Clinical Manifestations and Laboratory Tests of AECHB and Severe Hepatitis (Liver Failure)

This chapter describes the clinical symptoms and signs of AECHB and HBV ACLF, classification, grading of HBV ACLF and their features, diagnostic principles and standards in liver pathology, biochemistry, and virology of HBV ACLF.

Liver failure is defined as serious damage to the liver cause by a variety of etiologies, leading to liver function disorder or even decompensation, and clinical syndromes with coagulopathy, jaundice, hepatic encephalopathy, and ascites.

Severe hepatitis B can be indicated pathologically by apparent hepatocellular necrosis, including extensive multifocal, confluent, bridging, sub-massive or massive necrosis.

Laboratory tests during the course of severe exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B can reflect pathological changes and liver function in a timely manner, providing objective and informative reference data for evaluation of disease severity and treatment efficacy. Among the most important laboratory tests are those for prothrombin activity, international normalized ratio, and increases in total bilirubin concentration.

Severe hepatitis B is associated with interactions between the virus and host factors. Detection of HBV DNA, HBV genotype, quasispecies and HBV mutation can provide important theoretical bases for the prevention, control or mitigation of the progress of severe hepatitis B.

Noninvasive imaging modalities can be used to visualize the entire liver and parts of it. Measuring liver volume to evaluate liver size and liver reserve capacity is regarded as important in diagnosis, surgical approach and prognostic evaluation of patients with severe exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B and liver failure.

Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) is the first quantitative method developed to assess whether a patient with liver failure requires a liver transplant. The predictive value of the MELD model has been improved by the MELD-Na, iMELD, and MESO models. Several other valuable prognostic models have been developed. For example, for patients with HBV-ACLF, the established TPPM scoring system was found to be more predictive than MELD score.

Oral Nucleos(t)ide Analogs Alone After Liver Transplantation in Chronic Hepatitis B With Preexisting rt204 Mutation

BACKGROUND

There is currently limited data regarding the use of oral antiviral therapy alone without hepatitis B immune globulin for chronic hepatitis B patients with preexisting lamivudine (LAM) resistance (LAM-R) undergoing liver transplantation.

METHODS

This is a cohort study determining the effectiveness and long-term outcome in this group of patients.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven consecutive chronic hepatitis B patients with preexisting rt204 LAM-R mutations or virological load refractory to LAM undergoing liver transplantation were included, with a median follow-up of 73 months. Fifty-five (96.5%) patients received a regimen that included the use of nucleotide analogs. The cumulative rate of hepatitis B surface antigen seroclearance at 1, 5, and 10 years was 82%, 88%, and 91%, respectively. At the time of transplantation, 39 (72%) patients had detectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA, with a median of 4.5 log copies/mL. The cumulative rate of HBV undetectability was 91% at 1 year, increasing to 100% by 5 years. After 1 year of liver transplantation, over 90% of the patients had undetectable HBV DNA, and from 8 years onward, 100% had undetectable HBV DNA. The overall long-term survival was excellent, with a 12-year survival of 87%. There was no HBV-related graft loss, and no retransplantation or deaths due to HBV reactivation.

CONCLUSION

Oral antiviral therapy alone without hepatitis B immune globulin is highly effective in preventing HBV reactivation and graft loss from recurrent hepatitis B after liver transplantation in patients with preexisting LAM resistance HBV. The long-term outcome was excellent, with survival of 87% at 12 years after transplantation, without any mortality related to HBV reactivation.

Entecavir to Telbivudine Switch Therapy in Entecavir-Treated Patients with Undetectable Hepatitis B Viral DNA

PURPOSE

This study examined 2-year outcome of consecutive therapy using entecavir (ETV) followed by telbivudine (LdT) in subjects with undetectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level and normal alanine aminotransferase level after the initial 6 months of ETV treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty subjects were randomized to continue with ETV or switch to LdT. Significant difference in baseline characteristics was not found between the two groups. Persistent HBV DNA level of 20-60 IU/mL in three consecutive samples collected three months apart or singly measured HBV DNA level of >60 IU/mL was defined as virological rebound.

RESULTS

During 96 weeks of follow-up, all subjects of the ETV-only group (n=30) resulted in undetectable HBV DNA level. On the other hand, 83.3% (n=25) of the LdT-switched group showed treatment success. Virological rebound time varied from week 24 to 84 after switching to LdT. HBV DNA level was 180 to 2940 IU/mL at rebound time. All subjects with virological rebound (n=5) showed drug-resistant mutation: three had mutation rtM204I, and two had mutation rtM204V. Consecutive treatment using ETV followed by LdT showed virological rebound in 16.7% of subjects during 96 weeks of follow-up. HBV DNA negativity during initial ETV therapy could not be achieved in patients who switched to LdT.

