Safety Of Entecavir Research Articles

The Efficacy and Safety of Entecavir and Interferon Combination Therapy for Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection: A Meta-Analysis.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of entecavir (ETV) and interferon (IFN) combination therapy in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) mono-infection via a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). All eligible RCTs evaluating combination therapy for treating CHB were identified from nine electronic databases. A meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the Cochrane Systemic Review handbook. Eleven trials encompassing 1010 participants were included in this meta-analysis. It showed that at 12 and ≥ 96 weeks of therapy, the combination of ETV and IFN was not better than ETV in improving the undetectable HBV DNA (12 weeks: RR=1.12, 95% CI=0.88-1.42; ≥ 96 weeks: RR = 0.64, 95% CI=0.21-1.98, respectively) and HBeAg seroconversion rates (12 weeks: RR=1.35, 95% CI=0.60-3.04; ≥ 96 weeks: RR=1.36, 95% CI=0.75-2.64, respectively). But at 48 weeks of therapy and approximately 2 years of follow up, combination therapy was superior to ETV in improving the undetectable HBV DNA (48 weeks: RR=1.46, 95% CI=1.13-1.90; follow up: RR=2.20, 95% CI=1.26-3.81, respectively) and HBeAg seroconversion rates (48 weeks: RR=1.82, 95% CI=1.44-2.30; follow up: RR=1.92, 95% CI=1.19-3.11, respectively). When compared to IFN group, at 24 and 48 weeks of therapy, combination group showed a greater undetectable HBV DNA (24 weeks: RR=2.14, 95% CI=1.59-2.89; 48 weeks: RR=2.28, 95% CI=1.54-3.37, respectively) and ALT normalization rate (24 weeks: RR=1.56, 95% CI= 1.24-1.96; 48 weeks: RR=1.55, 95% CI = 1.16-2.07, respectively). At 48 weeks of therapy, combination group achieved a greater HBeAg seroconversion rate than IFN (48 weeks: RR=1.58, 95% CI=1.24-2.00). No significant differences were observed in the side effects of the three therapies. So we can conclude that ETV and IFN combination therapy is more effective than ETV or IFN mono-therapy in CHB treatment. ETV, IFN, and the combination of the two are safe in CHB treatment.

A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection.

The efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) is inconsistent. To address this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis based on a current review of the literature addressing the efficacy and safety of entecavir and tenofovir. Electronic databases were searched through June 2014 for relevant clinical trials. We included 2 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 7 case-control studies that included 1,656 patients. In the entecavir group, 842 of 992 were nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic HBV patients, and in the tenofovir group 481 of 664 were nucleos(t)ide-naïve. The virological response to tenofovir was superior to entecavir (RR: 0.82; 95%CI: 0.72-0.93), especially in nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic HBV patients at 48 weeks (RR: 0.78; 95%CI: 0.65-0.92). Additionally, there was no difference between entecavir and tenofovir for virological response at 24 weeks (RR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.71-1.05). The alanine aminotransferase normalization rate, serological response, and adverse event rate were also not significantly different between entecavir and tenofovir at 24 or 48 weeks after treatment. These results suggest that tenofovir is a better choice to treat chronic HBV patients than entecavir as it is better able to suppress HBV viral load and has a similar safety profile.

Entecavir versus Lamivudine therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis B-associated liver failure: a meta-analysis.

Background:Nucleoside analogues are recommended as antiviral treatments for patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-associated liver failure. Clinical data comparing entecavir (ETV) and lamivudine (LAM) are inconsistent in this setting.Objectives:To compare the efficacy and safety of ETV and LAM in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB)-associated liver failure.Patients and Methods:A literature search was performed on articles published until January 2014 on therapy with ETV and LAM for patients with CHB-associated liver failure. Risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were used to measure the effects. Survival rate was the primary efficacy measure, while total bilirubin (TBIL), prothrombin activity (PTA) changes and HBV DNA negative change rates were secondary efficacy measures. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of the two drugs. Safety of ETV and LAM was observed.Results:Four randomized controlled trials and nine retrospective cohort studies comprising a total of 1549 patients were selected. Overall analysis revealed comparable survival rates between patients received ETV and those received LAM (4 weeks: RR = 1.03, 95%CI [0.89, 1.18], P = 0.73; 8 weeks: RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.85, 1.14], P = 0.84; 12 weeks: RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.90, 1.08], P = 0.70; 24 weeks: RR = 1.02, 95% CI [0.94, 1.10], P = 0.66). After 24 weeks of treatment, patients treated with ETV had a significantly lower TBIL levels (MD = -37.34, 95% CI [-63.57, -11.11], P = 0.005), higher PTA levels (MD = 11.10, 95% CI [2.47, 19.73], P = 0.01) and higher HBV DNA negative rates (RR = 2.76, 95% CI [1.69, 4.51], P < 0.0001) than those treated with LAM. In addition, no drug related adverse effects were observed in the two treatment groups.Conclusions:ETV and LAM treatments had similar effects to improve 24 weeks survival rate of patients with CHB-associated liver failure, but ETV was associated with greater clinical improvement. Both drugs were tolerated well during the treatment. It is suggested to perform further studies to verify the results.

