Efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in patients who relapsed after pegylated interferon therapy

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections and sequelae present significant health problems worldwide. Two groups of medications are available for chronic HBV infection treatment: (1) interferons (IFNs) and (2) nucleos(t)ide analogues. This study aimed to evaluate entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) efficacies in chronic HBV patients, who achieved virological response during Peg-IFN treatment but did not sustain this response and relapsed a year after treatment end. In this study, 74 patients with chronic HBV infection who had virological responses to 180 μg/week Peg-IFNα-2a treatment were included; 38 (20 and 18 HBeAg positive and negative, respectively) of these patients were treated with 245 mg/day TDF, and 36 (20 and 16 HBeAg positive and negative, respectively) were treated with 0.5 mg/day ETV upon relapse after initial treatment discontinuation. In HBeAg-positive patients biochemical response rates were higher for TDF at weeks 96 and 144 (p = 0.044 and 0.019, respectively). However, biochemical response rates were similar for TDF and ETV in HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative groups at other weeks (p > 0.05). Virological and serological response rates were similar in patients treated with TDF and ETV in HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative groups (p > 0.05).

Cost-effectiveness analysis of oral anti-viral drugs used for treatment of chronic hepatitis B in Turkey

BACKGROUND

All international guidelines suggested that Tenofovir and Entecavir are the primary drugs at the first line therapy for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, in Turkey these medications reimbursed at the second line therapy according to the Healthcare Implementation Notification. The aim of this study is to compare the cost effectiveness of oral antiviral treatment strategies in CHB for Turkey using lamuvidine, telbuvidine, entecavir, and tenofovir as medications.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted using Markov models. The analysis scenarios based on first line treatment options with Lamuvidine, Telbuvidine, Entecavir, and Tenofovir as the medications. In the analysis, inadequate response or resistance after receiving 12 months of the treatment with Entecavir and Telbivudine were compared to the results found from switching from Entecavir to Tenofovir or from switching from Telbuvidine to Tenofovir. In additional, inadequate response or resistance after receiving 6 months of the treatment for Lamivudine was compared to the results found from switching from Lamivudine to Tenofovir. The study population included men and women, who were 40 years of age. The patients` compliance was estimated 100 % for all of the therapy options. The model duration was constructed to evaluate, treatment strategy duration of 40 years. The cost of medications, examinations/follow-ups and complications were included in the model. Years of Potential Life Lost was used as the health outcome. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis has been conducted.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

While the minimum years of life lost was found as 0.22 with tenofovir treatment in 5 years, treatment cost was calculated as 12,169 TL. These values were detected as 0.56 years and 7727 TL, 0.37 years and 12,770 TL, respectively for lamuvidine and telbuvidine treatments. The maximum years of life lost and treatment cost was with lamuvidine treatment were detected as 1.60 years and 18,813 TL and, secondly 0.89 years and 24,007 TL for lamuvidine-tenofovir treatment during 10 years. The minimum years of life lost and cost are 0.54 year and 35,821 TL for tenofovir treatment during 10 years. The minimum years of life lost and cost were determined as 1.21 years and 52,839 TL for tenofovir treatment strategy during 20 years. During 30 years period, tenofovir treatment was found to have the minimum years of life lost (1.73 years) and minimum cost (84,149 TL). When the results of 40 years period were analyzed, years of life lost and costs are 2.06 years and 119,604 TL, 2.13 years and 162,115 TL, 2.13 years and 161,642 TL, 6.52 years and 147,245 TL, 3.20 years and 132,157 TL, 4.10 years and 151,059 TL and 3.05 years and 138,182 TL for tenofovir, entecavir, entecavir-tenofovir, lamuvidine, lamuvidine-tenofovir, telbivudine and telbivudine-tenofovir.

CONCLUSIONS

In the model presented in this study, in cost effectiveness analysis about CHB treatments, Tenofovir was found to be one of the cost effective methods in comparison with other treatment strategies different time intervals. Beyond this achievement Tenofovir has shown to reduce cumulative treatment cost in first line CHB treatment when compared with regard to 40 year cumulative treatment cost.

Adjuvant and chemopreventive therapies for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a literature review

The recurrence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after potentially curative hepatic resection (HR) is very high. Many clinical trials have explored the efficacy of several treatment modalities to prevent recurrence, including adjuvant and chemopreventive therapy, but they have often reported contradictory findings. As a result, most liver guidelines and liver seminars do not unequivocally endorse adjuvant or chemopreventive therapy for HCC patients after potentially curative HR. To examine the available evidence on this question, we comprehensively searched PubMed for controlled studies that included a supportive care or placebo control arm, and we used the GRADE system to classify and assess the results.