Severe lactic acidosis during treatment of chronic hepatitis B with entecavir in patients with impaired liver function

Entecavir vs. lamivudine in chronic hepatitis B patients with severe acute exacerbation and hepatic decompensation

BACKGROUND & AIMS

We compared the mortality and treatment response between lamivudine (LAM) and entecavir (ETV) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with severe acute exacerbation and hepatic decompensation.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2010 (the LAM group) and 2008 to 2010 (the ETV group), 215 and 107 consecutive CHB naïve patients with severe acute exacerbation and hepatic decompensation treated with LAM and ETV respectively, were recruited.

RESULTS

At baseline, the LAM group had higher AST levels and end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores, and lower albumin levels than the ETV group. Univariate analysis showed that the LAM group had a higher rate of overall (p=0.02) and liver-related mortality (p=0.052) at week 24 than the ETV group, including in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. Multivariate analysis showed that MELD scores, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy were independent factors for overall and liver-related mortality at week 24. ETV or LAM treatment was not an independent factor for mortality in all patients or patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure. The best cut-off value of MELD scores were 24 for 24-week liver-related mortality. The ETV group achieved better virological response (HBV DNA <300 copies/ml) than the LAM group at week 24 (p=0.043) and 48 (p=0.007). The T1753C/A mutation was also an independent predictor associated with overall and liver-related mortality at week 24.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice between ETV and LAM was not an independent factor for mortality in CHB patients with acute exacerbation and hepatic decompensation. Patients with ascites, hepatic encephalopathy, and MELD scores ⩾24 were associated with poor outcome and should be considered for liver transplantation.

Chronic hepatitis B: Advances in treatment

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) has markedly improved in the last 15 years due to the availability of direct antivirals which greatly increase therapeutic options. Currently, there are two classes of agents licensed for CHB treatment: standard or pegylated interferon alpha (IFN or Peg-IFN) and five nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NAs). Long-term treatment with NAs is the treatment option most often used in the majority of CHB patients. Entecavir and tenofovir, the most potent NAs with high barrier to resistance, are recommended as first-line monotherapy by all major treatment guidelines and can lead to long-lasting virological suppression, resulting in histological improvement or reversal of advanced fibrosis and reduction in disease progression and liver-related complications. In this review, we focus on current treatment strategies of chronic hepatitis B and discuss the most recent efficacy and safety data from clinical trials and real life clinical practice. Recent findings of response-guided approaches are also discussed.

Entecavir vs lamivudine therapy for naïve patients with spontaneous reactivation of hepatitis B presenting as acute-on-chronic liver failure

AIM: To investigate the short-term and long-term efficacy of entecavir versus lamivudine in patients with spontaneous reactivation of hepatitis B presenting as acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF).

METHODS: This was a single center, prospective cohort study. Eligible, consecutive hospitalized patients received either entecavir 0.5 mg/d or lamivudine 100 mg/d. All patients were given standard comprehensive internal medicine. The primary endpoint was survival rate at day 60, and secondary endpoints were reduction in hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, and improvement in Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores at day 60 and survival rate at week 52.

RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen eligible subjects were recruited from 176 patients with severe acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B: 65 were included in the entecavir group and 54 in the lamivudine group (full analysis set). No significant differences were found in patient baseline clinical parameters. At day 60, entecavir did not improve the probability of survival (P = 0.066), despite resulting in faster virological suppression (P < 0.001), higher rates of virological response (P < 0.05) and greater reductions in the CTP and MELD scores (all P < 0.05) than lamivudine. Intriguingly, at week 52, the probability of survival was higher in the entecavir group than in the lamivudine group [42/65 (64.6%) vs 26/54 (48.1%), respectively; P = 0.038]. The pretreatment MELD score (B, 1.357; 95%Cl: 2.138-7.062; P = 0.000) and virological response at day 30 (B, 1.556; 95%Cl: 1.811-12.411; P =0.002), were found to be good predictors for 52-wk survival.

CONCLUSION: Entecavir significantly reduced HBV DNA levels, decreased the CTP and MELD scores, and thereby improved the long-term survival rate in patients with spontaneous reactivation of hepatitis B presenting as ACLF.

Extrahepatic effects of nucleoside and nucleotide analogues in chronic hepatitis B treatment

Oral nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NAs) are the mainstay of therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis B and are generally well tolerated. Despite this, the safety profile of NAs is of paramount importance since the majority of patients will require long-term treatment. All NAs can potentially affect human DNA polymerase with decrease in mitochondrial DNA, leading to manifestations of mitochondrial toxicity. As a class effect, therefore, NAs can potentially cause extrahepatic conditions, such as myopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy, and lactic acidosis. Indeed, effects on muscles, including myopathy and creatine kinase elevations, have been described with clevudine and telbivudine use. Both adefovir and tenofovir are associated with dose-dependent nephropathy, predominantly affecting the proximal renal tubules. Neuropathy appears to be rare, and most commonly reported in patients receiving combination therapy with telbivudine and interferon. Increased risk of lactic acidosis has also been described for those with impaired liver and renal function taking entecavir. Loss of bone mineral density and hypophosphatemia have been described with the use of NAs, although the overwhelming studies have been with human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. However, not all extrahepatic effects are detrimental. Recent evidence has suggested a potential renal beneficial effect with the use of telbivudine. The effect of NAs on pregnancy appears to be minimal for all NAs, with telbivudine and tenofovir having a more favorable category B rating. Ongoing pharmacovigilance is essential to identify new and monitor existing extrahepatic effects associated with NA use.

