Fatty liver is not independently associated with the rates of complete response to oral antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and chronic hepatitis B (CHB) are common liver diseases. Concurrent NAFLD may affect antiviral treatment outcomes in CHB patients. The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of NAFLD on complete viral suppression ([CVS], HBV DNA <20-100 IU/mL) and/or biochemical response ([BR], ALT of ≤25 U/L for females; 35 U/L for males) in CHB patients who received oral antiviral therapy. METHODS: A retrospective study of 555 treated CHB patients (187 NAFLD; 368 non-NAFLD) from 2000 to 2016 at a USA medical centre. NAFLD was diagnosed by imaging and/or histology after ruling out secondary causes of hepatic steatosis. RESULTS: The majority of patients were male (60.7%), Asian (87.56%) and HBeAg-negative (66.7%). NAFLD patients compared to non-NAFLD were more likely HBeAg negative (74.3% vs 62.8%, P = .02), hypertensive (33.2% vs 22.8%, P = .009) and male (67.4% vs 57.3%, P = .02) with a higher mean BMI (25.4 ± 4.3 vs 23.8 ± 4.0 kg/m2 , P < .001). Both cohorts achieved similar rates of CVS (86% vs 88%) and BR (38% vs 41%) during the follow-up of up to 60 months (P > .05), but NAFLD had higher cumulative rates of CVS + BR, compared with non-NAFLD patients (32.5% vs 22.8%, P = .03). In multivariate analyses, NAFLD was not independently associated with CVS and/or BR outcomes. Receipt of entecavir or tenofovir (vs older therapies) and lower baseline HBV DNA or higher ALT were positively associated with achieving CVS or BR. CONCLUSION: Concomitant NAFLD had no impact on the long-term rates of CVS and/or BR in treated CHB patients.

Alternative Therapies for Chronic Hepatitis B Patients With Partial Virological Response to Standard Entecavir Monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Entecavir (ETV) is a first-line, oral antinucleoside agent for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients. Despite its high potency, some patients may still be viremic after prolonged therapy with ETV monotherapy. Long-term outcome data comparing maintained ETV monotherapy to alternative therapies in persistently viremic patients are limited. Our goal was to compare complete viral suppression (CVS) rates [hepatitis B DNA (HBV DNA)<40 to 60 IU/mL] with alternative therapies to continued ETV monotherapy in ETV partial responders. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study consisting of 86 consecutive treatment-naive, ETV=0.5 mg partial responders (detectable HBV DNA after ≥12 mo on ETV) who maintained ETV=0.5 mg daily (n=29) or switched to either ETV=1.0 mg daily (n=32) or ETV/tenofovir (TDF)=0.5 mg/300 mg (n=25) in 3 US GI/liver clinics from January 2005 to January 2012. Patients were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision query and data were collected by individual chart review. For those who remained on ETV=0.5 mg, comparison at regimen "switch time" was done using values at 12 months from initial ETV therapy. Rates of CVS were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate hazard ratio (HR) relating to potential predictors to the desirable outcomes of CVS. RESULTS: In all therapy groups, the majority of patients were Asian (93.1% to 100.0%), male (64.0% to 68.8%), and hepatitis B e antigen-positive (95.8% to 100.0%) and had similar baseline alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. However, baseline HBV DNA (7.0 vs. 7.9 vs. 7.8 log10 IU/mL, P=0.05) and HBV DNA at regimen switch point (2.9 vs. 3.7 vs. 3.6 log10 IU/mL, P=0.0014) were lower in the ETV=0.5 mg cohort compared with those switched to ETV=1.0 mg or ETV/TDF, respectively. The ETV=0.5 mg cohort also had the shortest duration of ETV=0.5 mg therapy before switch (11.8 vs. 13.5 vs. 19.2 mo, P<0.0001). After the switch point, more patients on ETV/TDF achieved CVS compared with those on ETV=0.5 mg or ETV=1.0 mg at month 6 (77.3% vs. 13.8% vs. 9.4%), month 12 (86.4% vs. 40.5% vs. 25.0%), and month 18 (100% vs. 70.2% vs. 33.3%). Compared with the ETV=0.5 mg and ETV=1.0 mg groups, the ETV/TDF group also had higher rates of ALT normalization at month 6 (73.0% vs, 46.4% vs. 63.0%), month 12 (79.7% vs. 69.5% vs. 77.9%), and month 18 (100.0% vs. 69.5% vs. 86.8%), respectively. The multivariate analyses, inclusive of baseline age and treatment duration on initial therapy with ETV=0.5 mg, indicated that the ETV/TDF combination (HR=12.19, P<0.0001) was independently and positively associated with CVS, whereas high HBV DNA levels at baseline (HR=0.77, P=0.02) and at switch point (HR=0.46, P=0.002) were negatively associated with CVS. ETV=1.0 mg dose was not a predictor for CVS compared with ETV=0.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Following adjustments for HBV DNA levels and prior treatment duration, ETV/TDF combination therapy independently predicted superior viral suppression and ALT normalization in partial responders to ETV=0.5 mg daily compared with ETV=0.5 mg or ETV=1.0 mg monotherapy. In patients who continued to be viremic after 12 months of ETV=0.5 mg, one third were still viremic after another 18 months on the same therapy. Alternative therapies should be considered for these patients.

