Resistance to adefovir dipivoxil in lamivudine resistant chronic hepatitis B patients treated with adefovir dipivoxil

Telbivudine Plus Adefovir Versus Lamivudine Plus Adefovir for Lamivudine-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B: TeSLA Randomized Trial

Background: In countries with unavailable tenofovir, a combination of lamivudine (LMV) and adefovir (ADV) is recommended for the treatment of LMV-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Considering that telbivudine (L-dT) was demonstrated to be superior to LMV in previous studies, L-dT and ADV combination therapy is expected to show better antiviral efficacy than the combination of LMV and ADV in patients with LMV-resistant CHB. Methods: This was a prospective randomized multicenter study. The primary endpoint was Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) DNA reduction after 52 weeks of treatment. The secondary endpoints were HBV DNA undetectability, hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion, the incidence of virological and biochemical breakthroughs, and safety during the study period. Results: A total of 43 LMV-resistant CHB patients were enrolled. Twenty-one were treated with LMV + ADV and 22 with L-dT + ADV. After 52 weeks of antiviral treatment, the HBV DNA reduction showed no significant intergroup difference (-4.54 ± 1.23 log IU/mL in the LMV + ADV group, -4.24 ± 1.46 log IU/mL in the L-dT + ADV group, P = 0.475). There were no significant intergroup differences in HBV DNA undetectability rates, mean HBV DNA level, or hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion rate at 13, 26, 39, and 52 weeks of treatment. In terms of safety, the mean creatine phosphokinase level was significantly higher in the L-dT + ADV group. Conclusions: In the treatment of LMV-resistant CHB, the combination of L-dT and ADV did not show any clinical benefit compared to the combination of LMV and ADV.

Tenofovir-based combination therapy or monotherapy for multidrug-resistant chronic hepatitis B: Long-term data from a multicenter cohort study

The treatment of multidrug-resistant (MDR) chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is challenging. Herein, we report a multicenter prospective cohort study for the evaluation of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based therapy for MDR CHB in a real-life setting. The inclusion criteria comprised patients with resistance to more than two nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) classes and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level of ≥200 IU/mL. The primary end-point was virologic response (VR), defined as undetectable HBV DNA (<20 IU/mL) after 60 months. A total of 236 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean HBV DNA level was 4.16 ± 1.44 log IU/mL; 26.7% of patients had liver cirrhosis. Before the initiation of TDF, 33.5%, 44.9% and 21.6% of patients had mutations resistant to L-NA + adefovir, L-NA + entecavir (ETV) and L-NA + adefovir + ETV, respectively. A total of 184 patients received TDF-based combination therapy [TDF + ETV (n = 178) or TDF + L-NA (n = 6)], and 52 patients received TDF monotherapy. In the entire cohort, the VR rates were 77.2%, 89.9% and 92.2% at 12, 36 and 60 months, respectively. The VR rates were not significantly different between the combination therapy and the monotherapy group after 12 (76.2% vs 80.4%, P = .533), 36 (89.8% vs 90.3%, P = 1.000) or 60 (92.9% vs 87.5%, P = .499) months. Also, there was no significant difference in the cumulative VR rates for 5 years between the treatment groups (P = .910). Newly developed antiviral resistance was not observed. TDF-based therapy was effective for the treatment of MDR CHB. The efficacy of TDF monotherapy was not different from that of the TDF-based combination therapy.

Comparison of clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic hepatitis B: When to start, when to change, and when to stop

Clinical practice guidelines are important for guiding the management of specific diseases by medical practitioners, trainees, and nurses. In some cases, the guidelines are utilized as a reference for health policymakers in controlling diseases with a large public impact. With this in mind, practice guidelines for the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) have been developed in the United States, Europe, and Asian-Pacific regions to suggest the best-fit recommendations for each social and medical circumstance. Recently, the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver published a revised version of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of CHB. The guidelines included updated information based on newly available antiviral agents, the most recent opinion on the initiation and cessation of treatment, and updates for the management of drug resistance, partial virological response, and side effects. Additionally, CHB management in specific situations was comprehensively revised. This review compares the similarities and differences among the various practice guidelines to identify unmet needs and improve future recommendations.

An antiviral drug-resistant mutant of hepatitis B virus with high replication capacity in association with a large in-frame deletion in the preS1 region of viral surface gene

We amplified a full-length hepatitis B virus (HBV) genome from the serum of a chronic hepatitis B patient who experienced virological breakthrough with high HBV DNA titer following adefovir (ADV) therapy. The PCR product was cloned and sequencing of the six clones revealed an isolate of C2 subgenotype. Mutation(s) in the polymerase gene responsible for ADV resistance included rtA181T (all clones) and rtN236T (four clones). The rtA181T mutation caused the W172* nonsense mutation in the overlapping S gene. In addition, all the clones harbored another nonsense mutation in the S gene (C69*) and a 207nt in-frame deletion in the preS1 region. These clones were converted to a 1.1mer construct for transient transfection of Huh7 cells. All the clones were deficient in hepatitis B surface antigen production. Three clones had similar levels of DNA replication. Comparison with a wild-type clone of the same genotype revealed a higher intracellular level of replicative DNA for clone c4, which was reduced by putting back the deleted 207nt, but not by co-transfection with an expression construct for the three surface proteins to rescue virion production. The HBcAg expression of the c4 and c4+207nt clones was mainly in the nucleus. Co-transfection with the L/M/S proteins expression construct did not alter the distribution of core. Clone c4 showed a significantly decreased susceptibility to ADV, a mild reduction in susceptibility to lamivudine and tenofovir, but remained sensitive to entecavir. In conclusion, this is an unusual ADV-resistant HBV isolate harboring two nonsense mutations in the S gene and a large in-frame deletion in the preS1 region, but still retains a high replication phenotype, which can provide a platform for recombinant vector construction.

Antiviral Therapy for AECHB and Severe Hepatitis B (Liver Failure)

This chapter describes the principles of antiviral therapy, treatment strategies, medications and recommendations for AECHB, HBV-ACLF, HBV-related liver cirrhosis, HBV-related HCC, and liver transplantation.

Severe exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B is closely related to continuous HBV replication. Therefore, inhibiting HBV replication to reduce viral load may block disease progression and improve the quality of life of these patients. ETV or TDF has been recommend first-line drug for the treatment of AECHB.

A hyperactive immune response due to continuous HBV replication is the main mechanism for development of severe hepatitis B. In addition to comprehensive treatment, early administration of potent nucleoside analogs can rapidly reduce HBV DNA concentration, relieve immune injury induced by HBV, and reduce liver inflammation and patient mortality. Antiviral agents have become important in the treatment of severe exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B.

Long-term antiviral treatment with nucleoside analogs can delay or reverse the progress of liver cirrhosis. Virologic response, viral resistance and adverse drug reactions should be closely monitored during treatment. The treatment should be optimized for maximum effect based on each patient’s responses.

Effective antiviral therapy can suppress HBV replication and reduce the incidence of HBV-related HCC. Patients with HBV-related HCC should receive individualized and optimal multidisciplinary comprehensive treatment. Anti-viral drugs with high efficacy, low resistance and low adverse drug reactions should be selected to improve the patient’s quality of life and prolong survival time.

Methods to prevent HBV reinfection after liver transplantation include passive immunization (HBIG), antiviral treatment (nucleoside analogs) and active immunization (hepatitis B vaccine).

Clinical trials involving sequential combination therapy with NUC and Peg-IFN have shown statistically significant decline in HBsAg levels on treatment and high rates of sustained post-treatment serologic response. Combination therapy with novel DAA and immunotherapeutic approach may hold promise to overcome both cccDNA persistence and immune escape, representing a critical step towards HBV cure.