CONCLUSION

Consecutive treatment using ETV followed by lamivudine was ineffective for treating chronic hepatitis B. LdT was found as a more potent antiviral agent than lamivudine. However, this conclusion requires larger-scale, long-term prospective reviews of the treatment effects of ETV-LdT switch therapy.

Entecavir plus tenofovir versus entecavir plus adefovir in chronic hepatitis B patients with a suboptimal response to lamivudine and adefovir combination therapy

Background/Aims

We compared the efficacies of entecavir (ETV) plus tenofovir (TDF) and ETV plus adefovir (ADV) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with genotypic resistance to lamivudine (LAM) who showed a suboptimal response to LAM and ADV combination therapy.

Methods

We reviewed 63 CHB patients with genotypic resistance to LAM who showed a suboptimal response to LAM and ADV combination therapy. Among these patients, 30 were treated with ETV + ADV and 33 were treated with ETV + TDF for 12 months.

Results

The only baseline characteristic that differed significantly between the two groups was the ETV resistance profile. The rate of a virologic response [serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level of <20 IU/mL] was significant higher for ETV+TDF than for ETV+ADV over 12 months (57.6% vs. 23.3%, P=0.006, at 6 months; 84.8% vs. 26.7%, P<0.001, at 12 months). The probability of a virologic response was significantly increased in ETV+TDF (P<0.001, OR=54.78, 95% CI=7.15-419.54) and decreased in patients with higher baseline viral loads (P=0.001, OR=0.18, 95% CI=0.07-0.50) in multivariate analysis. No serious adverse event occurred during the study period.

Conclusions

In patients with CHB who showed a suboptimal response to LAM and ADV combination therapy, ETV+TDF was superior to ETV+ADV in achieving a virologic response regardless of the HBV resistance profile. Further large-scale and long-term follow-up prospective studies are needed to explain these results.

Efficacy of Tenofovir-based Rescue Therapy in Lamivudine-resistant Chronic Hepatitis B Patients With Failure of Lamivudine and Adefovir Combination

PURPOSE

In chronic hepatitis B patients, lamivudine (LAM) and adefovir (ADV) combination therapy is commonly used as a rescue therapy for LAM resistance, but it often results in incomplete viral suppression. We investigated the antiviral efficacy of tenofovir (TDF)/LAM combination therapy versus TDF monotherapy in LAM-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who failed to respond to LAM plus ADV rescue therapy.

METHODS

Among 108 patients with LAM-resistant CHB who had a partial virologic response (VR) to LAM and ADV combination therapy, Eighty one patients were finally included in this study.

FINDINGS

Resistance to ADV (ADV-R) was present in 32 patients (39.5%), and the remaining 49 patients (60.5%) had a partial virologic response to LAM/ADV combination (ADV-P). The study subjects were treated with TDF alone (n=15) or TDF/LAM combination (n=66). VR was achieved in 61 patients (75.3%). The rates of VR at 6 and 12 months were not significantly different between TDF monotherapy and TDF/LAM combination therapy groups (46.7 vs. 68.2% at 6 months, and 66.7 vs. 75.9% at 12 months, log-rank P=0.357). Treatment efficacy of TDF alone or TDF/LAM combination was not statistically different according to pre-existing ADV or LAM resistant strains. In multivariate analysis, absolute HBV DNA levels at the start of TDF rescue treatment (P<0.001; OR, 0.556; 95% CI, 0.422-0.731) were the only significantly associated with VR.

IMPLICATIONS

TDF monotherapy was as effective as TDF/LAM combination therapy in maintaining viral suppression in patients with LAM-resistant patients who failed to respond to LAM/ADV combination therapy.

Outcome of Lamivudine-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B after up to 5 Years of Combination Therapy with Adefovir

Background

There is a paucity of data on the long-term efficacy of combination lamivudine and adefovir therapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B.

Methods

We determined the cumulative virological, serological and biochemical outcomes of 165 lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B patients on lamivudine and adefovir for up to 5 years. Resistance profiles using a line probe assay were determined among patients with detectable viraemia. The significance of different baseline and on-treatment virological parameters was analysed.

Results

The median age and duration of follow-up were 45.1 years and 37.1 months, respectively. The cumulative rates of HBV DNA undetectability (<20 IU/ml), alanine aminotransferase normalization and hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion up to 5 years were 74.0%, 95.1% and 44.4%, respectively. One patient achieved hepatitis B surface antigen seroclearance. The 5-year cumulative resistance rate to adefovir was 10.2%. Among different baseline and on-treatment virological parameters, week 24 HBV DNA<200 IU/ml was associated with an increased chance of long-term virological suppression ( P<0.001, OR 13.89, 95% CI 3.90, 49.46). Primary non-response and high baseline viral titres were not useful in predicting long-term virological outcomes. The 5-year cumulative rate of serum creatinine elevation >0.5 mg/dl was 4.1%.

