Tenofovir is superior to entecavir for achieving complete viral suppression in HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B patients with high HBV DNA

Effect of potent nucleos(t)ide analog on alpha fetoprotein changes and occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Successful antiviral therapy significantly decreases the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) in the serum is a valuable early indicator of HCC. However, it is unclear whether different antiviral medications have varying effects on AFP levels. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this issue in those treated with entecavir (ETV) versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled treatment-naive CHB adults who commenced treatment with ETV or TDF. Their changes in biochemical, virological, and fibrosis parameters and the elevation of AFP or development of HCC during follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1942 CHB patients were included (10-90% follow-up time 3-60 months), and 104 patients with elevated AFP (5.3%) and 27 patients with HCC development (1.4%) were identified during the follow-up. The difference in the cumulative incidence of AFP abnormalities and HCC was statistically significant between patients who received ETV or TDF therapy. Multivariate Cox regression showed that elevated liver stiffness with shear wave elastography (Hazard ratio (HR) = 1.05, 95% Confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.08, P < 0.001) and abnormal AFP at baseline (HR = 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.00, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for abnormal AFP in CHB patients, while shear wave elastography (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12, P < 0.001) was also independent risk factor for HCC. Similar results were obtained after propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. The combination of shear wave elastography (SWE), mPage-B score, age and type 2 diabetes mellitus had an area under the curve of 0.838 (P < 0.001) in predicting the occurrence of HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar AFP elevation and HCC development rates were observed in CHB patients treated with ETV or TDF. Elevated SWE and abnormal AFP at baseline were independent risk factors for abnormal AFP in CHB patients.

Tenofovir Is Associated With a Better Prognosis Than Entecavir for Hepatitis B Virus-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Whether tenofovir or entecavir has different effects on the prevention of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in secondary and tertiary preventive settings is still a matter of debate. This study aimed to compare the long-term prognosis of HCC between tenofovir and entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis B.

METHODS

Chronic hepatitis B patients diagnosed with HCC between November 2008 and December 2018 and treated with either entecavir or tenofovir at a tertiary center in Korea were included. The effect of tenofovir compared with entecavir on the prognosis of HBV-related HCC was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox and propensity score (PS)-matched analyses. Various predefined subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 3.0 years, the mortality rate for entecavir-treated patients (n = 3469) was 41.2%, while tenofovir-treated patients (n = 3056) had a mortality rate of 34.6%. Overall survival (OS) was better in the tenofovir group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.79; P < .001), which were consistently observed in the PS-matched analysis. The magnitude of the risk difference in OS was more prominent 2 years after the diagnosis of HCC (aHR, 0.50; P < .001) than 2 years before (aHR, 0.88; P = .005), and it was more pronounced in patients with earlier HCC stages. In all subgroups, except for those with shorter life expectancy, such as those with compromised liver function, tenofovir was associated with better OS compared with entecavir.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with HBV-related HCC, those treated with tenofovir had a better prognosis than those treated with entecavir, particularly among those with prolonged survival.

Review of the Effects of Antiviral Therapy on Hepatitis B/C-Related Mortality and the Regression of Fibrosis

Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C are viral causes of Hepatitis that lead to significant worldwide mortality and morbidity through the sequelae of fibrosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. In this review, we have summarized recent studies that have examined the effects of antiviral therapy on the regression of fibrosis and the reduction in mortalities associated with the viruses. Antiviral therapy significantly decreases mortality and induces the regression of fibrosis.

Tenofovir versus entecavir on the prognosis of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis

Background: Hepatitis B, often leading to Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), poses a major global health challenge. While Tenofovir (TDF) and Entecavir (ETV) are potent treatments, their comparative effectiveness in improving recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) rates in HBV-related HCC is not well-established. Methods: We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis using survival data from randomized trials and high-quality propensity score-matched studies to compare the impact of Tenofovir (TDF) and Entecavir (ETV) on RFS and OS in HBV-related HCC patients. Data from six databases and gray literature up to 30 August 2023, were analyzed, utilizing Kaplan-Meier curves, stratified Cox models, and shared frailty models for survival rate assessment and to address between-study heterogeneity. The study employed restricted mean survival time analysis to evaluate differences in RFS and OS between TDF-treated and ETV-treated patients. Additionally, landmark analyses compared early (<2 years) and late (≥2 years) tumor recurrence in these cohorts. Results: This study incorporated seven research articles, covering 4,602 patients with HBV-related HCC (2,082 on TDF and 2,520 on ETV). Within the overall cohort, TDF recipients demonstrated significantly higher RFS (p = 0.042) and OS (p < 0.001) than those on ETV. The stratified Cox model revealed significantly improved OS for the TDF group compared to the ETV group (hazard ratio, 0.756; 95% confidence interval, 0.639-0.896; p = 0.001), a result corroborated by the shared frailty model. Over a follow-up period of 1-8 years, no significant difference was noted in the mean time to death between the TDF and ETV groups. The rates of early recurrence did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.735). However, TDF treatment was significantly associated with a reduced risk of late recurrence compared to ETV (p < 0.001). In the HCC resection subgroup, the disparities in OS, early, and late recurrence rates between the two treatments paralleled those seen in the overall cohort. Conclusion: Compared to ETV, TDF may enhance OS and reduce late tumor recurrence risk in HBV-related HCC patients receiving curative treatment. However, there was no statistically significant distinction in the timing of tumor recurrence and mortality between patients administered TDF and those prescribed ETV. Systematic Review Registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Extrahepatic malignancies and antiviral drugs for chronic hepatitis B: A nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is related to an increased risk of extrahepatic malignancy (EHM), and antiviral treatment is associated with an incidence of EHM comparable to controls. We compared the risks of EHM and intrahepatic malignancy (IHM) between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) treatment.