Management of Antiviral Resistance in Chronic Hepatitis B

The primary goal of therapy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is to prevent liver disease progression. Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroclearance or seroconversion is regarded as an optimal endpoint to discontinue treatment. However, HBsAg seroclearance occurs very rarely with nucleos(t)ide analog (NUC) treatment, and long-term, almost indefinite, NUC treatment is required for the majority of patients. In patients with drug-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV), a combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV), which is currently regarded as the strongest combination therapy against HBV, would be potentially safe to prevent the emergence of additional HBV resistance mutations. However, long-term tolerance data are lacking, and cost may be an issue for combination therapies. Several recent, well-designed, randomized controlled trials have shown that TDF monotherapy provides similar antiviral efficacy compared with the combination of TDF and ETV. Furthermore, no additional HBV resistance mutations emerged during TDF monotherapy for up to 96 weeks. Considering a comparable antiviral efficacy, extremely low risk of TDF-resistance, lower cost, and better safety potential, TDF monotherapy would be a reasonable choice for the treatment of drug-resistant patients with CHB.

[Efficacy of tenofovir-based rescue therapy for patients with drug-resistant chronic hepatitis B]

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plays a pivotal role in the management of drug-resistant chronic hepatitis B. However, it remains unclear whether TDF-nucleoside analogue combination therapy provides better outcomes than TDF monotherapy. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of TDF monotherapy with that of TDF-nucleoside analogue combination therapy in patients with drug-resistant chronic hepatitis B.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 76 patients receiving TDF-based rescue therapy for more than 12 months. Suboptimal response was defined as serum HBV-DNA level of > 60 IU/mL during prior rescue therapy. Multi-drug resistance was defined as the presence of two or more drug resistance-related mutations confirmed by mutation detection assay. The relationship between baseline characteristics and virologic response (HBV DNA < 20 IU/mL) at 12 months were evaluated using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients (72.4%) were suboptimal responders to prior rescue therapy, and 26 (34.2%) had multi-drug resistance. Forty-two patients (55.3%) received combination therapy with nucleoside analogues. Virologic response at 12 months was not significantly different between the TDF monotherapy group and TDF-nucleoside analogue combination therapy group (p = 0.098). The serum HBV DNA level was reduced to -4.49 ± 1.67 log10 IU/mL in the TDF monotherapy group and to -3.97 ± 1.69 log10 IU/mL in the TDF-nucleoside analogue combination therapy group at 12 months (p = 0.18). In multivariate analysis, female sex (p = 0.032), low baseline HBV-DNA level (p = 0.013), and TDF monotherapy (p = 0.046) were predictive factors for virologic response at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF monotherapy showed similar efficacy to that of TDF-nucleoside analogue combination therapy in patients with drug-resistant chronic hepatitis B.

Durability of the virological response after lamivudine discontinuation in lamivudine-resistant patients with a complete virological response after lamivudine and adefovir combination therapy

We investigated the durability of virological response after lamivudine (LAM) discontinuation in LAM-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with complete virological response after LAM-adefovir (ADV) combination therapy. We enrolled 58 patients switched to ADV monotherapy with undetectable viral loads (<12 IU/ml) and normal alanine aminotransferase levels after ADV add-on combination treatment for at least 6 months in LAM-resistant CHB patients. Virologic relapse was defined as HBV DNA detection at more than 20 IU/ml by quantitative polymerase chain reaction determined on two consecutive measurements. During median 40.9 months of follow-up (range 11.5-79.0 months), seven (12.1%) patients experienced virological relapse. The cumulative rate of virological relapse at 3 and 5 years was 5.5% and 22.4%, respectively. Two patients had elevated alanine aminotransferase during virological relapse. These seven patients with virological relapse had undetectable HBV DNA after switching to tenofovir therapy. In our study, switching to ADV monotherapy resulted in sustained HBV DNA suppression in 87.9% of the patients during median 40.9 months follow-up. This adapting step-down strategy, switching from combination therapy to monotherapy in virologically suppressed CHB patients with stable liver disease, may reduce the cost burden and the risk of potentially harmful effects of combination therapy. J. Med. Virol. 89:85-90, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Mutational analysis of reverse transcriptase and surface proteins of patients with partial virological response during mono and combination antiviral therapies in genotype D chronic hepatitis B

Introduction

The mutational pattern of chronic Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is unclear in patients who show incomplete response to antiviral therapy. The aims of this study were 1) to determine the benefit of combination therapy with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) and Lamivudine (LAM) versus ADV or LAM alone in maintaining virological, biochemical and histological responses and 2) to investigate the patterns of mutations in the reverse transcriptase and surface proteins of HBV with LAM and/or ADF-resistant in partially-responded chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.

Methods

The study group consisted of 186 chronic HBV carriers who were admitted to the Tehran Hepatitis Network from 2010 to 2013. We retrospectively selected 86 patients who partially responded to different nucleoside analogue regimens. After 48 weeks of therapy, five groups of patients were defined including eight Lamivudine (LAM) Group (I), 30 Adefovir (ADV) Group (II), 16 ADV add on LAM Group (III), 32 ADV+LAM Group (IV), and 100 controls (no therapy). Reverse transcriptase (RT) and surface genes were amplified and sequenced for mutational analysis.

Results

All groups showed differences between mean values for age, gender, alanine transaminase (ALT), aspartate transaminase (AST), and HBV DNA levels groups showed significant differences than other groups (p < 0.05). The mutation frequencies for groups were I (1.7%), II (1.39%), III (2.28%), IV (2.0%), and V (0.38%). T54N, L80I/V, I91L/V, L180M, M204I/V, Q215P/S, and F221Y/S showed the highest number of mutations in all groups with different frequencies. Four new, unreported mutations were found.

Conclusion

Those patients who failed to respond in the first 48 weeks, whether they were receiving mono or combination therapy, should be tested genotypically, for the early modification of treatment.

The efficacy of tenofovir-based therapy in patients showing suboptimal response to entecavir-adefovir combination therapy

Background/Aims:

Before tenofovir (TDF) become available in South Korea, combination therapy with entecavir (ETV) and adefovir (ADV) was the most potent regimen for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who fail to respond to rescue therapy for drug resistance. We analyzed the efficacy of ETV-ADV combination therapy and investigated the clinical and clonal results of TDF-based rescue therapy in CHB patients refractory to this combination.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of CHB patients treated for up to 3 years with ETV-ADV combination therapy as a rescue therapy for drug resistance. In cases refractory to this combination, clinical and clonal analyses were performed for TDF-based rescue therapy.

Results:

The analysis was performed on 48 patients. Twelve patients achieved a virological response (VR) within 3 years. A VR was subsequently achieved in nine of the ten patients without a VR who switched to TDF monotherapy. A VR was also achieved in six of the seven patients who switched to lamivudine-TDF combination therapy, and in two of the two patients who switched to ETV-TDF combination therapy. In an in vitro susceptibility test, viral replication was detected with TDF monotherapy but not with ETV-TDF combination therapy.

Conclusions:

The efficacy of ETV-ADV combination therapy was insufficient in CHB patients who were refractory to rescue therapy. A more potent regimen such as ETV-TDF combination therapy may be considered in such refractory cases.

Lamivudine-resistant rtL180M and rtM204I/V are persistently dominant during combination rescue therapy with entecavir and adefovir for hepatitis B

Adefovir (ADV) sequential monotherapy was included in the 2005 Asia-Pacific guidelines for the management of patients with lamivudine (LAM) resistance. However, following the development of ADV resistance, the proportion of resistant variants during combined rescue therapy with ADV and entecavir (ETV) were unknown. The present study characterized the dynamics of resistant variants in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and LAM-resistant variants during antiviral therapy consisting of ADV monotherapy followed by ADV-ETV combination therapy. A total of 3 patients were selected from a cohort of 55 patients with CHB due to developing ADV resistance. The patients had been previously treated with LAM (100 mg daily) for 21–24 months. At the initiation of sequential monotherapy with ADV, LAM-resistant variants (rtM204V/I and rtL180M) were detected in the three patients. These patients developed ADV resistance during 19–30 months of ADV sequential monotherapy, and then switched their antiviral regimen to ADV-ETV combination therapy. During ADV monotherapy and ADV-ETV combination therapy, the patients were monitored every 3 months for the first year of therapy, and then every 6 months thereafter. A total of 30 serum samples were collected from the patients throughout the monitoring period. In total, 10 mutants that were associated with commonly-used antiviral drugs were detected by pyrosequencing. During ADV sequential monotherapy, LAM-resistant variants were gradually decreased, whereas ADV-resistant rtA181V/T and rtN236T variants gradually increased in the viral population. During 30–41 months of ADV-ETV combination therapy, viral load reduction was 2.59–3.28 log₁₀ copies/ml; ADV-resistant variants rtA181T/V and rtN236T were undetectable following 11–24 months of combination therapy; and rtL180M and rtM204I/V remained dominant in the viral population. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggested that, in patients with LAM and ADV-resistant variants that developed during LAM-ADV sequential monotherapy, ETV-ADV combination therapy may partially inhibit the replication of HBV DNA; however, LAM-resistant rtL180M and rtM204I/V variants remained predominant following 30–41 months combination therapy.

