BACKGROUND: Lamivudine has been reported to be able to stabilize liver enzyme and hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication with recurrent hepatitis that has been regarded as a frequent and major risk factor for hepatic dysfunction and chronic liver disease in renal transplant recipients. Because large number of hepatitis antigenemia patients among renal transplant patients experience recurrent hepatic dysfunction with HBV recurrence and permanent histological deterioration, preemptive or primary prophylactic use of lamivudine before transplantation may be more beneficial than a trial for the treatment of advanced hepatic dysfunction. METHODS: We conducted a double arm study to compare the efficacy of lamivudine between the preemptive (HBV DNA positive) or prophylactic (HBV DNA negative) trial for the maintenance of stable liver function (n=10) and the trial for the salvage of advanced hepatic dysfunction developed after renal transplantation (n=6) in hepatitis B viremia carrier renal transplant recipients. RESULTS: Hepatic dysfunction with recurrent HBV antigenemia developed in 11 of 36 (30.6%) hepatitis antigenemia patients with a mean duration of 8.4 months (range 5-19.4 months). In six patients treated with lamivudine after hepatic dysfunction from recurrent hepatitis B viremia, serum AST and ALT level normalized within 1 month and HBV-DNA disappeared in all cases. HBV-DNA, however, reappeared in three (50%) without any discontinuation of lamivudine. Liver biopsy revealed recurrent chronic active hepatitis with severe activity of fibrosis in four cases, cholestatic fibrosing hepatitis in one, and permanent cirrhotic change in one. In seven patients who had preemptive lamivudine treatment at 9, 6, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0 month before the transplantation, HBV-DNA had converted to negative with a mean follow up of 1.2 months (range 1-2 month) in all case. Three patients who had prophylactic trials with lamivudine have all remained HBV-DNA negative. The recurrence rate of HBV viremia in the preemptive or prophylactic lamivudine treated group is 10.0% (1/10), which is significantly lower than that (42.3%, 11/25) in the nonlamivudine-treated group. The re-recurrence rate of HBV viremia was significantly higher (3/6, 50.0%) in the reactive lamivudine treated group than in prophylactic or preemptive group (1/10, 10%). CONCLUSION: Although lamivudine treatment after hepatic dysfunction can be a sound conventional treatment modality, this preliminary study may suggest that preemptive or prophylactic trial of lamivudine before hepatic dysfunction might be a more effective strategy for prevention of permanent histological deterioration and recurrence of hepatitis B viremia.
BACKGROUND:Lamivudine has been reported to be able to stabilize liver enzyme and hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication with recurrent hepatitis that has been regarded as a frequent and major risk factor for hepatic dysfunction and chronic liver disease in renal transplant recipients. Because large number of hepatitis antigenemiapatients among renal transplant patients experience recurrent hepatic dysfunction with HBV recurrence and permanent histological deterioration, preemptive or primary prophylactic use of lamivudine before transplantation may be more beneficial than a trial for the treatment of advanced hepatic dysfunction. METHODS: We conducted a double arm study to compare the efficacy of lamivudine between the preemptive (HBV DNA positive) or prophylactic (HBV DNA negative) trial for the maintenance of stable liver function (n=10) and the trial for the salvage of advanced hepatic dysfunction developed after renal transplantation (n=6) in hepatitis B viremia carrier renal transplant recipients. RESULTS:Hepatic dysfunction with recurrent HBV antigenemia developed in 11 of 36 (30.6%) hepatitis antigenemiapatients with a mean duration of 8.4 months (range 5-19.4 months). In six patients treated with lamivudine after hepatic dysfunction from recurrent hepatitis B viremia, serum AST and ALT level normalized within 1 month and HBV-DNA disappeared in all cases. HBV-DNA, however, reappeared in three (50%) without any discontinuation of lamivudine. Liver biopsy revealed recurrent chronic active hepatitis with severe activity of fibrosis in four cases, cholestatic fibrosing hepatitis in one, and permanent cirrhotic change in one. In seven patients who had preemptive lamivudine treatment at 9, 6, 2, 2, 1, 0, 0 month before the transplantation, HBV-DNA had converted to negative with a mean follow up of 1.2 months (range 1-2 month) in all case. Three patients who had prophylactic trials with lamivudine have all remained HBV-DNA negative. The recurrence rate of HBV viremia in the preemptive or prophylactic lamivudine treated group is 10.0% (1/10), which is significantly lower than that (42.3%, 11/25) in the nonlamivudine-treated group. The re-recurrence rate of HBV viremia was significantly higher (3/6, 50.0%) in the reactive lamivudine treated group than in prophylactic or preemptive group (1/10, 10%). CONCLUSION: Although lamivudine treatment after hepatic dysfunction can be a sound conventional treatment modality, this preliminary study may suggest that preemptive or prophylactic trial of lamivudine before hepatic dysfunction might be a more effective strategy for prevention of permanent histological deterioration and recurrence of hepatitis B viremia.