Tenofovir monotherapy after achieving complete viral suppression on entecavir plus tenofovir combination therapy.

OBJECTIVES: It is unclear whether patients with chronic hepatitis B with partial response to entecavir (ETV) who have achieved complete viral suppression (CVS) with ETV plus tenofovir (TDF) combination therapy maintain CVS if switched to TDF or ETV. Our goal was to examine virologic outcomes in such patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 57 ETV partial responders with chronic hepatitis B who showed CVS on ETV+TDF combination therapy, who were switched back to monotherapy with either ETV (n=16) or TDF (n=18), or continued on combination therapy (n=23). The majority of patients were Asian (91%) and male (65%), with a mean age of 41±12 years. RESULTS: The patients switched back to ETV had significantly higher rates of virologic breakthrough by 6 months after the switch compared with their TDF counterparts (88 vs. 39%, P=0.004). Patients who remained on ETV+TDF also had virologic breakthrough, due to either confirmed or suspected nonadherence. On multivariate analysis inclusive of age, sex, and hepatitis B virus DNA levels at initiation of combination therapy, ETV (compared with TDF) was found to be an independent predictor for virologic breakthrough (odds ratio 112.7, P=0.03), as well as duration of CVS of less than 12 months while on ETV+TDF (odds ratio 60.2, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: TDF monotherapy, especially in those who have had CVS for at least 12 months on combination therapy, may be considered for some ETV partial responders who have achieved CVS with combination therapy, given the financial advantage and convenience of monotherapy.

Renal Function in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Treated With Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate or Entecavir Monotherapy: A Matched Case-Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Tenofovir (TDF)-associated renal dysfunction has been described in various studies of human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Our goal is to examine the incidence and magnitude of decrease in renal function in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with TDF. METHODS: We performed a case-cohort study of 103 patients on TDF 300 mg and 103 patients unexposed to TDF (Entecavir) at 4 centers, who were matched for age±10 years, sex, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) group. Calculation and evaluation of eGFR were performed with both the Cockcroft-Gault formula and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula. RESULTS: The exposed and unexposed populations were well matched with a similar mean age (44±10 y), proportion of male patients (63.1%), and baseline eGFR groups (86.4% unimpaired). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients reclassified to a more severe renal classification (RMSRC) or in the proportion of patients with decrease in eGFR of ≥20% in those exposed to TDF versus control. The incidence density for RMSRC was 7.4 cases per 100 patient-years in the exposed group compared with 11.5 cases per 100 patient-years in the unexposed group (95% CI, 0.31-1.34). The relative risk of exposed to unexposed was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.31-1.34). On Cox proportional hazard analysis following adjustment for sex, age, baseline diagnosis hypertension, diabetes, impaired baseline renal function, and cirrhosis, TDF was not a predictor for RMSRC or decrease in eGFR≥20%. CONCLUSIONS: TDF treatment was not an independent predictor for significant deterioration of renal function. Renal function of chronic hepatitis B patients on antiviral therapy should be monitored, especially in those who are older and/or with mildly impaired renal function.

Similar response to entecavir 0.5 and 1.0 mg in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The dose recommendation for entecavir (ETV) is 0.5 mg daily for treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients and 1.0 mg daily for lamivudine-refractory patients; however, few data are available for the efficacy of a 1.0-mg daily dose in treatment-naïve CHB patients. Our goal is to examine the treatment outcome of treatment-naïve patients placed on ETV 0.5 mg or ETV 1.0 mg daily through week 48. METHODS: Cases were 40 consecutive hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive CHB patients treated with ETV 1.0 mg daily between January 2005 and September 2010, and controls were 40 consecutive CHB patients treated with ETV 0.5 mg daily between January 2005 and September 2010 at three US gastroenterology/liver clinics. Controls were matched for age (±5 years), sex, HBeAg, and baseline hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA (±0.5 log10 IU/ml). Complete viral suppression was defined as undetectable HBV DNA by polymerase chain reaction (<100 IU/ml). RESULTS: Both groups had similar distributions of age (38 ± 11 years), male patients (55 %), and mean HBV DNA (7.7 ± 1.1 log10 IU/ml). The complete viral suppression rate was similar in both cases and controls through week 24 (15 vs. 15 %, p = 1.00) and week 48 (22 vs. 36 %, p = 0.17). Non-adherence was reported in three patients in the ETV 1.0 mg daily cohort at week 48. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with complete viral suppression in patients treated with ETV 0.5 mg daily or the higher daily dose of 1.0 mg.