Prognostic performance of a series of model for end-stage liver disease and respective Δ scores in patients with hepatitis B acute-on-chronic liver failure

The present study aimed to compare the short-term prognostic performance of a series of model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and respective delta (Δ) scores scoring systems in a population with acute-on-chronic hepatitis B liver failure (ACHBLF), and to investigate the potential effects from antivirals. A total of 77 patients with ACHBLF of mean age 46 years, 82% male, with 58.4% receiving antivirals, were recruited for this study. The Δ scores for MELDs were defined as the changes one week after admission. Thirty-eight (49%) patients (22 treated with antivirals) died within three months. The mean MELD and ΔMELD scores of the survival group were 19.5±4.4 and 0.2±3.7 respectively, and those of the mortality group were 23.5±5.5 and 7.9±6, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for MELD, integrated MELD (iMELD), MELD with the addition of serum sodium (MELD-Na), updated MELD (upMELD), MELD excluding the international normalized ratio (INR; MELD-XI), United Kingdom MELD (UKMELD) and their Δ scores were 0.72, 0.81, 0.77, 0.69, 0.65, 0.77 and 0.86, 0.83, 0.83, 0.82, 0.79 and 0.79, respectively. iMELD and MELD-Na significantly improved the accuracy of MELD (P<0.05). A cut-off value of 41.5 for the iMELD score can prognose 71% of mortalities with a specificity of 85%. In each pair of models, the Δ score was superior to its counterpart, particularly when applied to patients with MELD ≤30. Decreased accuracy was observed for all models in the subset of patients treated with antivirals, although their baseline characteristics were comparable to those of untreated patients, while iMELD, MELD-Na and respective Δ models remained superior with regard to the predictability. The iMELD and MELD-Na models predicted three-month mortality more accurately, while the Δ models were superior to their counterparts when MELD ≤30; however, their performance was altered by antivirals, and thus requires optimization.

HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B: why do I treat my patients with nucleos(t)ide analogues?

The aim of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) antiviral therapy is to persistently suppress HBV and improve survival by preventing the progression of liver damage to cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), thus preventing early liver-related death. In HBeAg-negative patients who do not or will not respond to or be treated with pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN), the administration of third generation nucleot(s)ide analogues (NAs), i.e., entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), is the treatment of choice. Long-term administration of ETV or TDF suppresses HBV replication in >95% of patients after 5 years of treatment with high rates of biochemical normalization, regression of fibrosis and cirrhosis at histology as well as preventing clinical decompensation but not HCC, in compensated cirrhosis and improving survival. No major safety issues have been recorded with either drug. The need for long-term, perhaps indefinite, treatment is the main limitation of NA therapy with possible associated costs, unknown long-term safety and the low rates of HBsAg seroclearance. The latter is important since HBsAg seroclearance is still the best stopping rule for HBeAg-negative NA-treated patients, including those with cirrhosis. For this reason new trials based upon a combination of PEG-IFN and third generation NAs in both naïve and NA-responder HBeAg-negative patients are ongoing.

Management of hepatitis B: our practice and how it relates to the guidelines

Seven drugs have been approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Antiviral treatment has been shown to be effective in suppressing hepatitis B virus replication, decreasing inflammation and fibrosis in the liver, and preventing progression of liver disease. However, current medications do not eradicate hepatitis B virus; therefore, a key question is which patients need to start treatment and which patients can be monitored. Professional societies have developed guidelines to assist physicians in recognition, diagnosis, and optimal management of patients with chronic hepatitis B. These guidelines suggest preferred approaches, and physicians are expected to exercise clinical judgment to determine the most appropriate management based on the circumstances of the individual patient. This article reviews recommendations in hepatitis B guidelines and the basis for those recommendations, and we discuss what we do in our practice to illustrate factors that may influence decisions regarding hepatitis B management.

Review of the pharmacological management of hepatitis B viral infection before and after liver transplantation

The progress in treatment against hepatitis B virus (HBV) with the development of effective and well tolerated nucleotide analogues (NAs) has improved the outcome of patients with HBV decompensated cirrhosis and has prevented post-transplant HBV recurrence. This review summarizes updated issues related to the management of patients with HBV infection before and after liver transplantation (LT). A literature search using the PubMed/Medline databases and consensus documents was performed. Pre-transplant therapy has been initially based on lamivudine, but entecavir and tenofovir represent the currently recommended first-line NAs for the treatment of patients with HBV decompensated cirrhosis. After LT, the combination of HBV immunoglobulin (HBIG) and NA is considered as the standard of care for prophylaxis against HBV recurrence. The combination of HBIG and lamivudine is related to higher rates of HBV recurrence, compared to the HBIG and entecavir or tenofovir combination. In HBIG-free prophylactic regimens, entecavir and tenofovir should be the first-line options. The choice of treatment for HBV recurrence depends on prior prophylactic therapy, but entecavir and tenofovir seem to be the most attractive options. Finally, liver grafts from hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive donors can be safely used in hepatitis B surface antigen negative, preferentially anti-HBc/anti-hepatitis B surface antibody positive recipients.

Nucleoside analogs prevent disease progression in HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: validation of the TPPM model

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of entecavir, lamivudine and telbivudine for treating patients with HBV-ACLF and to validate the Tongji prognostic predictor model (TPPM) in these patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we enrolled 283 patients with HBV-ACLF (100 treated with entecavir, 98 treated with lamivudine and 85 treated with telbivudine). There were no significant differences in baseline clinical and virological characteristics among patients treated with entecavir, telbivudine or lamivudine.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the 4- and 12-week survival rates of entecavir-, telbivudine- and lamivudine-treated patients (79.00, 81.18 and 86.73 %, respectively, at 4 weeks; 67.00, 65.88 and 73.47 %, respectively, at 12 weeks). Patients in all three groups achieved an improvement in the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. Using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, the validation of the TPPM score for HBV-ACLF demonstrated a good degree of fit with disease prognosis. Based on this unique group of patients, the TPPM score with an AUC of 0.787 was superior to the MELD score, which had an AUC of 0.736 in the prediction of 12-week mortality. The TPPM had an AUC of 0.733, and the MELD score had an AUC of 0.672 in the prediction of 4-week mortality. Using a cutoff value of 0.22 for 12-week mortality prediction by the TPPM, the positive predictive value was 49.66 %, with a negative predictive value of 89.55 %.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with nucleoside analogs including entecavir, lamivudine and telbivudine prevented disease progression and increased the survival of patients with HBV-ACLF. Validation of the established TPPM scoring system in this study confirmed its superior predictive value for HBV-ACLF patients when compared with the MELD system.

