[Development of clevudine resistance after switching from lamivudine in a patient with chronic hepatitis B]

Entecavir Interacts with Influx Transporters hOAT1, hCNT2, hCNT3, but Not with hOCT2: The Potential for Renal Transporter-Mediated Cytotoxicity and Drug-Drug Interactions

Entecavir (ETV) is one of the most potent agents for the treatment of the hepatitis B viral infection. The drug is principally eliminated by the kidney. The goal of this study was to investigate the potential of ETV to interact in vitro with the renal SLC transporters hOAT1, hOCT2, hCNT2 and hCNT3. Potential drug–drug interactions of ETV at the renal transporters with antiviral drugs known to be excreted by the kidney (adefovir, tenofovir, cidofovir) as well as transporter-dependent cytotoxicity were also examined. Interactions with the selected transporters along with cytotoxicity were studied in several transiently transfected cellular models using specific substrates and inhibitors. ETV was found to be both a substrate and inhibitor of hOAT1 (IC₅₀ = 175.3 μM), hCNT2 (IC₅₀ = 241.9 μM) and hCNT3 (IC₅₀ = 278.4 μM) transporters, although it interacted with the transporters with relatively low affinities. ETV inhibited the cellular uptake of adefovir, tenofovir, and cidofovir by hOAT1; however, effective inhibition was shown at ETV concentrations exceeding therapeutic levels. In comparison with adefovir, tenofovir, and cidofovir, ETV displayed no transporter-mediated cytotoxicity in cells transfected with hOAT1, hCNT2, and hCNT3. No significant interaction of ETV with hOCT2 was detected. The study demonstrates interactions of ETV with several human renal transporters. For the first time, an interaction of ETV with the hCNTs was proved. We show that the potency of ETV to cause nephrotoxicity and/or clinically significant drug-drug interactions related to the tested transporters is considerably lower than that of adefovir, tenofovir, and cidofovir.

Impact of nucleos(t)ide analogue combination therapy on the estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic hepatitis B

Monotherapy with telbivudine or adefovir can affect estimated the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). However, only a few studies have assessed changes in eGFR in patients who have chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and are receiving nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) combination therapy. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of long-term NA combination therapy on eGFR in Chinese CHB patients. This retrospective study included 195 CHB patients. Patient subgroups included those treated with lamivudine plus adefovir (n = 73), telbivudine plus adefovir (n = 51), and entecavir plus adefovir (n = 35); untreated patients (n = 36) served as a control group. After an average follow-up duration of 24 months with combination therapy, analysis of changes in eGFR from baseline values, calculated by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formulas, showed decrease by 11.08 and 18.34 mL/min (P < .001), respectively, in the lamivudine plus adefovir group; decrease by 3.73 and 10.04 mL/min (P = .012), respectively, in the entecavir plus adefovir group; and increase by 0.91 and 2.12 mL/min (P = .46), respectively, in the telbivudine plus adefovir group. The eGFR in the telbivudine plus adefovir group was similar to that for the untreated group. The eGFR decreases due to adefovir therapy could be rescued by adding telbivudine, and the eGFR increase due to telbivudine could be compromised by adding adefovir. Adefovir in combination with lamivudine or entecavir therapy was significantly associated with decreased eGFR, but telbivudine could rescue the eGFR decrease that results from adefovir treatment.

Tenofovir rescue regimen following prior suboptimal response to entecavir and adefovir combination therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients exposed to multiple treatment failures

In clinical practice, establishing a subsequent optimum treatment for chronic hepatitis B patients with a history of multiple NAs treatment failures, including a suboptimal response to a final therapy with combined ETV and ADV, is a complicated but crucial challenge. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of a tenofovir rescue regimen in these patients. A total of six eligible patients were enrolled and were switched to a tenofovir rescue regimen. At baseline, the genotypes and genotypic mutations of the reverse transcriptase and surface gene were determined by ultra-deep pyrosequencing, and further clonal analyses of the reverse transcriptase domain were performed to identify multidrug-resistant HBV strains. In addition, HBV DNA levels, serology, and biochemistry parameters were monitored at baseline and every 3 months, and abdominal ultrasonography was performed at baseline and every 6 months. All patients were confirmed to harbor LAM-related resistant HBV strains. After switching to the tenofovir rescue treatment, all patients had an undetectable level of HBV DNA within 6 months and achieved normalization of the ALT level within 9 months. These virological and biochemical responses persisted until the end of the observation period. None of the patients developed clinical deterioration or any adverse events related to the tenofovir therapy during the median 16.5-month follow-up. In conclusion, the tenofovir rescue regimen can be employed confidently as a highly effective and safe treatment choice following a suboptimal response to ETV plus ADV therapy for a subset of chronic hepatitis B patients with a history of multiple unsuccessful antiviral treatments.

