Long-term Treatment With Tenofovir Alafenamide for Chronic Hepatitis B Results in High Rates of Viral Suppression and Favorable Renal and Bone Safety.

OBJECTIVES: Results from two Phase 3 studies, through 2 years, in chronic hepatitis B infection (CHB) showed tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) had similar efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) with superior renal and bone safety. Here, we report updated results through 5 years. METHODS: Patients with HBeAg-negative or -positive CHB with or without compensated cirrhosis were randomized (2:1) to TAF 25 mg or TDF 300 mg once daily in double-blind (DB) fashion for up to 3 years, followed by open-label (OL) TAF up to 8 years. Efficacy (antiviral, biochemical, serologic), resistance (deep sequencing of polymerase/reverse transcriptase and phenotyping), and safety, including renal and bone parameters, were evaluated by pooled analyses. RESULTS: Of 1298 randomized and treated patients, 866 receiving TAF (DB and OL) and 432 receiving TDF with rollover to OL TAF at year 2 (n = 180; TDF→TAF3y) or year 3 (n = 202; TDF→TAF2y) were included. Fifty (4%) TDF patients who discontinued during DB were excluded. At year 5, 85%, 83%, and 90% achieved HBV DNA < 29 IU/mL (missing = failure) in the TAF, TDF→TAF3y, and TDF→TAF2y groups, respectively; no patient developed TAF or TDF resistance. Median eGFR (by Cockcroft-Gault) declined < 2.5 mL/min, and mean declines of < 1% in hip and spine bone mineral density were seen at year 5 in the TAF group; patients in the TDF→TAF groups had improvements in these parameters at year 5 after switching to OL TAF. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term TAF treatment resulted in high rates of viral suppression, no resistance, and favorable renal and bone safety.

Five-year Treatment with Tenofovir Alafenamide Achieves High Rates of Viral Suppression, Alanine Aminotransferase Normalization, and Favorable Bone and Renal Safety in Chinese Chronic Hepatitis B Patients.

Background and Aims: After 3-years (144 week) of double-blind treatment in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients in two ongoing phase 3 studies, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) showed similar efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), with improved renal and bone safety. In this study, we aimed to report the 5-year results from 2 years into the open-label TAF treatment phase. Methods: All participants completing the 144-week double-blind treatment were eligible to receive open-label TAF 25 mg once daily up to week 384. Serial analysis of viral suppression (hepatitis B virus DNA <29 IU/mL), alanine aminotransferase normalization, serological responses, and safety outcomes at year 5 (week 240) was performed. Results: The open-label phase included 93% (311/334) of the enrolled participants, which included 212 who switched from double-blind TAF to open-label TAF (TAF-TAF) and 99 who switched from double-blind TDF to open-label TAF (TDF-TAF). Baseline characteristics were comparable. Week 240 viral suppression rates were similar between groups [93.4% vs. 93.9%; difference: -1.5%, (95% CI: -6.4 to -3.5), p=0.857]. Alanine aminotransferase normalization and serological response rates were higher in the TAF-TAF group than in the TDF-TAF group. The frequencies of adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were low and similar between groups. Both groups had similar small numerical declines from baseline in estimated glomerular filtration rate at year 5 (week 240, -2.85 mL/min vs. -3.29 mL/min, p=0.910). The greater declines in renal and bone parameters in the TDF-TAF group through week 144 improved after switching to TAF. Conclusions: The 5-year TAF treatment efficacy was high and similar to that of 3-year TDF followed by 2-year TAF in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients. Favorable effects on bone and renal parameters were sustained with TAF treatment alone and were observed following the switch from TDF to TAF.

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk profile of patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with tenofovir alafenamide or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for 96 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who switch from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) show changes in lipid profiles. AIM: To evaluate how these changes affect cardiovascular risk. METHODS: This pooled analysis, based on two large prospective studies, evaluated fasting lipid profiles of patients with CHB who were treated with TAF 25 mg/day or TDF 300 mg/day for 96 weeks. Patients who fulfilled the American College of Cardiology criteria (age 40-79 years, high-density lipoprotein [HDL] 20-100 mg/dL, total cholesterol [TC] 130-320 mg/dL and systolic blood pressure 90-200 mmHg) required to assess 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk with baseline lipid data and at least one post-baseline measurement were included in the ASCVD-risk population. The 10-year ASCVD risk was calculated for patients in this population, and changes from baseline to Week 96 were assessed using intermediate- (≥7.5%) and high-risk (≥20%) cut-offs. RESULTS: Among 1632 patients, 620 (38%) met the criteria for the ASCVD-risk population. At Week 96, fasting levels of all lipids, except TC:HDL ratio, were lower with TDF than TAF. No significant increase was observed in overall ASCVD risk or in any ASCVD-risk categories during the 96-week treatment period compared with baseline. A similar proportion of patients in the TAF and TDF treatment groups (1.3% and 2.3%, respectively; p = 0.34) reported cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: Despite on-treatment differences in lipid profiles with TAF and TDF, predicted cardiovascular risk and clinical events were similar for both groups after 96 weeks.