Conclusions

Combination lamivudine and adefovir therapy for up to 5 years achieved modest rates of virological suppression, but resistance developed in only 10.2% of patients. Week 24 HBV DNA<200 IU/ml was predictive of favourable long-term virological outcomes and could be used to assist treatment decisions on continuing lamivudine and adefovir or switching to more potent therapy.

HBV DNA level at 24 weeks is the best predictor of virological response to adefovir add-on therapy in patients with lamivudine resistance

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between HBV DNA levels at baseline and on-treatment and the virological response at 96 weeks after adefovir add-on therapy in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine resistance.

METHODS

Lamivudine and adefovir combination therapy was administered to 122 CHB patients for >24 months.

RESULTS

Virological response (HBV DNA negativity) was achieved in 53 (43.3%) and 62 patients (50.8%) at 48 and 96 weeks, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that the HBV DNA level at week 24 had a greater power (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.978; 95% CI 0.949, 1.000; P<0.001) to predict the virological response at week 96 of treatment than did the pre-treatment HBV DNA level (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.771; 95% CI 0.640, 0.902; P<0.001). The best cutoff value for the HBV DNA level, at week 24, for the prediction of the virological response at week 96 was 200 IU/ml (3 log(10) copies/ml), with a sensitivity and specificity of 90.3% and 95.0%, respectively. Using this time frame and cutoff value, 56 (90.3%) out of 62 patients that had a virological response at 96 weeks had <200 IU/ml HBV DNA at 24 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the HBV DNA level at baseline is often used to predict the antiviral potency of lamivudine and adefovir combination treatment in CHB patients with lamivudine resistance, the results of this study suggest that the HBV DNA level at 24 weeks is a better marker for the virological response.

Long-term adefovir dipivoxil monotherapy for up to 5 years in lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Large clinical studies assessing long-term adefovir dipivoxil salvage monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) are lacking, particularly in patients positive for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg). We assessed the efficacy and resistance profile of adefovir dipivoxil monotherapy for up to 5 years in a large cohort of Korean patients with lamivudine-resistant CHB.

METHODS

A total of 320 patients (81.3% HBeAg-positive; 100% genotype C) with confirmed genotypic lamivudine-resistant CHB were switched to adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg once daily. Liver function tests and HBV DNA were monitored every 3 months. Genotypic resistance to adefovir dipivoxil was performed in patients with detectable HBV DNA.

RESULTS

The overall cumulative virological response rate at 5 years of adefovir dipivoxil therapy was 48.8%. The virological response rate was significantly higher in HBeAg-negative patients (62.0% versus 45.9%; P=0.010). Most cases of virological response (131/134, 97.8%) occurred within the first 36 months of therapy. The 5-year cumulative probability of genotypic resistance and virological breakthrough was 65.6% and 61.8%, respectively. Predictive factors for a virological response included baseline HBeAg seronegativity, HBV DNA< or =8 log(10) copies/ml and achievement of an on-treatment initial virological response.

CONCLUSIONS

Adefovir dipivoxil salvage monotherapy for lamivudine-resistant CHB resulted in a modest cumulative virological response rate at 5 years, which was associated with progressive antiviral resistance. Consequently, adefovir monotherapy is not preferable as a first-line strategy for lamivudine resistance where combination lamivudine plus adefovir dipivoxil therapy is available.

Rescue Monotherapy in Lamivudine-Resistant Hepatitis B e Antigen-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B: Adefovir versus Entecavir

Background

The efficacy of adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) or entecavir (ETV) rescue monotherapy has not been directly compared in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)- positive patients with lamivudine (3TC)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We compared the efficacy of ADV and ETV rescue monotherapy in HBeAg-positive patients with confirmed genotypic 3TC resistance.

Methods

A total of 160 HBeAg-positive patients with confirmed 3TC resistance underwent switch therapy (91 ADV and 59 ETV). Parameters assessed included alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, HBeAg serocon-version, undetectable serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA by PCR (lower detection limit <300 copies/ml), virological breakthrough and initial virological response (IVR) at 3 (IVR-3) and 6 (IVR-6) months.

Results

Following 52 weeks of treatment in the ADV and ETV groups, serum HBV DNA became undetectable in 25 (27.5%) and 21 (35.6%; P=0.292) patients, ALT normalization occurred in 67/78 (85.9%) and 43/47 (91.5%; P=0.351), HBeAg seroconversion in 4 (4.4%) and 1 (1.7%; P=1.000), IVR-3 in 19 (20.9%) and 18 (30.5%), IVR-6 in 40 (44.0%) and 25 (42.4%) and virological breakthrough in 2 (2.2%) and 1 (1.7%; P=1.000) patients, respectively.

Conclusions

ADV and ETV revealed comparable efficacy after 52 weeks of treatment in HBeAg-positive patients with 3TC resistance. Undetectable HBV DNA in serum following 52 weeks of treatment was predictable with IVR-3 and IVR-6 in both groups.