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

Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Entecavir: Which is the Most Effective Drug for Chronic Hepatitis B? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The therapeutic effect of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) on chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients remains inconsistent. The aim of this study was to explore the differences in virological responses to TAF, TDF and ETV in patients with CHB.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted of the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies published up to July 21, 2020. Statistical comparisons of virological response between TDF, ETV, and TAF were carried out with pooled odds ratio (OR) values.

RESULTS

The virological response in TDF-treated CHB patients was notably superior to that of the ETV-treated CHB patients after 12-weeks [OR=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-1.41], 24-weeks (OR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.11-1.61), 48-weeks (OR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.16-2.25), 72-weeks (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 0.78-2.62), and 96-weeks (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 0.87-2.81) treatment. No significant difference was observed for the virological responses in CHB patients after 48-weeks treatment with TAF or TDF. The virological response in TDF+ETV-treated CHB patients was superior to that of TDF-treated CHB patients after 24-weeks, 48-weeks (OR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.17-2.02), 96-weeks, and 144-weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The virological response in TDF-treated CHB patients was superior to that in ETV-treated CHB patients, but there was no significant difference between TAF and TDF. In addition, the therapeutic effect of TDF+ETV was superior to TDF alone.

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.

Hepatitis B-related glomerulonephritis and optimization of treatment

Introduction: Multiple studies have revealed a strong relationship between the development of nephropathy and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The underlying pathogenesis of hepatitis B-related glomerulonephritis (HBV-GN) involves immune complexes, which can be isolated from kidney tissues. Clearance of HBV antigenemia improves renal impairment and proteinuria in HBV-GN patients.Areas covered: In this review, we present our current understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HBV-GN. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of oral nucleoside/nucleotide analogs (NAs), and the main pharmaceutical treatment for hepatis B.Expert opinion: Currently, antiviral agents are the main HBV-GN therapeutic agents. Although no randomized controlled clinical trials have compared the efficacy of interferon (IFN) and NA, we suggest IFN treatment for pediatric patients (IFN-α in patients ≥1 year; pegIFN-α in patients ≥3 years) considering treatment duration and absence of resistance. Novel NAs have brought about promising treatment options involving high efficacy viral suppression and low resistance rates. NAs with a high barrier to resistance (e.g. entecavir) are recommended as first-line therapy of HBV-GN. Immunosuppression monotherapy, such as corticosteroids, is of little benefit and potentially harmful to HBV-GN patients due to the possibility of viral reactivation.

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.

[Association of baseline alanine aminotransferase levels with therapeutic effects of entecavir and interferon-α in patients with chronic hepatitis B]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the therapeutic effects of entecavir (ETV) and interferon-α (IFN-α) treatments for 48 weeks for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in patients with different baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 369 CHB patients receiving ETV and IFN-α treatments for 48 weeks. We compared the virological response rates, HBsAg clearance, and HBsAg reduction between the patients receiving ETV and IFN-α treatments with different baseline ALT levels[≤ 5×upper limits of normal (ULN) level (subgroup 1), 5-10×ULN (subgroup 2), and > 10× ULN (subgroup 3)].

RESULTS

In patients receiving ETV treatment, the virological response rate was 83.3% in subgroup 1, 91.4% in subgroup 2, and 95.5% in subgroup 3, as compared with 19.7%, 40%, and 42.9% in the 3 subgroups with IFN-α treatment, respectively, showing significantly differences both among different subgroups with the same treatment and between the same subgroup with different treatments (P < 0.05). HBeAg clearance rates in the 3 subgroups were 8.3%, 16.7% and 35.5% in patients with ETV treatment and were 1.8%, 41.9%, and 38.1% in patients with IFN-α treatment, respectively, showing significant differences among the 3 subgroups with the same treatment (P < 0.05); in the same subgroups with different treatments, the rates differed significantly only between subgroups 2 (P < 0.05). In ETV group, the rate of HBsAg reduction to below 200 IU/ml was 2.5% in subgroup 1 and 13.8% in subgroup 2, showing no significant difference between the two subgroups; in IFN-α group, the rates were also similar between subgroups 1 and 2 (30.6% vs 33.3%, P > 0.05); but the rates differed significantly between the same subgroups with different treatments (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In all the subgroups with different baseline ALT levels, ETV treatment for 48 weeks results in significantly higher virological response rates than IFN-α treatment in patients with CHB. In patients with a baseline ALT of 5-10 ×ULN, IFN-α can result in a higher HBeAg clearance rate than ETV. In patients with comparable baseline ALT level, IFN-α more effectively reduces HBsAg level than ETV. The patients with a relatively high baseline ALT level (> 5 × ULN) show better responses to both ETV and IFN-α treatment than those with ALT level below 5×ULN. We thus recommend IFN-α for patients with a baseline ALT of 5-10×ULN and ETV for patients with a baseline ALT either below 5 × ULN or beyond 10×ULN.

TDF Monotherapy Is Effective Regardless of Prior Nucleos(t)ide Analogue Treatment in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in China

Background/Aims

Many patients had to transfer to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) if there is other nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) resistance. We aimed to investigate antiviral effects of TDF monotherapy between NA-naive and NA-experienced chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients in China.

Methods

A total of 102 NA-naive and NA-experienced CHB patients with TDF monotherapy (300 mg/day) were retrospectively analyzed for useful parameters up to 72 weeks.

Results

There were 36 and 66 patients with matched HBV DNA baseline level in NA-naïve and NA-experienced group, respectively. There were no significant differences between NA-naïve and NA-experienced groups in HBV DNA levels (all P > 0.05) and HBV DNA undetectable rates (all P > 0.05) at all time points. At the end of follow-up, HBV DNA undetectable rates in NA-naïve and NA-experienced group were 96.2% (25/26) and 91.8% (45/49), respectively (P = 0.476). Baseline HBV DNA level was the only independent predictor for HBV DNA negative time (P = 0.018). In addition, 27.8% (5/18) and 11.4% (4/35) achieved HBeAg seroconversion at the end of the follow-up, respectively (P = 0.133).

Conclusions

TDF monotherapy was effective regardless of prior NA experienced. Baseline HBV DNA was a key predictive factor for HBV DNA negative time in TDF monotherapy.

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.

Slow CD4+ T-Cell Recovery in Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Hepatitis B Virus-Coinfected Patients Initiating Truvada-Based Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in Botswana

Background.  Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection has emerged as an important cause of morbidity and mortality. We determined the response to Truvada-based first-line combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in HIV/HBV-coinfected verus HIV-monoinfected patients in Botswana. Methods.  Hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg), HBV e antigen (HBeAg), and HBV deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) load were determined from baseline and follow-up visits in a longitudinal cART cohort of Truvada-based regimen. We assessed predictors of HBV serostatus and viral suppression (undetectable HBV DNA) using logistic regression techniques. Results.  Of 300 participants, 28 were HBsAg positive, giving an HIV/HBV prevalence of 9.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.3-13.2), and 5 of these, 17.9% (95% CI, 6.1-36.9), were HBeAg positive. There was a reduced CD4+ T-cell gain in HIV/HBV-coinfected compared with HIV-monoinfected patients. Hepatitis B virus surface antigen and HBeAg loss was 38% and 60%, respectively, at 24 months post-cART initiation. The HBV DNA suppression rates increased with time on cART from 54% to 75% in 6 and 24 months, respectively. Conclusions.  Human immunodeficiency virus/HBV coinfection negatively affected immunologic recovery compared with HIV-1C monoinfection. Hepatitis B virus screening before cART initiation could help improve HBV/HIV treatment outcomes and help determine treatment options when there is a need to switch regimens.