| Home | E-Submission | Sitemap | Editorial Office
top_img
Clin Mol Hepatol > Volume 22(4); 2016 > Article
Song: Switch to tenofovir-based therapy or to continue adefovir-based therapy in CHB patients with suboptimal response to adefovir-based combination?
See Article on Page 443
Hepatitis B virus (HBV), a major cause of liver disease, has infected approximately 2 billion people worldwide, and more than 350 million are chronically infected [1]. Persistent viral replication increases the risk of progression to liver cirrhosis, development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related death [2-4]. Therefore, the goals of antiviral therapy are to improve quality of life and survival by preventing progression of the disease to cirrhosis, HCC and death [5,6]. These goals can be achieved if HBV replication can be suppressed completely. Recent clinical studies showed that long-term suppression of HBV replication using anti-viral agents in patients with CHB can prevent progression to liver cirrhosis, hepatic failure and the development of HCC [2-5,7-9].
Lamivudine (LAM), adefovir dipivoxil (ADV), telbivudine (Ltd), entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are available nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for treating CHB patients worldwide. However, long-term treatment with NAs other than ETV and TDF increase the risk of drug resistance up to 80% because of low antiviral efficacy and low genetic barrier [10-14], Therefore, most guidelines recommend peg-interferon, ETV, or TDF in treatment-naïve patients [5,15].
ADV add-on therapy has been widely used as a rescue therapy for patients with LAM-resistant CHB before TDF was not available [6,16]. However, suboptimal response has been commonly observed in patients receiving ADV-based therapy [17-19].
TDF, one of very potent antiviral agent with a high genetic barrier, showed excellent virologic response (VR), defined as serum HBV DNA level undetectably by sensitive PCR method, in NAs-naïve [20,21] and NAs-resistant patients [22-26]. Clinical efficacies of TDF therapy in NA-naïve and experienced patients are summarized in Table 1. In NA naïve patients, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving TDF than of those receiving ADV had reached VR at 48 weeks (Table 1). Almost all patients who received TDF therapy showed VR without any evidence of resistance at seven year [14]. In patients with LAM-resistant patients receiving TDF or TDF/emtricitabine (FTC), VR achieved in 89.4% and 86.3% at 96 weeks of therapy, respectively [24], without any evidence of TDF resistance during 5 years of follow-up [27]. TDF also showed high rate of VR in patients with ETV resistance [26]. In a randomized controlled trial conducted by Lim et al. [26] the proportion of patients with HBV DNA <15 IU/mL was high in patients who received TDF and TDF+ETV groups (71% vs. 73%; P=0.99). In patients with ADV-resistant patients with prior LAM resistance, the proportion of patients with HBV DNA <15 IU/mL was not significantly different between the TDF-TDF and TDF/ETV-TDF groups at weeks 48 (62% vs. 63.5%; P=0.88) and 96 (64% vs. 63.5%; P=0.96), suggesting that TDF monotherapy or combination therapy is effective even in patients with NAs-resistant patients.
There are several studies to evaluate the antiviral efficacy of TDF monotherapy or combination in patients with suboptimal response to ADV with or without prior resistance to LAM [23,28,29]. Berg, et al. conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the anti-viral efficacy of TDF-based therapy for patients with CHB who had a suboptimal response to ADV (73% of the patients had received prior LAM therapy). A TDF monotherapy and TDF+FTC combination therapy showed similar VR at 48 week (81% vs. 81%) [23]. Cho et al. reported that the rate of VR was about 86.5 % through TDF monotherapy or TDF-based combination therapy in CHB patients with suboptimal responses to ADV plus LAM combination therapy [28]. Park et al. reported that the rate of VR was significantly higher in patients receiving TDV+ETV than in those receiving ADV+ETV for 12 months (84.8% vs. 26.7%, P<0.001) [29]. However, little randomized controlled trials are available to compare between to switch into TDF-based therapy or to continue ADV-based therapy in CHB patients with suboptimal response to ADV-based therapy.
In the current issue, Lee et al. [30] conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the antiviral efficacy comparing between switching to TDF+NAs therapy and continuing current ADV+NA therapy in patients with suboptimal response to ADV-based therapy. They clearly showed that TDF+NAs therapy provide better VR compared to continue ADV+ NA who showed suboptimal response to ADV-based therapy (87.5% vs. 37.5% at 48 weeks, P=0.002).
However, there are several limitations of the study. First, even though the study was designed as a randomized controlled trial, the sample size was very small to conclude the results. Second, in this study, there was no TDF monotherapy group because TDF monotherapy and TDF+NAs combination therapy did not show any difference in VR in NA-experienced patients (Table 1). In addition, Yang et al. [31] compared the antiviral efficacy between switching to TDF monotherapy and continuing ADV+LAM combination therapy in patients with suboptimal response to ADV+LAM (prior LAM resistance patients) therapy. TDF monotherapy showed higher VR compared with continuing ADV+LAM combination therapy (96.43% vs. 29.0%; P<0.001). ADV monotherapy in patients with LAM resistance increase the risk of drug resistance [17-19]. Therefore, there is a concern about selective pressure on pre-existing resistant mutant viruses [32]. However, clonal analysis revealed that there is no significant selective pressure on pre-existing ADV or LAM resistant strains in during NA monotherpay patients with CHB and suboptimal response to ADV therapy who receiving TDF or TDF+FTC combination therapy [33].
In conclusion, considering the result from current study [30] and previous studies [23-26,31], TDF with or without NAs might be very effective to treat the patient with suboptimal response to ADV-based therapy.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: The author has no conflicts to disclose.

