Clin Mol Hepatol > Volume 31(Suppl); 2025 > Article |
|
Regimen | Study design | Participants | HBsAg response | |
---|---|---|---|---|
De novo strategy | ||||
HBeAg-positive CHB patients | Peg-IFN-2a alone (n=271), | Multicenter, double-blind, randomised controlled trial [50] | 814 patients with HBeAgpositive chronic hepatitis B, mostly from Asian (87%) | HBsAg seroconversion after 24 weeks of follow-up: |
Peg-IFN-2a plus lamivudine (n=271), | Peg-IFN-2a alone: 2.95% | |||
Peg-IFN-2a in combination with lamivudine: 2.95% | ||||
lamivudine alone (n=272) for 48 weeks | lamivudine monotherapy: 0.00% | |||
(P=0.004 for both comparisons with lamivudine) | ||||
Peg-IFN-2b plus lamivudine (n=130), | Multicenter, double-blind, randomised controlled trial [51] | 307 HBeAg-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B | HBsAg loss at the end of treatment (week 52): | |
combination therapy: 7% | ||||
Peg-IFN-2b monotherapy (n=136), for 52 weeks | monotherapy group: 5% | |||
(comparison was not significant) | ||||
HBeAg-negative CHB patients | Peg-IFN-2a alone (n=177), | Multicenter, double-blind, randomised controlled trial [52] | 537 HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B | HBsAg loss after 24 weeks of follow-up, |
Peg-IFN-2a plus lamivudine (n=179), | combination therapy: 2.79% | |||
Peg-IFN-2a alone: 3.95% | ||||
lamivudine alone (n=181) for 48 weeks | lamivudine alone: 0.00% | |||
(both comparisons with lamivudine were significant) | ||||
Both HBeAg-positive and negative CHB patients | Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plus Peg-IFN for 48 weeks (group A) (n=186) | Multinational, open-label, randomized, controlled trial [49] | 740 HBeAg-positive or -negative patients with chronic hepatitis B, with three-quarter Asian patients | HBsAg loss at week 72, |
group A: 9.1% | ||||
group B: 2.8% | ||||
TDF plus Peg-IFN for 16 weeks followed by TDF for 32 weeks (group B) (n=184) | group C: 0.0% | |||
group D: 2.8% | ||||
group A vs. group B (P=0.002), or group C (P<0.001) or group D (P=0.003) | ||||
TDF for 120 weeks (group C) (n=185) | group B vs. group C (P=0.466) or group D (P=0.883) | |||
Peg-IFN for 48 weeks (group D) (n=185) | In the genotype A, CHB patients had the highest HBsAg loss and trended toward to HBeAg-positive patients. | |||
A post hoc analysis study at week 120 follow-up [53] | ||||
HBsAg loss at week 120: | ||||
group A:10.4% | ||||
group B: 3.5% | ||||
group C (120-week tenofovir): 0.0% | ||||
group D: 3.5% | ||||
group A vs. group C (P<0.001) or group D (P=0.002) | ||||
Peg-IFN plus TDF for 48 weeks (n=104) | Real-world clinical cohort of Chinese patients with CHB [54] | 330 patients with CHB | HBsAg loss at week 72: | |
Peg-IFN plus TDF: 11.5% | ||||
Peg-IFN alone for 48 weeks (n=106) | Peg-IFN: 5.7% | |||
TDF: 0.0% | ||||
TDF alone for 144 weeks (n=120) | Peg-IFN plus TDF vs. Peg-IFN (P=0.143) | |||
Peg-IFN plus TDF or Peg-IFN alone vs. TDF (P=0.000 or P=0.010) | ||||
A reduction of HBsAg level >1.5 log10IU/mL at week 24 from baseline can predict the 72-week HBsAg loss with an AUROC curve of 0.846 | ||||
Add-on strategy | ||||
Early “add-on” Peg-IFN to NA (Defined as starting NA before Peg-IFN less than 1 year) | ||||
HBeAg-positive CHB patients | started on entecavir monotherapy and then were randomized to: | Open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (ARES study) [55] | 175 HBeAg-positive CHB patients | During randomized therapy from week 24 to 48, decline in HBsAg: |
add-on arm: –0.3 log IU/mL | ||||
Peg-IFN add-on therapy from week 24 to 48 (n=85) entecavir monotherapy (n=90) | Entecavir monotherapy: –0.01 log IU/mL (P<0.001) | |||
During long-term follow-up, [55] add-on therapy group had a reduction of HBsAg level more than 1 log significantly higher than entecavir group (59% vs. 28%, P=0.02) | ||||
Late “add-on” Peg-IFN to NA (Defined as starting NA before Peg-IFN more than 1 year) | ||||
HBeAg-positive CHB patients | 48 weeks of Peg-IFN add-on therapy (n=39) | Open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial (PEGON) [56] | 77 HBeAg-positive patients with compensated liver disease who were treated with entecavir/tenofovir for >12 months and had an HBV DNA load of <2,000 IU/mL | A decline in the HBsAg level of >0.5 log IU/mL at week 72: |
NA monotherapy (n=38) | Peg-IFN add-on group: 26% | |||
NA monotherapy: 8% (P=0.038) | ||||