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.

Comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir monotherapy versus tenofovir-based combination therapy in adefovir-experienced chronic hepatitis B patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a major public health problem worldwide. Tenofovir monotherapy or tenofovir-based combination therapy have achieved promising results in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients who failed adefovir therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of tenofovir monotherapy compared with tenofovir-based combination therapy for treatment of adefovir-experienced chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.

METHODS

randomized and non-randomized control trials directly comparing tenofovir monotherapy and tenofovir-based combination therapy were searched in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE database up to April 30, 2015. The data were analyzed with Review Manager (v.5.3).

RESULTS

Seven articles (total of 478 patients) met entry criteria. The results found that the rates of undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA levels (64.7% vs. 68.5%, P = 0.58 for 24 weeks; 71.4% vs. 71.7%, P = 0.76 for 48 weeks; 71.6% vs. 73.0%, P = 0.92 for 96 weeks), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization (72.6% vs. 69.2%, P = 0.46 for 48 weeks; 72.8% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.74 for 96 weeks) and hepatitis Be antigen loss (5.0% vs. 0, P = 0.43 for 48 weeks; 16.5% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.43 for 96 weeks) were not significantly different between the TDF alone and the TDF-based group. Moreover, the rate of adverse reactions was also not significantly different between the 2 groups (P = 0.06 for 96 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

TDF monotherapy and TDF-based combination therapy are similarly effective and safe in adefovir-experienced CHB patients after 48 weeks and 96 weeks of antiviral therapy. Nevertheless, large scale randomized control trials should be carried out to elucidate the long-term outcome of TDF treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost Thresholds of Generic and Brand Drugs in a National Chronic Hepatitis B Treatment Program in China

Chronic liver disease and liver cancer associated with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) are leading causes of death among adults in China. Although newborn hepatitis B immunization has successfully reduced the prevalence of CHB in children, about 100 million Chinese adults remain chronically infected. If left unmanaged, 15–25% will die from liver cancer or liver cirrhosis. Antiviral treatment is not necessary for all patients with CHB, but when it is indicated, good response to treatment would prevent disease progression and reduce disease mortality and morbidity, and costly complications. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost-effectiveness of generic and brand antiviral drugs for CHB treatment in China, and assessing various thresholds at which a highly potent, low resistance antiviral drug would be cost-saving and/or cost-effective to introduce in a national treatment program. We developed a Markov simulation model of disease progression using effectiveness and cost data from the medical literature. We measured life-time costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and clinical outcomes. The no treatment strategy incurred the highest health care costs ($12,932-$25,293) per patient, and the worst health outcomes, compared to the antiviral treatment strategies. Monotherapy with either entecavir or tenofovir yielded the most QALYs (14.10–19.02) for both HBeAg-positive and negative patients, with or without cirrhosis. Threshold analysis showed entercavir or tenofovir treatment would be cost saving if the drug price is $32–75 (195–460 RMB) per month, highly cost-effective at $62–110 (379–670 RMB) per month and cost-effective at $63–120 (384–734 RMB) per month. This study can support policy decisions regarding the implementation of a national health program for chronic hepatitis B treatment in China at the population level.

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.

Long-term outcomes and dynamics of mutants associated with lamivudine-adefovir rescue therapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

Background/Aims

To investigate the association between the baseline profiles and dynamics of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA polymerase gene mutations and the long-term virological response of lamivudine (LAM)-adefovir (ADV) combination therapy in patients with LAM-resistant chronic hepatitis B.

Methods

Seventy-five patients who received LAM-ADV combination therapy for more than 12 months were analyzed. Restriction fragment mass polymorphism assays were used to detect and monitor the dynamics of LAM- and ADV-resistant mutations.

Results

The median duration of LAM-ADV combination therapy was 26 months (range, 12 to 58 months). The baseline mutation profiles, rtM204I (p=0.992), rtM204I/V (p=0.177), and rtL180M (p=0.051), were not correlated with the cumulative virological response, and the baseline HBV DNA level (p=0.032) was the only independent predictive factor for cumulative virological response. Tests for LAM- and ADV-resistant mutations were performed in 12 suboptimal responders in weeks 48 and 96. The population of rtM204 mutants persisted or increased in 8 of 12 patients, and rtA181T mutants newly emerged as a minor population in four patients until 96 weeks. Nevertheless, the viral loads progressively decreased during rescue therapy, and these dynamics did not correlate with virological response.

Conclusions

The baseline profile and dynamics of LAM-resistant mutations during LAM-ADV combination therapy are not associated with a virological response.

Long-term efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate therapy after multiple nucleos(t)ide analogue failure in chronic hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients following prior treatment failure with multiple nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) is not well defined, especially in Asian populations. In this study we investigated the efficacy and safety of TDF rescue therapy in CHB patients after multiple NA treatment failure.

METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed 52 CHB patients who experienced failure with two or more NAs and who were switched to regimens containing TDF. The efficacy and safety assessments included hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA undetectability, hepatitis B envelop antigen (HBeAg) seroclearance, alanine transaminase (ALT) normalization and changes in serum creatinine and phosphorus levels.

RESULTS

The mean HBV DNA level at baseline was 5.4 ± 1.76 log10 IU/mL. At a median duration of 34.5 months of TDF treatment, the cumulative probabilities of achieving complete virological response (CVR) were 25.0%, 51.8%, 74.2%, and 96.7% at 6, 12, 24, and 48 months, respectively. HBeAg seroclearance occurred in seven of 48 patients (14.6%). ALT levels were normalized in 27 of 31 patients (87.1%) with elevated ALT at baseline. Lower levels of HBV DNA at baseline were significantly associated with increased CVR rates (p < 0.001). However, CVR rates did not differ between TDF monotherapy or combination therapy with other NAs, and were not affected by mutations associated with resistance to NAs. No significant adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF is an efficient and safe rescue therapy for CHB patients after treatment failure with multiple NAs.

Comparison of lamivudine plus adefovir therapy versus entecavir with or without adefovir therapy for adefovir-resistant chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND GOALS

Data regarding the management of adefovir (ADV) resistance are still limited. The aim of this study is to investigate treatment outcomes of rescue therapy in ADV-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.

STUDY

CHB patients who began rescue therapy due to documented genotypic resistance mutations to ADV between October 2006 and July 2012 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included in this study. Most patients had history of lamivudine (LAM) resistance. Treatment response was evaluated at 3-month intervals up to 12 months. The cumulative rate of complete virologic response (CVR) in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients (HBV DNA<60 IU/mL) was 15.9%, 27.2%, 28.9%, and 31.7% after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of rescue therapy. Thirty-five patients were treated with a combination of LAM plus ADV (LAM+ADV group) and 28 patients were treated with entecavir (ETV)-based therapy (ETV with or without ADV therapy, ETV±ADV group). The cumulative CVR rate was significantly higher in the ETV±ADV group than in the LAM+ADV group at month 12 (46.4% vs. 20.6%, respectively, P=0.040). Multivariate analysis showed that pretreatment serum HBV DNA levels at <6 log10 IU/mL (hazard ratio: 34.109, P=0.001) and type of rescue therapy (hazard ratio: 4.944, P=0.036) were associated with CVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower baseline HBV DNA level and ETV±ADV therapy were the important predictive factors for CVR in ADV-resistant CHB patients. This study suggests the need of early switching to a rescue therapy such as ETV±ADV at the time of low-level viremia.