The pros and cons of lamivudine vs. entecavir in decompensated or severe acute exacerbation of chronic hepatitis B

In patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and cirrhosis, the 5-year probability for hepatic decompensation if untreated is around 5–20% with a 5 year survival ranging between 14% and 35% [1]. The development of oral nucleotide and nucleoside analogues (NUCs) for treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) has revolutionized the prognosis of this large population of patients worldwide. For more than a decade, such agents are now routinely used for treatment of decompensated CHB. Indeed, early studies conducted in Taiwan, provided already evidence that lamivudine (LAM) prevents fatality in decompensated CHB, reducing mortality from 25% (in historical controls) to only 4.2%, provided treatment is started early enough before bilirubin levels rise above 20 mg/dl [2]. The introduction of more potent NUCs with a better resistance profile than LAM and an excellent safety record such as Entecavir (ETV), Tenofovir, and Telbivudine lead to further improvement in the care of patients with imminent hepatic decompensation [3,4]. Yet, with the cumulative clinical experience using such NUCs, it became clear that use of anti-viral agents may be associated with a number of hepatic and extra hepatic undesirable adverse effects [5]. In 2006, Lange and co-workers reported the development of lactic acidosis believed to be the consequence of mitochondrial toxicity, observed in 5 out of 16 patients with cirrhosis and advanced liver disease and a MELD score >20 treated with ETV [6]. The authors consequently advised caution in administration of ETV in patients with impaired liver functions. Furthermore, in 2011, investigators from Hong-Kong reported a mortality rate of 19% in ETV treated patients with acute exacerbation of HBV by week 48 as compared to only 4% in LAM treated historical controls [7]. This report added further concern regarding the safety of ETV in patients with acute exacerbation of CHB or decompensated CLD. To the best knowledge of this reviewer, prospectively controlled trials testing specifically lactic acidosis during hepatic decompensation in NUCs recipients are not available. Thus, the accurate risk of lactic acidosis in ETV recipients with acute exacerbation or decompensated CHB remains controversial and most probably

Treatment of chronic hepatitis B in clinical practice with entecavir or tenofovir.

Results from phase III clinical trials clearly demonstrate the efficacy and safety of entecavir and tenofovir in the controlled environment of randomized clinical studies. There are several studies with both drugs performed in clinical practice (also called "real life studies"). Despite the pros and cons, studies performed in real life conditions represent everyday practice and add important information about long term treatment effectiveness and safety in this clinical setting. This review shows that patients treated with first line nucleos(t)ide analogs at referral centres, with good clinical follow-up and adherence to international guidelines, can achieve high treatment response rates with a very low rate of adverse events.

Investigation of entecavir treatment in patients with LAM-refractory chronic hepatitis B

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of entecavir (ETV) as a long-term treatment in patients with lamivudine (LAM)-refractory chronic hepatitis B (CHB). In this phase II study of ETV-056, 32 CHB patients with resistance to LAM monotherapy were administered ETV at 1.0 mg/day and monitored over a period of 8 years. The virologic, serologic and biochemical responses were measured throughout the treatment course. Outcomes analysis was conducted according to intention-to-treat principles. At baseline and treatment weeks 8, 12, 24, 48, 96, 144, 192, 240, and 420, the proportion of patients with HBV DNA less than 300 copies/ml was 0, 6.3% (2/32), 9.4% (3/32), 18.8% (6/32), 18.8%(6/32), 46.9% (15/32), 43.8% (14/32), 50.0% (16/32), 50.0% (16/32), and 62.5% (20/32). At treatment weeks 48, 96, 168, 192, 240, and 420, the proportion of patients experiencing virological breakthrough was 6.1% (2/32), 9.4% (3/32), 12.5% (4/32), 18.8%(6/32), 25.0%(8/32), and 28.1% (9/32). In the 8 year study period, 32.3% (10/31) of patients achieved HBs seroconversion and four patients achieved HBe seroconversion. While treatment with 1.0 mg/day ETV for up to 8 years resulted in mild HBV DNA suppression and increase of HBeAg seroconversion, the safety profile of this therapy was good but the economic cost was high and virological breakthrough rates were high.