Efficacy and safety of entecavir treatment in a heterogeneous CHB population from a ‘real-world’ clinical practice setting in China

Chronic hepatitis B infection is an important cause of liver-related mortality in China. This study assessed the efficacy and safety of entecavir in a heterogeneous patient population from a ‘real-world’ clinical practice setting in China. This prospective, observational cohort provides 48-week data on 2600 patients from 50 sites in China who received entecavir (0.5 or 1.0 mg) and were assessed for virologic, serologic and biochemical responses. Patients were nucleos(t)ide-na€ıve or -experienced and had compensated or decompensated liver function. At Week 48, 1545/2424 (64%) patients with compensated liver disease and 30/44 (68%) patients with decompensated liver disease achieved HBV DNA<50 IU/mL. Greater proportions of nucleos(t)ide-na€ıve than nucleos(t)ide-experienced (69% vs 53%), and adefovir-experienced than lamivudine/ telbivudine-experienced (62% vs 52%) patients achieved this endpoint. Most patients with HBV DNA<50 IU/mL also achieved HBV DNA<12 IU/L (60%, 45% and 61% of nucleos(t)ide-na€ıve, nucleos(t)ide-experienced and decompensated patients, respectively). In patients with compensated liver disease, ALT values normalized in 1532/1792 patients (85%), and HBeAg loss and HBeAg seroconversion were observed in 17% and 15% of treatment-na€ıve and 15% and 11% of treatment-experienced patients. Entecavir was generally well tolerated. Adverse event rates were comparable between treatment-na€ıve and treatment-experienced patients with compensated liver disease, but were higher in decompensated than in compensated patients, consistent with previous reports in these patients with more advanced disease. Four patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. In a ‘real-world’ setting, entecavir was efficacious and well tolerated throughout 48 weeks in a heterogeneous Chinese CHB population.

De novo combined lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil therapy vs entecavir monotherapy for hepatitis B virus-related decompensated cirrhosis

AIM: To compare efficacy of combined lamivudine (LAM) and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) therapy with that of entecavir (ETV) monotherapy for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related decompensated liver cirrhosis.

METHODS: A total of 120 naïve patients with HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis participated in this study. Sixty patients were treated with combined LAM and ADV therapy (LAM + ADV group), while the other 60 were treated with ETV monotherapy (ETV group) for two years. Tests for liver and kidney function, alpha-fetoprotein, HBV serum markers, HBV DNA load, prothrombin time (PT), and ultrasonography or computed tomography scan of the liver were performed every 1 to 3 mo. Repeated measure ANOVA and the χ² test were performed to compare the efficacy, side effects, and the cumulative survival rates at 48 and 96 wk.

RESULTS: Forty-five patients in each group were observed for 96 wk. No significant differences in HBV DNA negative rates and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization rates at weeks 48 (χ² = 2.12 and 2.88) and 96 (χ² = 3.21 and 3.24) between the two groups were observed. Hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion rate in the LAM + ADV group at week 96 was significantly higher in the ETV group (43.5% vs 36.4%, χ² = 4.09, P < 0.05). Viral breakthrough occurred in 2 cases (4.4%) by week 48 and in 3 cases (6.7%) by week 96 in the LAM + ADV group, and no viral mutation was detected. In the ETV group, viral breakthrough occurred in 1 case (2.2%) at the end of week 96. An increase in albumin (F = 18.9 and 17.3), decrease in total bilirubin and in ALT (F = 16.5, 17.1 and 23.7, 24.8), reduced PT (F = 22.7 and 24.5), and improved Child-Turcotte-Pugh and the model for end-stage liver disease scores (F = 18.5, 17.8, and 24.2, 23.8) were observed in both groups. The cumulative rates of mortality and liver transplantation were 16.7% (10/60) and 18.3% (11/60) in the LAM + ADV and ETV groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Both LAM + ADV combination therapy and ETV monotherapy can effectively inhibit HBV replication, improve liver function, and decrease mortality.

Efficacy of lamivudine combined with adefovir dipivoxil versus entecavir monotherapy in patients with hepatitis B-associated decompensated cirrhosis: A meta-analysis

Whether the combination of lamivudine (LAM) plus adefovir (ADV) de novo is more effective than entecavir (ETV) monotherapy in patients with HBV-associated decompensated cirrhosis is still controversial. We searched seven randomized controlled trials that included 411 patients in this meta-analysis. There are 205 and 206 patients in these two groups separately. The pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used to assess the treatment effects. ETV monotherapy significantly improved Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) scores (MD = 0.33, 95%CI [0.21-0.44], P < .00001), and was associated with lower rates of serum creatinine increase compared LAM + ADV combination therapy (RR = 4.76, 95%CI [1.11-20.33], P = .04) at 48 weeks. The reduction of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, HBV DNA levels, the rate of ALT normalization, undetectable HBV DNA, HBV e antigen (HBeAg) loss, HBeAg seroconversion and mortality were similar between the two groups. ETV is more effective than LAM + ADV in improving CTP scores at 48 weeks. Both of the LAM + ADV and ETV had similar efficacy in improving virological and biochemical parameters at 48 weeks of follow-up. Furthermore, use of these agents in decompensated HBV patients was generally safe and well tolerated at 48 weeks. However, the nephrotoxicity of ADV, and the potential adverse effects of ETV should be considered and monitored during prolonged therapy.