Maintaining remission in lamivudine-resistant patients with a virological response to adefovir add-on lamivudine after stopping lamivudine therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We examined the durability of the virological response after discontinuing lamivudine (LVD) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with LVD-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV), who responded to LVD plus adefovir (ADV) combination therapy, and the outcome of switching to ADV monotherapy compared to maintaining combination therapy.

METHODS

This study enrolled 72 patients with undetectable viral loads (≤12 IU/ml) and normal alanine aminotransferase levels after ADV add-on therapy for at least 6 months in LVD-resistant CHB patients. The enrolled patients were randomly assigned to continue with LVD-ADV combination therapy or switch to ADV monotherapy (n = 36 per group). Virological rebound was defined as HBV DNA detection at more than 12 IU/ml by quantitative polymerase chain reaction determined on two consecutive measurements.

RESULTS

During 96 weeks of follow-up, 100% (36/36) of the patients in the LVD-ADV combination maintained group had persistently undetectable HBV DNA, compared with 94.4% (34/36) patients in the ADV monotherapy switched group. These two patients had undetectable HBV DNA after switching back to LVD-ADV combination therapy. There were no significant differences in the HBsAg levels between the two treatment groups during the 96-week follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, switching to ADV monotherapy resulted in sustained HBV DNA suppression in 94.4% of the patients for 96 weeks. Prior complete viral suppression with LVD-ADV combination therapy conferred a significant advantage in patients who switched to ADV monotherapy. LVD may be discontinued in patients who show a complete virological response to LVD-ADV combination therapy for at least 6 months.

Different mechanism of selection of adefovir-resistant mutant viruses during adefovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Adefovir (ADV) resistance is more frequent in lamivudine (LMV)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients than in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naïve patients. The majority of LMV-resistant mutants harbor the rtM204V/I mutation, while a minor fraction harbor the rtA181V/T mutation. We aimed to elucidate the mechanism of the high rate of ADV resistance in LMV-resistant patients during ADV therapy.

METHODS

We performed a clonal analysis of HBV reverse transcriptase in treatment-naïve (n = 3) and LMV-resistant patients before ADV therapy (n = 14). Dynamic changes in the viral population (n = 9) during ADV therapy were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Before ADV therapy, rtA181V/T was observed in 30 of 680 clones (4.4%) from 7 patients with LMV resistance under dominant rt204V/I mutation and in one of 150 clones in treatment-naïve patients. The rtA181V/T mutation was more frequently found in clones from LMV-resistant patients than in treatment-naïve patients (p = 0.029). The rtN236T mutation was not observed in any clone. During ADV therapy, most rtM204V/I mutants were replaced by wild type in all 3 patients without the rtA181V/T mutation and in one patient with the rtA181V/T mutation. Subsequently, wild type was replaced by the rtN236T and/or rtA181V/T mutant. In patients with the rtA181V/T mutation (n = 6), the rtA181V/T mutant overtook the rtM204V/I mutant in 3 of 4 patients with ADV resistance. In 2 patients without ADV resistance, most of the viral population was replaced by wild type by the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The high rate of ADV resistance in patients with LMV-resistance might be attributable to preexisting rtA181V/T mutant virus.

Hepatitis B surface antigen levels at 6 months after treatment can predict the efficacy of lamivudine-adefovir combination therapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

Background/Aims

Quantitation of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) is an increasingly popular method to determine the treatment response in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. The clinical value of HBsAg level measurement during rescue therapy for lamivudine (LMV)-resistant CHB patients have not been evaluated to date. Therefore, this study investigated the correlation between HBsAg level and treatment response in LMV-resistant CHB patients treated with adefovir (ADV) add-on therapy.

Methods

LMV-resistant CHB patients treated with LMV-ADV combination therapy for over 2 years were included. HBsAg levels were measured at 6 month intervals until 1 year, and annually thereafter. Treatment response was assessed by determining the virological response (VR, undetectable HBV DNA levels) during treatment.

Results

Fifty patients were included, of which 40 showed a VR. HBsAg levels were not different significantly at baseline (4.0 vs. 3.6 Log10 IU/mL, P=0.072). However, the HBsAg level decreased after 6 months of treatment in patients with a VR and became different significantly between the groups thereafter (3.9 vs. 3.3 at 6 months, P=0.002; 3.8 vs. 3.2 at 1 year, P=0.004; 3.9 vs. 3.2 at 2 years, P=0.008; 3.7 vs. 3.1 at 3 years, P =0.020).

Conclusions

The HBsAg level at 6 months after treatment can help predict treatment response.

Long-term outcomes of two rescue therapies in lamivudine-refractory patients with chronic hepatitis B: combined lamivudine and adefovir, and 1-mg entecavir

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Adefovir (ADV) and lamivudine (LAM) combination therapy (ADV+LAM) has been a useful option for patients with LAM-resistant (LAM-r) chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, the long-term outcomes of LAM+ADV and 1-mg entecavir (ETV) rescue therapies have still been limited. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term outcomes of these two rescue therapies.

METHODS

Sixty patients with LAM-r CHB underwent rescue therapy with LAM+ADV (n=36) or 1-mg ETV (n=24). We determined the duration of rescue therapy, timing and type of mutation, undetectable serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA by PCR (lower limitation of detection, < 140 copies/mL), biochemical response (alanine aminotransferase < 40 IU/mL), and the incidence of hepatitis B virus e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion and virologic breakthrough.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics did not differ between the two therapy groups. The duration of rescue therapy was 56 months (range, 14-100 months) in the ADV+LAM group and 42 months (range, 12-73 months) in the ETV group (P=0.036). The cumulative rates of HBV DNA undetectability and HBeAg seroconversion up to 6 years were 88.6% and 43.0%, respectively, in the ADV+LAM group, and 45.8% and 31.8% in the ETV group. The rate of virologic breakthrough and resistance was 14.4% in the ADV+LAM group and 71.9% in the ETV group (P=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Combination of LAM and ADV therapy for up to 6 years achieved modest rates of virological suppression and resistance. ETV is not an optimal therapy because the risk of viral breakthrough to ETV increases over time.

Management of antiviral drug resistance in chronic hepatitis B

Rescue antiviral treatment for patients with resistance to preexisting nucleos(t)ide analogues remains a clinical challenge. The correct choice of a first-line treatment of high potency and with a high genetic barrier to achieve sustained long-term suppression of viral replication provides the best chance of preventing treatment failure and the emergence of drug resistance. The management of treatment failure and drug resistance requires a precise and accurate clinical and virologic monitoring. Combination treatment with antiviral drugs that belong to different groups is associated with a lower chance of developing resistance to rescue drugs. To guarantee better control of viral replication in patients with drug resistance, the addition of another drug without a cross resistance profile should be given as early as possible, preferably at the time when genotypic resistance emerges. Long-term surveillance for treatment efficacy and possible emergence of drug resistance should be continued to prevent the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains.

Rescue therapy with adefovir in decompensated liver cirrhosis patients with lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus

Background/Aims

Adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) is a nucleotide analogue that is effective against lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV). The aim of this study was to determine the long-term clinical outcomes after ADV rescue therapy in decompensated patients infected with lamivudine-resistant HBV.

Methods

In total, 128 patients with a decompensated state and lamivudine-resistant HBV were treated with ADV at a dosage of 10 mg/day for a median of 33 months in this multicenter cohort study.

Results

Following ADV treatment, 86 (72.3%) of 119 patients experienced a decrease in Child-Pugh score of at least 2 points, and the overall end-stage liver disease score decreased from 16±5 to 14±10 (mean ± SD, P<0.001) during the follow-up period. With ADV treatment, 67 patients (56.3%) had undetectable serum HBV DNA (detection limit, 0.5 pg/mL). Virologic breakthrough occurred in 38 patients (36.1%) and 9 patients had a suboptimal ADV response. The overall survival rate was 89.9% (107/119), and a suboptimal response to ADV treatment was associated with both no improvement in Child-Pugh score (≥2 points; P=0.001) and high mortality following ADV rescue therapy (P=0.012).