Table 1.
Summary of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the anti-viral efficacy of tenofovir-based therapy in patients with NAs-naïve or experienced patients
Authors Study populations Intervention Primary efficacy end point Virologic response
Marcellin et al. (2008) [20] NAs-naïve TDF vs. ADV HBV DNA level <69 IU/mL at 48 week 76% vs. 13% in HBeAg (+) patients
HBeAg (+) (n=266) 96.8% vs. 71.2% in HBeAg (-) patients
HBeAg (-) (n=375)
Fung et al. (2014) [24] LAM -resistant TDF (n=141) vs. TDF/FTC (n=139) HBV DNA level <69 IU/mL at 96 week 89.4% vs. 86.3 % (P=0.43)
Lim et al. (2016) [25] ADV-resistant (100% LAM-resistant) TDF (n=50) vs. TDF/ETV (n=52) HBV DNA level <15 IU/mL at 48 week 62% vs. 63.5% (P=0.88)
Lim et al. (2016) [26] ETV-resistant TDF (n=45) vs. TDF/ETV (n=5) HBV DNA level <15 IU/mL at 48 week 71% vs. 73% (P=0.99)
Berg et al. (2010) [23] Suboptimal response to ADV (73% of the patients had received prior LAM therapy) TDF (n=53) vs. TDF/FTC (n=52) HBV DNA level <69 IU/mL at 48 week 81% vs. 81% (P=ns)
Yang et al. (2015) [31] Suboptimal response to ADV/LAM (prior LAM resistance patients) TDF (n=28) vs. continue ADV/LAM (n=31) HBV DNA level <200 IU/mL at 48 week 96.43% vs. 29.0% (P<0.001)
Lee et al. (2016) [30] Suboptimal response to ADV-based combination therapy due to NA resistance (LAM-resistant 9, Ldt-resistant 14, ETV-resistant 9) TDF +NA (n=16) vs. continue ADV+NA (n=16) HBV DNA level < 60 IU/mL at 48 week 81.3% vs. 56.3% (P<0.001)

ADV, adefovir dipivoxil; ETV, entecavir; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; TDF/FTC, TDF/emtricitabine; LAM, lamivudine; NAs, nucleos(t)ide analogues.

