A 96-week randomized trial of switching to entecavir in chronic hepatitis B patients with a partial virological response to lamivudine

Nucleos(t)ide analogues for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review with network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is a major global health problem caused by hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, and can put patients at high risk of death from cirrhosis and liver cancer. However, CHB can be treated with nucleos(t)ide analogues. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nucleos(t)ide analogues for the treatment of CHB patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Direct comparison meta-analyses and network meta-analysis (NMA) were carried out.

RESULTS

Thirty-six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, the nucleos(t)ide analogues were all effective in HBeAg seroconversion, HBeAg loss, and achieving undetectable HBV DNA. Telbivudine was associated with higher HBeAg seroconversion compared with entecavir. For HBeAg loss rate and proportion of achieving undetectable HBV DNA, tenofovir ranked as the best. Entecavir might be the most potent in the normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT). The nucleos(t)ide analogues did not have higher serious adverse events rate as compared with placebo.

CONCLUSION

The nucleos(t)ide analogues are all effective for HBeAg seroconversion, HBeAg loss, undetectable HBV DNA, and most are effective for ALT normalization in adults with CHB. RCTs of multi-center, low risk of bias, and long-term follow-up are still needed.

Adverse events of nucleos(t)ide analogues for chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review

Nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) are the main drug category used in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treatment. Despite the fact that NAs have a favourable safety profile, undesired adverse events (AEs) may occur during the treatment of CHB. Given the eminent number of patients currently receiving NAs, even a small risk of any of these toxicities can represent a major medical issue. The main objective of this review was to analyse information available on AEs associated with the use of NAs in published studies. We choose the following MesH terms for this systematic review: chronic hepatitis B, side effects and treatment. All articles published from 1 January 1990 up to 19 February 2018 in MEDLINE of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and LILACS databases were searched. A total of 120 articles were selected for analysis, comprising 6419 patients treated with lamivudine (LAM), 5947 with entecavir (ETV), 3566 with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), 3096 with telbivudine (LdT), 1178 with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) and 876 with tenofovir alafenamide (TAF). The most common AEs in all NAs assessed were abdominal pain/discomfort, nasopharyngitis/upper respiratory tract infections, fatigue, and headache. TAF displays the highest density of AEs per patient treated among NAs (1.14 AE/treated patient). In conclusion, treatment of CHB with NAs is safe, with a low incidence of AEs. Despite the general understanding TAF being safer than TDF, the number of patients treated with TAF still is too small in comparison to other NAs to consolidate an accurate safety profile. PROSPERO Registration No. CRD42018086471.

2018 Korean Association for the Study of the Liver (KASL) Clinical Practice Guidelines of Chronic Hepatitis B: What's Different?

The clinical practice guideline for the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) was originally enacted in 2004 by the Korean Association for the Study of the Liver in order to provide medical practitioners with specific medical information regarding CHB to help them facilitate their understanding of the disease and treatment of the infected patients. Other than an update on the treatment of antiviral resistance in 2014, which is a partial revision, the guidelines for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B have been revised entirely three times in 2007, 2011, and 2015. Although several major international liver association have established and revised clinical practice guidelines, since the medical environment in each country is somewhat different depending on race, region, institution, and economic conditions, it is necessary to revise the Korean guidelines to that reflect our medical environment and own research results. In this review, major change and its background will be summarized about 2018 updated clinical practice guidelines for the management of CHB.

A 96-week randomized trial of switching to entecavir in patients who achieved virological suppression on lamivudine therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There are limited data assessing whether patients who achieved virological suppression on lamivudine but remain hepatitis B "e" antigen-positive should be switched to a more potent antiviral with a high genetic barrier to resistance or continue with lamivudine. We compared the safety and efficacy of switching with entecavir versus continuing lamivudine.

METHODS

This was a Phase IV, randomized, open-label, prospective study in a tertiary care setting. Seventy-three chronic hepatitis B patients who achieved virological suppression on lamivudine (serum hepatitis B virus DNA < 60 International Unit (IU)/mL) were enrolled. Entecavir or lamivudine were administered orally for up to 96 weeks. Virologic and serologic responses were measured throughout the study.