Switching to tenofovir alafenamide in patients with virologically suppressed chronic hepatitis B and renal or hepatic impairment: final week 96 results from an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Phase 3 studies in patients with chronic hepatitis B have shown tenofovir alafenamide to have non-inferior efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with improved renal and bone safety. We conducted this study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of switching to tenofovir alafenamide in participants with chronic hepatitis B and renal or hepatic impairment. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study was done in eight countries or territories at 30 sites. We recruited adults (≥18 years) with chronic hepatitis B who were virally suppressed on nucleoside or nucleotide analogues and had renal impairment (part A: moderate or severe in cohort 1 [estimated glomerular filtration rate by the Cockcroft-Gault formula (eGFRCG) 15-59 mL/min] or end-stage renal disease [eGFRCG <15 mL/min] on haemodialysis in cohort 2) or hepatic impairment including decompensation (part B: Child-Turcotte-Pugh score 7-12). Participants switched to 25 mg of tenofovir alafenamide given orally once daily for 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with viral suppression (HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) at week 24 by missing-equals-failure analysis. Efficacy (full analysis set) and safety (safety analysis set) analyses included all enrolled participants who received at least one dose of the study drug. Week 96 safety was assessed, including renal and bone parameters. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03180619, and is completed. FINDINGS: 124 participants (93 in part A [78 in cohort 1 and 15 in cohort 2] and 31 in part B) were enrolled between Aug 11, 2017, and Oct 17, 2018, and included in the full and safety analysis sets. 106 (85%) participants completed the study. There were 69 (74%) men and 24 (26%) women in part A and 21 (68%) men and ten (32%) women in part B. At week 24, 91 (97·8%, 95% CI 92·4 to 99·7) of 93 individuals in part A (76 [97·4%, 91·0 to 99·7] of 78 in cohort 1 and 15 [100·0%, 78·2 to 100·0] of 15 in cohort 2) and 31 (100·0%, 88·8 to 100·0) in part B had HBV DNA of less than 20 IU/mL. By week 96, the most common adverse event was upper respiratory tract infection, which occurred in 14 (15%) participants in part A and in six (19%) participants in part B. Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (22%) part A participants and in ten (32%) part B participants; none were related to treatment. No treatment-related deaths occurred. At week 96, median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (Cockcroft-Gault method) was 1·0 mL/min (IQR -2·8 to 4·5) in cohort 1 and -2·4 mL/min (-11·4 to 10·7) in part B. Mean changes in spine and hip bone mineral density were 1·02% (SD 4·44) and 0·20% (3·25) in part A and -0·25% (3·91) and 0·28% (3·25) in part B. INTERPRETATION: Tenofovir alafenamide might offer continued antiviral efficacy and a favourable safety profile for patients with renal or hepatic impairment and chronic hepatitis B switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or other antivirals. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Tenofovir alafenamide and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate reduce incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B.

Background & Aims: Antiviral therapy may attenuate the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We aimed to explore how tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) affect HCC risk in patients with CHB. Methods: The REACH-B, aMAP, and mPAGE-B models were utilized to assess HCC risk in patients with CHB from two global randomized-controlled trials evaluating the impact of TAF vs. TDF treatment. Standard incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated using data from the REACH-B model as a ratio of observed HCC cases in the TAF- or TDF-treated patients vs. predicted HCC cases for untreated historical controls. Proportions of treated patients shifting aMAP and mPAGE-B risk categories between baseline and Week 240 were calculated. Results: Of the 1,632 patients (TAF, n = 1,093; TDF, n = 539) followed for up to 300 weeks, 22 HCC cases developed. Those receiving TAF had an SIR that was lower compared to the SIR of individuals receiving TDF: 0.32 (p <0.001) vs. 0.56 (p = 0.06). In the general study population, individuals without cirrhosis at baseline had an SIR that was lower compared to the SIR of individuals with cirrhosis at baseline: 0.37 (p <0.001) vs. 0.58 (p = 0.15). Of the patients at low risk of HCC at baseline, the majority (97%) remained low risk by mPAGE-B and aMAP scoring at Week 240. Among those at medium or high risk at baseline, substantial portions shifted to a lower risk category by Week 240 (mPAGE-B: 22% and 42%; aMAP: 39% and 63%, respectively). Conclusions: This evaluation provides evidence that treatment with TAF or TDF can reduce HCC risk in patients with CHB, particularly in patients without cirrhosis. Impact and implications: Despite the substantial impact of HCC on long-term outcomes of patients with CHB, the differential risk of HCC development among those receiving treatment with TAF vs. TDF has not been well elucidated. Using three validated risk prediction models, we found that TAF is at least as effective as TDF in reducing HCC risk in patients with CHB. While TDF is well-studied in the context of HCC risk reduction, our novel findings underscore the effectiveness of TAF as a treatment option for patients with CHB. Clinical trial numbers: NCT01940341; NCT02836249; NCT01940471; NCT02836236.