Tenofovir versus tenofovir plus entecavir for chronic hepatitis B with lamivudine resistance and entecavir resistance.

We compared the viral suppressive efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) mono-rescue therapy (TDF group) and TDF plus entecavir (ETV) combination-rescue therapy (TDF + ETV group) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine resistance and entecavir resistance. One hundred and thirty-three CHB patients with lamivudine and entecavir resistance were investigated. Ninety-six patients were treated with TDF and 37 with TDF + ETV for at least 6 months. We compared the virologic response rate (HBV DNA level <20 IU/mL) between the two groups and identified the predictive factors of treatment outcome. There were no significant differences between the two groups in demographic characteristics. Up to 24 months [median: 18 (range 6-24) months], 85.4% and 89.2% of the TDF group and TDF + ETV group, respectively, achieved a virologic response (P=.068). Only the HBV DNA level at baseline was significantly associated with a virologic response in the multivariate analysis. In a subanalysis of patients with HBV DNA levels ≥4 log (IU/mL) at baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the TDF + ETV group than the TDF group achieved a virologic response (92.9% vs 68.3%; P<.001), while 90% of patients with HBV DNA (IU/mL) levels <4 log in all both TDF and TDF + ETV groups achieved a virologic response. TDF mono-rescue therapy is a reasonable option in patients with lamivudine resistance and entecavir resistance. However, the combination strategy should be considered in patients with high baseline HBV DNA levels.

Historical epidemiology of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in select countries - volume 2.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of liver related morbidity and mortality. In many countries, there is a lack of comprehensive epidemiological data that are crucial in implementing disease control measures as new treatment options become available. Published literature, unpublished data and expert consensus were used to determine key parameters, including prevalence, viremia, genotype and the number of patients diagnosed and treated. In this study of 15 countries, viremic prevalence ranged from 0.13% in the Netherlands to 2.91% in Russia. The largest viremic populations were in India (8 666 000 cases) and Russia (4 162 000 cases). In most countries, males had a higher rate of infections, likely due to higher rates of injection drug use (IDU). Estimates characterizing the infected population are critical to focus screening and treatment efforts as new therapeutic options become available.

Strategies to manage hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection disease burden - volume 2.

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemic was forecasted through 2030 for 15 countries, and the relative impact of two scenarios was considered: (i) increased treatment efficacy while holding the treated population constant and (ii) increased treatment efficacy and increased annual treated population. Increasing levels of diagnosis and treatment, in combination with improved treatment efficacy, were critical for achieving substantial reductions in disease burden. In most countries, the annual treated population had to increase several fold to achieve the largest reductions in HCV-related morbidity and mortality. This suggests that increased capacity for screening and treatment will be critical in many countries. Birth cohort screening is a helpful tool for maximizing resources. In most of the studied countries, the majority of patients were born between 1945 and 1985.

The present and future disease burden of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections with today's treatment paradigm - volume 2.

Morbidity and mortality attributable to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are increasing in many countries as the infected population ages. Models were developed for 15 countries to quantify and characterize the viremic population, as well as estimate the number of new infections and HCV related deaths from 2013 to 2030. Expert consensus was used to determine current treatment levels and outcomes in each country. In most countries, viremic prevalence has already peaked. In every country studied, prevalence begins to decline before 2030, when current treatment levels were held constant. In contrast, cases of advanced liver disease and liver related deaths will continue to increase through 2030 in most countries. The current treatment paradigm is inadequate if large reductions in HCV related morbidity and mortality are to be achieved.