METHODS

Using data from the National Health Insurance Service of Korea, this nationwide cohort study included treatment-naïve CHB patients who initiated ETV (n=24,287) or TDF (n=29,199) therapy between 2012 and 2014. The primary outcome was the development of any primary EHM. Secondary outcomes included overall IHM development. E-value was calculated to assess the robustness of results to unmeasured confounders.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration was 5.9 years, and all baseline characteristics were well balanced after propensity score matching. EHM incidence rate differed significantly between within versus beyond 3 years in both groups (P<0.01, Davies test). During the first 3 years, EHM risk was comparable in the propensity score-matched cohort (5.88 versus 5.84/1,000 person-years; subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]=1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88-1.17, P=0.84). After year 3, however, TDF was associated with a significantly lower EHM incidence compared to ETV (4.92 versus 6.91/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.70, 95% CI=0.60-0.81, P<0.01; E-value for SHR=2.21). Regarding IHM, the superiority of TDF over ETV was maintained both within (17.58 versus 20.19/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.88, 95% CI=0.81-0.95, P<0.01) and after year 3 (11.45 versus 16.20/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.68, 95% CI=0.62-0.75, P<0.01; E-value for SHR=2.30).

CONCLUSION

TDF was associated with approximately 30% lower risks of both EHM and IHM than ETV in CHB patients after 3 years of antiviral therapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B receiving tenofovir- vs. entecavir-based regimens: Individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The comparative risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs. entecavir (ETV) remains controversial. In this individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis, we aimed to compare HCC risk between the two drugs and identify subgroups who may benefit more from one treatment than the other.

METHODS

Published meta-analyses, electronic databases and congress proceedings were searched to identify eligible studies through January 2021. We compared HCC risk between the two drugs using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with anonymised IPD from treatment-naïve patients with CHB receiving TDF or ETV for ≥1 year. Treatment effect consistency was explored in propensity score matching (PSM), weighting (PSW) and subgroup analyses for age, sex, hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) positivity, cirrhosis and diabetes status.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies from Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong involving 42,939 patients receiving TDF (n = 6,979) or ETV (n = 35,960) monotherapy. Patients receiving TDF had significantly lower HCC risk (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.98; p = 0.03). Lower HCC risk with TDF was consistently observed in PSM (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.88; p <0.01) and PSW (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.67-1.03; p = 0.10) analyses and in all subgroups, with statistical significance in the ≥50 years of age (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.58-1.00; p <0.05), male (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.96; p = 0.02), HBeAg-positive (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97; p = 0.03) and non-diabetic (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-1.00; p <0.05) subgroups.

CONCLUSION

TDF was associated with significantly lower HCC risk than ETV in patients with CHB, particularly those with HBeAg positivity. Longer follow-up may be needed to better define incidence differences between the treatments in various subgroups.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Previous aggregate data meta-analyses have reported inconsistent conclusions on the relative effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This individual patient data meta-analysis on 11 studies involving 42,939 patients from Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong suggested that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-treated patients have a significantly lower hepatocellular carcinoma risk than entecavir-treated patients, which was observed in all subgroups of clinical interest and by different analytical methodologies. These findings should be taken into account by healthcare providers when determining the optimal course of treatment for patients with CHB and may be considered in ensuring that treatment guidelines for CHB remain pertinent.

OCRELIZUMAB THERAPY IN PATIENTS WITH ANTI-HBC ANTIBODIES - A PRELIMINARY STUDY

OBJECTIVE

Aim: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory neurodegenerative disease resulting in cognitive impairment, physical disabilities, and neurological symptoms. Ocrelizumab is an effective drug used in MS treatment. However, it causes a risk of hepatitis B reactivation in anti-HBc positive patients. We describe the impact of entecavir and tenofovir on HBV reactivation during treatment with ocrelizumab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: Our study included eight patients (aged 18-70 years) with positive anti-HBc antibodies who were diagnosed with MS based on the 2017 McDonald criteria. The subjects were treated with ocrelizumab and were given anti-HBV prophylaxis with nucleoside analogs. The mean time from the beginning of therapy with nucleoside analogs to the initiation of ocrelizumab treatment was 27.5 days. Patients were administered ocrelizumab and none of them was diagnosed with HBV reactivation.

RESULTS

Results: None of the laboratory parameters worsened. No severe adverse effects were observed. These results suggest that entecavir and tenofovir are effective in HBV reactivation prophylaxis. Additionally, positive anti-HBc antibodies do not rule out treatment with ocrelizumab.

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: In patients with positive anti-HBc antibodies, nucleoside analogs, such as entecavir or tenofovir, should be administered before ocrelizumab administration to reduce the risk of viral reactivation. Further studies on simultaneous treatment with ocrelizumab and nucleoside analogs are required to confirm our findings.

A Study on Pregenomic RNA and Factors Related to Hepatitis B Virus Infection Based on Real World

Objective

This article aims to study the influencing factors of pgRNA and its change magnitude based on the real world.

Methods

A total of 421 patients who were tested for pgRNA were selected. According to the baseline data, the subjects were divided into negative and positive groups. The Chi-square test and logistic regression were used to analyze the influencing factors of pgRNA status. Based on the follow-up data, the rank-sum test and linear regression were used to analyze the influencing factors of pgRNA change magnitude.

Results

A total of 153 (36.3%) of the 421 subjects were pgRNA-negative and 268 (63.7%) were pgRNA-positive. Logistic regression analysis showed that positive HBV DNA (OR: 40.51), positive HBeAg (OR: 66.24), tenofovir treatment (OR: 23.47), and entecavir treatment (OR: 14.90) were the independent risk factors for positive pgRNA. Univariate linear regression showed that the pgRNA change magnitude of patients treated with entecavir was higher than that of patients treated with tenofovir. Multivariate linear regression showed that age was an independent factor influencing pgRNA change magnitude.

Conclusions

The pgRNA of patients who were young, female, HBV DNA-positive, high-HBsAg, HBeAg-positive is higher than the detection line. HBV DNA and HBeAg are the independent risk factors of positive pgRNA. Different antiviral regimens and disease stages have significantly different effects on pgRNA status. There was a significant correlation between pgRNA and FIB-4, suggesting that pgRNA is related to liver fibrosis. The decrease in pgRNA was greater in young patients than in non-young patients. The decrease in pgRNA was greater in patients treated with tenofovir than in patients treated with entecavir.

Comparable outcomes of decompensated chronic hepatitis B patients treated with entecavir or tenofovir: an 8-year cohort study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Whether the efficacies of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in treating liver-related outcomes of decompensated chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients are comparable remained inconclusive.

