OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of entecavir maleate (ETV) versus ETV in Chinese patients with hepatitis B e antigen(HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B(CHB). METHODS: The patient population of this previously published randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, multicenter study was expanded by patients in the 0.5 mg/day ETV maleategroup (total n = 110) and patients in the 0.5 mg/day ETV group (total n = 108). At treatment weeks 12, 24 and 48, hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels were measured by the Roche Cobas Ampliprep/Cobas Taqman PCR assay. Adverse events (AE) were recorded. RESULTS: As in the original analysis, the two treatment groups showed similar characteristics at baseline. In addition, the results for the all therapeutic effects showed identical trends to the results obtained in the original analysis, including the statistically similar effects of ETV and ETV maleate treatment-induced decreases in mean HBV DNA level at weeks 12, 24, and 48 (ETV: by 4.28, 5.00, and 5.53 log10 IU/ml vs. ETV maleate: by 4.46, 4.99, and 5.51 log10 IU/ml, respectively; all vs. baseline P more than 0.05), achievement of undetectable levels of serum HBV DNA ( less than 20 IU/ml) at week 48 (ETV: 38.18% vs. ETV maleate: 35.19%; P more than 0.05), HBeAg loss rates at week 48 (ETV: 10.91% vs. ETV maleate: 12.96%; P more than 0.05), HBeAg seroconversion rates at week 48 (ETV: 7.77% vs. ETV maleate: 10.38%; P more than 0.05), normalization of alanine aminotransferase at week 48 (ETV: 75.47% vs. ETV maleate: 82.86%; P more than 0.05), and overall incidence of AE (ETV: 18.02% vs. ETV maleate: 17.43%; P more than 0.05). CONCLUSION: Performing analysis of the therapeutic efficacies of entecavir maleate versus entecavir with a larger study population confirmed our original findings of similar efficacy and safety profiles for these two drugs in patients with HBeAg-positive CHB.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of entecavir maleate (ETV) versus ETV in Chinese patients with hepatitis B e antigen(HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B(CHB). METHODS: The patient population of this previously published randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, multicenter study was expanded by patients in the 0.5 mg/day ETV maleate group (total n = 110) and patients in the 0.5 mg/day ETV group (total n = 108). At treatment weeks 12, 24 and 48, hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels were measured by the Roche Cobas Ampliprep/Cobas Taqman PCR assay. Adverse events (AE) were recorded. RESULTS: As in the original analysis, the two treatment groups showed similar characteristics at baseline. In addition, the results for the all therapeutic effects showed identical trends to the results obtained in the original analysis, including the statistically similar effects of ETV and ETV maleate treatment-induced decreases in mean HBV DNA level at weeks 12, 24, and 48 (ETV: by 4.28, 5.00, and 5.53 log10 IU/ml vs. ETV maleate: by 4.46, 4.99, and 5.51 log10 IU/ml, respectively; all vs. baseline P more than 0.05), achievement of undetectable levels of serum HBV DNA ( less than 20 IU/ml) at week 48 (ETV: 38.18% vs. ETV maleate: 35.19%; P more than 0.05), HBeAg loss rates at week 48 (ETV: 10.91% vs. ETV maleate: 12.96%; P more than 0.05), HBeAg seroconversion rates at week 48 (ETV: 7.77% vs. ETV maleate: 10.38%; P more than 0.05), normalization of alanine aminotransferase at week 48 (ETV: 75.47% vs. ETV maleate: 82.86%; P more than 0.05), and overall incidence of AE (ETV: 18.02% vs. ETV maleate: 17.43%; P more than 0.05). CONCLUSION: Performing analysis of the therapeutic efficacies of entecavir maleate versus entecavir with a larger study population confirmed our original findings of similar efficacy and safety profiles for these two drugs in patients with HBeAg-positive CHB.