Conclusions

Three years of ADV treatment was effective and safe in decompensated patients with lamivudine-resistant HBV.

Entecavir plus adefovir combination therapy versus lamivudine add-on adefovir for lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B: A meta-analysis

To determine whether adefovir (ADV) in combination with entecavir (ETV) is more effective than with lamivudine (LAM) in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic HBV infection, electronic databases were searched through May 10th, 2013 to obtain relevant trials which met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies. Four trials containing a total of 323 patients were included. Serum HBV DNA reductions after 3 and 6 months of treatment in the ETV + ADV group were greater than that of LAM + ADV group (mean difference (MD) = 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.74-1.07, P < 0.00001; MD = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.57-1.06, P < 0.00001). The rate of 6 months HBV DNA undetectability with ETV and ADV was higher than that of LAM and ADV (relative risk (RR) = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.14-2.34, P < 0.007). There were higher rates of serum ALT normalization than those in LAM + ADV group after 6 months of treatment (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.11-1.77, P < 0.005). The ETV + ADV group had lower viral breakthrough and genotypic mutation rates than LAM + ADV group after 12 months of treatment (RR = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.10-0.58, P = 0.002). The combination of ETV plus ADV is a more effective rescue therapy than LAM add-on ADV in patients with LAM-resistant HBV.

Detection of hepatitis B virus genotypic resistance mutations by coamplification at lower denaturation temperature-PCR coupled with sanger sequencing

Mutations in the reverse transcriptase (rt) region of the DNA polymerase gene are the primary cause of hepatitis B virus (HBV) drug resistance. In this study, we established a novel method that couples coamplification at lower denaturation temperature (COLD)-PCR and Sanger sequencing, and we applied it to the detection of known and unknown HBV mutations. Primers were designed based on the common mutations in the HBV rt sequence at positions 180 to 215. The critical denaturation temperature (Tc) was established as a denaturing temperature for both fast and full COLD-PCR procedures. For single mutations, when a melting temperature (Tm)-reducing mutation occurred (e.g., C-G → T-A), the sensitivities of fast and full COLD-PCR for mutant detection were 1% and 2%, respectively; when the mutation caused no change in Tm (e.g., C-G → G-C) or raised Tm (e.g., T-A → C-G), only full COLD-PCR improved the sensitivity for mutant detection (2%). For combination mutations, the sensitivities of both full and fast COLD-PCR were increased to 0.5%. The limits of detection for fast and full COLD-PCR were 50 IU/ml and 100 IU/ml, respectively. In 30 chronic hepatitis B (CHB) cases, no mutations were detected by conventional PCR, whereas 18 mutations were successfully detected by COLD-PCR, including low-prevalence mutations (<10%), as confirmed by ultradeep pyrosequencing. In conclusion, COLD-PCR provides a highly sensitive, simple, inexpensive, and practical tool for significantly improving amplification efficacy and detecting low-level mutations in clinical CHB cases.

Multiplex detection of KRAS mutations by a matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry assay

OBJECTIVES

Mutations of the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS) gene are known to be important in the pathogenesis of a variety of cancers. Patients with mutant KRAS tumors do not respond to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors and fail to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Testing for KRAS mutations is now being recommended as a tailored therapeutic strategy prior to anti-EGFR treatment; however, the low sensitivity of direct sequencing frequently leads to failure of detection of KRAS mutations in clinical samples.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We developed restriction fragment mass polymorphism (RFMP) assays, to detect KRAS mutations in codons 12, 13, and 61. We performed RFMP analysis for KRAS on DNA isolated from eight different KRAS mutant cell lines and 34 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) lung cancer tissues.

RESULTS

Overall, the RFMP assay was in good concordance with direct sequencing analysis in the detection of KRAS mutations. By using dilutions of KRAS mutant DNA in wild type DNA from mutation cell lines with a known KRAS status, we confirmed that the RFMP assay has a higher analytical sensitivity, requiring only 3% of cells in a sample to have mutant alleles, compared to direct sequencing, which had a detection threshold of ~25%. In the FFPE samples, RFMP successfully detected KRAS genotypes in codons 12, 13, and 61.

CONCLUSION

The RFMP might be efficiently applicable for the detection of KRAS mutations in a clinical setting, particularly for tumor samples containing abundant non-neoplastic cells.

Performance evaluation of the HepB Typer-Entecavir kit for detection of entecavir resistance mutations in chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Molecular diagnostic methods have enabled the rapid diagnosis of drug-resistant mutations in hepatitis B virus (HBV) and have reduced both unnecessary therapeutic interventions and medical costs. In this study we evaluated the analytical and clinical performances of the HepB Typer-Entecavir kit (GeneMatrix, Korea) in detecting entecavir-resistance-associated mutations.

METHODS

The HepB Typer-Entecavir kit was evaluated for its limit of detection, interference, cross-reactivity, and precision using HBV reference standards made by diluting high-titer viral stocks in HBV-negative human serum. The performance of the HepB Typer-Entecavir kit for detecting mutations related to entecavir resistance was compared with direct sequencing for 396 clinical samples from 108 patients.

RESULTS

Using the reference standards, the detection limit of the HepB Typer-Entecavir kit was found to be as low as 500 copies/mL. No cross-reactivity was observed, and elevated levels of various interfering substances did not adversely affect its analytical performance. The precision test conducted by repetitive analysis of 2,400 replicates with reference standards at various concentrations showed 99.9% agreement (2398/2400). The overall concordance rate between the HepB Typer-Entecavir kit and direct sequencing assays in 396 clinical samples was 99.5%.

CONCLUSIONS

The HepB Typer-Entecavir kit showed high reliability and precision, and comparable sensitivity and specificity for detecting mutant virus populations in reference and clinical samples in comparison with direct sequencing. Therefore, this assay would be clinically useful in the diagnosis of entecavir-resistance-associated mutations in chronic hepatitis B.

Adefovir and Lamivudine Combination Therapy in Patients with Entecavir-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B: Antiviral Responses and Evolution of Mutations

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> This study was designed to prospectively evaluate the antiviral responses and evolution of resistance mutations during adefovir (ADV) plus lamivudine (LMV) therapy in patients with entecavir (ETV)-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twenty chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who had been receiving ETV for more than 6 months and developed virologic breakthrough due to ETV resistance were consecutively enrolled. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients received ADV plus LMV therapy for 12 months. The baseline mean serum HBV DNA level was 5.59 ± 1.28 log₁₀ IU/ml. The rtT184L/I/A/F (50%), rtS202G (25%) and mixed ETV-resistant mutations (25%) were detected at enrollment. The mean reduction in serum HBV DNA levels from baseline to 12 months was -2.3 ± 1.06 log₁₀ IU/ml (p<i> <</i> 0.001). Seventeen patients were followed up for the full 12 months, and complete virologic response (HBV DNA <20 IU/ml) was observed in 4 patients (23.5%). Among the remaining 13 patients who still had detectable HBV DNA, 7 patients showed disappearance of ETV-resistant mutations or reduction of the proportion of ETV-resistant mutants. An ADV- and LMV-resistant mutant (rtA181T) emerged in 2 patients (11.7%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> ADV plus LMV combination therapy suppresses ETV-resistant mutants in the viral population and significantly reduces serum HBV DNA levels in ETV-resistant CHB patients.

HBsAg level and clinical course in patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with nucleoside analogue: five years of follow-up data

Background/Aims

Quantification of the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) is increasingly used to determine the treatment response in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are limited data about the clinical implications of Quantification of HBsAg long-term nucleoside analogue treatment for CHB. We investigated the clinical correlation between HBsAg level and clinical course in patients with CHB who are treated long-term with nucleoside analogues.

Methods

Patients with CHB who started lamivudine or entecavir monotherapy before June 2007 were enrolled. HBsAg was quantified at baseline, at 6 months, and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of treatment. We compared data between the groups according to the presence or absence of a virological response (VR) and resistance.