Nucleoside analogs prevent disease progression in HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: validation of the TPPM model.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of entecavir, lamivudine and telbivudine for treating patients with HBV-ACLF and to validate the Tongji prognostic predictor model (TPPM) in these patients. In this retrospective study, we enrolled 283 patients with HBV-ACLF (100 treated with entecavir, 98 treated with lamivudine and 85 treated with telbivudine). There were no significant differences in baseline clinical and virological characteristics among patients treated with entecavir, telbivudine or lamivudine. There were no significant differences in the 4- and 12-week survival rates of entecavir-, telbivudine- and lamivudine-treated patients (79.00, 81.18 and 86.73%, respectively, at 4weeks; 67.00, 65.88 and 73.47%, respectively, at 12weeks). Patients in all three groups achieved an improvement in the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score. Using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, the validation of the TPPM score for HBV-ACLF demonstrated a good degree of fit with disease prognosis. Based on this unique group of patients, the TPPM score with an AUC of 0.787 was superior to the MELD score, which had an AUC of 0.736 in the prediction of 12-week mortality. The TPPM had an AUC of 0.733, and the MELD score had an AUC of 0.672 in the prediction of 4-week mortality. Using a cutoff value of 0.22 for 12-week mortality prediction by the TPPM, the positive predictive value was 49.66%, with a negative predictive value of 89.55%. Treatment with nucleoside analogs including entecavir, lamivudine and telbivudine prevented disease progression and increased the survival of patients with HBV-ACLF. Validation of the established TPPM scoring system in this study confirmed its superior predictive value for HBV-ACLF patients when compared with the MELD system.

Antiviral efficacy of entecavir in nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients of Black/African descent with chronic hepatitis B

This single-arm, open-label, descriptive study assessed the efficacy and safety of entecavir (ETV) in nucleos(t)ide-naïve Black/African American patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), a patient population underrepresented in ETV registration trials. Forty patients with HBeAg(+) or HBeAg(-) compensated CHB of self-described Black/African American race received ETV 0.5mg daily for 52weeks; 37 patients completed 52weeks of treatment. At Week 48, 29/40 (72.5%, noncompleter=failure) patients achieved the primary endpoint of HBV DNA <50IU/mL. Rates for HBeAg loss (11/22; 50%) and HBeAg seroconversion (9/22; 41%) were high, possibly due to the high HBV genotype A prevalence (70%). No patient experienced virological breakthrough. Samples for resistance testing were available in 6/8 patients with HBV DNA >50IU/mL at Week 48 or last on-treatment visit. No ETV resistance was detected. The safety profile of ETV was consistent with that observed in ETV registration trials. This study shows that in Black/African American patients with CHB, ETV was well tolerated and demonstrated comparable antiviral efficacy to that observed in White and Asian patients in ETV Phase III studies.

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

AimTo 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.MethodsHepatitis 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionETV + 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.

The efficacy and safety of entecavir in patients with advanced schistosomiasis co-infected with hepatitis B virus

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of entecavir (ETV) in patients with advanced schistosomiasis and hepatitis B virus (HBV) co-infection. Sixty-seven patients with advanced schistosomiasis and HBV co-infection were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly divided into the ETV treatment group (n=35) and the control group (n=32). The patients in the control group adopted routine supportive therapy for 52 weeks, and those in the ETV treatment group received ETV at a dose of 0.5mg once daily on the basis of routine supportive therapy for 52 weeks. Hepatic fibrosis markers (hyaluronic acid, type III procollagen, type IV collagen, laminin, and fibronectin), Ishak fibrosis score, alanine transaminase (ALT), HBV DNA, and Child-Pugh score were compared between the two groups. The intention to treat (ITT) population was used for the analysis. The measurement data and count data were analyzed by t-test and Chi-square test, respectively. After 52 weeks of treatment, the hepatic fibrosis markers (hyaluronic acid, type III procollagen, type IV collagen, laminin, and fibronectin) were significantly improved in the ETV treatment group compared to the control group (all p<0.05). A ≥1-point improvement in the Ishak fibrosis score was found in 25.7% (9/35) of the ETV group, and the mean change from the baseline in the Ishak fibrosis score was a 0.3-point reduction. The control group showed disease progression in the Ishak fibrosis score. More patients in the ETV group than in the control group had undetectable serum HBV DNA levels (82.9% vs. 3.1%, p<0.05) and ALT normalization (68.6% vs. 18.3%, p<0.05). The ETV treatment group demonstrated an improvement in Child-Pugh score at week 52 (-3.7 vs. 0.3, p<0.05). In addition, no obvious adverse reactions were observed during ETV treatment. ETV is safe and effective in patients with advanced schistosomiasis and HBV co-infection.