Comparison of lamivudine plus adefovir therapy versus entecavir with or without adefovir therapy for adefovir-resistant chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND GOALS

Data regarding the management of adefovir (ADV) resistance are still limited. The aim of this study is to investigate treatment outcomes of rescue therapy in ADV-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.

STUDY

CHB patients who began rescue therapy due to documented genotypic resistance mutations to ADV between October 2006 and July 2012 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients were included in this study. Most patients had history of lamivudine (LAM) resistance. Treatment response was evaluated at 3-month intervals up to 12 months. The cumulative rate of complete virologic response (CVR) in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected patients (HBV DNA<60 IU/mL) was 15.9%, 27.2%, 28.9%, and 31.7% after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of rescue therapy. Thirty-five patients were treated with a combination of LAM plus ADV (LAM+ADV group) and 28 patients were treated with entecavir (ETV)-based therapy (ETV with or without ADV therapy, ETV±ADV group). The cumulative CVR rate was significantly higher in the ETV±ADV group than in the LAM+ADV group at month 12 (46.4% vs. 20.6%, respectively, P=0.040). Multivariate analysis showed that pretreatment serum HBV DNA levels at <6 log10 IU/mL (hazard ratio: 34.109, P=0.001) and type of rescue therapy (hazard ratio: 4.944, P=0.036) were associated with CVR.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower baseline HBV DNA level and ETV±ADV therapy were the important predictive factors for CVR in ADV-resistant CHB patients. This study suggests the need of early switching to a rescue therapy such as ETV±ADV at the time of low-level viremia.

Management of antiviral drug resistance in chronic hepatitis B

Rescue antiviral treatment for patients with resistance to preexisting nucleos(t)ide analogues remains a clinical challenge. The correct choice of a first-line treatment of high potency and with a high genetic barrier to achieve sustained long-term suppression of viral replication provides the best chance of preventing treatment failure and the emergence of drug resistance. The management of treatment failure and drug resistance requires a precise and accurate clinical and virologic monitoring. Combination treatment with antiviral drugs that belong to different groups is associated with a lower chance of developing resistance to rescue drugs. To guarantee better control of viral replication in patients with drug resistance, the addition of another drug without a cross resistance profile should be given as early as possible, preferably at the time when genotypic resistance emerges. Long-term surveillance for treatment efficacy and possible emergence of drug resistance should be continued to prevent the emergence of multidrug-resistant strains.

Molecular diagnosis and treatment of drug-resistant hepatitis B virus

Oral antiviral agents have been developed in the last two decades for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, antiviral resistance remains an important challenge for long-term CHB therapy. All of the clinically available oral antiviral agents are nucleoside or nucleotide analogues that target the activity of viral reverse transcriptase (RT), and all are reported to have resistant mutations. Since the hepatitis B virus (HBV) RT, like other viral polymerases, lacks proofreading activity, the emergence of drug-resistance occurs readily under selective pressure from the administration of antiviral agents. The molecular diagnosis of drug-resistant HBV is based on sequence variations, and current diagnostic methods include sequencing, restriction fragment polymorphism analysis, and hybridization. Here, we will discuss the currently available molecular diagnosis tools, in vitro phenotypic assays for validation of drug-resistant HBV, and treatment options for drug-resistant HBV.

Adefovir and Lamivudine Combination Therapy in Patients with Entecavir-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B: Antiviral Responses and Evolution of Mutations

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> This study was designed to prospectively evaluate the antiviral responses and evolution of resistance mutations during adefovir (ADV) plus lamivudine (LMV) therapy in patients with entecavir (ETV)-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Twenty chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who had been receiving ETV for more than 6 months and developed virologic breakthrough due to ETV resistance were consecutively enrolled. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Patients received ADV plus LMV therapy for 12 months. The baseline mean serum HBV DNA level was 5.59 ± 1.28 log₁₀ IU/ml. The rtT184L/I/A/F (50%), rtS202G (25%) and mixed ETV-resistant mutations (25%) were detected at enrollment. The mean reduction in serum HBV DNA levels from baseline to 12 months was -2.3 ± 1.06 log₁₀ IU/ml (p<i> <</i> 0.001). Seventeen patients were followed up for the full 12 months, and complete virologic response (HBV DNA <20 IU/ml) was observed in 4 patients (23.5%). Among the remaining 13 patients who still had detectable HBV DNA, 7 patients showed disappearance of ETV-resistant mutations or reduction of the proportion of ETV-resistant mutants. An ADV- and LMV-resistant mutant (rtA181T) emerged in 2 patients (11.7%). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> ADV plus LMV combination therapy suppresses ETV-resistant mutants in the viral population and significantly reduces serum HBV DNA levels in ETV-resistant CHB patients.