HIV/HBV coinfection in children and antiviral therapy

Small cohort studies from countries where both HIV and HBV are endemic demonstrate prevalence rates of chronic hepatitis B in HIV-infected children of between 1 and 49%. While data on coinfected children are limited, results from studies in adults with HIV/HBV coinfection raise the concern that coinfected children may be at a higher risk of liver disease, hepatic fibrosis and cirrhosis. With the scale-up of combination antiretroviral therapy worldwide, of which lamivudine is included in most first-line regimens, coinfected children treated with lamivudine risk development of HBV resistance mutations. This article summarizes the current literature relevant to HIV/HBV coinfection in children, the options for treatment and highlights priorities for future research.

Treatment of patients with HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis and liver transplanted patients

Antiviral therapy using newer nucleos(t)ide analogs with lower resistance rates could suppress hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication, improve liver function in patients with compensated or decompensated cirrhosis, delay or obviate liver transplantation in some patients, and reduce the risk of HBV recurrence. Some form of HBV prophylaxis needs to be continued indefinitely posttransplant. However, in patients with a low-risk of HBV recurrence it is possible to discontinue hepatitis B immunoglobulins and maintain long-term nucleos(t)ide analog therapy. Currently, treatment of posttransplantation hepatitis B is a less important clinical problem than it was historically because effective antiviral therapies exist to rescue patients who failed initial prophylaxis.

Long-term therapy for chronic hepatitis B: hepatitis B virus DNA suppression leading to cirrhosis reversal

Since the licensing of the first treatment for chronic hepatitis B in the nucleoside/tide analog class almost 15 years ago, considerable progress has been made in improving drug efficacy and safety with highly potent nucleoside/tide analogs exhibiting a high barrier to resistance. Physicians are now able to treat patients safely for many years and to be able to see convincing improvements in histology, including regression of fibrosis and even reversal of cirrhosis. The robust data that have been generated help us build confidence that we can now offer patients with chronic hepatitis B long-term, disease-modifying therapy that can alter the natural course of disease and help prevent the morbidity and mortality associated with it.

Entecavir plus matrine vs entecavir monotherapy for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B: A Meta-analysis

AIM: To compare the efficacy of entecavir-matrine combination therapy versus entecavir monotherapy in the management of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B in China.

METHODS: A computer-based search of relevant randomized controlled trials was performed. The pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) of outcome indicators were used to measure the magnitude of the efficacy. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan 5.2 software.

RESULTS: Ten trials including 765 patients were identified. The combination therapy was remarkably more effective than monotherapy at the end of the treatment in terms of rates of HBV-DNA negative conversion (81.3% vs 66.5%, OR = 2.49, 95%CI: 1.70-3.66), HBeAg loss (52.3% vs 26.5%, OR = 3.27, 95%CI: 2.23-4.80), ALT normalization (88.4% vs 68.0%, OR = 3.62, 95%CI: 2.43-5.39) and HBeAg seroconversion (45.3% vs 23.2%, OR = 2.98, 95%CI: 2.00-4.44).

CONCLUSION: Entecavir-matrine combination therapy achieves superior efficacy with no increase in adverse effects as compared with entecavir monotherapy in the management of HBeAg-positive hepatitis B.

Entecavir for the treatment of patients with hepatitis B virus-related decompensated cirrhosis

INTRODUCTION

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection is common and carries a significant risk for the development of cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The goal of treatment in patients with CHB-related decompensated cirrhosis is to improve hepatic dysfunction and reduce mortality through the inhibition of viral replication. Several studies have now shown nucleot(s)ide analogs to be safe and effective in decompensated cirrhosis due to CHB.

AREAS COVERED

A review of the evidence for the use of entecavir in the treatment of decompensated hepatitis B cirrhosis is discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Entecavir is an effective treatment option for most patients with CHB. In treatment naïve patients, it is a potent antiviral agent with a very low resistance rate, making it an excellent option for the treatment of decompensated hepatitis B cirrhosis. The use of entecavir monotherapy in patients with a known rtM204V lamivudine-resistant mutation should be avoided due to increased risk of developing entecavir resistance and failing treatment.

Treatment of HBV related cirrhosis

Until very recently, hepatitis B virus (HBV)-associated cirrhosis was often regarded as an irreversible condition. It is associated with strongly increased mortality and a high risk of the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Indeed, the incidence of HCC per 100 person years was shown to be 2-3.7 in patients with cirrhosis compared with only 0.3-0.6 in patients with active hepatitis B without cirrhosis and 0.02-0.2 in asymptomatic carriers. Liver transplantation was considered to be the only medical intervention, which could resolve this condition and which could improve the general condition of these patients. However, it is now becoming increasingly evident that long-term suppression of viral replication allows the regenerative potential of the liver to reverse even high grade liver fibrosis. For the management of HBV-related cirrhosis, it is therefore important to provide effective treatment and to identify and avoid risk factors for the development of cirrhosis and hepatic decompensation.