HBeAg-negative CHB patients | 48 weeks of Peg-IFN-2a plus NA (n=90) | Open-label, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial from French [57] | 183 HBeAg-negative CHB and negative HBV DNA while on stable NA for at least 1 year | HBsAg loss at week 96 |
Peg-IFN-2a plus NA: 7.8 | ||||
NA only (n=93) | NA only: 3.2% (P=0.15) | |||
The baseline HBsAg level correlated with HBsAg clearance. | ||||
Both HBeAg-positive and negative CHB patients | Peg-IFN-2a was added for 48 weeks in the add-on arm (n=32) | Prospective cohort study from Japan [58] | 83 CHB Patients receiving maintenance TDF therapy with HBsAg level >800 IU/mL | A rapid decrease in HBsAg at 96 weeks: |
add-on arm: 41% | ||||
TDF monotherapy (n=51) | TDF monotherapy: 2% (P<0.001) | |||
Switch-to strategy | ||||
HBeAg-positive CHB patients | Peg-IFN-2a (n=94) | open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (OSST study) [59] | 197 HBeAg-positive CHB patients who had received entecavir for 9–36 months, with HBeAg <100 PEIU/ml and HBV DNA ≤1,000 copies/mL | HBsAg loss at week 48: |
entecavir (n=98) for 48 weeks | Peg-IFN-2a: 8.5% | |||
Entecavir: 0.0% | ||||
In entecavir-treated patients with HBeAg loss and had HBsAg <1,500 IU/mL at time of switching had a higher chance of HBsAg loss (22.2%). | ||||
On-treatment predictors, HBsAg levels at 12 weeks after switching <200 IU/mL predicted great chance of HBsAg loss (77.8%), HBsAg level ≥1,500 IU/mL predict poor response (1.7%) after switch therapy. | ||||
A 1-year follow-up of the OSST study reported sustained HBsAg loss was documented in 6 of 7 (85.7%) patients 1-year post-treatment. [60] | ||||
HBeAg-negative CHB patients | Peg-IFN-2a for 48 weeks (n=153) | Open-label, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial (New Switch Study) | 303 HBeAg-positive patients who achieved HBeAg loss and HBV DNA <200 IU/mL with previous NA treatment | HBsAg loss at the end of treatment: |
Peg-IFN-2a for 96 weeks (n=150) | 48-week Peg-IFN treatment duration: 14.4% | |||
96-week Peg-IFN treatment duration: 20.7% (P=0.1742) | ||||
HBsAg loss at the end of 48-week follow-up: | ||||
48-week Peg-IFN treatment duration: 9.8% | ||||
96-week Peg-IFN treatment duration: 15.3% (P=0.1670) | ||||
Baseline HBsAg <1,500 IU/mL and week 24 HBsAg <200 IU/mL were associated with the highest rates of HBsAg loss at the end of both 48- and 96-week treatment (51.4% and 58.7%, respectively). [61] | ||||
HBeAg-negative CHB patients | entecavir (group I) (n=27) | Open-label, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial (Endeavor study) [62] | 92 Patients who achieved virological suppression and HBeAg loss with entecavir treatment | HBsAg loss at week 48 |
IFN for 48 weeks (group II) (n=33) | group I: 3.70% | |||
IFN+vaccine for 48 weeks+interleukin-2 for 12 weeks (group III) (n=32) | group II: 3.03% | |||
group III: 9.38% | ||||
the comparison was not statistically | ||||
HBsAg decline at week 48: | ||||
group I: 0.13 log 10 IU/mL | ||||
group II: 0.74 log10 IU/mL | ||||
group III:0.85 log 10 IU/mL | ||||
P<0.05 for group1 vs. group 2 or group 3 |
Special populations | Relevant studies | |
---|---|---|
Inactive HBsAg carriers (IHCs), CHB patients with low-level viremia, and indeterminatephase or Grey Zone patients | • | Although “inactive carrier” disease phase is associated with a favorable prognosis, it has been replaced by other terms in several current guidelines, as the risk of spontaneous reactivation and the potential risk of disease progression and HCC development are not negligible. [111] |
• | Current guidelines do not recommend antiviral therapy for IHCs. However, IHCs may achieve high rates of HBsAg loss, whether receiving Peg-IFN therapy alone or in combination with NA. [112-114] Thus, Peg-IFN-based treatment is a therapeutic option to achieve functional cure. | |
• | A five-year follow-up study showed that HBsAg loss over time in HBeAg-negative patients with HBV DNA <20,000 IU/mL was not influenced by combination treatment with NA and Peg-IFN. [115] | |
• | Persistent low-level viremia during NA monotherapy is associated with a higher risk of liver cirrhosis or HCC. [116-118] Therefore, treatment adjustments such as switching to or adding another preferred NA that can induce maintained virological response, or adding Peg-IFN can be considered. | |