RESULTS

A significantly higher proportion of patients in the entecavir group achieved hepatitis B virus DNA < 60 IU/mL at Weeks 48 (100% [38/38] vs 62.8% [22/35]; P < 0.001) and 96 (97.4% [37/38] vs 57.1% [20/35]; P<0.001). A greater number of patients had virologic breakthrough (Week 96 cumulative incidence 42.9% vs 2.6%; P<0.001) and genotypic lamivudine resistance (28.6% [10/35] vs 0% [0/38]; P<0.001) in the lamivudine group. No serious adverse events or laboratory abnormalities were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Even after achieving virological suppression on lamivudine therapy, the risk of emergent lamivudine resistance increases over time. Switching to entecavir resulted in a maintained virologic response and superior serologic responses versus continued lamivudine therapy. This study supports a rationale for switching to entecavir in chronic hepatitis B patients with virological suppression on lamivudine.

A comparison of lamivudine vs entecavir for prophylaxis of hepatitis B virus reactivation in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients: a single-institutional experience

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of lamivudine vs entecavir in the prevention of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in HBV surface Ag (HBsAg)-positive patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). A total of 216 consecutive patients were enrolled and retrospectively reviewed. Of these patients, 119 received lamivudine and 97 received entecavir. The median treatment duration to complete virological response in patients with baseline HBV-DNA levels >10(5) copies/mL was 2.0 months in the entecavir group, significantly shorter than that of the lamivudine group. After a median follow-up of 24 months post transplantation, the cumulative incidence rates of HBV reactivation at 6, 12 and 24 months following transplantation were 3.0%, 7.0% and 24.0% in the lamivudine group, and 0%, 0% and 2.0% in the entecavir group, respectively. In addition, entecavir treatment was associated with lower cumulative incidence rates of severe hepatitis caused by HBV reactivation. Mutations leading to drug resistance were detected in 25 patients in the lamivudine group and in only one patient in the entecavir group. Our data indicate that compared with lamivudine, entecavir has more potent antiviral efficacy and may be a better choice for prophylaxis of HBV reactivation in HBsAg-positive allo-HSCT recipients.

The 104-week efficacy and safety of telbivudine-based optimization strategy in chronic hepatitis B patients: a randomized, controlled study

An optimization strategy based on the Roadmap concept is supposed to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with suboptimal antiviral response. The aim of this study was to prove the concept with a multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled study. In all, 606 hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive, nucleos(t)ide-naive chronic hepatitis B patients were randomized to the Optimize or Mono group. Patients in the Optimize group were treated with telbivudine for 24 weeks, after which those suboptimal responders with HBV DNA ≥300 copies/mL at week 24 received telbivudine plus adefovir until week 104, while the early virological responders continued telbivudine monotherapy. Patients in the Mono group received telbivudine monotherapy. All patients with telbivudine monotherapy had adefovir added if viral breakthrough developed. Sixty-eight percent (204/300) of patients in the Optimize group had adefovir added due to suboptimal response. At week 104, compared to the Mono group, more patients in the Optimize group achieved HBV DNA <300 copies/ml (76.7% versus 61.2%, P < 0.001) with less genotypic resistance (2.7% versus 25.8%, P < 0.001). The rates of HBeAg seroconversion and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization were comparable between the two groups (23.7% versus 22.1%; 80.7% versus 79.2%). For week 24 suboptimal responders, telbivudine plus adefovir showed an additive antiviral potency, with 71.1% achieving virological response at week 104 and only 0.5% developing genotypic resistance, compared with 46.6% who achieved virological response and 37.8% who developed genotypic resistance with telbivudine monotherapy. Both treatment regimens were well tolerated, with an observed persistent increase of the glomerular filtration rate.

CONCLUSION

For suboptimal virological responders to telbivudine at week 24, adjusting the treatment strategy is recommended. Adding adefovir can benefit these patients with additive antiviral potency and low resistance without increased side effects.

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.

Continuous long-term entecavir therapy in naïve chronic hepatitis B patients showing partial virologic response

Background/Aims

We investigated the efficacy of continuous long-term entecavir 0.5 mg treatment in naïve chronic hepatitis B patients showing a partial virologic response (PVR).

