Similar risk of kidney function decline between tenofovir alafenamide and besifovir dipivoxil maleate in chronic hepatitis B

Comparison of hepatocellular carcinoma incidence after long-term treatment with besifovir vs. tenofovir AF

Besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV) is a novel antiviral agent widely used in South Korea for treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This study aimed to compare the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following long-term use of BSV versus tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), utilizing large-scale national data. A total of 41,949 patients were analyzed, with propensity score matching (PSM) yielding 2,239 BSV and 6,717 TAF patients. The HCC incidence rate per 1,000 person-years was 1.8 for BSV versus 2.4 for TAF before matching (P = 0.057) and 1.6 versus 2.2 after matching (P = 0.284). Multivariate Cox regression identified age, male sex, antiviral duration, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, and decompensated cirrhosis as significant risk factors for HCC, while antiviral type was not (HR 1.12, P = 0.413). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in HCC incidence between BSV and TAF in cirrhotic or non-cirrhotic patients. These findings suggest that BSV offers comparable efficacy to TAF in preventing HCC and is a promising option for CHB management. Longer-term studies with larger cohorts are necessary to confirm these results and assess the full impact of BSV on HCC prevention.

Efficacy comparison of high-genetic barrier nucleos(t)ide analogues in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Four high-genetic barrier nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB), namely entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), and besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV), have been established. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of four high-genetic barrier NAs using a network meta-analysis of randomized trials and propensity score-matched cohorts.

METHODS

Systematic search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE and included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that used propensity score matching. Studies on treatment-naïve CHB patients treated with ETV, TDF, TAF, or BSV were included. Outcomes included alanine aminotransferase normalization and hepatitis B e antigen seroclearance at week 48 and undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA at weeks 48 and 96. Network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the results.

RESULTS

In total, 15,000 patients from 16 studies were included. In terms of 48- and 96-week virologic response (VR), TDF outperformed ETV with statistical significance (48 weeks: odds ratio [OR], 1.38; p < 0.001; 96 weeks: OR, 1.57; p = 0.004). ETV was ranked first for 48-week biochemical response (BR) and outperformed TDF (OR, 0.76; p = 0.028). In the sensitivity analyses, 48-week VR from randomized-controlled trials were compiled, and the same trend toward the superiority of TDF over ETV was found (OR, 1.51; p = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

Four high-genetic barrier NAs were compared, and TDF was more likely to achieve a VR after 48 weeks, while ETV provided a superior BR after 48 weeks.

Noninferiority Outcomes of Besifovir Compared to Tenofovir Alafenamide in Treatment-Naïve Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B

Background/Aims

: Besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV) and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) have been recently approved in Korea as the initial antiviral agents for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, the real-world outcome data for these drugs remain limited. Therefore, we conducted a noninferiority analysis using real-world data to compare the clinical outcomes of the two nucleotide analogs in treatment-naïve patients with CHB.

Methods

: We retrospectively investigated a cohort of patients with CHB who received BSV or TAF as first-line antiviral agents. The endpoints were virological response (VR) and liver-related clinical outcomes.

Results

: A total of 537 patients, consisting of 202 and 335 patients administered BSV and TAF, respectively, were followed up for 42 months. No significant difference was observed between the VRs of the patients from the two groups. The rates of biochemical response, virologic breakthrough, and incidence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma did not differ between the groups. However, the hepatitis B e antigen seroclearance rate was higher and the renal function declined less in the BSV group. Multivariable analysis indicated older age, alcohol abuse, cirrhosis and ascites, and lower serum HBV DNA level to be independently associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma risk. The 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis with 400 patients showed VR rates of 85.0% and 88.7% in the BSV and TAF group patients, respectively, at 2 years. The absolute value of the 95% confidence interval for the difference (-0.04 to 0.12) satisfied the a priori limit of a noninferiority of 0.15.

Conclusions

: BSV is noninferior to TAF in terms of VR, and their clinical outcomes are comparable to CHB.

Longitudinal changes in renal function in patients with chronic hepatitis B on antiviral treatment

BACKGROUND

Patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) on nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUCs) often experience renal function decline. Conflicting results regarding the impact of NUC use and renal function have recently been reported.

AIM

To examine longitudinal changes in renal function according to the NUC treatment type compared with untreated patients METHODS: From 2014 to 2022, we retrospectively analysed 10,642 patients with CHB. The primary outcome was chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, which was defined as a minimum one-stage elevation. We applied propensity score (PS) matching for outcome comparisons.

RESULTS

In the PS-matched cohort of 1996 pairs, the NUC-treated group (7.6/100 person-years [PYs]) had a significantly higher CKD progression risk than the untreated group (4.4/100 PYs), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.70 (p < 0.001). The tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-treated group (7.9/100 PYs) showed a 1.76-fold increased CKD progression risk compared with the untreated group (4.5/100 PYs) in the PS-matched cohort (p < 0.001). Both the entecavir- and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-treated groups showed CKD progression risks comparable to those of the untreated group in the PS-matched cohorts of 755 and 426 pairs, respectively (p = 0.132 and p = 0.120, respectively). No significant CKD progression risk was found between the entecavir- (6.0/100 PYs) and TAF-treated (5.2/100 PYs) groups in the PS-matched cohort of 510 pairs (p = 0.118).

CONCLUSIONS

NUC-treated patients, especially those on TDF, faced a higher CKD progression risk than untreated patients. Entecavir- and TAF-treated patients had comparable CKD progression risks to untreated patients. No difference was observed between entecavir and TAF in the risk of CKD progression.

Comparison of decline in renal function between patients with chronic hepatitis B with or without antiviral therapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Renal function can deteriorate in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We compared the risk of renal function decline between patients with untreated and treated CHB receiving antiviral therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 1061 untreated CHB patients, and 366 on tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), 190 on besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV), and 2029 on entecavir (ETV). The primary outcome was renal function decline, a ≥ one-stage increase in chronic kidney disease for ≥3 consecutive months.

RESULTS

The incidence and risk of renal function decline were significantly higher in the 1:1 propensity score-matched treated group (588 pairs) than in the untreated (2.7 per 1000 person-years [PYs] vs. 1.3 per 1000 PYs, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] = 2.29, all p < 0.001). The matched TAF group (222 pairs) showed a similar risk for the primary outcome (aHR = 1.89, p = 0.107) despite a significantly higher incidence thereof, compared to the untreated (3.9 vs. 1.9 per 1000 PYs, p = 0.042). The matched BSV and untreated groups (107 pairs) showed no significant differences in the incidence and risk. However, ETV users (541 pairs) carried a significantly higher outcome incidence and risk than the matched untreated (3.6 vs. 1.1 per 1000 PYs, aHR = 1.05, all p < 0.001). Compared to each matched untreated group, changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate over time were greater in the ETV group (p = 0.010), despite being similar in the TAF (p = 0.073) and BSV groups (p = 0.926).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with untreated patients, TAF or BSV users showed similar risk, whereas ETV users showed a higher risk of renal function decline.