Treatment with lamivudine and entecavir in severe acute hepatitis B

Successful results of early nucleos(t)ide analogue treatment for liver transplantation candidates with severe acute hepatitis B infection

BACKGROUND

Early treatment of severe acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection with nucleos(t)ide analogues may prevent progression to acute liver failure (ALF).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The charts of 24 patients who were treated for severe acute HBV infection (either INR ≥ 1.5 or INR≥ 1.4 and total bilirubin ≥ 20 mg/dL at the referring institution or after admission) between April 2021 and May 2023 (inclusive) were evaluated retrospectively. Twelve patients were women; median [range] age: 48 [35-68]. Entecavir (0.5 mg/day) (n = 16) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (245 mg/day) (n =8) were used depending on availability.

RESULTS

Two patients required liver transplant which was performed successfully in one (no suitable donor for the other). Deterioration to ALF was prevented in 22 of the 24 cases (92%); these patients could be discharged after median (range) 12 (5-24) days following initiation of the antiviral drug. There was no significant difference in efficacy between the two antiviral agents. The anti-HBsAg antibody became positive in 16 patients (73%); one other patient became HBsAg negative at 1 month after discharge but was lost to follow up. Five patients (23%) are still HBsAg positive but all except one have started treatment in the last 6 months. One of the recently treated 4 patients stopped taking the antiviral drug at his own will and one has become anti-HIV antibody positive during follow up.

CONCLUSION

Early treatment of severe acute HBV infection with entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate prevents the need for liver transplant and consideration of living donors.

Lamivudine and Entecavir for Acute Hepatitis B: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Acute hepatitis B infection is associated with severe liver disease and chronic sequelae in some cases. The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of nucleoside analogues (NA) (lamivudine versus entecavir) compared to placebo or no intervention for treating acute primary HBV infection.

METHODS

A meta-analysis for drug intervention was performed, following a fixed-effect model. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies that evaluated the outcomes of NA in acute hepatitis B infection were included. The following outcomes were considered: virological cure (PCR negative), elimination of acute infection (seroconversion of HBsAg), mortality, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Five trials with 627 adult participants with severe acute hepatitis B defined by biochemical and serologic parameters were included. Virological cure did not favor any intervention: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.7 (p = 0.90), I2 = 58%. Seroconversion of HBsAg to negative favored placebo/standard-of-care compared to lamivudine: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.9 (p = 0.02), I2 = 31%. The only trial that compared entecavir and lamivudine favored entecavir over lamivudine (OR: 3.64, 95% CI 1.31-10.13; 90 participants). Adverse events were mild.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence that NA obtain superior efficacy compared with placebo/standard-of-care in patients with acute viral hepatitis, based on low quality evidence.

Treatment and Prevention of Acute Hepatitis B Virus

This article reviews the incidence of acute hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, its clinical course, strategies to prevent acute HBV infection in susceptible individuals, and the management of patients with acute HBV.

Asociación Mexicana de Hepatología A.C. Clinical guideline on hepatitis B

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection continues to be a worldwide public health problem. In Mexico, at least three million adults are estimated to have acquired hepatitis B (total hepatitis B core antibody [anti-HBc]-positive), and of those, 300,000 active carriers (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]-positive) could require treatment. Because HBV is preventable through vaccination, its universal application should be emphasized. HBV infection is a major risk factor for developing hepatocellular carcinoma. Semi-annual liver ultrasound and serum alpha-fetoprotein testing favor early detection of that cancer and should be carried out in all patients with chronic HBV infection, regardless of the presence of advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Currently, nucleoside/nucleotide analogues that have a high barrier to resistance are the first-line therapies.

Asociación Mexicana de Hepatología A.C. Clinical guideline on hepatitis B

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection continues to be a worldwide public health problem. In Mexico, at least three million adults are estimated to have acquired hepatitis B (total hepatitis B core antibody [anti-HBc]-positive), and of those, 300,000 active carriers (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]-positive) could require treatment. Because HBV is preventable through vaccination, its universal application should be emphasized. HBV infection is a major risk factor for developing hepatocellular carcinoma. Semi-annual liver ultrasound and serum alpha-fetoprotein testing favor early detection of that cancer and should be carried out in all patients with chronic HBV infection, regardless of the presence of advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Currently, nucleoside/nucleotide analogues that have a high barrier to resistance are the first-line therapies.