Management of acute hepatitis B and reactivation of hepatitis B

The natural course of hepatitis B virus infection and the resulting hepatic injury is determined by the degree of virus replication and the intensity of host immune response. Upon exposure to hepatitis B virus (HBV), individuals with a vigorous and broad immune response develop acute self-limited infection, which may result in acute hepatitis. However, with stringent testing for HBV and universal precautions, acute HBV is rather rare. Reactivation of HBV most often presents as acute hepatitis B (AVH-B) and clinically, it is difficult to differentiate AVH-B from reactivation of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and it requires a high index of suspicion. In the presence of high HBV DNA (>2 × 10(4) IU/ml) underlying liver disease should be investigated by liver biopsy, endoscopy and/or imaging. The degree of liver failure often depends on the severity of acute insult and the stage of underlying chronic liver disease. Mutations in the HBV genome, immunosuppressive therapy and viral or drug induced injury are common causes of reactivation. As most patients with AVH-B resolve the infection spontaneously, antiviral therapy is not indicated in them. However, the use of a potent oral nucleoside(tide) analogue is necessary as soon as possible in patients with CHB reactivation. Liver transplantation should be considered in patients who develop liver failure secondary to severe acute exacerbation. If this is not feasible, supportive therapy with the addition of granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) therapy could be beneficial.

Hepatitis B and C in liver transplantation: new strategies to combat the enemies

Hepatitis B immune globulin-free therapeutic regimens with a nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) or NUC combinations after liver transplantation (LT) are currently being investigated for their efficacy and safety as HBV re-infection prophylaxis in clinical studies. Recurrence rates differ among these studies as most of them are limited by a non-randomised study design, small sample size, lack of long-term data and varying time intervals for the switch from combined to purely virostatic prophylaxis. Post-transplant pre-emptive antiviral therapy with pegylated IFN and ribavirin is associated with low sustained virological response rates and was found to have no advantage over treatment of manifest HCV re-infection. Safety and efficacy of triple antiviral therapy including boceprevir or telaprevir in patients with manifest HCV re-infection are currently under investigation in clinical trials. Relevant drug interactions have been shown to occur during calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) and concomitant triple antiviral therapy, which vary with type of CNI and choice of HCV protease inhibitor. Newer direct-acting antivirals with lower or minimal toxicity, when used in combination with immunosuppressives, are worthy of further study in LT patients. This review focuses on hot topics in the management of hepatitis B and C patients before and after LT and offers a critical summarised selection of the corresponding relevant studies published in the current literature or presented at recent liver congresses.

Tolerability and efficacy of anti-HBV nucleos(t)ide analogues in HBV-DNA-positive cirrhotic patients with HBV/HCV dual infection

We evaluated tolerability and virological and clinical impact of anti-Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) nucleos(t)ide analogues in cirrhotic patients with HBV/Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) coinfection. The virological and clinical course of 24 consecutive HBsAg/HBV-DNA/anti-HCV-positive patients with cirrhosis was compared with that of 24 HBsAg/HBV-DNA-positive, anti-HCV-negative cirrhotic patients, pair-matched for age (±5 years), sex, HBeAg/anti-HBe status and Child-Pugh class. Patients in both groups were previously untreated with oral antiviral agents at enrollment and were treated for at least 24 months (range 24-54). At the 12th and 18th month of treatment, HBV-DNA was negative in 21 (87.5%) and 23 (95.8%) patients with hepatitis B and C and in 20 (83.3%) and 22 (91.6%) in patients with isolated HBV; all patients in both groups were HBV-DNA-negative at month 24 and at subsequent observations. Treatment was well tolerated by all patients in both groups. At the last observation (for co-infected patients, median 44 months and range 24-54; for mono-infected patients, median 40 months and range 24-54), a deterioration in Child class was observed in eight (47%) of 17 patients in patients with both HBV and HCV who were HCV-RNA-positive at baseline, but in none of seven HCV-RNA-negative patients in the same group, and in one patient (4.2%) in the mono-infected patients. Reactivation of HCV infection was relatively infrequent (12.5% of cases) and never associated with a clinical deterioration. Treatment with nucleotides in HBsAg/HBV-DNA/anti-HCV-positive patients with cirrhosis showed a favourable virological effect in all cases, but a favourable clinical result only in the HCV-RNA-negative at baseline.

Considerations for the long-term treatment of chronic hepatitis B with nucleos(t)ide analogs

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) with nucleos(t)ide analogs is often required over a prolonged period to achieve durable virologic suppression. One barrier to the success of long-term therapy is the emergence of drug-resistant mutants. Current guidelines therefore recommend the most potent drugs with optimal resistance profiles, that is, entecavir and tenofovir are used as first-line monotherapies in CHB. Characteristics of the hepatitis B virus, the disease, the patient and the drug can influence the response to antiviral treatment and risk of relapse. This review discusses factors to consider maximizing the chances of successful long-term treatment of CHB, and provides an overview of the long-term efficacy and safety data that have become available over the 4-5 years since entecavir and tenofovir were first approved for the treatment of CHB. Recent findings on whether and under what circumstances long-term therapy of CHB might be stopped are also discussed.

Long-term therapy with nucleoside/nucleotide analogues for chronic hepatitis B in Asian patients

Of the estimated 400 million patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) globally, approximately 75% are Asians, representing a clinically important subgroup with a higher risk of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma than Caucasian patients. This review summarizes recent data from clinical long-term and real-life studies of entecavir and tenofovir, the recommended first-line oral therapies for treating CHB, in nucleoside/nucleotide-naive Asian CHB patients with compensated or decompensated liver disease. Long-term treatment with entecavir or tenofovir achieved profound and durable virological suppression, and led to improved liver histology and function. The data presented in this review will help physicians in making evidence-based decision choices regarding first-line antiviral therapy and long-term management in Asian CHB patients.

Dynamic changes of lipopolysaccharide levels in different phases of acute on chronic hepatitis B liver failure

Background

High serum levels of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) with LPS-MD-2/TLR4 complex activated NF-kb and cytokine cause hepatic necrosis in animal models. We investigated the dynamic changes of LPS levels in patients with acute on chronic hepatitis B liver failure (ACHBLF).