Results

Forty-eight patients were analyzed. There was no definite reduction in HBsAg level during the early period of treatment; differences in HBsAg levels between baseline and each time point were significant only at 5 years (P=0.028). In a subgroup analysis, this difference was significant only in non-resistant patients at 5 years (P=0.041).

Conclusions

There was no definite decrease in the HBsAg level during the early period of nucleoside analogue treatment, with long-term treatment being required to observe a significant reduction.

Similar evolution of hepatitis B virus quasispecies in patients with incomplete adefovir response receiving tenofovir/emtricitabine combination or tenofovir monotherapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Adefovir (ADV) resistance mutations induce low-level cross-resistance to tenofovir in vitro. Our aim was to compare viral kinetics, nucleos(t)ide analog resistance mutations, and quasispecies (QS) evolution during therapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or emtricitabine + TDF (FTC/TDF) in selected patients with incomplete ADV responses.

METHODS

Patients with chronic hepatitis B and incomplete response to ADV were randomized in a double-blind trial of TDF vs. FTC/TDF. Extensive analysis of QS evolution was performed in 17 patients through 48 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

At week 24, 48% of patients (9/17) achieved HBV DNA undetectability (<69 IU/ml) with no difference between treatment groups. ADV and/or LAM resistance mutations were detected in all 17 patients at baseline and in 5/6 analyzable patients at week 48. A total of 1224 reverse transcriptase clones were analyzed. Clonal analysis revealed no significant difference at baseline in QS complexity or diversity between treatment groups. There was a trend in both treatment groups for an increase in QS complexity at week 12, followed by a decrease in complexity and diversity by week 48. Analysis of individual patients showed no consistent selection/accumulation of specific viral resistance patterns during treatment, but at week 48, mutations at rtA181 persisted in 4 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF or FTC/TDF demonstrated strong viral suppression in patients with an incomplete response to ADV and no significant selective pressure on pre-existing ADV or LAM resistant strains. TDF monotherapy and FTC/TDF combination therapy had a comparable impact on QS evolution.

Lamivudine plus adefovir combination therapy for lamivudine resistance in hepatitis-B-related hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Background/Aims

Lamivudine (LAM) plus adefovir (ADV) combination therapy has been accepted as one of the best treatments for LAM-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of this combination therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

Methods

The medical records of CHB patients who developed LAM resistance and were treated with LAM plus ADV combination therapy for more than 6 months were reviewed. Their virological response (VR; undetectable HBV DNA) and biochemical response (BR; alanine aminotransferase normalization) were evaluated, and the findings of HCC and non-HCC patients were compared.

Results

The data from 104 patients (19 with HCC and 85 without HCC) were analyzed. The VR rates did not differ significantly between the HCC and non-HCC groups: 33.3% vs. 55.6% at 12 months (P=0.119), 58.3% vs. 67.2% at 24 months (P=0.742), 50% vs. 69.8% at 36 months (P=0.280), and 66.7% vs. 71.0% at 48 months (P=1.000). The BR rates also did not differ significantly between the groups: 55.6% vs. 84.0% at 12 months (P=0.021), 58.3% vs. 83.8% at 24 months (P=0.057), 70.0% vs. 77.8% at 36 months (P=0.687), and 66.7% vs. 80.6% at 48 months (P=0.591).

Conclusions

The efficacy of LAM plus ADV combination therapy is comparable in HCC and non-HCC patients.

Options for the management of antiviral resistance during hepatitis B therapy: reflections on battles over a decade

Although much advancement has been achieved in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B, antiviral resistance is still a challenging issue. Previous generation antiviral agents have already developed resistance in a number of patients, and it is still being used especially in resource limited countries. Once antiviral resistance occurs, it predisposes to subsequent resistance, resulting in multidrug resistance. Therefore, prevention of initial antiviral resistance is the most important strategy, and appropriate choice and modification of therapy would be the cornerstone in avoiding treatment failures. Until now, management of antiviral resistance has been evolving from sequential therapy to combination therapy. In the era of tenofovir, the paradigm shifts again, and we have to decide when to switch and when to combine on the basis of newly emerging clinical data. We expect future eradication of chronic hepatitis B virus infection by proper prevention and optimal management of antiviral resistance.

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.

Nucleoside plus nucleotide analogs and cessation of hepatitis B immunoglobulin after liver transplantation in chronic hepatitis B is safe and effective

BACKGROUND

After orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) in chronic hepatitis B (HBV), adequate prophylaxis for recurrence of HBV in the graft is mandatory.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate safety of HBV prophylaxis with tenofovir and emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) after cessation of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) after OLT in chronic HBV.

STUDY DESIGN

In 17 consecutive patients after OLT in chronic HBV we started TDF/FTC after cessation of HBIG. All had received HBIG >6 months. 15/17 were HBsAg negative and 16/17 had undetectable HBV-DNA.

RESULTS

After mean follow-up of 2 years 16/17 patients were alive, one died due to urosepsis. All 16 with undetectable HBV-DNA remained HBV-DNA negative. From 15 HBsAg negative patients at start, in one seroconversion to positive HBsAg occurred, without detectable HBV-DNA. Liver biochemistry remained within the normal ranges. There were no cases of drug discontinuation. No major side effects were reported. TDF/FTC use saves €16,262/year over standard-of-care (HBIG+LAM). This prospective follow-up study shows that in liver transplantation for chronic hepatitis B, after initial treatment including HBIG for at least 6 months combined with or followed by (dual) nucleos(t)ide analog therapy, TDF/FTC provides adequate prophylaxis against recurrent HBV infection without major side effects and leads to substantial cost savings over a regimen with HBIG.

CONCLUSION

Combined prophylaxis with TDF/ETV nucleoside plus nucleotide analogs and cessation of immunoglobulin after liver transplantation in chronic hepatitis B is safe and effective.

Telbivudine and adefovir combination therapy for patients with chronic lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus infections

We evaluated second-line salvage therapy with adefovir + telbivudine (group 1), adefovir followed by adefovir + telbivudine (group 2), or lamivudine + adefovir followed by adefovir + telbivudine (group 3) in hepatitis B patients with an inadequate virologic response to lamivudine treatment. Simple linear regression analysis showed that for each additional month of treatment, the most significant reduction in viral load occurred in group 1 (HBV DNA [Log10 IU/mL]: group 1, -0.149; group 2, -0.081; group 3, -0.123). Generalized estimating equation analysis revealed that compared to group 1, hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels were 1.203 and 0.443 Log10 IU/mL higher in groups 2 and 3, respectively. Overall, a significant reduction in viral load (-0.060 Log10 IU/mL) was observed for each additional month of treatment. Adefovir + telbivudine treatment resulted in a significant reduction in HBV DNA levels. Moreover, telbivudine treatment resulted in a significant reduction in viral load (-0.050 Log10 IU/mL) compared to lamivudine treatment after the emergence of lamivudine resistance.

Efficacy of combined therapy in patients with hepatitis B virus-related decompensated cirrhosis

AIM: To investigate the efficacy and safety of combined de novo lamivudine (LAM) and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) therapy in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related decompensated liver cirrhosis patients.

METHODS: One hundred and forty patients with HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis were recruited, 70 patients were treated with combined LAM and ADV de novo therapy, and the other 70 patients were treated with LAM alone as controls. The follow-up period was 144 wk. All patients with LAM resistance were shifted to ADV.