METHODS

An 8-year cohort study of 736 decompensated CHB patients was conducted, and 65 TDF-treated patients were sex, age and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores-1:4 matched with 260 ETV-treated patients through propensity score-matching method.

RESULTS

Of 736 patients, 574 (78%) were male, with a mean age of 54.3 years, 438 (59.5%) had cirrhosis, 147 (20%) were positive for HBeAg, and 84 (11.6%) and 652 (88.4%) were treated with TDF and ETV, respectively. The 652 ETV-treated patients were older, had higher baseline MELD score and rates of encephalopathy, but lower ALT levels than the 84 TDF-treated patients. No significant differences were observed in the cumulative incidences of liver-related mortality or liver transplantation (1-month, 18.45 vs. 14.01%, p = 0.368; 8-year, 39.74 vs. 34.24%, p = 0.298), and hepatocellular carcinoma development (5-year, 7.21 vs.13.17%, p = 0.994; 8-year, 11.60 vs.13.17%, p = 0.857) between the matched 260 ETV- and 65 TDF-treated patients, regardless of time points. Baseline MELD score (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR): 1.063; 95% confidence interval (CI) of sHR: 1.016-1.112) and hepatic encephalopathy (sHR: 5.127; 95% CI sHR: 3.032-8.669) were independently associated with liver-related mortality or liver transplantation in the matched patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ETV and TDF had comparable efficacy in the short- and long-term liver-related outcomes of decompensated CHB patients, and baseline liver reserve was associated with the outcomes.

Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Tenofovir vs Entecavir Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis B Virus: A Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Conventional meta-analyses with aggregated study-level data have yielded conflicting results for the comparative effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among patients with chronic hepatitis B virus. Within-study heterogeneity, between-study heterogeneity, and the inability of conventional meta-analyses to capture time-to-event data were associated with these results.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of high-quality propensity score-matched studies to provide robust estimates for comparative HCC risk between groups receiving tenofovir or entecavir.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to October 6, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

The initial search yielded 3435 articles. Fourteen studies that used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics were included in the final analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Individual patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk of HCC was evaluated using random-effects hazard ratios (HRs) via a shared-frailty model and a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by study group. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis was conducted to account for varying estimated treatment effect across time.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The comparative risk of HCC with tenofovir vs entecavir treatment.

RESULTS

From analysis of 14 studes with 24 269 patients (10 534 receiving tenofovir and 13 735 receiving entecavir; mean age, 49.86 [95% CI, 48.35-51.36] years; 65.05% [95% CI, 58.60%-71.00%] men), tenofovir was associated with decreased HCC incidence compared with entecavir (stratified Cox HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.94] at 5 years; P = .002). However, there was no significant difference in subanalysis of clinical cohort studies (stratified Cox HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.80-1.06] at 5 years; P = .24). Among administrative database studies, proportionality was violated, and HRs could not be obtained via Cox proporational hazards-based models. The mean time to HCC development in RMST analysis was 2.8 (95% CI, 1.8-3.7) weeks longer (P < .001) for tenofovir vs entecavir at 5 years. The RMST analyses for other subgroups revealed either insignificant or minimal differences (<3 weeks) in the mean time to HCC at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis, there was no clinically meaningful difference in the risk of HCC between patients who received entecavir and patients who received tenofovir. There was no difference between tenofovir and entecavir among clinical cohort studies, whereas the mean time to HCC development was less than 3 weeks longer for patients who received tenofovir vs those who received entecavir at year 5 among administrative database studies. The choice between tenofovir or entecavir should be decided based on patient convenience and tolerability.

Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the United States

BACKGROUND

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are the first-line treatment agents for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). Recently, whether the degree to which the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may be reduced by ETV vs TDF has been debated. We compared the incidence of HCC among treatment-naïve patients receiving TDF vs ETV in the United States.

METHODS

From a large administrative medical claims database of commercially insured patients, we identified 166,933 adults with a diagnosis of chronic hepatitis B and a minimum of 12 months of prior enrolment, of whom 3934 and 6127 initiated ETV and TDF respectively. Fine-Gray hazard regression models incorporating treatment propensity scores (PS) were used to estimate the risk of HCC incidence associated with TDF vs ETV; variables considered for adjustment included demographic characteristics, concomitant medication use and baseline comorbidities, as well as competing events including liver transplantation and medication changes.

RESULTS

After PS weighting, the TDF and ETV groups were well-matched. During the follow-up, 90 patients developed HCC, including 50 receiving ETV and 40 receiving TDF, giving rise to crude incidence rates of 0.62 per 100 person-years (PY) and 0.30 per 100 PY respectively. In PS-weighted, multivariable analysis, TDF was associated with a subdistribution hazard ratio for HCC of 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-0.89) compared to ETV. Results were similar when patients ≥40 years and men and women were analysed separately.

CONCLUSION

Among commercially insured, treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B in the United States, treatment with TDF was associated with significantly lower risk of HCC than ETV.

Tenofovir Is Superior to Entecavir on Tertiary Prevention for BCLC Stage 0/A Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Curative Resection

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) have different effects on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence and death in patients receiving curative hepatectomy for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term efficacy of ETV and TDF in HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) of patients after curative hepatectomy.

METHODS

From January 2010 to December 2019, 20,572 patients with HCC who received hepatectomy were screened for study eligibility. Finally, a total of 219 consecutive patients treated with ETV (n = 146) or TDF (n = 73) after curative hepatectomy for HBV-related HCC of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0 or A were analyzed by propensity score matching (PSM) (2:1) analysis and competing risk analysis. HCC recurrence and OS of patients were compared between ETV and TDF groups.

RESULT

After a median follow-up of 52.2 months, 81 patients (37.0%) had HCC recurrence, 33 (15.1%) died, and 5 (2.3%) received liver transplantation. TDF therapy was an independent protective factor for HCC recurrence compared with ETV therapy (HR, 1.687; 95% CI, 1.027-2.770, p = 0.039); however, no difference in the risk of death or liver transplantation. Results were similar in competing risk analysis. We further found that TDF therapy was significantly associated with a lower risk of late recurrence (HR, 4.705; 95% CI, 1.763-12.558, p = 0.002), but not in early recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

TDF therapy is associated with a significantly lower risk of HCC recurrence, especially of late recurrence, than ETV therapy among patients who undergo curative hepatectomy for HBV-related early-stage HCC.