• | In some HBeAg-negative patients with low-level viremia, transcriptionally active HBV integration may lead to ubiquitous HBsAg expression independent of HBV replication. [119] | |
• | HCC risk in persistently indeterminate CHB was substantially higher than inactive CHB. [120] Antiviral treatment could reduce the risk of HCC and liver-related mortality among CHB patients in the indeterminate phase. [121] | |
CHB in children and adolescents | • | Blocking mother-to-child transmission has significantly reduced HBV infection prevalence in children. [122,123] However, less developed countries indicate a significant burden of HBV infection among children. |
• | The chronicity of HBV infection is much higher in children than in adults following acute HBV infection. [124] Previous guidelines recommended antiviral therapy for children with active hepatitis B, whereas no therapeutic interventions have been recommended for pediatric immune-tolerant CHB. | |
• | The functional cure rate in HBeAg-positive CHB children significantly decreases with increasing age when they receive antiviral therapy. [125-127] | |
• | The recently released expert consensus recommends initiating antiviral treatment as early as possible for children with CHB, [128] aiming to slow disease progression and reduce the disease burden in China. | |
Patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) | • | HBV infection and MASLD are two major causes leading to liver cirrhosis and HCC. [129-131] In Asia, there is a growing trend towards coexistence of MASLD in individuals with CHB. [131] |
• | Concurrent MASLD may enhance HBsAg seroclearance and suppress HBV replication, irrespective of antiviral therapy. [132-138] However, the potential long-term adverse effects of hepatic steatosis on the liver, such as the development of liver fibrosis or HCC [130,139] should not be overlooked. | |
• | The impact of hepatic steatosis on efficacy of antiviral therapy for CHB is controversial. Several studies have demonstrated that hepatic steatosis may diminish the effectiveness of antiviral treatment and is significantly associated with treatment failure, [140,141] but others suggest that hepatic steatosis does not affect treatment response. [142,143] | |
• | Existing clinical studies on the functional cure of CHB have often excluded patients with concurrent MASLD, resulting in a lack of scientific data tailored to the treatment of this specific population. Comprehensive evaluations are essential to delineate the effects of concurrent MASLD on the functional cure in CHB patients receiving combination therapy. | |
• | The management of these patients should aim not only for a functional cure for HBV but also the effective control of MASLD. A recent study indicates that chronic hepatitis B and C outweigh MASLD in the associated risk of cirrhosis and HCC. This underscores the need to prioritize treatment of chronic viral hepatitis before addressing MASLD. [139] | |
CHB patients with liver cirrhosis | • | Among CHB patients with liver cirrhosis, the primary therapeutic objective centers on reducing subsequent complications such as HCC development or mortality, rather than achieving functional cure. [144] |
• | For patients with decompensated cirrhosis, immediate initiation of indefinite NA is strongly advised, while the use of Peg-IFN is contraindicated due to safety concerns. | |
• | In patients with compensated cirrhosis, NA is indicated for those with detectable serum HBV DNA levels; however, the long-term benefits of adjunctive Peg-IFN therapy remain uncertain. | |
• | Additionally, for well-compensated cirrhotic patients undergoing combination therapy, the optimal timing for discontinuing NA remains indeterminate. While a recent retrospective study suggests that withdrawal of NA monotherapy in cirrhotic patients may potentially facilitate HBsAg loss and enhance overall survival, [145] caution is warranted due to residual confounding factors [146] and the risk of serious adverse events such as acute flares, [147] necessitating further studies to validate the benefits of ceasing NA therapy prior to HBsAg loss in cirrhotic patients undergoing combination therapy. | |
CHB with HCC | • | Patients with HCC due to underlying CHB should continue or receive lifelong prophylactic therapy with preferred NA through and following systemic anticancer therapies or potentially curative HCC therapy including liver transplantation. [148] |