Abbreviations

ADV
adefovir dipivoxil
CHB
chronic hepatitis B
ETV
entecavir
HBV
hepatitis B virus
HCC
hepatocellular carcinoma
LAM
lamivudine
TDF
tenofovir disoproxil fumarate
VR
virologic response

REFERENCES

1. Lavanchy D. Hepatitis B virus epidemiology, disease burden, treatment, and current and emerging prevention and control measures. J Viral Hepat 2004;11:97-107.
crossref pmid
2. Liaw YF, Sung JJ, Chow WC, Farrell G, Lee CZ, Yuen H, et al. Lamivudine for patients with chronic hepatitis B and advanced liver disease. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1521-1531.
crossref pmid
3. Hosaka T, Suzuki F, Kobayashi M, Seko Y, Kawamura Y, Sezaki H, et al. Long-term entecavir treatment reduces hepatocellular carcinoma incidence in patients with hepatitis B virus infection. Hepatology 2013;58:98-107.
crossref pmid
4. Wong GL, Chan HL, Mak CW, Lee SK, Ip ZM, Lam AT, et al. Entecavir treatment reduces hepatic events and deaths in chronic hepatitis B patients with liver cirrhosis. Hepatology 2013;58:1537-1547.
crossref pmid
5. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: Management of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 2012;57:167-185.
pmid
6. Korean Association for the Study of the Liver. KASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of chronic hepatitis B. Clin Mol Hepatol 2012;18:109-162.
pmid pmc
7. Schiff ER, Lee SS, Chao YC, Kew Yoon S, Bessone F, Wu SS, et al. Long-term treatment with entecavir induces reversal of advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:274-276.
crossref pmid
8. Chang TT, Liaw YF, Wu SS, Schiff E, Han KH, Lai CL, et al. Long-term entecavir therapy results in the reversal of fibrosis/cirrhosis and continued histological improvement in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology 2010;52:886-893.
crossref pmid
9. Marcellin P, Gane E, Buti M, Afdhal N, Sievert W, Jacobson IM, et al. Regression of cirrhosis during treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B: a 5-year open-label follow-up study. Lancet 2013;381:468-475.
crossref pmid
10. Dienstag JL, Cianciara J, Karayalcin S, Kowdley KV, Willems B, Plisek S, et al. Durability of serologic response after lamivudine treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology 2003;37:748-755.
crossref pmid
11. Lok AS, Lai CL, Leung N, Yao GB, Cui ZY, Schiff ER, et al. Long-term safety of lamivudine treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Gastroenterology 2003;125:1714-1722.
crossref pmid
12. Lai CL, Dienstag J, Schiff E, Leung NW, Atkins M, Hunt C, et al. Prevalence and clinical correlates of YMDD variants during lamivudine therapy for patients with chronic hepatitis B. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:687-696.
crossref pmid
13. Chang TT, Lai CL, Kew Yoon S, Lee SS, Coelho HS, Carrilho FJ, et al. Entecavir treatment for up to 5 years in patients with hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology 2010;51:422-430.
crossref pmid
14. Buti M, Tsai N, Petersen J, Flisiak R, Gurel S, Krastev Z, et al. Sevenyear efficacy and safety of treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:1457-1464.
crossref pmid
15. Korean Association for the Study of the Liver. KASL clinical practice guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B. Clin Mol Hepatol 2016;22:18-75.
pmid pmc
16. Lok AS, McMahon BJ. Chronic hepatitis B. Hepatology 2007;45:507-539.
crossref pmid
17. Lee JM, Park JY, Kim DY, Nguyen T, Hong SP, Kim SO, et al. Long-term adefovir dipivoxil monotherapy for up to 5 years in lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B. Antivir Ther 2010;15:235-241.
crossref pmid
18. Ryu HJ, Lee JM, Ahn SH, Kim DY, Lee MH, Han KH, et al. Efficacy of adefovir add-on lamivudine rescue therapy compared with switching to entecavir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B. J Med Virol 2010;82:1835-1842.
crossref pmid
19. Song BC, Cui XJ, Shin JW, Park NH, Cho YK, Song HJ, et al. Response to adefovir depends on mutation patterns in precore region, basal core promoter and reverse transcriptase, and on-treatment responses in lamivudine-resistant chronic hpatitis B ptients. Intervirology 2010;53:203-210.