Entecavir vs Tenofovir in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prevention in Chronic Hepatitis B Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are recommended as first-line therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection. Although both drugs reduce hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk, their comparative effectiveness remains controversial. We aimed to determine whether TDF is superior to ETV in preventing HCC.

Comparative role of tenofovir versus entecavir for treating patients with hepatitis B virus-related acute on chronic liver failure

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of tenofovir versus entecavir for treatment of naive acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) due to hepatitis B virus (HBV) (ACLF-B).

METHODS

Thirty-two patients aged 14-65 years were enrolled in the study. Diagnosis of ACLF was confirmed by clinical condition, biochemical analysis, and virological data. The causes of both chronic liver damages and acute insult in all patients were HBV. They were expressing HBV DNA in the sera, positive for IgM anti-HBc, had increased levels of serum bilirubin, compromised prothrombin time; and more than 50% patients had encephalopathy. The standard dose of tenofovir and entecavir was given.

RESULTS

The antiviral effects of tenofovir and entecavir were evident as most patients became negative for HBV DNA in the sera after 90 days of therapy. Also, the levels of serum bilirubin, CTP (Child-Turcotte-Pugh) and MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) score exhibited significant improvement due to antiviral therapy. Although the improvement of liver functions, and liver damages were detected in patients receiving both tenofovir and entecavir, the survival of the patients was significantly higher in those receiving tenofovir compared to entecavir-treated patients.

CONCLUSION

This prospective study with limited number patients provides a challenge to assess the real potential of tenofovir over entecavir as therapeutic option for ACLF-B by conducting a multicenter clinical trial enrolling patient of different races and background.

No difference in hepatocellular carcinoma risk between chronic hepatitis B patients treated with entecavir versus tenofovir

OBJECTIVE

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are first-line agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Recent studies have challenged the assumption that these agents are equally effective at preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to determine whether the risk of HCC and mortality differ in patients with CHB treated with ETV and TDF.

DESIGN

We performed a retrospective cohort study of Veterans Affairs patients with CHB in the USA who initiated treatment with ETV or TDF between the dates of Food and Drug Administration approval of these medications and 1 January 2017. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the association between antiviral therapy and HCC risk as well as the risk of death or liver transplantation. Propensity score adjustment and competing risks analysis were performed.

RESULTS

We identified 2193 ETV-treated and 1094 TDF-treated patients who were followed for a mean of 5.4 years. We found no difference in the risk of HCC in ETV-treated versus TDF-treated patients (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32). Results were similar in propensity score adjusted and competing risks analysis, and in multiple sensitivity analyses. We also found no difference in the risk of death or liver transplantation (aHR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.39).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no difference in the risk of HCC between patients with CHB treated with ETV versus TDF. Our results support current guideline recommendations that both agents are appropriate first-line options for the treatment of CHB.

Pharmacotherapy options for managing hepatitis B in children

INTRODUCTION

To eliminate viral hepatitis by 2030, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the first global health sector strategy on viral hepatitis, with particular focus given to hepatitis B and C in 2016. To achieve the reduction of mortality in children, it is indispensable to know which children should be treated and how to treat them.

AREA COVERED

In this article, the authors review the antiviral treatment of children with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection including antivirals available for children with chronic HBV infection.

EXPERT OPINION

The approvals of nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) and pegylated interferon (PEG-IFN) for children have lowered a hurdle to the initiation of antiviral treatment in children. The international guidelines use nearly the same criteria of antiviral treatment for children with chronic HBV infection, but the WHO guidelines provide a cautious stance on the antiviral treatment of children. Not only PEG-IFN but also NAs with a high genetic barrier to drug resistance should be the first-line treatment for children. In settings with limited medical resources, NAs can be the first-line treatment for children. Although the concept of an 'immune-tolerant phase' is challenged, evidence is not sufficient to recommend the treatment of HBeAg-positive immune-tolerant children.

Tenofovir is Superior to Entecavir in Patients with Treatment-naïve Hepatitis B e-Antigen-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) is a global health problem affecting around 400 million of people worldwide. Two available first-line antiviral drugs are tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and Entecavir (ETV). Till date,there are few published reports from India comparing efficacy of TDF and ETV in CHB cases. Therefore, this present study was carried out with an aim to compare the efficacy of ETV and TDF in patients with nucleos(t)ide naïve CHB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was carried out in 192 treatment naïve CHB cases, who completed 24 months of treatment with either TDF or ETV between March 2015 and August 2017. The primary end point of the study was undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA after 24 months of therapy.

RESULTS

Of total 192 patients with CHB, 38 hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive and 53 HBeAg-negative patients were treated with tenofovir, whereas 40 HBeAg-positive and 61 HBeAg-negative patients were treated with ETV. Pretreatment characteristics at baseline were not statistically different between the TDF and ETV groups. Patients treated with TDF achieved significantly higher complete viral suppression as compared with ETV-treated patients (Log rank: 7.04, P = 0.008) in HBeAg-positive CHB during the 24 months follow-up time; whereas no significant difference in viral suppression rate could be noticed in HBeAg-negative patients (Log rank: 0.98, P = 0.38). Both univariate and multivariate analysis by cox proportional hazard model confirmed that tenofovir had significant rate of complete viral suppression in comparison with ETV in HBeAg-positive patients (P < 0.05); whereas complete viral suppression rates were similar in HBeAg-negative patients.

CONCLUSION

In our study, tenofovir had more effective antiviral suppressive effect compared with ETV in HBeAg-positive, nucleos(t)ide-naïve CHB cases.