• | Patients who developed HCC after HBsAg loss were found to have comparable biological functions of HBV integration to HBsAg-positive patients with HCCs, with continuing pro-oncogenic effects of HBV integration. Therefore, CHB patients should remain under surveillance for HCC even after achieving HBsAg loss. [149] | |
• | Immune checkpoint inhibitors including anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 may accelerate HBsAg loss in patients with cancer or HCC and baseline HBsAg <100 IU/mL. [150] | |
CHB patients with renal impairment | • | Renal abnormalities are prevalent among the CHB population, emphasizing the necessity for regular renal assessment in these patients. [151] |
• | Patients with suspected HBV-related renal involvement, [152] including membranous nephropathy, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, polyarteritis nodosa, and mesangial proliferative glomerulonephritis, should promptly receive antiviral therapy. | |
• | Although the data regarding the optimal anti-HBV therapy for this subset of patients is limited, [153] add-on Peg-IFN to ETV seemed not to exacerbate renal function decline. Moreover, those with a baseline HBsAg level of less than 250 IU/mL may experience improved renal function following 48 weeks of therapy. [154] | |
• | Given the potential pathophysiological mechanisms involving viral antigens and immune complex deposition in HBV-related renal dysfunction, curative combination therapy should be considered in appropriate CHB patients with renal involvement to optimize therapeutic outcomes. | |
Patients with HBV-hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection | • | The prevalence of HBV-HCV coinfection is expected to decline due to the favorable efficacy and safety profile of pan-genotypic DAAs against HCV. |
• | Given the high rates of sustained virologic response (SVR), [155] immediate initiation of DAA therapy in those with detectable HCV RNA is justified. | |
• | Peg-IFN-based regimens are no longer recommended as the first-line therapy for those with HBV-HCV coinfection. However, following successful achievement of SVR for HCV, Peg-IFN-based curative therapy for HBV remains an aggressive approach aimed at functional cure. | |
• | Prophylactic NA during anti-HCV therapy is recommended because of the high risk of hepatitis B reactivation. [156] | |
• | Further investigation is necessary to ascertain whether the continuation rather than cessation of NA therapy, followed by add-on Peg-IFN, constitutes a safe and efficacious strategy for achieving HBsAg loss in patients with HBV-HCV coinfection who have completed anti-HCV therapy. | |
Patients with HBV-hepatitis D virus (HDV) coinfection | • | Approximately 5% of individuals infected with HBV are coinfected with HDV, [157] however, only approximately 20% to 50% of them have been diagnosed. [158] Therefore, universal HDV screening is recommended for all patients who are positive for HBsAg. [159] |
• | Chronic HBV-HDV coinfection leads to more rapidly progressive liver disease than chronic HBV monoinfection. | |
• | HBsAg loss sustained 24 weeks after the end of therapy with HBV DNA negativity is considered a functional cure for HBV-HDV coinfection. Therapeutic strategies leading to functional cure of HBV are ideal for HBV-HDV coinfection. [8,160] | |
• | Peg-IFN is the current treatment of choice in HBV-HDV co-infected patients with compensated liver disease. | |
• | Entry-inhibitor Bulevirtide (BLV) is approved in Europe for the treatment of chronic hepatitis D. | |
• | Bulevirtide as well as prenylation inhibitor lonafarnib plus ritonavir with or without Peg-IFN have shown higher virological response rates but seldom lead to functional cure. [158,160] |
Novel markers | Characteristics | Predictive potential for HBsAg loss |
---|---|---|
Virological markers | ||
HBcrAg | HBcrAg consists of HBeAg, HBcAg in Dane particles, and a truncated 22 kDa precore protein (p22cr) and phosphorylated HBcAg (pHBcAg) in empty Dane-like particles. [181] The levels of HBcrAg reflect HBV DNA levels in serum and liver, and cccDNA in the liver, thus HBcrAg may serve as a surrogate marker for predicting viral relapse after stopping NAs therapy. [182-185] | Combining HBsAg (<10, 10–100 or >100 IU/mL) and HBcrAg (<2 log vs. ≥2 log) levels improved prediction of HBsAg loss after NA cessation. [186] |