Methods

A total of 227 patients were included. PVR was defined as a more than 1 log₁₀ IU/mL decline in detectable serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR; ≥20 IU/mL) at week 48. A complete virologic response (CVR) was defined as undetectable serum HBV DNA by PCR (<20 IU/mL) at week 48.

Results

At week 48, the rate of the PVR was 64/227 (28.2%). Among patients with PVR, the cumulative rates of virologic response (serum HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) at weeks 96 and 144 were 45.2% and 73.8%, respectively. The cumulative rates of genotypic resistance were not significantly different between patients with a PVR and patients with a CVR (p=0.057). However, the cumulative rates of virologic breakthrough were higher in patients with PVR than in patients with CVR (4% vs 0% and 11.2% vs 0% at weeks 96 and 144, respectively; p<0.001).

Conclusions

Long-term continuous entecavir 0.5 mg treatment in patients with a PVR resulted in an additional virologic response without a significant increase in genotypic resistance. However, the rate of virologic breakthrough was higher in the partial responders.

Long-term outcome of hepatitis B virus-related Chronic Hepatitis under protracted nucleos(t)ide analogues

Long-term outcome of patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection under continuous nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUCs) has been poorly elucidated. We enrolled 121 anti-HBe-positive patients into a prospective surveillance programme while on (>36 months) NUCs therapy. HBV-DNA clearance, add-on therapy and safety were evaluated. Development of cirrhosis, events of liver decompensation and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) during the follow-up were the main endpoints, as the complication-free survival. At baseline, 74 patients (61%) had chronic hepatitis, the remainders a cirrhotic liver. HBV-DNA levels >38 000 IU/mL were discovered in 103 patients. At enrolment, 79 patients were naïve to NUCs treatment. Lamivudine monotherapy (n = 70) or a different NUC (n = 51) was administered. At month 6 of therapy, HBV-DNA clearance was documented in 88 patients (73%). Treatment schedule was modified in 52 patients due to breakthrough or suboptimal response. During a mean follow-up of 6 ± 3 years, viral clearance was achieved in the majority of patients. Ten of 74 patients (13.5%) with chronic hepatitis progressed to cirrhosis, 1 patient developed a HCC. In the 47 patients with cirrhosis at presentation, HCC occurred in 14 (30%) and liver decompensation in 5 (11%). The 5 and 10-year event-free survivals were, respectively, 89.3% (95% CI, 81.7 -96.9) and 75.6% (95% CI, 61.5 -89.7) for patients with chronic hepatitis, and 70.2% (95% CI, 56.3 -84.1) and 40.4% (95% CI, 16.9 -63.9) for those with cirrhosis. Protracted, effective treatment with oral NUCs affects the natural history of chronic HBV infection by reducing the incidence of cirrhosis and risk of complications, but does not guarantee against the development of HCC in cirrhosis at presentation.

A novel estimation of the relative economic value in terms of different chronic hepatitis B treatment options

Background

Prescribers, payors and healthcare decision-makers are increasingly examining the value of treatments. This study aims at analyzing economic value of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treatment options, which are available in Korea.

Methods

CHB infection was simulated using a health-state transition model with disease states defined as mild disease (Ishak F0/F1), fibrosis (F2/F3/F4), advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis (>F4), and complicated disease states (decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplant and death) based on available natural history data. The value of treatment-specific attributes on disease progression/regression was estimated based on published data in terms of events and costs avoided. 5-year treatment duration was assumed except for treatment initiation. Primary model output is the estimated cost savings of entecavir per patient per day of treatment versus the comparator in question for a given CHB patient.

Results

The simulation of treating with entecavir versus no treatment predicted improved clinical outcomes for entecavir-treatment patients. In the long term, these clinical benefits translate into cost savings of $3.10 per day of treatment. In naive patient treatment, daily cost savings of using entecavir versus lamivudine or telbivudine was estimated at $2.89 and $1.72, respectively. In the case of suboptimal responders who pre-treated with lamivudine, daily cost saving for patients switching to entecavir was $1.38 per day of treatment compared to patients maintaining on lamivudine.

Conclusions

Entecavir exhibits characteristics of a favourable CHB treatment, which directly translates into economic and therapeutic value as opposed to either no treatment or alternative strategies.