Optimal drug administration manner would rescue partial virological response in chronic hepatitis B patients with entecavir or tenofovir treatment

Not all treatment-naïve patients receiving entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) therapy can achieve complete virological response, and many factors may be related with the outcome of partial virological response. This study aimed to determine whether the manner of drug administration affects the antiviral efficacy of ETV/TDF monotherapy. All eligible patients were divided into complete or partial response cohorts based on their virological response following 24-week therapy. Factors related with partial response were evaluated. Patients with partial response were further grouped depending on whether they later adjusted the manner of drug administration, and the antiviral efficacy was compared between the two groups during prolonged treatment. A total of 518 patients were enrolled. Suboptimal drug administration (OR 77.511, P = .000), positive-HBeAg (OR 3.191, P = .000) and ETV treatment (OR 2.537, P = .001) were identified as independent risk factors for partial response. Among patients with partial response, 213 were in the adjusted group and 76 were in the unadjusted group. The percentages of patients with undetectable serum HBV DNA (78.9% vs 31.6%, P < .001) and with normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (88.7% vs 68.4%, P < .001) were both higher in the adjusted group than that in unadjusted group following a further 6-month therapy. In conclusion, the manner of drug administration is an important factor influencing the efficacy of ETV/TDF therapy, and optimal drug administration manner can help to increase antiviral efficacy and rescue patients with partial response.

Tenofovir Versus Entecavir for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prevention in an International Consortium of Chronic Hepatitis B

INTRODUCTION

It is unclear whether entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) differ in their effectiveness for preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed an international consortium that encompassed 19 centers from 6 countries or regions composed of previously untreated CHB patients then treated with either ETV or TDF monotherapy. Those who developed HCC before antiviral treatment or within 1 year of therapy were excluded. The association between antiviral regimen and HCC risk was evaluated using competing-risk survival regression. We also applied propensity score matching (PSM) to 1:1 balance the 2 treatment cohorts. A total of 5,537 patients were eligible (n = 4,837 received ETV and n = 700 received TDF) and observed for HCC occurrence until December 23, 2018. Before PSM, the TDF cohort was significantly younger and had generally less advanced diseases.

RESULTS

In the unadjusted analysis, TDF was associated with a lower risk of HCC (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.79; P = 0.005). The multivariable analysis, however, found that the association between TDF and HCC no longer existed (SHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.56; P = 0.52) after adjustment for age, sex, country, albumin, platelet, α-fetoprotein, cirrhosis, and diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, the PSM analysis (n = 1,040) found no between-cohort differences in HCC incidences (P = 0.51) and no association between regimens (TDF or ETV) and HCC risk in the multivariable-adjusted analysis (adjusted SHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.92; P = 0.77).

DISCUSSION

TDF and ETV did not significantly differ in the prevention of HCC in patients with CHB.

Reduced Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Cirrhotic and Noncirrhotic Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B Treated With Tenofovir-A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Background

The effect of newer oral anti-hepatitis B virus (HBV) medication, tenofovir disoproxil (TDF), on liver-related outcomes among Asians is limited. We examined the effect of TDF on the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in an Asian population with chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of 6914 adults with chronic HBV monoinfection and no history of transplantation who were recruited from 6 US referral, community medical centers and a community based Taiwan cohort for a total of 774 patients who received TDF and 6140 who were not treated. Propensity score matching (PSM) for age, sex, HBV e antigen status, HBV DNA level, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level, baseline cirrhosis status, and follow-up time was performed to balance the groups, resulting in 591 treated individuals and 591 untreated individuals. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the cumulative risk of HCC. Cox proportional hazards models were run to estimate the HCC risk between groups.

Results

The 8-year cumulative HCC incidence was significantly higher in the PSM untreated group (20.13% vs 4.69%; P < .0001). Cirrhosis was a significant predictor for HCC (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 5.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.73-10.51; P < .001). On multivariate analysis adjusted for age, sex, HBV DNA level, ALT level, and study site, TDF was associated with a 77% reduction in the risk of HCC (aHR, 0.23; 95% CI, .56-.92) in patients with cirrhosis and a 73% reduction (aHR, 0.27; 95% CI, .07-.98) in patients without cirrhosis.

Conclusions

Among cirrhotic and noncirrhotic Asian patients with CHB, TDF therapy was significantly associated with a reduction in the 8-year HCC cumulative incidence rate.

Efficacy of long-term treatment with tenofovir in Chinese nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients regardless of baseline viral load

The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of tenofovir (TDF) treatment for up to 5 years in nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients, particularly those with a high viral load, a in real-life scenario. A total of 144 nucleos(t)ide-naïve CHB patients who received TDF monotherapy for at least 3 months were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint measure was the achievement of virological response (VR; undetectable serum HBV DNA, <100 IU/ml). The secondary endpoints were alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization (ALT < upper limit of normal), hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion and safety. The median follow-up period was 120 weeks (range, 12-264 weeks). In total, 144, 130, 114, 78, 67, 40 and 13 patients were followed up for at least 12, 24, 48, 96, 144, 192 and 240 weeks, respectively. An incremental trend was observed in the rate of VR: 73.1, 91.3, 98.1, 100, 100 and 100% of the patients exhibited VR at 24, 48, 96, 144, 192 and 240 weeks, respectively. Furthermore, 29 patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA ≥8 log₁₀ IU/ml at baseline achieved VR during the follow-up period. The proportions of patients achieving normal ALT levels were 72.1, 78.6, 91.2, 95, 96 and 100%, at 24, 48, 96, 144, 192 and 240 weeks, respectively. The rate of HBeAg loss reached 35.6% at week 240. Among the 130 patients, HBV DNA was detectable [partial VR (PVR)] in 35 patients at 24 weeks of follow-up, and 30 of those 35 patients (85.7%) required >24 weeks of further TDF therapy to achieve VR. No serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, long-term TDF treatment of nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients, regardless of high viral load at baseline, was effective and safe in a real-life scenario. Adjustment of TDF monotherapy may be unnecessary in nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with PVR at 24 weeks.

Changes in Renal Function in Patients With Chronic HBV Infection Treated With Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate vs Entecavir

BACKGROUND & AIMS

It is unclear whether drugs used to treat chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection cause significant renal impairment. We compare adjusted mean estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR; mL/min/1.73 m²) of patients with chronic HBV infection treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs patients treated with entecavir.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients with chronic HBV infections treated with TDF (n = 239) or entecavir (n = 171), from 2000 through 2016, followed for a mean time of 43-46 months. Levels of serum creatinine were measured ≥12 months while patients received treatment. Patients did not have prior exposure to adefovir or HCV, HDV, or HIV co-infection. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) for age, sex, presence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, baseline eGFR, cirrhosis, and follow-up duration. We performed multivariate generalized linear modeling, adjusting for cirrhosis, diabetes, and hypertension, to estimate adjusted mean eGFR for matched and unmatched cohorts. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of renal impairment.