Efficacy and safety of entecavir and/or tenofovir in hepatitis B compensated and decompensated cirrhotic patients in clinical practice

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of entecavir and/or tenofovir in compensated (CC) or decompensated (DC) hepatitis B cirrhotic patients in real-life clinical practice. Of the 48 patients, included between April 2007 and March 2010, 12 were DC. The mean age was 55 ± 12.2 years, 85.4% were Caucasians and 8 patients were HBeAg positive. Mean viral load was 5.2 ± 1.9 log10 UI/mL. HBV-DNA undetectability at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months were 53.3%, 78.3%, 83.7% and 97.1%, respectively, similar in CC and DC. At 6 and 12 months, ≥ 80% of CC achieved ALT normalization, while only 42.9% and 71.4% in DC. After a median follow-up of 27.1 (0.7–45.3) months, 43 patients were Child Pugh Turcotte (CPT) class A (n = 39 at entry). In DC, progressive improvement in the MELD scores was observed: 12.73 (SD 4.5), 10.4 (SD 3.6) and 8.2 (SD 2.6), at baseline, 12 and 24 months, respectively. During follow-up, 7 patients died, 4 received liver transplantation and 5 developed hepatocellular carcinoma. In three out of four DC who died due to hepatic causes, these events occurred between the first 0.7 and 6.7 months, and all were CPT class C. Cumulative survival in CC vs. DC at 12 and 24 months were 94.4% vs. 66.7%, and 88.2% vs. 57.1%, respectively (log rank p = 0.03). No severe adverse events associated with entecavir or tenofovir were reported. In conclusion, in compensated and decompensated cirrhotic patients, entecavir and tenofovir were effective and well tolerated.

Clinical and Virological Response to Entecavir in HBV-Related Chronic Hepatitis or Cirrhosis: Data from the Clinical Practice in a Single-Centre Cohort

Limited data are available on entecavir in Caucasian patients with HBV cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B who are treated in the clinical practice. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of entecavir in an Italian cohort of unselected patients with different stages of liver fibrosis, comparing the virological and clinical results obtained between patients with and without liver cirrhosis. Efficacy and safety of entecavir were retrospectively evaluated in 100 patients recruited in the Gastro-Hepatology Unit, San Giovanni Battista Hospital (Turin, Italy). A pharmacokinetic analysis was performed in 34 participants to assess whether cirrhosis may affect entecavir metabolism. Participants were followed-up for a median (range) duration of 21 months (2-108). Rates of virological response (negative viraemia by PCR for ≥ 2 consecutive determinations) after 12, 24 and 36 months were 91.7%, 97.5% and 93.7%, respectively. In the 84 patients who were treated for ≥ 12 months, presence of cirrhosis (OR 1.730, 95% CI 1.082, 2.766; P=0.022) and absence of hepatitis B e antigen (OR 0.479, 95% CI 0.273, 0.842; P=0.011) were independent predictors of earlier clearance of serum HBV DNA. There were no differences between the serum concentrations in the steady-state level of entecavir between patients with or without cirrhosis. No significant differences were detected between the average area under the curve in the means of the two groups (P=0.55). Entecavir represents an excellent therapy in patients with HBV-related liver disease and particularly with cirrhosis where it showed a good profile of tolerability, higher efficacy and an earlier virological response.