RESULTS: The percentage of HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis patients with undetectable HBV DNA in de novo combination group was 51.6% (33/64), 84.2% (48/57), and 92.3% (49/53) by weeks 48, 96, and 144, respectively. In monotherapy group, HBV DNA negativity rate was 46.1% (30/65), 56.1% (32/57), and 39.2% (20/51) by weeks 48, 96 and 144, respectively. There was a significant difference between the two groups by weeks 96 and 144 (P = 0.012 and 0.001). The hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion rate was 28.1% (9/32), 40.0% (12/30), and 53.6% (15/28) in the combination group by weeks 48, 96 and 144, respectively, and 24.2% (8/33), 31.0% (9/29), and 37.0% (10/27) by weeks 48, 96 and 144, respectively, in monotherapy group. A total of 68.6% (44/64), 84.2% (48/57), and 92.5% (49/53) patients achieved alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization by weeks 48, 96 and 144, respectively in the combination group. In monotherpy group, the ALT normalization rate was 64.6% (42/65) by week 48, 73.7% (42/57) by week 96, and 80.4% (41/51) by week 144. No patients in the combination group exhibited detectable resistance for at least 144 wk. The cumulative resistance rate in monotherapy group at weeks 48, 96, and 144 was 20.0%, 36.8%, and 56.9%. Both combination group and monotherapy group demonstrated an improvement in Child-Turcotte Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores at weeks 48, 96, and 144. All patients tolerated both combination and monotherapy. The ceratinine levels and glomerular filtration rate remained normal in all patients during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION: In HBV-related decompensated liver cirrhosis patients, the combined de novo LAM and ADV therapy is more efficacious and safer compared to LAM alone.

Treatment of HBeAg positive chronic hepatitis B: interferon or nucleoside analogues

Interferon alpha has restricted efficacy in as much as only a proportion of patients show a response. However, in appropriately selected HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients, sustained suppression of viral replication can be achieved, and HBeAg or even HBsAg seroconversion can be attained. Thus, finite course of interferon alpha can be successful, and offer an advantage to patient. Interferon (IFN) remains a benchmark therapy for chronic hepatitis B. The main advantages of IFN-α over nucleoside analogues are the absence of resistance and the possibility of immune-mediated clearance of hepatitis B. Unfortunately, side effects preclude the use of interferon alpha in substantial proportions of patients, and prolonged maintenance therapy to suppress hepatitis B virus (HBV) is not feasible. Nucleoside analogues are given by mouth, once per day, and the safety, potency and efficacy have improved and facilitated treatment. However, maintenance of long-term suppression is required for the majority of patients. In general, treatment of chronic hepatitis B should target patients with active disease and viral replication, preferably before the signs and symptoms of cirrhosis or significant injury has occurred. Current EASL guidelines suggest that treatment be based on the evaluation of three criteria: Serum aminotransferase levels, serum HBV DNA levels and histological grade and stage. Many questions remain unanswered on the optimal treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B with a nucleoside vs interferon alpha. Both forms of treatment have benefits and the choice should be selected and tailored. Stopping or futility rules can be implemented in patients who fail interferon. Recent data suggest the safety and efficacy of nucleoside analogues in the third trimester of pregnancy to reduce the risk of transmission from mothers to their children.

Adding adefovir vs. switching to entecavir for lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B (ACE study): a 2-year follow-up randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Management of lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remains challenging, as inappropriate choice of treatment may cause multidrug resistance. Until now, randomized trials directly comparing adding adefovir and switching to entecavir monotherapy have not been reported.

AIMS

This multicentre prospective randomized study was designed to compare the efficacy of these two strategies.

METHODS

Two hundred and nineteen lamivudine-resistant CHB patients were randomized to either adefovir-lamivudine combination group or entecavir monotherapy group (n = 110 vs. 109), and followed up for 24 months.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty patients completed this study. At month 24, virological response rate [hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA <60 IU/ml] was higher in the adefovir-lamivudine combination group compared with entecavir group (56.7% vs. 40%, P = 0.025), although biochemical and serological response rates were not significantly different. Genotypic resistance (9.2% vs. 24.6%, P = 0.005) and combined viral breakthrough (2.0% vs. 17.6%, P < 0.001) were more frequent in the entecavir group. However, by subgroup analysis, virological response rates were not significantly different between the two therapies in HBeAg-positive patients (44.9% vs. 35.7%, P = 0.268) or in patients with high baseline HBV DNA (≥7 log IU/ml) (40.7% vs. 31.3%, P = 0.320) at month 24.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that adefovir-lamivudine combination provides significantly higher antiviral efficacy and the lower resistance rate compared with the entecavir monotherapy in the management of lamivudine-resistant CHB. However, it had limited efficacy in HBeAg-positive patients or in patients with high baseline HBV DNA.

Treatment of lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B infection: a multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of rescue therapies in lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infections including: (1) adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) monotherapy, (2) ADV plus LAM combination therapy and (3) entecavir (ETV) 1.0 mg monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors designed a multicenter-retrospective study. Eight institutions participated in the study from Korea.

RESULTS

A total of 343 LAM-resistant CHB patients were enrolled. The proportion of patients with undetectable serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels at month 24 after the initiation of rescue therapy was higher in the ADV plus LAM combination therapy group (39/64, 60.9%) than in the ADV monotherapy (50/126, 39.7%) and ETV 1.0 mg monotherapy (19/48, 39.6%) groups (p = 0.014). Mean serum HBV DNA levels at 24 months were 2.07 ± 1.21 log(10) IU/ml in the ADV plus LAM combination therapy group, 2.74 ± 1.74 log(10) IU/ml in the ADV monotherapy group and 3.08 ± 1.97 log(10) IU/ml in the ETV 1.0 mg monotherapy group (p = 0.014). In multivariate analysis, a finding of undetectable serum HBV DNA level at 6 months and ADV plus LAM combination therapy (vs. ADV) was an independent factor for predicting undetectable serum HBV DNA at month 24 (odds ratio, 1.003; 95% confidence interval, 1.000-1.006; p = 0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

ADV plus LAM combination therapy is more effective in reducing viral load than switching to ADV or ETV 1.0 mg in patients with LAM-resistant CHB.

Treatment strategies using adefovir dipivoxil for individuals with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

AIM: To investigate retrospectively the long-term efficacy of various treatment strategies using adefovir dipivoxil (adefovir) in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B.

METHODS: We included 154 consecutive patients in two treatment groups: the “add-on” group (n = 79), in which adefovir was added to ongoing lamivudine treatment due to lamivudine resistance, and the “switch/combination” group (n = 75), in which lamivudine was first switched to adefovir and then re-added later as needed. The “switch/combination” group was then divided into two subgroups depending on whether participants followed (group A, n = 30) or violated (group B, n = 45) a proposed treatment strategy that determined whether to add lamivudine based on the serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels (< 60 IU/mL or not) after 6 mo of treatment (roadmap concept).

RESULTS: The cumulative probability of virologic response (HBV DNA < 60 IU/mL) was higher in group A than in the “add-on” group and in group B (P < 0.001). In contrast, the cumulative probability of virologic breakthrough was lower in the “add-on” group than in group B (P = 0.002). Furthermore, the risk of virologic breakthrough in the multivariate analysis was significantly lower in the “add-on” group than in group A (hazard ratio = 0.096; 95%CI, 0.015-0.629; P = 0.015).

CONCLUSION: The selective combination of adefovir with lamivudine based upon early treatment responses increased the odds of virologic breakthrough relative to the use of uniform combination therapy from the beginning of treatment.

Tenofovir rescue therapy for chronic hepatitis B patients after multiple treatment failures

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients after multiple failures.

METHODS: A total of 29 CHB patients who had a suboptimal response or developed resistance to two or more previous nucleoside/nucleotide analogue (NA) treatments were included. Study subjects were treated with TDF alone (n = 13) or in combination with lamivudine (LAM, n = 12) or entecavir (ETV, n = 4) for ≥ 6 mo. Complete virologic response (CVR) was defined as an achievement of serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level ≤ 60 IU/mL by real-time polymerase chain reaction method during treatment. Safety assessment was based on serum creatinine and phosphorus level. Eleven patients had histories of LAM and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) treatment and 18 patients were exposed to LAM, ADV, and ETV. Twenty-seven patients (93.1%) were hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive and the mean value of the baseline serum HBV DNA level was 5.5 log IU/mL ± 1.7 log IU/mL. The median treatment duration was 16 mo (range 7 to 29 mo).