RESULTS

eGFRs were ≥60, after PSM, in 116 patients given entecavir and in 116 patients given TDF; eGFRs were <60 in 32 patients given entecavir and 26 patients given TDF. Multivariate generalized linear modeling of the unmatched overall and <60 eGFR cohorts revealed significantly lower adjusted mean eGFRs in patients given TDF (all P < .001). However, in the eGFR ≥60 PSM cohort, the adjusted mean eGFR was similar between patients receiving either treatment. In Cox regression analysis, TDF was not associated with mild or moderate renal impairment compared with entecavir.

CONCLUSION

In a retrospective study of patients with chronic HBV infections treated with TDF vs entecavir, we found that TDF was not associated with higher risk of worsening renal function during short- or intermediate-term follow-up periods, among patients without significant renal impairment. Additional studies, with longer follow-up periods, are needed because treatment for chronic HBV infection is generally long term or life-long. For patients with baseline renal impairment, significant renal decline was among patients given TDF compared to patients given entecavir.

Comparison of the long-term efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naïve HBeAg-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B: A large, multicentre, randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

We conducted this study to compare the efficacy and safety of entecavir and tenofovir in the treatment of treatment-naïve HBV e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) for 144 weeks.

METHODS

A total of 320 treatment-naïve HBeAg-positive CHB patients who received randomly a single regimen of either entecavir capsule (ETV) (n = 160) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate capsule (TDF) (n = 160) for 144 weeks were consecutively enrolled from 14 tertiary hospitals or university hospitals in China between January 2012 and December 2014.

RESULTS

Two groups showed no difference in baseline characteristics. After 144 weeks of treatment, HBV DNA levels were similarly suppressed in both groups (ETV vs TDF; -6.6485 vs -6.692 log10IU/mL, P = .807). At the same time, both groups showed no difference in terms of the serologic and biochemical response. Of all patients, 2 dropped out due to adverse events and 5 experienced serious adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

Both capsules (ETV or TDF) were equally effective in nucleos(t)ide-naive CHB patients with a comparable side-effect profile even in a long-term of 144 weeks.

A long-term multicenter study: Entecavir versus Tenofovir in treatment of nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarat (TDF) are the two first-line therapies recommended in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B because of having potent antiviral effect and high genetic barriers against resistance. We aimed to compare efficacy of these drugs and to evaluate predictors of viral suppression.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study was conducted in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients from different 6 centers.

RESULTS

Of the 252 patients, 166 received ETV and 86 TDF. The two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, baseline ALT levels and fibrosis scores. ETV had significantly higher baseline HBV DNA, histological activity index and lower hepatitis B early antigen (HBeAg) seropositivity. Treatment duration was longer in ETV group (P<0.001). In univariate analysis, undetectable HBV DNA and ALT normalization rates were detected significantly higher in ETV groups (P<0.001 and 0.049, respectively). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of HBeAg seroconversion, virological breakthrough, time to virological breakthrough and time to ALT normalization. Entecavir was more effective in reducing HBV DNA levels at the 3rd, 6th and 12th months of the treatment (P=0.06, 0.021 and 0.012, respectively). However, multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that TDF therapy compared to ETV had an increased probability of achieving complete viral suppression (HR=1, 66; 95% CI 1.21-2.33; P=0.010). Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroconversion was occurred in only one patient in ETV group.

CONCLUSION

ETV leads to an early response on HBV DNA decline in the first year of the treatment. However, TDF is more successful than entecavir in achieving virological suppression.

Comparison of the long-term efficacy between entecavir and tenofovir in treatment- naïve chronic hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND

There have been limited studies directly comparing the long-term efficacy between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). This study was aimed to compare the long-term efficacy between them in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

METHODS

Out of 345 CHB patients who received first line therapy with ETV (n = 200) or TDF (n = 145) in a cohort, 210 patients were analyzed using propensity score matching, at a ratio of 1:1.

RESULTS

Two groups showed no difference in baseline characteristics. During the follow-up of 12 months, HBV DNA levels were similarly suppressed in both groups (ETV vs. TDF; -5.01 vs. -5.242 log10IU/mL, P = 0.559). At month 12, both groups showed no difference in terms of the serologic, biochemical and virologic (VR) response. In multivariate analysis, the initial virologic response at 3 months (IVR-3) was independent factor for VR at 1 year. During the long-term follow-up, HBV DNA levels were more strongly suppressed by TDF than ETV in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive patients (P = 0.035), especially with high viral load (P = 0.012), although there was no significant difference in overall VR between two groups. The type of antivirals was not an independent factor for long-term VR.

CONCLUSIONS

Although either ETV or TDF, overall, may show a comparable long-term antiviral efficacy in treatment-naïve CHB, TDF might be better regimen than ETV in the subgroup of HBeAg-positive CHB, especially with a higher HBV DNA levels.

The efficacy and safety comparison between tenofovir and entecavir in treatment of chronic hepatitis B and HBV related cirrhosis: A systematic review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety between tenofovir and entecavir in the treatment of CHB and HBV related cirrhosis through Meta-analysis. Methods The electronic databases of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Nature, CNKI and WanFang data were searched. The key words were: ("tenofovir", "entecavir") and ("Chronic Hepatitis B" or "CHB") and "Liver cirrhosis". Heterogeneity and report bias were analyzed.

RESULTS

There was significant difference of ALT norm level in the short-term period of 3months (RR=1.43, 95%CI: 1.06-1.94, P<0.017) and 6months (RR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.81-0.97, P<0.017), and significant difference of undetectable HBV-DNA only in 3months follow-up period (RR=1.59, 95%CI: 1.04-2.42, P<0.017) between TDF and ETV, but no significant difference in the long-term period. There is significant difference between TDF and ETV in eGFR level (RR=1.601, 95%CI: 1.035-2.478, P=0.0034) and hypophosphatemia incidence (RR=4.008, 95%CI: 1.485-10.820, P=0.006).

