Telbivudine for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection

Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, University of Southampton, First Floor, Epsilon House, Enterprise Road, Southampton Science Park, Southampton, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 10/2009; 13 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):23-30. DOI: 10.3310/hta13suppl3/04
Source: PubMed


This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telbivudine for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) in adults based upon a review of the manufacturer's submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. The submission's evidence came from one randomised controlled trial (RCT) (GLOBE) of reasonable methodological quality comparing telbivudine with lamivudine. One other RCT that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria was excluded from the submission. For the primary outcome of therapeutic response telbivudine was statistically superior to lamivudine at weeks 52 and 104 for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients, and at week 104 for HBeAg-negative patients. There were statistically significant differences in favour of telbivudine for some secondary outcomes at 2 years including hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA reduction, HBV DNA non-detectability and alanine aminotransferase normalisation though not for HBeAg-positive patients. In HBeAg-positive patients there was no significant difference between treatment groups for HBeAg loss or seroconversion at any time point. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments. Two RCTs comparing entecavir with lamivudine were included in the indirect comparison; however, this was poorly conducted and the results should be treated with caution. The manufacturer developed two economic models to determine the cost-effectiveness of telbivudine. Evidence on the efficacy of telbivudine and lamivudine was taken from the GLOBE trial; efficacy of adefovir was based on assumption. There was a lack of critical assessment and assurance of the quality of the data used to populate the models. The manufacturer concluded that telbivudine is a cost-effective option compared with lamivudine using evidence from the viral load model [HBeAg-positive patients/HBeAg-negative patients: mean incremental cost 19,087 pounds/49,003 pounds, mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain 1.30/4.67, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) 14,665 pounds/10,497 pounds per QALY]. Resubmitted results after a request for clarification by the ERG gave less favourable ICERs (HBeAg-positive patients/HBeAg-negative patients: mean incremental cost 23,983 pounds/41,910 pounds, mean QALY gain 1.56/2.07, ICER 15,377 pounds/20,256 pounds per QALY). The manufacturer concluded that telbivudine is a cost-effective option (on its own or followed by adefovir) for patients who have developed resistance to first-line telbivudine treatment; however, the presentation of the results was not ideal. In conclusion, although telbivudine was statistically superior to lamivudine for most antiviral outcomes, the difference was not clinically significant; in addition, the cost-effectiveness evidence for telbivudine presented in the manufacturer's submission was limited. The NICE guidance issued as a result of the STA states that telbivudine is not recommended for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B and that people currently receiving telbivudine should have the option to continue therapy until they and their clinicians consider it appropriate to stop.

Download full-text


Available from: Debbie Hartwell,
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Immune system and bone are interacting in a complex way. Rheumatoid arthritis is characterized not only by joint destruction, but also by development of systemic osteopenia and osteoporosis. The CD20-depleting antibody Rituximab (Rtx) is a novel therapeutic option able significantly to slow the destructive joint process of rheumatoid arthritis. However, there are little data whether Rtx influences systemic bone remodeling. In the present prospective study, we evaluated the influence of Rtx on markers of bone metabolism with a follow-up of 3-15 months after Rtx therapy (2 dose of each 1,000 mg) in 13 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. There was no significant change of the bone formation markers bone alkaline phosphatase and c-terminal propeptide of collagen I. However, a non-significant tendency of decrease of RANKL (with no chance of osteoprotegerin) and a significant decrease of the bone degradation marker desoxypyridinolin crosslinked collagen I was observed 15 months after Rtx application. These initial results provide no evidence of a negative systemic influence of Rtx on bone remodeling. In contrast, it appears that Rtx lowered osteoclast activity often found increased in active rheumatoid arthritis contributing to osteoporosis in this disease.
    Rheumatology International 02/2011; 31(2):269-72. DOI:10.1007/s00296-010-1560-9 · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is no standard management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with suboptimal response to nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NAs). This study aimed to evaluate two different NA combination therapies in patients with suboptimal response to adefovir (ADV). In this study, 72 CHB patients with suboptimal response to ADV were assessed, with 37 patients receiving lamivudine plus ADV (group A) and 35 patients receiving telbivudine plus ADV (group B). Baseline characteristics between two groups were similar. At month 12, rates of biochemical response (BR) and virological response (VR) were similar between groups A and B (17/19 versus 18/20 for BR, [P=0.269] and 30/37 versus 31/35 for VR [P=0.377]), and cumulative rates of serological response were greater in group B than in group A (10/26 versus 2/28 in hepatitis B e antigen [HBeAg] loss [P=0.006] and 7/26 versus 1/28 in HBeAg/hepatitis B e antibody seroconversion [P=0.022]). After 12-month treatment, 8.1% (3/37) of patients in group A and 5.7% (2/35) of patients in group B had VR; among patients in group A, two had rtM204V/I and rtL180M and one had rtN236T, whereas the two patients in group B had rtM204I+rtL180M. Both combination therapies led to a significant decrease in HBV DNA. HBeAg serological outcomes were higher with telbivudine plus ADV combination therapy.
    Antiviral therapy 06/2012; 17(6):973-9. DOI:10.3851/IMP2190 · 3.02 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Due to the multi-factorial physiological implications of bariatric surgery, attempts to explain trends in oral bioavailability following bariatric surgery using singular attributes of drugs or simplified categorisations such as the biopharmaceutics classification system have been unsuccessful. So we have attempted to use mechanistic models to assess changes to bioavailability of model drugs. Pharmacokinetic post bariatric surgery models were created for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, sleeve gastrectomy and jejunoileal bypass, through altering the 'Advanced Dissolution Absorption and Metabolism' (ADAM) model incorporated into the Simcyp® Simulator. Post to pre surgical simulations were carried out for five drugs with varying characteristics regarding their gut wall metabolism, dissolution and permeability (simvastatin, omeprazole, diclofenac, fluconazole and ciprofloxacin). The trends in oral bioavailability pre to post surgery were found to be dependent on a combination of drug parameters, including solubility, permeability and gastrointestinal metabolism as well as the surgical procedure carried out. In the absence of clinical studies, the ability to project the direction and the magnitude of changes in bioavailability of drug therapy, using evidence-based mechanistic pharmacokinetic in silico models would be of significant value in guiding prescribers to make the necessary adjustments to dosage regimens for an increasing population of patients who are undergoing bariatric surgery.
    07/2012; 64(7):1008-24. DOI:10.1111/j.2042-7158.2012.01538.x
Show more