Options for the management of antiviral resistance during hepatitis B therapy: reflections on battles over a decade

Although much advancement has been achieved in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B, antiviral resistance is still a challenging issue. Previous generation antiviral agents have already developed resistance in a number of patients, and it is still being used especially in resource limited countries. Once antiviral resistance occurs, it predisposes to subsequent resistance, resulting in multidrug resistance. Therefore, prevention of initial antiviral resistance is the most important strategy, and appropriate choice and modification of therapy would be the cornerstone in avoiding treatment failures. Until now, management of antiviral resistance has been evolving from sequential therapy to combination therapy. In the era of tenofovir, the paradigm shifts again, and we have to decide when to switch and when to combine on the basis of newly emerging clinical data. We expect future eradication of chronic hepatitis B virus infection by proper prevention and optimal management of antiviral resistance.

Entecavir plus adefovir rescue therapy for chronic hepatitis B patients after multiple treatment failures in real-life practice

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Entecavir (ETV) plus adefovir (ADV) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients after multiple nucleos(t)ide analogue (NAs) failure treatment.

Methods

Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients who had a suboptimal response or developed resistance to two or more previous NAs treatments were included, and all subjects were treated with ETV in combination with ADV for ≥ 24 months. Complete virologic response (CVR) was defined as an undetectability of serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level during treatment. Safety assessment was based on the increasing of serum creatinine and creatine kinase levels.

Results

A total of 45 eligible patients were included. Twenty-five patients had been treated with lamivudine (LAM) or telbivudine (LdT) and developed genotypic resistance. Resistance to ADV was present in 18 patients and 4 patients had a suboptimal response to ETV. Two patients had a resistance to both LAM and ADV. The cumulative probabilities of CVR at 12 and 24 months of ETV + ADV treatment were 88.9% (40/45) and 97.8% (44/45), respectively. Although one patient failed to achieve CVR, its serum HBV DNA level decreased by 3.3 log copies/mL after 24 months of combination therapy. The cumulative probability of HBeAg seroconversion was 15.6% (7/45) and 26.7% (12/45) at 12 and 24 months of treatment, respectively. History of prior exposure to specific NAs did not make a difference to ETV + ADV treatment outcome. There were no significant adverse events related to ETV + ADV therapy observed in the study subjects.

Conclusion

ETV + ADV can be used as an effective and safe rescue therapy in patients after multiple NA therapy failures, especially in the areas where tenofovir is not yet available.

OAT1 and OAT3: targets of drug-drug interaction between entecavir and JBP485

Entecavir and JBP485 (a dipeptide) exhibit the antihepatitis activities and it is possible for the two drugs to be coadministered in the treatment of hepatitis. We aimed to elucidate whether entecavir was a substrate of OAT1, OAT3, OCT, and PEPT1 and to investigate the targets of drug-drug interactions between entecavir and JBP485. Plasma and urine concentrations of entecavir following intravenous and oral administration in vivo, uptake of entecavir in kidney slices and transfected cells in vitro, were determined by LC-MS/MS. Following intravenous co-administration of entecavir and JBP485 in rats, entecavir AUC increased 1.93-fold, t1/2β was prolonged 2.08-fold, CLP decreased 49%, CLR decreased 73%, and accumulated urinary excretion decreased 54%. However, following oral co-administration, the entecavir Tmax and Cmax were not affected; the degree of change in other pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC, t1/2β, CLP, and accumulated urinary excretion) was similar to that of intravenous administration. The uptake of entecavir was nearly identical in hPEPT1- as in vector-HELA cells. In rat kidney slices, uptake of entecavir was markedly inhibited by p-aminohippurate, benzylpenicillin, JBP485, and tetraethyl ammonium. In hOAT1- and hOAT3-HEK293 cells, uptake of entecavir was significantly higher compared to vector-HEK293 cells and was markedly inhibited by p-aminohippurate, benzylpenicillin, and JBP485. Km and Vmax values of entecavir were 250 μM and 0.83 nmol/mg protein/30s (OAT1) and 23 μM and 1.1 nmol/mg protein/30 s (OAT3), respectively. Entecavir is the substrate of OAT1, OAT3, and OCT. Moreover, OAT1 and OAT3 are the targets of DDI between entecavir and JBP485.