RESULTS: All the patients had been treated with LAM and developed genotypic and phenotypic resistance to it. Resistance to ADV was present in 7 patients and 10 subjects had a resistance to ETV. One patient had a resistance to both ADV and ETV. The cumulative probabilities of CVR at 12 and 24 mo of TDF containing treatment regimen calculated by the Kaplan Meier method were 86.2% and 96.6%, respectively. Although one patient failed to achieve CVR, serum HBV DNA level decreased by 3.9 log IU/mL from the baseline and the last serum HBV DNA level during treatment was 85 IU/mL, achieving near CVR. No patients in this study showed viral breakthrough or primary non-response during the follow-up period. The cumulative probability of HBeAg clearance in the 27 HBeAg positive patients was 7.4%, 12%, and 27% at 6, 12, and 18 mo of treatment, respectively. Treatment efficacy of TDF containing regimen was not statistically different according to the presence of specific HBV mutations. History of prior exposure to specific antiviral agents did not make a difference to treatment outcome. Treatment efficacy of TDF was not affected by combination therapy with LAM or ETV. No patient developed renal toxicity and no cases of hypophosphatemia associated with TDF therapy were observed. There were no other adverse events related to TDF therapy observed in the study subjects.

CONCLUSION: TDF can be an effective and safe rescue therapy in CHB patients after multiple NA therapy failures.

Antiviral treatment to prevent chronic hepatitis B or C-related hepatocellular carcinoma

Antiviral treatment is the only option to prevent or defer the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients chronically infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV). The approved medication for the treatment of chronic HBV infection is interferon-α (IFNα) and nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs), including lamivudine, adefovir dipivoxil, telbivudine, entecavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. IFNα is the most suitable for young patients with less advanced liver diseases and those infected with HBV genotype A. IFNα treatment significantly decreases the overall incidence of HBV-related HCC in sustained responders. However, side effects may limit its long-term clinical application. Orally administered NAs are typically implemented for patients with more advanced liver diseases. NA treatment significantly reduces disease progression of cirrhosis and therefore HCC incidence, especially in HBV e antigen-positive patients. NA-resistance due to the mutations in HBV polymerase is a major limiting factor. Of the NA resistance-associated mutants, A181T mutant significantly increases the risk of HCC development during the subsequent course of NA therapy. It is important to initiate treatment with NAs that have a high genetic barrier to resistance, to counsel patients on medication adherence and to monitor virological breakthroughs. The recommended treatment for patients with chronic HCV infection is peg-IFN plus ribavirin that can decrease the occurrence of HCC in those who achieve a sustained virological response and have not yet progressed to cirrhosis. IFN-based treatment is reserved for patients with decompensated cirrhosis who are under evaluation of liver transplantation to reduce post-transplant recurrence of HCV. More effective therapeutic options such as direct acting antiviral agents will hopefully increase the response rate in difficult-to-treat patients with HCV genotype 1. However, the risk of HCC remains in cirrhotic patients (both chronic HBV and HCV infection) if treatment is initiated after cirrhosis is established. Future research should focus on investigating new agents, especially for those patients with hepatic decompensation or post-transplantation.

Clonal evolution of hepatitis B virus polymerase gene mutations during lamivudine-adefovir combination treatment

AIM: To identify hepatitis B virus polymerase gene mutations during antiviral therapy using lamivudine-adefovir sequential monotherapy followed by lamivudine-adefovir combination therapy.

METHODS: The patient cohort included four adult chronic hepatitis B patients who had undergone sequential monotherapy, first with lamivudine (LMV) and then, after developing viral breakthrough, with adefovir (ADV) therapy. All of the patients had non-response or viral breakthrough after LMV-ADV sequential monotherapy, which resulted in the switching of their antiviral regimen to LMV-ADV combination therapy. Eleven serum samples from the four patients who showed non-response to rescue LMV-ADV combination therapy were collected sequentially at a time before the antiviral treatment and then during the LMV monotherapy, ADV monotherapy, and LMV-ADV combination therapy. For the genotypic analysis, the whole 1310-bp polymerase gene region was amplified, cloned and sequenced.

RESULTS: All patients had been previously treated with 100 mg of LMV once daily for a 15- to 26-mo period. The emergence of resistance mutations to LMV, such as rtM204V/I and/or rtL180M, were found in all patients. Their antiviral regimens were switched to ADV monotherapy as the second line treatment. All patients had viral breakthrough or non-response after the LMV-ADV sequential monotherapy. ADV-resistant mutations were detected after 13 to 19 mo of LMV-ADV sequential monotherapy. The rtA181V/T mutations were predominantly identified during the ADV treatment in the LMV-resistant patients. Twenty-seven of 38 clones were combined with an amino acid change at rt181; three clones had mutations in rt236 and one clone had a combined mutation. The rtA181V/T mutations were not suppressed by the LMV-ADV combination therapy. Thirty-nine of 64 clones showed an rtA181V/T mutation and six clones showed combined mutations in rt181 and rt236. Mutations in rt204 re-emerged during the combination treatment. The rt181 and rt204 mutations did not co-exist in one clone.

CONCLUSION: Add-on lamivudine therapy with adefovir for adefovir resistance may not suppress the pre-existing adefovir-resistant mutation that develops during lamivudine-adefovir sequential monotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different rescue therapies in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B in China

Background

Several rescue therapies have been used in patients with lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, the economic outcome of these therapies is unclear. The object of the current analysis was to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of rescue therapies among patients with LAM-resistant CHB.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to simulate the clinical course of patients with LAM-resistant CHB. From the perspective of Chinese health care, a lifetime cost-utility analysis was performedfor 4 rescue strategies: adefovir (ADV), entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir (TDF) monotherapy and combination therapy using LAM and ADV. A hypothetical cohort of 45-year-old patients with genotypic or clinical LAM-resistant CHB entered the model, and the beginning health state was LAM-resistant CHB without other complications. The transition probabilities, efficacy and resistance data for each rescue therapy as well as the costs and utility data were estimated from the literature. The discount rate (3%) utilized for costs and benefits. Sensitivity analyses were used to explore the impact of uncertainty on the results.

Results

In LAM-resistant HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative CHB cohorts, TDF monotherapy and combination therapy were on the efficiency frontier for both positive and negative populations. Compared with no treatment, the use of combination therapy cost an additional $6,531.7 to gain 1 additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for HBeAg-positive patients and $4,571.7 to gain 1 additional QALY for HBeAg-negative patients. TDF monotherapy for HBeAg-positive patients, shows greater increase in QALYs but higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in comparison with combination therapy. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, combination therapy was the preferred option for health care systems with limited health resources, such as Chinese health care system.

Conclusion

In Chinese patients with LAM-resistant CHB, combination therapy is a more cost-effective option than the competing rescue therapies.

The cost-effectiveness of treating chronic hepatitis B patients in a median endemic and middle income country

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection is a serious public health problem due to its potential liver disease sequelae and highly expensive medical costs such as the need for liver transplantation. The aim of this study was to quantify the burden of active CHB in terms of mortality and morbidity, the eligibility of antiviral treatment and to assess various treatment scenarios and possible salvage combinations for cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A population cohort from a large data base of chronic hepatitis B patients was constructed and stratified according to 10-year age groups, the prevalence of HBsAg, HBV DNA level, ALT level, HBeAg status and the presence of cirrhosis. An age-specific Markov model for disease progression and cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed and calibrated for the specific population setting.

RESULTS

Of about 3.2 million estimated HBsAg carriers, 25% are eligible for treatment. If the active cohort remains untreated, 31% will die due to liver related complications. Within a 20-year period, 11% will have developed decompensated cirrhosis, 12% liver cancer and 6% will need liver transplantation. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) for the no treatment scenario ranged from 9.3 to 14.0. For scenarios with antiviral treatment, QALYs ranged from 9.9 to 14.5 for lamivudine, 13.0-17.5 for salvage therapy, and 16.6-19.0 for the third generation drugs entecavir and tenofovir.

CONCLUSION

In a country with considerable amount of active CHB patients, monotherapy with a highly potent third generation drug has the most health-gain, and is cost-effective in both HBeAg-positive and negative in all stages of liver disease.