CONCLUSION

TDF has a better efficacy than ETV in 3months treatment duration, but intriguingly, TDF might not better than ETV during the 6months treatment period in the viral suppression and liver function improvement. There's no significant difference between TDF and ETV in the long-term treatment duration and in the treatment of HBV related liver cirrhosis. Both TDF and ETV could influence renal function but patients under TDF therapy may have more risk to suffer from renal damage and hypophosphatemia.

Tenofovir in treatment of Iranian patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection: An open-label case series

OBJECTIVE

Tenofovir is among the first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) virus infection. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of Tenofovir in treatment of Iranian patients with CHB.

METHODS

Forty treatment-native patients with CHB but without concurrent hepatitis C or human immunodeficiency virus infections were treated with Tenobiovir(™) 300 mg/day. The hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA load, hepatitis B e antigen (HBe Ag), anti-hepatitis B e antibody (HBe Ab), liver enzymes, and creatinine were measured before and at least 3 months after the treatment.

FINDINGS

The mean age of patients was 38.1 ± 12.4 years and 65% of them were male. Seventeen (42.5%) patients were HBe Ag-positive and 15 (37.5%) patients had alanine aminotransferase (ALT) of two times above the normal. The HBV DNA load was significantly decreased after the treatment (P < 0.001). Twenty-seven (67.5%) patients had viral load of ≤2000 IU/ml and 22 (55%) patients had undetectable HBV DNA level after the treatment. Among positive HBe Ag patients, the HBe Ag became negative in 15 (88.2%) patients after the treatment and HBe Ab became positive in 3 (17.6%) patients. Liver enzymes' levels were significantly decreased after the treatment (P <0.05) and ALT transaminase level became normalized in 86.7% (13 out of 15) of cases with baseline levels twice the normal.

CONCLUSION

Treatment response rate to Tenofovir in Iranian patients with CHB was high. The virological and serological response rate and safety of Tenofovir in our population was comparable to other populations. Considering availability and costs, Tenobiovir(™) could be recommended as the first-line therapy of chronic HBV infection in Iran.

Efficacy Comparison of Tenofovir and Entecavir in HBeAg-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B Patients with High HBV DNA

Objectives. To compare entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) effects in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with high HBV DNA. Method. 96 patients treated initially with tenofovir (TDF group) or entecavir (ETV group) were included in this retrospective study. The following parameters were assessed: HBeAg and hepatitis B e antibody (anti-HBe) status, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and HBV-DNA levels at weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 96; time to ALT normalization, undetectable HBV-DNA levels, and HBeAg seroconversion; total duration of follow-up and adverse reactions. Results. The patients included 66 (69%) and 30 (31%) individuals administered ETV and TDF, respectively, comprising 75% males. They were 35.1 ± 4.5 and 33.7 ± 4.6 years old in ETV and TDF groups, respectively. At 36 weeks, the response rate was significantly higher in the TDF group than in ETV treated patients (90% versus 69.7%, p = 0.03). At 48 weeks, less patients administered ETV showed undetectable HBV-DNA levels compared with the TDF group (86.4% versus 96.7%), a non-statistically significant difference (p = 0.13). Only 1 ETV treated patient developed virological breakthrough at 48–96 w. No adverse reactions were found. Conclusion. ETV and TDF are comparable in efficacy and safety to suppress HBV-DNA replication in HBeAg-positive CHB patients with high HBV DNA.

Clinical course of partial virological responders under prolonged entecavir monotherapy in patients with chronic hepatitis B

Studies about long-term entecavir (ETV) therapy for partial virological response (PVR) are lacking. This study aimed to assess the clinical course of PVR patients receiving ETV therapy and analyze the efficacy of tenofovir (TDF). We retrospectively evaluated 130 patients who showed a PVR to ETV. Among these patients, 102 were nucleot(s)ide analogue (NUC)-naïve and 28 were lamivudine (LAM)-experienced. The cumulative rates of VR were 54.1%, 70.8%, and 83.7% for the NUC-naïve group and 37.0%, 42.8%, and 42.8% for the LAM-experienced group after 24, 36, and 48 months of ETV therapy, respectively (P  = 0.008). Low HBV DNA level at 12 months (P < 0.001) and absence of a LAM treatment history (P  = 0.031) were significant associated factors for VR. In VR prediction at 36 months of ETV therapy in NUC-naïve patients, HBV DNA level <95 IU/ml at 12 months showed a 92.9% sensitivity and a 78.3% specificity (AUROC, 0.909; P < 0.001). ETV resistance did not develop in NUC-naïve patients with HBV DNA levels <95 IU/ml at 12 months. The cumulative probability of VR in patients who switched to or additionally received TDF was 91.3% at 15 months. Prolonged ETV therapy induced a VR without the risk of ETV resistance in NUC-naïve patients with HBV DNA levels <95 IU/ml at 12 months. All patients with LAM-experienced or NUC-naïve with HBV DNA levels ≥95 IU/ml at 12 months should be switched to TDF rescue therapy.

Efficacy of tenofovir switch therapy for nucleos(t)ide-experienced patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate has been used in chronic hepatitis B patients with suboptimal virologic response to nucleos(t)ide analogues. The efficacy of tenofovir switch therapy has not been well studied in Asian patients.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of tenofovir switch therapy in nucleos(t)ide-experienced patients, and identify the factors associated with treatment response of tenofovir switch therapy.

METHODS

Nucleos(t)ide-experienced hepatitis B e antigen-positive and -negative patients prescribed with tenofovir were retrospectively identified and recruited for prospective analysis. Hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA and other biochemical parameters were monitored in regular 3-6 monthly follow-up visits. Primary efficacy endpoint was maintained-virologic response with tenofovir switch therapy, defined as undetectable HBV DNA (<20 IU/mL) until the last follow-up visit.