Less-established risk factors are common in Asian Americans with hepatitis C virus: a case-controlled study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) in patients with injection drug use, blood transfusion before 1992, stigmata of liver disease, or born between 1945 and 1965. The purpose of this study was to examine risk factors for HCV acquisition in Asian Americans. METHODS: This was a case-controlled study, with 471 consecutive patients testing positive for anti-HCV between January 2001 and December 2008. Controls included 471 patients with negative HCV matched at a one-to-one ratio for sex, age (±5 years), and ethnicity. RESULTS: For Asian patients, the most common risk factors were blood transfusion and acupuncture or exposure to dirty needles (27 and 20 %, respectively). On multiple logistic regression, potential predictors for a positive anti-HCV test in Asians were acupuncture or exposure to dirty needles (OR = 12.9, P < 0.0001), body tattoo (OR = 12.0, P = 0.001), and history of blood transfusion (OR = 5.7, P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Acupuncture and exposure to dirty needles are independent risk factors of HCV infection. Asians coming from endemic areas should be screened for HCV even when commonly-known risk factors for Western patients are not present.

High proportion of hepatitis C virus in community Asian American patients with non-liver-related complaints.

GOALS AND BACKGROUND: Besides United States population born between 1945 and 1965, screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) is not recommended for the general US population. However, HCV may be more prevalent in certain subgroups and screening may be warranted. The goal of this study was to examine the proportion of HCV in a large sample of community Asian American patients presenting for non-liver-related complaints. STUDY: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 1246 patients tested for hepatitis C virus antibodies (anti-HCV) referred to 2 gastroenterology clinics for non-liver-related gastrointestinal reasons between January 2001 and February 2011. We determined HCV status and patient history via electronic medical record review. RESULTS: Of the 1246 study patients tested for anti-HCV, the majority were Asian (81.4%) and 29 Asian patients (2.9%) had positive anti-HCV. HCV proportion in the remaining 232 non-Asians (non-Hispanic whites and Hispanics) was 1.7%. Asians with positive anti-HCV were more likely to have had blood transfusions (31.0% vs. 6.6%, P<0.0001) or acupuncture (10.3% vs. 1.5%, P<0.0001). Of the 976 Asian patients with hepatitis B surface antigen testing, 38 (3.9%) also had detectable hepatitis B surface antigen. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients seen at community gastroenterology clinics for non-liver-related reasons, HCV proportion was 1.7% for non-Asians and 2.9% for Asians. Screening for HCV should be offered to high-risk patients presenting to gastroenterology clinics with unrelated gastrointestinal complaints.

High frequency of recurrent viremia after hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion and consolidation therapy.

BACKGROUND: The primary treatment endpoint for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B is HBeAg seroconversion; however, data on the durability of response are inconsistent. GOALS: Our goal was to investigate the rate of recurrent viremia after HBeAg seroconversion and subsequent discontinuation of therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 88 consecutive Asian American patients who achieved HBeAg seroconversion [loss of HBeAg and development of antibody to HBeAg (anti-HBe)] among 458 HBeAg-positive patients who received oral antiviral therapy at 3 US clinics between March 1998 and November 2010. Recurrent viremia was defined as reappearance of detectable serum hepatitis B virus DNA (>100 IU/mL) on 2 consecutive laboratory tests from previously undetectable levels. RESULTS: Antiviral medications used at the time of HBeAg seroconversion included: lamivudine (23%), adefovir (34%), entecavir (36%), tenofovir (4%), and combination therapy (3%). Antiviral therapy was continued after HBeAg seroconversion in 49 patients (group I) and discontinued in the other 39 patients after consolidation therapy [median=12 months (range, 1 to 55 mo)] (group II). No patients in group I experienced recurrent viremia, whereas 90% in group II did. Elevated alanine aminotransferase also occurred in 38% of group II patients [median peak alanine aminotransferase 249 IU/mL (range, 93 to 1070 IU/mL)]. CONCLUSIONS: Despite consolidation therapy, almost all patients who discontinued therapy after achieving HBeAg seroconversion and complete viral suppression experienced recurrent viremia, and close to half also experienced biochemical flares. HBeAg seroconversion does not seem to be a durable treatment endpoint for many patients, and they should be monitored carefully for virologic relapse and biochemical flares if antiviral therapy is withdrawn.

Medication nonadherence with long-term management of patients with hepatitis B e antigen-negative chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Antiviral treatment responses for patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative chronic hepatitis B (CHB) are well-defined by data from registration trials but may differ from patients seen in community settings where medical adherence is usually not as strictly monitored. The goal of this study was to examine the long-term outcomes of HBeAg-negative patients in a community clinical setting. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of 189 consecutive treatment-naïve patients with CHB who were treated with either entecavir (ETV) 0.5 mg daily (n=107) or adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) 10 mg daily (n=82) from 2002 to 2009 at two community clinics. RESULTS: All patients were Asians. Both ETV and ADV cohorts had similar median baseline ALT and HBV DNA levels. By year 4, a similar proportion of ETV and ADV patients who remained on monotherapy achieved complete viral suppression (91-96%); however, more patients in the ADV cohort required alternative therapy (27 vs. 5%). No patients in the ETV cohort developed resistance while 18% of the ADV cohort did. Cumulative nonadherence rates were 10 and 12% in ADV and ETV cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to monotherapy in a community clinical setting is due to both antiviral resistance and patient nonadherence. Medication nonadherence is likely to be a more important contributor to treatment failure than antiviral resistance, especially with new anti-HBV agents such as ETV and tenofovir.