Methods

We enrolled ACHBLF patients for a 12-week study. Patients’ LPS levels were measured along with 10 healthy controls. Patients on supportive care and recovered without intervention(s) were analyzed. Patients’ LPS levels during the disease progression phase, peak phase, and remission phase were compared with healthy controls.

Results

Among 30 patients enrolled, 25 who received interventions or expired during the study period were excluded from the analysis, five patients on supportive care who completed the study were analyzed. Significant abnormal distributions of LPS levels were observed in patients in different phases (0.0168±0.0101 in progression phase; 0.0960±0.0680 in peak phase; 0.0249±0.0365 in remission phase; and 0.0201±0.0146 in controls; respectively, p<0.05). The highest level of LPS was in the peak phase and significantly elevated when compared to controls (0.0201±0.0146 vs. 0.0960±0.0680, p = 0.007). There were no statistically significant differences in LPS levels between healthy controls and subjects in the progression phase or remission phase. Dynamic changes of LPS were correlated with MELD-Na in the progression phase (p = 0.01, R = 0.876) and in the peak phase (p = 0.000, R = −1.00).

Conclusions

Significant abnormal distributions of LPS levels were observed in ACHBLF with the highest level in the peak phase. The dynamic changes of LPS were correlated with disease severity and suggested LPS causing secondary hepatic injury.

Pretreatment viral DNA stratifies mortality risk in patients receiving antiviral therapy for severe acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Prognostic factors have not been elucidated for severe acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B treated with antiviral therapy. This study aimed to explore the role of baseline viral load in predicting mortality.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study screened consecutive chronic hepatitis B patients (n=84) receiving antiviral therapy for severe acute exacerbation, defined as abrupt elevation of serum alanine aminotransferase >10× the upper limit of normal along with hyperbilirubinaemia. Survival pattern was evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and predictors for mortality determined by the Cox regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients were eligible and followed-up for a median of 23 months (range 0.1-75.0). Overall, 20 (30.3%) patients died during the study period, with the vast majority (n=17) succumbing rapidly within 3 months of severe acute exacerbation. The multivariate Cox model revealed that mortality was associated with baseline viral DNA level (HR 1.49 per log copies/ml, 95% CI 1.13, 1.96), international normalized ratio for prothrombin time (HR 2.68 per unit, 95% CI 1.81, 3.98), platelet count (HR 0.87 per 10(4) cells/μl, 95% CI 0.78, 0.98) and age (HR 1.10 per year, 95% CI 1.05, 1.15). A significant interaction existed between viral DNA and prolonged prothrombin time (P=0.005). Stratified analyses further demonstrated that pronounced coagulopathy heralded death irrespective of viral load, whereas serum level of viral DNA stratified mortality risk among those without marked coagulopathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment viral DNA level stratifies risk of death in patients with severe acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B before the manifestation of overt liver failure.

Randomized clinical trial: efficacy and safety of telbivudine and lamivudine in treatment-naïve patients with HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis

Patients with decompensated cirrhosis owing to chronic hepatitis B viral (HBV) infection have a high morbidity/mortality rate, and the treatment remains a challenge. We studied the safety and efficacy of telbivudine and lamivudine in such patients. This noninferiority, double-blind trial randomized 232 treatment-naive patients with decompensated HBV (1:1) in 80 academic hospitals to receive once-daily telbivudine 600 mg or lamivudine 100 mg for 104 weeks. Primary composite endpoint was proportion of patients with HBV DNA <10 000 copies/mL, normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh score improvement/stabilization at week 52. Response rates using a post hoc modified endpoint (HBV DNA <300 copies/mL [57 IU/mL] and ALT normalization) in intent-to-treat analysis (missing = failure) were 56.3%vs 38.0% after 76 weeks (P = 0.018) and 45.6%vs 32.9% after 104 weeks (P = 0.093) for telbivudine vs lamivudine. Telbivudine treatment was an independent predictive factor for HBV DNA <300 copies/mL and ALT normalization (P = 0.037). Response rates with protocol-defined composite endpoint in intent-to-treat analysis (M = F) were 56.2 vs 54.0% (noninferiority not achieved) and 39.1%vs 36.4% (noninferiority achieved) in telbivudine and lamivudine groups at 52 and 104 weeks. Telbivudine treatment was associated with a significant improvement in glomerular filtration rate compared to lamivudine treatment and was also associated with a trend for improvement in survival (87%vs 79%). No cases of lactic acidosis were reported. Telbivudine compared to lamivudine was associated with a higher rate of patients with both viral suppression and ALT normalization, a trend towards a higher rate of survival and significant improvement in glomerular filtration.

Efficacy of entecavir with or without tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are potent antiviral agents that might have additive or synergistic antiviral activity in treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We compared the efficacy and safety of ETV monotherapy with those of a combination of ETV and TDF.

METHODS

We performed a randomized, open-label, multicenter, superiority study of 379 nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive (n = 264) or HBeAg-negative (n = 115) CHB. Subjects were given ETV 0.5 mg (n = 182) or a combination of ETV 0.5 mg and TDF 300 mg (n = 197) for 100 weeks.

