mono-rescue therapy for viral suppression in patients with CHB exhibiting MD-R. We reviewed patients with CHB exhibiting antiviral drug resistance treated by TDF mono-rescue therapy from December 2012 to June 2014. The patients were categorized into three groups: lamivudine-resistance (LAM-R) group (n = 290), and LAM-R + adefovir-resistance (ADV-R) group (n = 43), and LAM-R + entecavir-resistance (ETV-R) group (n = 113). We compared the virologic response rate according to the multiplicity of resistance and investigated the predictive factors of a virologic response. For a median of 15 months (range, 6-24 months) of TDF mono-rescue therapy, the cumulative virologic response rates were 82.8, 81.4, and 84.1% in the LAM-R, LAM-R + ADV-R, and LAM-R + ETV-R groups, respectively (P = 0.239). Multivariate analysis revealed that multiplicity of resistance did not influence the achievement of a virologic response (P = 0.218). However, the baseline HBV DNA level significantly influenced the achievement of a virologic response for the treatment of CHB with MD-R (P < 0.001). TDF mono-rescue therapy is an appropriate treatment for CHB with MD-R, and the baseline HBV DNA level is a significant predictive factor for a virologic response. These factors should be considered before treating CHB with MD-R.