Recently developed highly sensitive HBcrAg could be suitable in predicting HBsAg loss after NA cessation. [187] | ||
EOT HBsAb levels >2 log10IU/L and HBcrAg levels <4 log10U/mL were associated with durable HBsAg loss induced by Peg-IFN based therapy at 24 weeks post-treatment. [74] | ||
HBV RNA | Serum HBV RNA is encapsidated pgRNA and can be used as a potential biomarker reflecting the active transcription of intrahepatic cccDNA. [188] | Serum HBV RNA may be a potential predictor of viral rebound and HBsAg loss post NA treatment withdrawal. [188,189] |
A post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial of Peg-IFN based therapy indicated that HBV RNA and HBcrAg were weak predictors of HBsAg loss. [165] | ||
HBcrAg and HBV RNA have a limited role in improving the prediction of HBsAg loss in CHB patients upon readily available markers. [190] | ||
Quantitative anti‐HBc | The quantification of anti‐HBc levels plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of CHB. [191] Anti‐ HBc may be used as a marker for significant histological inflammation diagnosis, [192] natural history differentiation, [193,194] HBeAg seroconversion, [195-197] and clinical relapse after NA discontinuation therapy. [198] | Low levels of anti-HBc may be associated with HBsAg loss. Anti-HBc levels <3 log IU/mL was associated with undetectable HBV DNA and HBsAg loss occurred within 10 years in HBeAg negative patients. [199] |
Lower level of anti-HBc IgG (<11 relative light unit) at baseline was associated with HBsAg loss during long-term NA therapy. [200] | ||
Patients with lower baseline anti-HBc (<0.1 IU/mL) had a significantly higher rate of HBsAg loss under Peg-IFN add-on treatment. [201] | ||
Immunological markers | ||
Immunological markers | The HBV-induced host immune response is pivotal in determining the outcome of HBV infection, progression of the disease, and the response to antiviral therapy. [202-206] | On-treatment development of anti-IFNα neutralizing antibodies during Peg-IFN treatment was associated with reduced quantitative HBsAg and qHBeAg declines. [207] |
Changes of NK-cell phenotype were associated with HBsAg seroconversion in patients treated with NA. [208] | ||
Several immunological markers associated with HBV control or viral relapse upon NA discontinuation have been proposed. [209,210] | ||
The presence of functional HBV-specific T cells has been suggested as a candidate immunological biomarker for the safe discontinuation of NA. [211] | ||
HBV-specific CD4+ T-cell responses induced by the targeted peptide possess specificities for HBsAg loss in CHB patients undergoing NA discontinuation. [212] Successful response to Peg-IFN correlates with an early significant restoration of impaired immune responses. [213] | ||
An inverse relationship was observed between the trends of sPD-1/sPD-L1 and HBsAg loss during IFN and NAs combination treatment. [214] | ||
Baseline HBsAb-specific B cells might be a predictive biomarker of HBsAg seroconversion in CHB patients treated with Peg-IFN. [215] | ||
Genetic markers | ||
Single nucleotide polymorphisms | Host genetic variations can affect the outcome of CHB patients. | HBeAg-negative CHB patients carrying rs9277535 non-GG genotype had a higher likelihood of spontaneous HBsAg loss compared to those carrying G alleles. [216] |
Patients with S267F variant on NTCP gene tended to have more sustained response with HBsAg loss at 24 weeks following Peg-IFN treatment. [217] | ||
In HBeAg-positive genotype B patients, rs7574865 in STAT4 was found to be associated with functional cure of CHB by Peg-IFN treatment. [218] | ||
IL28B polymorphisms may predict IFN-related HBsAg loss in genotype D HBeAg-negative patients. [219] | ||
Rs7519753 C allele was associated with an increased probability of HBsAg loss in CHB patients post Peg-IFN treatment. [220] | ||
Combination of the IFN lambda 4 rs368234815 and rs117648444 genotypes predicted HBsAg clearance in HBeAg-negative CHB patients post IFN treatment. [221] |
Man-Fung Yuen
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7985-7725
Functional cure of chronic hepatitis B encounters resmetirom2024 July;30(3)
Linvencovir: Paving the way for functional cure in hepatitis B2024 April;30(2)
RNA interference as a novel treatment strategy for chronic hepatitis B infection2022 July;28(3)
Recent trends in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C2012 March;18(1)