RESULTS

An overall of 214/252 (84.9%) patients achieved maintained-virologic response after 22 (7-55) months of tenofovir switch therapy. On multivariate analysis, a lower HBV DNA level at the time of switching to tenofovir was an independent factor associated with treatment efficacy. Maintained-virologic response after switching to tenofovir was achieved in 177/190 (93.2%) patients with HBV DNA <20 000 IU/mL vs. 37/62 (59.7%) patients with HBV DNA ≥20 000 IU/mL (P < 0.001). Absence of genotypic resistance to lamivudine or adefovir dipivoxil was not associated with improved treatment outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Tenofovir switch therapy is an effective treatment strategy in nucleos(t)ide-experienced chronic hepatitis B patients. However, in patients with HBV DNA ≥20 000 IU/mL at the time of switching to tenofovir, the chance of achieving maintained undetectable HBV DNA is significantly reduced.

Implications of efficient hepatic delivery by tenofovir alafenamide (GS-7340) for hepatitis B virus therapy

Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a prodrug of tenofovir (TFV) currently in clinical evaluation for treatment for HIV and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections. Since the target tissue for HBV is the liver, the hepatic delivery and metabolism of TAF in primary human hepatocytes in vitro and in dogs in vivo were evaluated here. Incubation of primary human hepatocytes with TAF resulted in high levels of the pharmacologically active metabolite tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP), which persisted in the cell with a half-life of >24 h. In addition to passive permeability, studies of transfected cell lines suggest that the hepatic uptake of TAF is also facilitated by the organic anion-transporting polypeptides 1B1 and 1B3 (OATP1B1 and OATP1B3, respectively). In order to inhibit HBV reverse transcriptase, TAF must be converted to the pharmacologically active form, TFV-DP. While cathepsin A is known to be the major enzyme hydrolyzing TAF in cells targeted by HIV, including lymphocytes and macrophages, TAF was primarily hydrolyzed by carboxylesterase 1 (CES1) in primary human hepatocytes, with cathepsin A making a small contribution. Following oral administration of TAF to dogs for 7 days, TAF was rapidly absorbed. The appearance of the major metabolite TFV in plasma was accompanied by a rapid decline in circulating TAF. Consistent with the in vitro data, high and persistent levels of TFV-DP were observed in dog livers. Notably, higher liver TFV-DP levels were observed after administration of TAF than those given TDF. These results support the clinical testing of once-daily low-dose TAF for the treatment of HBV infection.

Virologic response and safety of tenofovir versus entecavir in treatment-naïve chronic Hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the antiviral response and safety of tenofovir (TDF) versus entecavir (ETV) in treatment-naïve CHB patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of treatment-naive CHB patients who were treated with TDF or ETV. We analyzed virologic, biochemical, and serologic responses at 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients (TDF group = 49, ETV group = 58) were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The estimated proportion of complete virologic response (CVR) in the TDF or ETV group was 44.9% versus 39.7% at 6 months and 89.6% versus 83.2% at 12 months, respectively (P = 0.991). Viral breakthrough was not observed in both groups. One patient in the TDF group and two patients in the ETV group experienced HBeAg loss, respectively (P = 0.657). High HBV DNA level at baseline was a significant negative predictor of virologic response by Cox regression analysis (P = 0.007). The safety profile was similar between the two groups. There was no case with serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Both TDF and ETV were effective in achieving CVR and had a favorable safety profile in treatment-naïve CHB patients. High viral load at baseline was a negative predictive factor of CVR.

Comparison of first-year results of tenofovir and entecavir treatments of nucleos(t)ide-naive chronic hepatitis B patients with hepatosteatosis

BACKGROUND/AIM

Hepatic steatosis may influence the response to antivirals in chronic hepatitis B patients. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir in nucleos(t) ide-naive chronic hepatitis B patients with hepatosteatosis during 48 weeks of therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our data for chronic hepatitis B patients. Nucleos(t) ide-naive patients with hepatosteatosis who took entecavir or tenofovir for at least 48 weeks were included. We compared entecavir and tenofovir after 48 weeks of therapy with respect to virological, biochemical, and serological responses in patients with hepatosteatosis.

RESULTS

Of the 63 patients, 21 received entecavir and 42 received tenofovir. Baseline characteristics of the patients were similar except for body mass index. At the end of week 48, there was no statistically significant difference between tenofovir and entecavir treatment regarding total HBV-DNA negativity and alanine transferase normalization in patients with chronic hepatitis B and hepatosteatosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Entecavir and tenofovir are similarly effective in nucleos(t)ide-naive chronic hepatitis B patients with hepatosteatosis after 48 weeks of therapy.

Treatment cessation in noncirrhotic, e-antigen negative chronic hepatitis B is safe and effective following prolonged anti-viral suppression with nucleosides/nucleotides

BACKGROUND

The treatment of HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is considered to be open-ended, with no guidelines for treatment cessation.

AIM

To evaluate biochemical and virological relapse requiring retreatment in noncirrhotic HBeAg-negative CHB in patients who stopped treatment following a period of prolonged viral suppression with nucleotides/nucleosides.

METHODS

We performed a single-centre retrospective chart review of patients with HBeAg-negative CHB who maintained viral suppression for 4-5 years on anti-viral treatment, and thus subsequently stopped treatment. The primary end point of composite relapse was defined by an increase in HBV DNA >2000 IU/mL, ALT elevation above 1.25 × normal or doubling of ALT from cessation, and re-initiation of anti-viral therapy.

RESULTS

We identified 33 patients with HBeAg-negative CHB who stopped treatment following viral suppression. Mean treatment duration was 5.28 ± 2.73 years. Patients were treated with lamivudine (3), adefovir (14), entecavir (4), and tenofovir (12). Eleven (33%) patients met the primary end point of composite relapse. For individual end points, 21 (63%) patients had a viral relapse, 16 (48%) had a biochemical relapse, and 16 (48%) restarted treatment, leaving 17 (52%) patients who remained treatment-free over a median 36 months of follow-up. Lower pre-treatment ALT and detectable HBV DNA within the first month after treatment discontinuation were associated with increased rates of composite relapse (HR 1.01; P = 0.022 for ALT and HR 1.01; P = 0.038 for HBV DNA).

CONCLUSION

Patients with noncirrhotic HBeAg-negative CHB can stop treatment after greater than 4-5 years of suppressive therapy with nucleosides/nucleotides with more than 50% remaining treatment-free.