Assessing risk scores for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma in Thai patients with chronic hepatitis B.

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection-associated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major health problem in Asian countries. Several HCC risk prediction models have been developed using either treated or untreated CHB patients. However, there is limited validation of these risk scores in a treated and untreated mixed CHB patient cohort. This study analysed and validated HCC risk scores among 2208 CHB patients who enrolled in the HCC surveillance programme in Thailand during July 2010. The baseline clinical and radiologic data of these CHB patients were applied to calculate various HCC risk scores. There were 20 patients (0.9%) with HCC development at the 5.9-year follow-up. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) predicting HCC risk at 5 years were 0.80 (0.68-0.91), 0.73 (0.60-0.85), 0.79 (0.67-0.91), 0.70 (0.58-0.82), 0.72 (0.59-0.85), 0.76 (0.63-0.87) and 0.77 (0.64-0.89) for the GAG-HCC, CU-HCC, REACH-B, PAGE-B, mPAGE-B, CAMD and AASL scores, respectively. The overall HCC risk scores were accurate and comparable. However, the subgroup analysis revealed better HCC-risk-predictive performance in the treated patients, while performance was less helpful in those not fulfilling criteria for antiviral therapy. Clinicians should be aware of these data when using the HCC risk score in untreated CHB patients.

Efficacy and safety of entecavir versus tenofovir treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients: A randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are considered among the most potent antiviral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. We aimed to compare treatment efficacy and safety of ETV and TDF in nucleoside-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were compensated chronic hepatitis B patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative. Exclusion criteria were co-infection with hepatitis C virus and/or HIV, concurrent malignancy, and decompensated cirrhosis. Virological, biochemical, and serological end-points at week 96 and 144 were compared. Of 400 patients, 200 patients received ETV and 200 received TDF. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics including age (41.6 ± 11.5 vs. 41.2 ± 11.6, mean baseline hepatitis B virus DNA (5.91 ± 1.79 vs. 5.94 ± 1.68 log10 IU/mL), mean baseline alanine aminotransferase (68.1 ± 64.1 vs. 76.8 ± 79.8 U/L), and cirrhosis (15.5% vs. 14.5%). At week 144 of treatment, 91 and 94% of the ETV and TDF groups, respectively, achieved undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA. In HBeAg-positive patients, HBeAg seroconversion could be achieved in 27.4% and 33.7% at week 144 for ETV and TDF groups, respectively. Quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen dropped significantly over 144 weeks of treatment period but only 1.0 to 1.5% experienced hepatitis B surface antigen loss. Safety profiles were consistent with previous reports of monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Both ETV and TDF showed potent antiviral activity against hepatitis B. Either ETV or TDF can be recommended as a treatment of choice for patients with chronic hepatitis B. Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.