Efficacy of Entecavir Treatment for up to 5 Years in Nucleos(t)ide-Naïve Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in Real Life

Objective: To analyze the efficacy and safety of entecavir (ETV) treatment for up to 5 years in nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients in real life.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 230 nucleos(t)ide naïve chronic hepatitis B patients who received ETV 0.5 mg/day monotherapy for at least 3 months, of whom 113 were HBeAg positive and 117 were HBeAg negative. The primary endpoints was cumulative probability of achieving a virological response (undetectable serum HBV DNA, <100IU/mL). Secondary endpoints were rates of ALT normalization (ALT < upper limit of normal), HBeAg seroconversion, resistance, and safety.Results: The median follow-up duration was 27.5 months (3-73 months) and mean age was 42 years. With 230, 214, 180, 142, 88, 42 and 11 patients followed-up for at least 3 months,6 months, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years, respectively. In all, Incremental increases were observed in the rates of undetectable HBV DNA. 67.0%, 85.0%, 89.4%, 94.4%, 95.5%, 97.6%, 100% had undetectable HBV DNA at month 3, month 6, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 4 years and 5 years. Proportions of patients achieving normal ALT were 73.9%, 85.5%, 82.8%, 89.4%, 80.7%, 85.7%, 100%, respectively. The rate of HBeAg seroconversion reached 21.4% and 15.4% at year2, 3, respectively. One patient achieved HBsAg seroclearance after 1 year, and achieved anti-HBs seroconversion at year 3. Of 180 patients, HBV DNA was detectable (partial virological response, PVR) in 19 patients at year 1 of follow-up, twelve of 14 (85.7%) patients with PVR need more than 1 year of continuous ETV therapy to achieved VR. At baseline, no ETV-resistance was detected in 25 ETV-naïve patients. One patient developed ETV-resistance mutations due to noncompliance. No serious adverse event was reported.Conclusion: Long-term ETV treatment of nucleos(t)ide-naïve was effective and safe in real life. Adjustment of ETV monotherapy in nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with a partial virological response at 1 year may be unnecessary.

Efficacy and safety of entecavir plus carnitine complex (GODEX®) compared to entecavir monotherapy in patient with ALT elevated chronic hepatitis B: randomized, multicenter open-label trials. The GOAL study

Background/AimsCarnitine and vitamin complex (Godex®) is widely used in patients with chronic liver disease who show elevated liver enzyme in South Korea. The purpose of this study is to identify the efficacy and safety of carnitine from entecavir combination therapy in Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevated Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) patients.Methods130 treatment-naïve patients with CHB were enrolled from 13 sites. The patients were randomly selected to the entecavir and the complex of entecavir and carnitine. The primary endpoint of the study is ALT normalization level after 12 months.ResultsAmong the 130 patients, 119 patients completed the study treatment. The ALT normalization at 3 months was 58.9% for the monotherapy and 95.2% for the combination therapy (P<0.0001). ALT normalization rate at 12 months was 85.7% for the monotherapy and 100% for the combination group (P=0.0019). The rate of less than HBV DNA 300 copies/mL at 12 months was not statistically significant (P=0.5318) 75.9% for the monotherapy, 70.7% for the combination and it was. Quantification of HBsAg level was not different from the monotherapy to combination at 12 months. Changes of ELISPOT value to evaluate the INF-γ secretion by HBsAg showed the increasing trend of combination therapy compare to mono-treatment.ConclusionsALT normalization rate was higher in carnitine complex combination group than entecavir group in CHB. Combination group was faster than entecavir mono-treatment group on ALT normalization rate. HBV DNA normalization rate and the serum HBV-DNA level were not changed by carnitine complex treatment.

Efficacy and safety of entecavir in clinical practice in treatment-naive Caucasian chronic hepatitis B patients

Efficacy and safety of entecavir in clinical practice in treatment-naive Caucasian chronic hepatitis B patients

A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, multicenter study of entecavir maleate versus entecavir for treatment of HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B: results at week 48

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of entecavir (ETV) maleate versus ETV in Chinese patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, multicenter study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 48 weeks of treatment with 0.5 mg/day ETV (group A; n = 26) or 0.5 mg/day ETV maleate (n = 31). Hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels were measured at weeks 12, 24, and 48 by the Roche Cobas Ampliprep/Taqman PCR assay. Adverse events (AE) were recorded. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. At weeks 12, 24, and 48, the mean HBV DNA level had similarly decreased from baseline in both groups (A: by 4.24, 4.61 and 4.88 log10 IU/mL vs. B: 4.01, 4.50 and 4.99 log10 IU/mL, respectively; all P more than 0.05). Patients who achieved undetectable levels of serum HBV DNA (less than 20 IU/mL) at week 48 were similar in the two groups (A: 69.23% vs. B: 80.65%; P more than 0.05). Both groups achieved similar normalization of ALT at week 48 (A: 96.00% vs. B: 83.87%; P more than 0.05). The overall AE incidence was similar for the two groups (A: 22.22% vs. B: 9.38%; P more than 0.05). Entecavir maleate and entecavir showed similar efficacy and safety in patients with HBeAg-negative CHB.

