AIM: To assess the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in lamivudine (LAM)-resistant patients with a suboptimal response to LAM plus adefovir (ADV). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of switching to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in suboptimal responders to lamivudine plus adefovir. Charts were reviewed for LAM-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who visited the Zhejiang Province People's Hospital and The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, from June 2009 to May 2013. Patients whose serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA remained detectable despite at least 6 mo of LAM plus ADV combination therapy were included. Patients with a suboptimal response to LAM plus ADV were randomized to switch to TDF monotherapy (300 mg/d orally; TDF group) or to continuation with LAM (100 mg/d orally) plus ADV (10 mg/d orally; LAM plus ADV group) and were followed for 48 wk. Serum HBV DNA was determined at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48. HBV serological markers and biochemistry were assessed at baseline and weeks 12, 24, and 48. Resistance surveillance and side effects were monitored during therapy. RESULTS:Fifty-nine patient were randomized to switch to TDF (n = 28) or continuation with LAM plus ADV (n = 31). No significant differences were found between the groups at baseline. Prior to TDF therapy, all patients had been exposed to LAM plus ADV for a median of 11 mo (range: 6-24 mo). No difference was seen in baseline serum HBV DNA between the two groups [5.13 ± 1.08 log10 copies/mL (TDF) vs 5.04 ± 31.16 log10 copies/mL (LAM + ADV), P = 0.639]. There was no significant difference in the rates of achieving complete virological response (CVR) at week 4 between the TDF and LAM + ADV groups (17.86% vs 6.45%, P = 0.24). The rate of achieving CVR in the TDF and LAM plus ADV groups was 75% vs 16.13% at week 12, 82.14% vs 22.58% at week 24, 89.29% vs 25.81% at week 36, and 96.43% vs 29.03% at week 48, respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of alanine aminotransferase normalization was significantly higher in the TDF than in the LAM plus ADV group at week 12 (75% vs 17.86%, P < 0.001), but not at week 24 (78.57% vs 54.84%, P = 0.097) or 48 (89.26% vs 67.74%, P = 0.062). Patients were hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive at baseline. There was no significant difference in HBeAg negativity between the TDF and LAM plus ADV groups at week 48 (4% vs 0%, P = 0.481). There were no drug-related adverse effects at week 48 in either group. CONCLUSION: Switching to TDF monotherapy was superior to continuous add-on therapy in patients with LAM-resistant CHB with a suboptimal response to LAM plus ADV.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To assess the efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in lamivudine (LAM)-resistant patients with a suboptimal response to LAM plus adefovir (ADV). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy of switching to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in suboptimal responders to lamivudine plus adefovir. Charts were reviewed for LAM-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who visited the Zhejiang Province People's Hospital and The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, from June 2009 to May 2013. Patients whose serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA remained detectable despite at least 6 mo of LAM plus ADV combination therapy were included. Patients with a suboptimal response to LAM plus ADV were randomized to switch to TDF monotherapy (300 mg/d orally; TDF group) or to continuation with LAM (100 mg/d orally) plus ADV (10 mg/d orally; LAM plus ADV group) and were followed for 48 wk. Serum HBV DNA was determined at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48. HBV serological markers and biochemistry were assessed at baseline and weeks 12, 24, and 48. Resistance surveillance and side effects were monitored during therapy. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patient were randomized to switch to TDF (n = 28) or continuation with LAM plus ADV (n = 31). No significant differences were found between the groups at baseline. Prior to TDF therapy, all patients had been exposed to LAM plus ADV for a median of 11 mo (range: 6-24 mo). No difference was seen in baseline serum HBV DNA between the two groups [5.13 ± 1.08 log10 copies/mL (TDF) vs 5.04 ± 31.16 log10 copies/mL (LAM + ADV), P = 0.639]. There was no significant difference in the rates of achieving complete virological response (CVR) at week 4 between the TDF and LAM + ADV groups (17.86% vs 6.45%, P = 0.24). The rate of achieving CVR in the TDF and LAM plus ADV groups was 75% vs 16.13% at week 12, 82.14% vs 22.58% at week 24, 89.29% vs 25.81% at week 36, and 96.43% vs 29.03% at week 48, respectively (P < 0.001). The rate of alanine aminotransferase normalization was significantly higher in the TDF than in the LAM plus ADV group at week 12 (75% vs 17.86%, P < 0.001), but not at week 24 (78.57% vs 54.84%, P = 0.097) or 48 (89.26% vs 67.74%, P = 0.062). Patients were hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive at baseline. There was no significant difference in HBeAg negativity between the TDF and LAM plus ADV groups at week 48 (4% vs 0%, P = 0.481). There were no drug-related adverse effects at week 48 in either group. CONCLUSION: Switching to TDF monotherapy was superior to continuous add-on therapy in patients with LAM-resistant CHB with a suboptimal response to LAM plus ADV.
