Two rescue therapies in lamivudine-resistant patients with chronic hepatitis B in the central China: adefovir monotherapy and adefovir plus lamivudine

Antiviral Therapy in Lamivudine-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

The relative efficacy of different strategies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine resistance (LAM-R) has not yet been systematically studied. Clinical trials were searched in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CNKI databases up to February 15, 2016. Nine trials including 764 patients met the entry criteria. In direct meta-analysis, TDF showed a stronger antiviral effect than any one of ETV, LAM/ADV, and ADV against LAM-R hepatitis B virus. LAM/ADV therapy was superior to ADV in suppressing viral replication. ETV achieved similar rate of HBV DNA undetectable compared to ADV or LAM/ADV. In network meta-analysis, TDF had higher rates of HBV DNA undetectable compared to ETV (OR, 24.69; 95% CrI: 5.36–113.66), ADV (OR, 37.28; 95% CrI: 9.73–142.92), or LAM/ADV (OR, 21.05; 95% CrI: 5.70–77.80). However, among ETV, ADV, and LAM/ADV, no drug was clearly superior to others in HBV DNA undetectable rate. Moreover, no significant difference in the rate of ALT normalization or HBeAg loss was observed compared the four rescue strategies with each other. TDF appears to be a more effective rescue therapy than LAM/ADV, ETV, or ADV. LAM plus ADV therapy was a better treatment option than ETV or ADV alone for patients with LAM-R.

Efficacy of tenofovir-based rescue therapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no conclusive results on the efficacy of Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) monotherapy in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine-resistant (LAM-R).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy between TDF and TDF-based combination therapy against LAM-R HBV in CHB patients.

METHODS

Randomized and non-randomized control trials directly comparing TDF and TDF-based therapy for treatment of LAM-R CHB patients, were searched in Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE, database up to June 15, 2015. The data were analyzed with Review Manager (v.5.3).

RESULTS

Five articles (683 patients in total) met entry criteria. The overall efficacy of tenofovir-based combination therapy was not significantly better with regard to the rates of virological response (85.5% vs. 81.5%; RR=0.95, 95%CI=0.88-1.03, P=0.25), ALT normalization (61.9% vs.72.0%; RR=1.18, 95%CI=0.96-1.44, P=0.11) and HBeAg loss (17.0% vs. 18.1%; RR=1.40, 95%CI=0.78-2.49, P=0.26) compared with TDF monotherapy through 48-week treatment. Additionally, subgroup analysis showed that no significant difference was determined as TDF group compared to TDF-based group at 48weeks, in terms of rates of HBV DNA undetectability, ALT normalization and HBeAg loss in the treatment of LAM-R patients with prior failure of LAM monotherapy. Moreover, the rates of HBV DNA suppression between groups were similar through 24 or 48weeks of treatment in LAM-R patients with prior failure of LAM/ADV therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF monotherapy is as effective as TDF-based combination therapy in maintaining viral suppression in LAM-R patients with prior failure of LAM or LAM/ADV therapy.

Lamivudine-resistant rtL180M and rtM204I/V are persistently dominant during combination rescue therapy with entecavir and adefovir for hepatitis B

Adefovir (ADV) sequential monotherapy was included in the 2005 Asia-Pacific guidelines for the management of patients with lamivudine (LAM) resistance. However, following the development of ADV resistance, the proportion of resistant variants during combined rescue therapy with ADV and entecavir (ETV) were unknown. The present study characterized the dynamics of resistant variants in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and LAM-resistant variants during antiviral therapy consisting of ADV monotherapy followed by ADV-ETV combination therapy. A total of 3 patients were selected from a cohort of 55 patients with CHB due to developing ADV resistance. The patients had been previously treated with LAM (100 mg daily) for 21-24 months. At the initiation of sequential monotherapy with ADV, LAM-resistant variants (rtM204V/I and rtL180M) were detected in the three patients. These patients developed ADV resistance during 19-30 months of ADV sequential monotherapy, and then switched their antiviral regimen to ADV-ETV combination therapy. During ADV monotherapy and ADV-ETV combination therapy, the patients were monitored every 3 months for the first year of therapy, and then every 6 months thereafter. A total of 30 serum samples were collected from the patients throughout the monitoring period. In total, 10 mutants that were associated with commonly-used antiviral drugs were detected by pyrosequencing. During ADV sequential monotherapy, LAM-resistant variants were gradually decreased, whereas ADV-resistant rtA181V/T and rtN236T variants gradually increased in the viral population. During 30-41 months of ADV-ETV combination therapy, viral load reduction was 2.59-3.28 log10 copies/ml; ADV-resistant variants rtA181T/V and rtN236T were undetectable following 11-24 months of combination therapy; and rtL180M and rtM204I/V remained dominant in the viral population. In conclusion, the results of the present study suggested that, in patients with LAM and ADV-resistant variants that developed during LAM-ADV sequential monotherapy, ETV-ADV combination therapy may partially inhibit the replication of HBV DNA; however, LAM-resistant rtL180M and rtM204I/V variants remained predominant following 30-41 months combination therapy.

Cost-effectiveness comparison of lamivudine plus adefovir combination treatment and nucleos(t)ide analog monotherapies in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND/AIM

Lamivudine (LAM) plus adefovir (ADV) combination therapy is clinically efficacious for treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients in China, but no pharmacoeconomic evaluations of this strategy are available. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of LAM plus ADV combination treatment compared with five other nucleos(t)ide analog monotherapies (LAM, ADV, telbivudine [TBV], entecavir [ETV], and tenofovir [TDF]).

METHODS

To simulate the lifetime (40-year time span) costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for different therapy options, a Markov model that included five initial monotherapies and LAM plus ADV combination as an initial treatment was developed. Two kinds of rescue combination strategies (base-case: LAM + ADV then ETV + ADV; alternative: direct use of ETV + ADV) were considered separately for treating patients refractory to initial therapy. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to explore model uncertainties.

RESULTS

In base-case analysis, ETV had the lowest lifetime cost and served as the reference therapy. Compared to the reference, LAM, ADV, and TBV had higher costs and lower efficacy, and were completely dominated by ETV. LAM plus ADV combination therapy or TDF was more efficacious than ETV, but also more expensive. Although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of combination therapy or TDF were both higher than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $20,466/QALY gained for the reference treatment, in an alternative scenario analysis LAM plus ADV combination therapy would be the preferable treatment option.

CONCLUSION

ETV and LAM plus ADV combination therapy are both cost-effective strategies for treating Chinese CHB patients.