RESULTS

At week 96, comparable proportions of patients in each study arm achieved the primary end point of a level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA <50 IU/mL (83.2% vs 76.4%; P = .088). Among HBeAg-positive patients, a greater proportion given combination therapy achieved levels of HBV DNA <50 IU/mL than those given ETV alone (80.4% vs 69.8%; P = .046). However, this difference was observed only in patients with baseline levels of HBV DNA ≥ 10(8) IU/mL (79% vs 62%) and not in those with baseline levels of HBV DNA <10(8) IU/mL (83% in both arms). Rates of HBeAg loss and HBeAg seroconversion were comparable between groups, whereas the rate of alanine aminotransferase normalization was greater in the ETV monotherapy group. No HBV variants associated with ETV or TDF resistance were detected. Safety profiles were consistent with previous reports of ETV or TDF monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The antiviral efficacy of ETV monotherapy is comparable to that of ETV plus TDF in a mixed population of nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with CHB (70% HBeAg positive). The combination therapy could provide an incremental benefit to HBeAg-positive patients with baseline levels of HBV DNA ≥ 10(8) IU/mL.

Prevention and management of drug resistant hepatitis B virus infections

In the past decade, broadened therapeutic options of oral direct antiviral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection include: Lamivudine, Adefovir Dipivoxil, Telbivudine, Entecavir and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate. These direct oral antiviral agents effectively suppress the replication of the virus and reduce the risk of potential liver-related complications. However, prolonged use of these nucleos(t)ide analogues has been associated with drug resistance that compromises the initial clinical benefits. Moreover, the oncogenic risk of mutations due to prolonged nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy needs to be further investigated by in vitro and in vivo studies. In the current era of potent nucleotide analogues, new data are emerging, we are still facing the pool of patients who have developed resistance to the prior generation of nucleos(t)ide analogues. This paper aims to focus on incidence of antiviral drug resistance and virological breakthrough, prudent selection of initial therapy, on-treatment monitoring for drug resistance and revise treatment strategies for patients with resistant virus.

Hepatitis B virus-related decompensated liver cirrhosis: benefits of antiviral therapy

Following development of liver cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B, liver disease may continue to progress and decompensation or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may occur, especially in those with active viral replication. Decompensation may manifest with jaundice, ascites, variceal bleeding or hepatic encephalopathy. Earlier studies have shown that the prognosis of decompensated cirrhosis is usually poor with a 5-year survival rate at 14-35% under conventional standard of care. The approval of oral antiviral agents has greatly improved the prognosis, as demonstrated in several cohort studies and randomized clinical trials involving therapy with lamivudine, adefovir dipivoxil, entecavir, telbivudine, or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Oral antiviral agents are effective in restoring liver function and improving survival in patients with decompensated cirrhosis especially if therapy is initiated early enough. These agents are generally well tolerated without significant side effects. However, their preventive effect in HCC development has yet to be convincingly demonstrated. Given their known resistance profiles, entecavir and tenofovir should be considered as the first-line therapy for patients with HBV-related decompensated cirrhosis.

First-line treatment of chronic hepatitis B with entecavir or tenofovir in 'real-life' settings: from clinical trials to clinical practice

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are potent nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUCs) recommended as first-line monotherapies for chronic hepatitis B. In Phase III trials, ETV and TDF demonstrated superior efficacy, and comparable safety compared with other NUCs. In long-term clinical studies, both drugs achieved virologic response rates of around 95%, with very low rates of resistance development and good safety profiles. Clinical trials are conducted under standardized conditions with strict enrolment criteria that limit the heterogeneity of study populations. 'Real-life' populations tend to be composed of a wider range of patients, often older and with different morbidities, comorbidities that may impact treatment efficacy and co-factors, such as smoking and alcohol intake, which can have a direct impact on disease progression. Real-life studies provide better representations of everyday clinical practice and are important to confirm the results reported in clinical studies and to identify rare or late-emerging adverse events. In five 'real-life' studies of ETV in more than 1000 patients, up to 4 years of treatment resulted in virologic responses in 76-96% of patients. Two real-life studies of TDF reported response rates of 71-92% after up to 21 months of treatment. Low incidences of drug resistance and favourable tolerabilities were reported for both drugs, thus confirming the results from registration trials.

Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2012 update

Large volume of new data on the natural history and treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have become available since 2008. These include further studies in asymptomatic subjects with chronic HBV infection and community-based cohorts, the role of HBV genotype/naturally occurring HBV mutations, the application of non-invasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis and quantitation of HBV surface antigen and new drug or new strategies towards more effective therapy. To update HBV management guidelines, relevant new data were reviewed and assessed by experts from the region, and the significance of the reported findings was discussed and debated. The earlier "Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B" was revised accordingly. The key terms used in the statement were also defined. The new guidelines include general management, indications for fibrosis assessment, time to start or stop drug therapy, choice of drug to initiate therapy, when and how to monitor the patients during and after stopping drug therapy. Recommendations on the therapy of patients in special circumstances, including women in childbearing age, patients with antiviral drug resistance, concurrent viral infection, hepatic decompensation, patients receiving immune suppression or chemotherapy and patients in the setting of liver transplantation and hepatocellular carcinoma, are also included.

Emerging pipeline drugs for hepatitis B infection

INTRODUCTION

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection continues to represent a global health concern with an estimated 350 - 400 million people infected worldwide. Current treatment options are either of two IFN-based therapies or either of five oral nucleos(t)ide analogs which are used as monotherapy or in combination. Control of viral replication can be achieved basically in all patients today. However, despite the clinical efficacy of antivirals, long-term management remains a clinical challenge mainly due to the slow kinetics of HBsAg clearance. Emergence of viral resistance has been a challenge in the past with some but not all oral therapies. The development of novel therapeutic agents with different mechanisms of action might provide new opportunities to clear HBsAg and achieve HBsAg seroconversion which could be maintained off therapy. The long-term efficacy of combinations of IFN and/or nucleos(t)ide analogs might achieve antiviral synergy, preventing drug resistance and clearing viral covalently close circular DNA and infected cells.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of recent data on the safety and efficacy of existing and emerging agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection.

