A 1-year trial of telbivudine, lamivudine, and the combination in patients with hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B.

University of Hong Kong, China.
Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 13.93). 08/2005; 129(2):528-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.gastro.2005.05.053
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A previous 4-week trial of telbivudine in patients with chronic hepatitis B indicated marked antiviral effects with good tolerability, leading to the present 1-year phase 2b trial.
This randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of telbivudine 400 or 600 mg/day and telbivudine 400 or 600 mg/day plus lamivudine 100 mg/day (Comb400 and Comb600) compared with lamivudine 100 mg/day in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive adults with compensated chronic hepatitis B.
A total of 104 patients were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 among the 5 groups. Median reductions in serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels at week 52 (log(10) copies/mL) were as follows: lamivudine, 4.66; telbivudine 400 mg, 6.43; telbivudine 600 mg, 6.09; Comb400, 6.40; and Comb600, 6.05. At week 52, telbivudine monotherapy showed a significantly greater mean reduction in HBV DNA levels (6.01 vs 4.57 log(10) copies/mL; P < .05), clearance of polymerase chain reaction-detectable HBV DNA (61% vs 32%; P < .05), and normalization of alanine aminotransferase levels (86% vs 63%; P < .05) compared with lamivudine monotherapy, with proportionally greater HBeAg seroconversion (31% vs 22%) and less viral breakthrough (4.5% vs 15.8%) (P = NS for both). Combination treatment was not better than telbivudine alone. All treatments were well tolerated. In exploratory scientific analyses, clinical efficacy at 1 year appeared related to reduction in HBV DNA levels in the first 6 months of treatment.
Patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with telbivudine exhibited significantly greater virologic and biochemical responses compared with lamivudine. Results with the combination regimens were similar to those obtained with telbivudine alone. These data support the ongoing phase 3 evaluation of telbivudine for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B.

Download full-text


Available from: Hie-Won Hann, Jul 01, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) in chronic hepatitis B (HBV), adequate prophylaxis for recurrence of HBV in the graft is mandatory. Evaluate safety of HBV prophylaxis with tenofovir and emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) after cessation of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) after OLT in chronic HBV. In 17 consecutive patients after OLT in chronic HBV we started TDF/FTC after cessation of HBIG. All had received HBIG >6 months. 15/17 were HBsAg negative and 16/17 had undetectable HBV-DNA. After mean follow-up of 2 years 16/17 patients were alive, one died due to urosepsis. All 16 with undetectable HBV-DNA remained HBV-DNA negative. From 15 HBsAg negative patients at start, in one seroconversion to positive HBsAg occurred, without detectable HBV-DNA. Liver biochemistry remained within the normal ranges. There were no cases of drug discontinuation. No major side effects were reported. TDF/FTC use saves €16,262/year over standard-of-care (HBIG+LAM). This prospective follow-up study shows that in liver transplantation for chronic hepatitis B, after initial treatment including HBIG for at least 6 months combined with or followed by (dual) nucleos(t)ide analog therapy, TDF/FTC provides adequate prophylaxis against recurrent HBV infection without major side effects and leads to substantial cost savings over a regimen with HBIG. Combined prophylaxis with TDF/ETV nucleoside plus nucleotide analogs and cessation of immunoglobulin after liver transplantation in chronic hepatitis B is safe and effective.
    Journal of clinical virology: the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology 07/2013; 58(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jcv.2013.06.035 · 3.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The development of antiviral resistance is a recognized challenge to successful treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), but it has been difficult to establish an accurate estimate of its incidence due to a number of factors: (a) lack of an accepted definition of antiviral resistance; (b) lack of a standardized assay to assess resistance; and (c) lack of consensus on patient selection criteria for resistance testing. Lamivudine, an effective and well-established antiviral agent, has been reported to show one-year resistance rates in CHB ranging from 6% to 32%, but methodologies used to calculate these rates vary considerably. This article reviews the clinical, statistical, and laboratory methodologies of clinical studies reporting one-year rates of antiviral resistance to lamivudine in CHB. Studies reporting one-year resistance rates to lamivudine in CHB were analyzed for methodologic differences and their influence on reported resistance rates. Studies using only a genotypic definition of resistance reported one-year rates ranging from 14% to 32%. Studies assessing genotypic resistance in patients with evidence of virologic breakthrough reported much lower one-year resistance rates of 6.4-15.4%. It is important when comparing resistance rates to antiviral drugs in CHB to consider the methodology and definition of resistance used because this can dramatically influence the results.
    Hepatology International 01/2009; 2(4):440-56. DOI:10.1007/s12072-008-9105-y · 2.47 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Molecular assays are instrumental in the clinical management of viral hepatitis. During the past years, a wide variety of molecular assays have been developed and implemented. This considerably improved the understanding of the natural history and pathogenesis of Hepatitis B virus (HBV), Hepatitis C virus (HCV) or Hepatitis delta virus (HDV) hepatitis, but also caused uncertainties in the selection of the most appropriate assays for clinical requirements. Indeed, a rational choice and application of these assays requires adequate knowledge of the performance of the single test. Moreover, the choice of the most accurate assay for patients' needs and physicians' objectives, needs to be oriented to specific contexts, such as diagnosis, management or treatment. In the past, a hurdle in the routine use of assays for hepatitis viruses nucleic acid quantification was represented by the availability of only "home brew" methods which lacked standardization. Major improvement in addressing the use of molecular assays for viral hepatitis has been derived from recent standardization procedures that allowed a comparison between different tests after results were given as International Units. In addition, it should be reminded that, before getting into the market, molecular assays should be approved by European regulation authorities and validated using internationally recognized standards. A subsequent clinical validation should address the diagnostic accuracy of the assay. These proceedings have the aim of identifying which molecular tests, among those currently available, meet clinical requirements for each specific application.
    Digestive and Liver Disease 07/2008; 40(6):395-404. DOI:10.1016/j.dld.2007.12.016 · 2.89 Impact Factor