crossref pmid
20. Marcellin P, Heathcote EJ, Buti M, Gane E, de Man RA, Krastev Z, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus adefovir dipivoxil for chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2442-2455.
crossref pmid
21. Hou JL, Gao ZL, Xie Q, Zhang JM, Sheng JF, Cheng J, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs adefovir dipivoxil in Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B after 48 weeks: a randomized controlled trial. J Viral Hepat 2015;22:85-93.
crossref pmid
22. van Bömmel F, de Man RA, Wedemeyer H, Deterding K, Petersen J, Buggisch P, et al. Long-term efficacy of tenofovir monotherapy for hepatitis B virus-monoinfected patients after failure of nucleoside/nucleotide analogues. Hepatology 2010;51:73-80.
crossref pmid
23. Berg T, Marcellin P, Zoulim F, Moller B, Trinh H, Chan S, et al. Tenofovir is effective alone or with emtricitabine in adefovir-treated patients with chronic-hepatitis B virus infection. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1207-1217.
crossref pmid
24. Fung S, Kwan P, Fabri M, Horban A, Pelemis M, Hann HW, et al. Randomized Comparison of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate vs Emtricitabine and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in Patients With Lamivudine-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B. Gastroenterology 2014;146:980-988.
crossref pmid
25. Lim YS, Yoo BC, Byun KS, Kwon SY, Kim YJ, An J, et al. Tenofovir monotherapy versus tenofovir and entecavir combination therapy in adefovir-resistant chronic hepatitis B patients with multiple drug failure: results of a randomised trial. Gut 2016;65:1045-1051.
crossref
26. Lim YS, Byun KS, Yoo BC, Kwon SY, Kim YJ, An J, et al. Tenofovir monotherapy versus tenofovir and entecavir combination therapy in patients with entecavir-resistant chronic hepatitis B with multiple drug failure: results of a randomised trial. Gut 2016;65:852-860.
crossref pmid
27. Fung S, Kwan P, Fabri M, Horban A, Pelemis M, Hann HW, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs. emtricitabine (FTC)/TDF in lamivudine resistant hepatitis B: A 5-year randomised study. J Hepatol 2016 Aug 18;[Epub ahead of print].
crossref
28. Cho HJ, Kim SS, Shin SJ, Yoo BM, Cho SW, Cheong JY. Tenofovir-based rescue therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients with suboptimal responses to adefovir with prior lamivudine resistance. J Med Virol 2015;87:1532-1538.
crossref pmid
29. Park JG, Park SY. Entecavir plus tenofovir versus entecavir plus adefovir in chronic hepatitis B patients with a suboptimal response to lamivudine and adefovir combination therapy. Clin Mol Hepatol 2015;21:242-248.
crossref pmid pmc
30. Lee HW, Park JY, Kim BK, Kim MY, Lee JI, Kim YS, et al. Efficacy of switching from adefovir to tenofovir in chronic hepatitis B patients who have suboptimal response to adefovir-based combination rescue therapy due to nucleoside analogues resistance (SATIS study). Clin Mol Hepatol 2016;22:433-449.

31. Yang DH, Xie YJ, Zhao NF, Pan HY, Li MW, Huang HJ. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate is superior to lamivudine plus adefovir in lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B patients. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:2746-2753.
crossref pmid pmc
32. Cho YK, Cui XJ, Jeong SU, Song BC. Different mechanism of selection of adefovir-resistant mutant viruses during adefovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B. Antiviral Res 2014;112:8-17.
crossref pmid
33. Lavocat F, Dény P, Pichoud C, Al Hawajri N, Kitrinos K, Borroto-Esoda K, et al. Similar evolution of hepatitis B virus quasispecies in patients with incomplete adefovir response receiving tenofovir/emtricitabine combination or tenofovir monotherapy. J Hepatol 2013;59:684-695.
crossref pmid
Editorial Office
The Korean Association for the Study of the Liver
Room A1210, 53 Mapo-daero(MapoTrapalace, Dowha-dong), Mapo-gu, Seoul, 04158, Korea
TEL: +82-2-703-0051   FAX: +82-2-703-0071    E-mail: kasl@kams.or.kr
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
Copyright © The Korean Association for the Study of the Liver. All rights reserved.