Safety of treating acute liver injury and failure

INTRODUCTION

Acute liver injury and progression to acute liver failure can be life-threatening conditions that require prompt careful clinical assessment and therapeutic management.

AREAS COVERED

The aim of this article is to review the safety and side effect profile of pharmacological therapies used in the treatment of acute liver injury with specific focus on hepatic toxicity. We performed an extensive literature search with the terms 'acute liver injury,' 'acute liver failure,' 'therapy,' 'safety,' 'adverse reactions' and 'drug induced liver injury.' A thorough discussion of the main drugs and devices used in patients with acute liver injury and acute liver failure, its safety profile and the management of complications associated to therapy of these conditions is presented.

EXPERT OPINION

Several pharmacological approaches are used in acute liver injury and acute liver failure in an empirical basis. Whilst steroids are frequently tried in serious drug-induced liver injury there is concern on a potential harmful effect of these agents because of the higher mortality in patients receiving the drug; hence, statistical approaches such as propensity score matching might help resolve this clinical dilemma. Likewise, properly designed clinical trials using old and new drugs for subjects with serious drug-induced liver injury are clearly needed.

Effects of dual plasma molecular adsorption system on liver function, electrolytes, inflammation, and immunity in patients with chronic severe hepatitis

Background

To investigate the effects of dual plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS) on the liver function, electrolytes, inflammation, and immunity in patients with chronic severe hepatitis (CSH).

Methods

Total of 162 patients with CSH treated in our hospital from March 2016 to December 2018 were enrolled and equally randomly divided into control group (n = 81) and observation group (n = 81). The patients in control group were treated with plasma exchange, while those in observation group were additionally treated with DPMAS based on the treatment in control group. The liver function, electrolytes, inflammation, and immunity were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

Results

After treatment, the liver function indexes in observation group were significantly favorable compared with those in control group, with the reduction in TBIL, DBIL, ALT, and rise of CHE levels (P < 0.05). The levels of K⁺, Na⁺, Cl⁻, and Ca²⁺ in both groups were significantly improved after treatment (P < 0.05), although there were no significant differences between the two groups (P > 0.05). The levels of C‐reactive protein (CRP), interleukin‐6 (IL‐6), and tumor necrosis factor‐α (TNF‐α) in both groups declined after treatment compared with those before treatment, and those levels in observation group were higher than that in control group (P < 0.05). After treatment, the levels of cluster of differentiation 3⁺ (CD3⁺), CD4⁺, and CD4⁺/CD8⁺ were higher in observation group than those in control group, with decreasing level of CD8⁺ (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Dual plasma molecular adsorption system can effectively improve the liver function, effectively correct the electrolyte disorders, reduce the inflammatory response, and adjust the immunity in patients with CSH.

EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a global public health problem with changing epidemiology due to several factors including vaccination policies and migration. This Clinical Practice Guideline presents updated recommendations for the optimal management of HBV infection. Chronic HBV infection can be classified into five phases: (I) HBeAg-positive chronic infection, (II) HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis, (III) HBeAg-negative chronic infection, (IV) HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis and (V) HBsAg-negative phase. All patients with chronic HBV infection are at increased risk of progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), depending on host and viral factors. The main goal of therapy is to improve survival and quality of life by preventing disease progression, and consequently HCC development. The induction of long-term suppression of HBV replication represents the main endpoint of current treatment strategies, while HBsAg loss is an optimal endpoint. The typical indication for treatment requires HBV DNA >2,000IU/ml, elevated ALT and/or at least moderate histological lesions, while all cirrhotic patients with detectable HBV DNA should be treated. Additional indications include the prevention of mother to child transmission in pregnant women with high viremia and prevention of HBV reactivation in patients requiring immunosuppression or chemotherapy. The long-term administration of a potent nucleos(t)ide analogue with high barrier to resistance, i.e., entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil or tenofovir alafenamide, represents the treatment of choice. Pegylated interferon-alfa treatment can also be considered in mild to moderate chronic hepatitis B patients. Combination therapies are not generally recommended. All patients should be monitored for risk of disease progression and HCC. Treated patients should be monitored for therapy response and adherence. HCC remains the major concern for treated chronic hepatitis B patients. Several subgroups of patients with HBV infection require specific focus. Future treatment strategies to achieve 'cure' of disease and new biomarkers are discussed.