EXPERT OPINION

Currently, entecavir and tenofovir offer a safe and effective treatment option for patients with chronic HBV with minimal to no resistance. Although entecavir and tenofovir are able to suppress replication in essentially all patients, achieving HBsAg seroconversion remains suboptimal among all antiviral therapy. There are a number of new therapies in the pipeline for the treatment of chronic HBV infection as well as revisiting IFN combined or sequential to antiviral therapy.

Viral hepatitis in liver transplantation

Liver transplantation is the only alternative for patients with end-stage liver disease. Viral hepatitis B and C are among the most common causes of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma and a frequent indication for liver transplantation. Hepatitis B virus immunoglobulin and nucleot(s)ide analogues have facilitated the management of patients with hepatitis B who have received liver transplants and resulted in excellent long-term outcomes. On the contrary, recurrence of hepatitis C is the main cause of graft loss in most transplant programs. Current therapeutic approaches are far from optimal, because sustained virologic responses are only achieved in one-third of treated patients, and adverse effects are common and severe. However, the rapid development of direct-acting antivirals against hepatitis C virus will change the management of this disease and in a few years prevent graft infection with this virus.

The option of HBIG-free prophylaxis against recurrent HBV

Since the early 1990's, hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) has been central to the prevention of hepatitis B virus (HBV) recurrence after liver transplantation. When used in combination with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues, HBIG prevents reinfection with HBV in ⩾90% of transplant recipients. While HBIG is highly efficacious, its use is undermined by its high cost. Because of this limitation, there have been many studies of alternative regimens seeking to minimize the dose or duration of HBIG without sacrificing low HBV recurrence rates. Toward that goal, lower dose intramuscular HBIG in combination with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues has been shown to be highly efficacious in preventing disease recurrence and represents a significant cost savings when compared with high dose intravenous administration. The withdrawal of HBIG after a defined course of combination HBIG and oral antivirals has also been shown to be effective, particularly if combination antiviral therapy is used. The ability to achieve undetectable HBV DNA levels pre-transplantation in the majority of patients may contribute to the high efficacy of these HBIG "light" regimens. Additionally, the success of antiviral rescue therapy for those patients who fail prophylaxis and develop recurrent HBV infection post-transplant has provided the impetus to move increasingly towards HBIG-free approaches. New techniques to detect occult HBV in hepatic and extrahepatic sites may allow clinicians to define a subgroup of patients in whom withdrawal of HBIG or all prophylaxis may be applicable.

Effectiveness of hepatitis B treatment in clinical practice

It is important to examine the effectiveness of current therapies for chronic hepatitis B in clinical practice, given the therapeutic advances over the past 15 years. A 2010 Institute of Medicine report on hepatitis and liver cancer stated that the public and health care providers have a lack of knowledge and awareness about viral hepatitis, and that there is a gap between medical innovation and community care. We review the efficacy of hepatitis B treatment, based on results from clinical trials, and discuss the effectiveness of these treatments in clinical practice. We also discuss why having efficacious treatments alone would have a small impact on the global health burden of hepatitis B, and highlight the importance of educating the public and the medical community and coordination of care.

Safety of long-term nucleos(t)ide treatment in chronic hepatitis B

Currently, five nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs) are approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection. They are lamivudine, adefovir dipivoxil, telbivudine, entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Two of them, ETV and TDF, are recommended as first-line treatment options. Their main advantages include excellent tolerability, antiviral potency and a high genetic barrier to resistance within medium duration treatment periods (2 - 6 years). In most patients, NAs need to be administered on a long-term basis. Several studies suggest that NAs long-term administration have been associated with low rates of serious adverse events (AEs), including lactic acidosis, renal function impairment, osteopenia and osteoporosis. Discontinuations due to AEs tended to be low in published randomized clinical trial and in the experience in clinical practice. NAs long-term use appears to be safe and effective; and in patients with advanced liver disease, despite preliminary concerning reports, their short-term use also appears to be safe and effective. Although major AEs are infrequent, they can be initially clinically silent yet lead to serious medical problems, therefore, a proactive surveillance and their prompt management is recommended.

A novel experience of antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis B in renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND

Entecavir (ETV) is a potent inhibitor of viral replication in chronic hepatitis B. There is no published data concerning ETV therapy in nucleoside analogue (NUC)-naive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive renal transplant recipients (RTRs).

METHODS

We prospectively treated 27 HBsAg-positive RTRs with ETV since 2007. Serial HBV DNA was assessed at baseline and weeks 12, 24, 52 and 104 after treatment. A cohort of 19 patients who received 2-year lamivudine (3TC) therapy during 2004-2007 was used as a historical control.

RESULTS

Of the 27 RTRs, 18 (67%) were NUC-naive patients and 9 (33%) were 3TC-experienced without YMDD mutations. HBV DNA levels became undetectable in 70%, 74%, 96% and 100% of patients after 12, 24, 52 and 104 weeks, respectively, of ETV treatment without viral resistance. There was no change of glomerular filtration rate, and no lactic acidosis or myopathy during treatment. By comparison with the 19 3TC-treated patients, ETV-treated RTRs presented higher rates of undetectable HBV DNA than 3TC-treated RTRs (32%, 37%, 63% and 63% at 12, 24, 52 and 104 weeks; P<0.005). In an analysis excluding 9 patients from the ETV group who were also 3TC-experienced, the remaining 18 ETV-naive RTRs exhibited a better virological response at 52 and 104 weeks than 19 3TC-treated RTRs (P<0.05). Even in the 9 patients who overlapped in two cohorts, ETV exhibited a more rapid virological response than 3TC did, especially at 12 and 24 weeks (P=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

ETV is effective in treating chronic hepatitis B in RTRs. ETV is safe with regards to renal graft function, lactic acidosis, myopathy and virological resistance.