Authors: S J Patterson; J George; S I Strasser; A U Lee; W Sievert; A J Nicoll; P V Desmond; S K Roberts; S Locarnini; S Bowden; P W Angus Journal: Gut Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Yoon-Seon Lee; Dong Jin Suh; Young-Suk Lim; Suk Won Jung; Kang Mo Kim; Han Chu Lee; Young-Hwa Chung; Yung Sang Lee; Wangdon Yoo; Soo-Ok Kim Journal: Hepatology Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Amoreena C Corsa; Yang Liu; John F Flaherty; Ben Mitchell; Scott K Fung; Edward Gane; Michael D Miller; Kathryn M Kitrinos Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Andrea Snow-Lampart; Brandi Chappell; Maria Curtis; Yuao Zhu; Florence Myrick; James Schawalder; Kathryn Kitrinos; Evguenia S Svarovskaia; Michael D Miller; Jeff Sorbel; Jenny Heathcote; Patrick Marcellin; Katyna Borroto-Esoda Journal: Hepatology Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Marion G Peters; H w Hann Hw; Paul Martin; E Jenny Heathcote; P Buggisch; R Rubin; M Bourliere; K Kowdley; C Trepo; D f Gray Df; M Sullivan; K Kleber; R Ebrahimi; S Xiong; Carol L Brosgart Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Si-Yue Li; Li Qin; Lei Zhang; Xing-Bo Song; Yi Zhou; Juan Zhou; Xiao-Jun Lu; Ju Cao; Lan-Lan Wang; Jun Wang; Bin-Wu Ying Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2011-10
Authors: Hye Won Lee; Jun Yong Park; Beom Kyung Kim; Moon Young Kim; Jung Il Lee; Young Suk Kim; Ki Tae Yoon; Kwang-Hyub Han; Sang Hoon Ahn Journal: Clin Mol Hepatol Date: 2016-11-25
Authors: Heon Ju Lee; Sang Jin Kim; Young Oh Kweon; Soo Young Park; Jeong Heo; Hyun Young Woo; Jae Seok Hwang; Woo Jin Chung; Chang Hyeong Lee; Byung Seok Kim; Jeong Ill Suh; Won Young Tak; Byoung Kuk Jang Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eun Young Cho; Hyung Joon Yim; Young Kul Jung; Sang Jun Suh; Yeon Seok Seo; Ji Hoon Kim; Hong Soo Kim; Sae Hwan Lee; Sang Hoon Ahn; Jeong Il Lee; Sook-Hyang Jeong; Jin-Wook Kim; Jin-Woo Lee; In Hee Kim; Hyoung Su Kim; Sang Jong Park; Jeong Mi Lee; Seong Gyu Hwang Journal: Gut Liver Date: 2017-01-15 Impact factor: 4.519
Authors: Hyo Jun Ahn; Myeong Jun Song; Jeong Won Jang; Si Hyun Bae; Jong Young Choi; Seung Kew Yoon Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Manuel Rodríguez; Juan Manuel Pascasio; Enrique Fraga; Javier Fuentes; Martín Prieto; Gloria Sánchez-Antolín; José Luis Calleja; Esther Molina; María Luisa García-Buey; María Ángeles Blanco; Javier Salmerón; María Lucía Bonet; José Antonio Pons; José Manuel González; Miguel Ángel Casado; Francisco Jorquera Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-11-07 Impact factor: 5.742