The Efficacy of Antiviral Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis B Patients with Normal ALT Levels: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Context: When nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) were applied clinically to manage chronic hepatitis B virus infection, the prognosis of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients greatly improved. However, certain CHB patients with normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels were not used to be considered as the population with the need for antiviral treatment. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis collected and analyzed data from clinical trials to assess and compare the efficacy of antiviral treatment among patients with elevated and normal ALT levels. Methods: A systematic search was performed to gather studies published from 1990.01 to 2022.08 in PubMed and Web of Science databases. The quality of the literature was assessed, and 16 studies were included for further analysis. Basic information on included studies and study populations was collected. A meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate three major outcomes of viral response, hepatitis B envelope antigen (HBeAg) loss, and HBeAg seroconversion after NAs treatment based on data extracted from these studies. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes were calculated using fixed-effects models. Results: In the 16 relevant studies, 5,345 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 3,687 patients receiving NAs treatment. All patients were grouped into one with elevated ALT and another with normal ALT based on whether their pretreatment ALT levels > 1*upper limit of normal (ULN). For patients receiving lamivudine, the viral response showed no significant difference between the groups with elevated and normal ALT levels (pooled log OR: 0.51 [-0.23 - 1.26], P = 0.79); the pooled log OR for HBeAg loss was 1.19 (0.63 - 1.76, P = 0.03) and pooled log OR for HBeAg seroconversion was 2.19 (0.91 - 3.47, P = 0.40). For patients receiving first-line therapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV), the viral response showed no significant difference between the two groups: Pooled log OR (0.38 [-0.22 - 0.97], P = 0.10). The pooled log OR for HBeAg loss and HBeAg seroconversion was (-0.07 [-0.81 - 0.67], P = 0.68) and (0.40 [-0.84 - 1.63], P = 0.88), respectively. Conclusions: The efficacies of first-line therapy with TDF and ETV treatments were similar in groups with elevated and normal ALT levels for the outcomes of viral response and HBeAg loss. These findings may support further treatment of CHB patients with normal ALT levels.

Entecavir to Telbivudine Switch Therapy in Entecavir-Treated Patients with Undetectable Hepatitis B Viral DNA

PURPOSE

This study examined 2-year outcome of consecutive therapy using entecavir (ETV) followed by telbivudine (LdT) in subjects with undetectable hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level and normal alanine aminotransferase level after the initial 6 months of ETV treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty subjects were randomized to continue with ETV or switch to LdT. Significant difference in baseline characteristics was not found between the two groups. Persistent HBV DNA level of 20-60 IU/mL in three consecutive samples collected three months apart or singly measured HBV DNA level of >60 IU/mL was defined as virological rebound.

RESULTS

During 96 weeks of follow-up, all subjects of the ETV-only group (n=30) resulted in undetectable HBV DNA level. On the other hand, 83.3% (n=25) of the LdT-switched group showed treatment success. Virological rebound time varied from week 24 to 84 after switching to LdT. HBV DNA level was 180 to 2940 IU/mL at rebound time. All subjects with virological rebound (n=5) showed drug-resistant mutation: three had mutation rtM204I, and two had mutation rtM204V. Consecutive treatment using ETV followed by LdT showed virological rebound in 16.7% of subjects during 96 weeks of follow-up. HBV DNA negativity during initial ETV therapy could not be achieved in patients who switched to LdT.

CONCLUSION

Consecutive treatment using ETV followed by lamivudine was ineffective for treating chronic hepatitis B. LdT was found as a more potent antiviral agent than lamivudine. However, this conclusion requires larger-scale, long-term prospective reviews of the treatment effects of ETV-LdT switch therapy.

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.

Efficacy of prolonged entecavir monotherapy in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients exhibiting a partial virologic response to entecavir

Background/Aims

The optimal management of patients exhibiting a partial virologic response (PVR) to entecavir (ETV) has not been determined. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term efficacy of prolonged ETV monotherapy in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients exhibiting a PVR to ETV therapy.

Methods

This study included 364 treatment-naïve CHB patients treated with ETV for ≥48 weeks and who received continuous ETV monotherapy for ≥96 weeks. PVR was defined as a decrease in serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA of more than 2 log₁₀ IU/mL from baseline but with detectable HBV DNA by real-time PCR assay at week 48.

Results

Fifty-two of the 364 patients (14.3%) showed a PVR. Among them, 41 patients received continuous ETV monotherapy for ≥96 weeks (median duration 144 weeks, range 96-312 weeks), and 40 of these patients (95%) achieved a virologic response (VR, HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) during prolonged ETV monotherapy (median duration 78 weeks, range 60-288 weeks). The cumulative probabilities of a VR at weeks 96, 144, and 192 from treatment initiation were 78.0%, 92.7%, and 95.1%, respectively. The VR rate was 97.2% (35/36) in HBeAg-positive patients and 100% (5/5) in HBeAg-negative patients. In multivariate analysis, HBeAg positivity (odds ratio [OR], 9.231; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-82.91; P=0.047) and a high baseline HBV DNA level (OR, 0.170; 95% CI, 0.08-0.37; P=0.000) were independently associated with a delayed virologic response. No patient developed genotypic resistance to ETV during follow-up.

Conclusions

Long-term ETV monotherapy is effective for achieving a VR in treatment-naïve CHB patients exhibiting a PVR to ETV. HBeAg positivity and high baseline HBV DNA level were independently associated with a delayed virologic response.

Long-term adefovir dipivoxil monotherapy for up to 5 years in lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Large clinical studies assessing long-term adefovir dipivoxil salvage monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) are lacking, particularly in patients positive for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg). We assessed the efficacy and resistance profile of adefovir dipivoxil monotherapy for up to 5 years in a large cohort of Korean patients with lamivudine-resistant CHB.

METHODS

A total of 320 patients (81.3% HBeAg-positive; 100% genotype C) with confirmed genotypic lamivudine-resistant CHB were switched to adefovir dipivoxil 10 mg once daily. Liver function tests and HBV DNA were monitored every 3 months. Genotypic resistance to adefovir dipivoxil was performed in patients with detectable HBV DNA.

RESULTS

The overall cumulative virological response rate at 5 years of adefovir dipivoxil therapy was 48.8%. The virological response rate was significantly higher in HBeAg-negative patients (62.0% versus 45.9%; P=0.010). Most cases of virological response (131/134, 97.8%) occurred within the first 36 months of therapy. The 5-year cumulative probability of genotypic resistance and virological breakthrough was 65.6% and 61.8%, respectively. Predictive factors for a virological response included baseline HBeAg seronegativity, HBV DNA< or =8 log(10) copies/ml and achievement of an on-treatment initial virological response.

CONCLUSIONS

Adefovir dipivoxil salvage monotherapy for lamivudine-resistant CHB resulted in a modest cumulative virological response rate at 5 years, which was associated with progressive antiviral resistance. Consequently, adefovir monotherapy is not preferable as a first-line strategy for lamivudine resistance where combination lamivudine plus adefovir dipivoxil therapy is available.