Pharmacological interventions for acute hepatitis B infection: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) can be symptomatic or asymptomatic. Apart from chronic HBV infection, the complications related to acute HBV infection are severe acute viral hepatitis and fulminant hepatitis characterised by liver failure. The optimal pharmacological treatment of acute HBV infection remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions in the treatment of acute HBV infection through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available treatments according to their safety and efficacy. As it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and instead, assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions using standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials (RCTs) registers to August 2016 to identify RCTs on pharmacological interventions for acute HBV infection.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status in participants with acute HBV infection. We excluded trials if participants had previously undergone liver transplantation and had other coexisting viral diseases such as hepatitis C virus and HIV. We considered any of the various pharmacological interventions compared with each other or with placebo, or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed risk of bias, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven trials (597 participants) met our review inclusion criteria. All trials provided information for one or more outcomes; however, five participants were excluded from analysis by study authors. All the trials were at high risk of bias. Overall, all the evidence was low or very low quality evidence because of risk of bias (downgraded one level for risk of bias), small sample size (downgraded one level for imprecision), and wide CIs (downgraded one more level for imprecision in some comparisons). Of the seven trials, six were two-armed trials, while one trial was a three-armed trial. The comparisons included hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) versus placebo (one trial; 55 participants); interferon versus placebo (two trials; 200 participants); lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (four trials; 316 participants); lamivudine versus entecavir (one trial; 90 participants); and entecavir versus no intervention (one trial; 131 participants). One trial included only people with acute HBV with hepatic encephalopathy (i.e. people with fulminant liver failure); one trial included only people with severe acute HBV, but it did not state whether any of the people also had fulminant HBV infection; three trials excluded fulminant HBV infection; and two trials did not report the severity of acute HBV infection. The mean or median follow-up period in the trials ranged from three to 12 months in the trials that provided this information.There was no evidence of any differences in short-term mortality (less than one year) in any of the comparisons: HBIG versus placebo (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.54; participants = 55; 1 trial), lamivudine versus placebo or no intervention (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.33 to 4.99; participants = 250; 2 trials); lamivudine versus entecavir (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 11.65; participants = 90; 1 trial), or entecavir versus no intervention (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.12 to 9.47; participants = 131; 1 trial). The proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection was higher in the lamivudine group than the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.77; participants = 285; 3 trials) and in the lamivudine group versus entecavir group (OR 3.64, 95% CI 1.31 to 10.13; participants = 90; 1 trial). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people who progressed to chronic HBV infection between the entecavir and the no intervention groups (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.49; participants = 131; 1 trial). None of the trials reported progression to fulminant HBV infection. Three trials with 371 participants reported serious adverse events. There were no serious adverse events in any of the groups (no intervention: 0/183 (0%), interferon: 0/67 (0%), lamivudine: 0/100 (0%), and entecavir: 0/21 (0%)). The proportion of people with adverse events was higher in the interferon group than the placebo group (OR 348.16, 95% CI 45.39 to 2670.26; participants = 200; 2 trials). There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of people with adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (OR 1.42, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.94; participants = 35; 1 trial) or number of adverse events between the lamivudine group and the placebo or no intervention group (rate ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.91; participants = 35; 1 trial). One trial with 100 participants reported quality of life at one week. The scale used to report the health-related quality of life was not stated and lacked information on whether higher score meant better or worse, making it difficult to interpret the results. None of the trials reported quality of life beyond one week or other clinical outcomes such as mortality beyond one year, liver transplantation, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, or hepatocellular carcinoma.Two trials received funding from pharmaceutical companies; three trials were funded by parties without any vested interest in the results or did not receive any special funding; the source of funding was not available in the remaining two trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low or very low quality evidence suggests that progression to chronic HBV infection was higher in people receiving lamivudine compared with placebo, no intervention, or entecavir. Low quality evidence suggests that interferon may increase the adverse events after treatment for acute HBV infection. Based on a very low quality evidence, there is currently no evidence of benefit of any intervention in acute HBV infection. There is significant uncertainty in the results and further RCTs are required.