Treatment of Hepatitis B Virus Cirrhosis

Treatment of Hepatitis B Virus Cirrhosis

Efficacy and safety of entecavir in clinical practice in treatment-naive Caucasian chronic hepatitis B patients

Entecavir is an effective treatment for chronic hepatitis B. However, data from clinical practice are limited, especially in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients. We retrospectively analysed data from 190 nucleos(t)ide-naive chronic hepatitis B patients treated with entecavir (0.5 mg/day) in 25 Spanish centres. Virological response (hepatitis B virus DNA <50 IU/ml by PCR), biochemical response (alanine aminotransferase ≤ 1 × upper limit of normal) and serological response were assessed at weeks 12, 24, 36 and 48. The cohort was 73% male, 84% Caucasian, and 30% HBeAg-positive. Thirty-four per cent of the patients who underwent biopsy had advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis. At baseline, the median hepatitis B virus DNA was 5.94 (interquartile range=4.64-7.39) log10 IU/ml. At week 48, 83% of the patients (61% HBeAg-positive; 92% HBeAg-negative) achieved a virological response and 82% (78% HBeAg-positive; 83% HBeAg-negative) of those with elevated baseline alanine aminotransferase showed a biochemical response. Twenty-six per cent (14/54) of the HBeAg-positive patients lost HBeAg and 22% (12/54) achieved seroconversion to anti-HBe. A significant correlation was observed between virological response at week 12 and the rate of seroconversion to anti-HBe at week 48 (P=0.039). This correlation was also noted at weeks 24, 36 and 48 (P=0.003, 0.002 and 0.017, respectively). Three patients (2%) showed clearance of hepatitis B surface antigen. No resistance to entecavir was observed. Treatment with entecavir was generally well tolerated. No patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Entecavir monotherapy in clinical practice was well tolerated and resulted in a rapid and significant reduction in viral load. A virological response at week 12 correlated significantly with the rate of seroconversion to anti-HBe at week 48.

High Rates of Viral Suppression After Long-term Entecavir Treatment of Asian Patients With Hepatitis B e Antigen–Positive Chronic Hepatitis B

There are limited data on the effects of long-term entecavir therapy in Asian patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We performed a post hoc analysis of 94 Asian hepatitis B e antigen-positive (HBeAg+), nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive patients who received 5 years of therapy with entecavir (up to 2 years in study ETV-022 and the remainder in study ETV-901). Among patients completing week 240, 95% (63 of 66) had levels of hepatitis B virus DNA <300 copies/mL, and 76% (50 of 66) had normalized levels of alanine aminotransferase. In addition to patients who achieved a serologic response during ETV-022, a further 40% (26 of 65) achieved HBeAg loss, and 18% (12 of 65) underwent HBeAg seroconversion through year 5 of entecavir therapy. No resistance to entecavir was detected, and the safety profile was consistent with previous reports. The long-term efficacy and safety of entecavir are therefore comparable between Asians and the overall population of HBeAg+ patients with CHB.

Entecavir treatment prevents disease progression in hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: establishment of a novel logistical regression model.

Hepatitis B-related acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) has a poor prognosis with very high mortality. Unfortunately, most prognostic predictive models of liver failure are complicated and offer suboptimal sensitivity. Experience in entecavir (ETV)-treated patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-ACLF is limited. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ETV in patients with HBV-ACLF and to develop a novel model (Tongji prognostic predictor model, TPPM) for prognostic prediction of HBV-ACLF patients. In this retrospective study, 248 patients with HBV-ACLF were enrolled. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical and virologic characteristics between patients treated with and without ETV. The 1- and 3-month survival rates of patients in the ETV-treated group (n=124) were 72.58 and 61.29%, respectively, significantly higher than that in NA-free group (n=124), which were 53.23 and 45.97%, respectively. By Hosmor and Lemeshow test, TPPM for HBV-ACLF had a very good degree of fit with disease prognosis. Based on this unique group of patients, the TPPM scoring offered a better prediction value in both specificity and sensitivity for 3-month mortality of patients with HBV-ACLF compared with MELD scoring system with statistically significant difference. In the patients with HBV-ACLF, using a cutoff of 0.22 for 3-month predicted mortality by TPPM, the positive predictive value was 93.6% and negative predictive value 91.3%. ETV treatment prevented disease progression and increased the survival of patients with HBV-ACLF. The established TPPM scoring system offers superior predictor value in both specificity and sensitivity for HBV-ACLF patients when compared with MELD.