Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in virologically suppressed patient with chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Our study evaluated the outcomes of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We assessed viral and biochemical responses as well as changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included CHB patients who achieved virologic response (VR) (HBV DNA < 20 IU/mL) while on TDF and were subsequently switched to TAF between April 2018 and October 2021. RESULTS: This study included 309 patients with a median age of 59 years, and 42.1% were male. The mean duration of TDF and TAF administration were 54.0 and 37.5 months, respectively. All patients maintained VR after switching to TAF. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization rate significantly increased 6 months after switching (74.8%-83.5%; P = 0.008). Adjusted eGFR significantly improved at 6 months (+5.55 ± 10.52 mL/min/1.73 m2; P < 0.001) and 12 months (+6.02 ± 10.70 mL/min/1.73 m2; P < 0.001) after switching. In the subgroup of patients with renal impairment (eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2), significant improvement in renal function was observed at 6 months (+0.6 ± 10.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; P < 0.001) and 12 months (+1.0 ± 10.7 mL/min/1.73 m2; P < 0.001) after switching to TAF. In patients with osteoporosis (n = 182), switching to TAF resulted in significant improvement in spine and hip BMD at 12 months, with increases of 9.7% (95% CI: 7.0-12.5) and 9.4% (95% CI: 7.0-11.8), respectively. CONCLUSION: In this real-world study, switching to TAF was effective and safe in patients, with notable improvements in ALT levels, renal function, and BMD.

A refined prediction model for survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization.

Background/Aims: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is widely performed as a major treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, and there is a need to stratify patients for whom the most benefit from the treatment. This study aimed to develop a refined prediction model for overall survival (OS) in patients undergoing TACE as a first-line treatment in a large cohort and validate its performance. Methods: A total of 2,632 patients with HCC of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A or B who underwent TACE between 2008 and 2017 were enrolled. The patients were randomly assigned to a training cohort (n = 1,304) or a validation cohort (n = 1,328). Independent predictors of OS were used to develop a prediction model. Results: The median age of patients in the entire cohort was 63 years, with the majority having hepatitis B virus (56.6%) and being classified as Child-Pugh class A (82.4%). We developed a new prognostic model, called the TACE-prognostic (TP) score, based on tumor burden (sum of the largest tumor diameter and tumor number), alpha-fetoprotein, and Albumin-Bilirubin grade. Patients were classified into five risk groups according to TP scores, with median survival significantly differentiated in both training and validation cohorts (P < 0.001). The new model consistently outperformed other currently available models in both the training and validation cohorts. Conclusion: This newly developed TP scoring system has the potential to be a useful tool in identifying ideal candidates of TACE and predicting OS with favorable performance and discrimination. However, further external validation is needed to confirm its effectiveness.

Analysis of Immune-Related Adverse Events of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicentre Cohort Study.

Introduction: Despite the emergence of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) as standard first-line systemic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a comprehensive understanding of the clinical significance of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) remains limited. We aimed to assess the impact of irAEs on patients with HCC undergoing A + B treatment. Methods: This multicentre retrospective study included consecutive patients with HCC who were treated with the A + B regimen from September 2020 to December 2022. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the severity of irAEs, ranging from those without any experience of irAEs to those with severe irAEs. Results: This study included 150 patients with HCC, with a mean age of 63.3 years. Among them, 93.3% of patients were classified as Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C, 52.0% had portal vein tumour thrombosis (PVTT), and 60.7% extrahepatic spread. Patients were classified as follows: group 1 (n = 84) had no irAEs, group 2 (n = 37) had mild irAEs (grade 1-2), and group 3 (n = 29) had severe irAEs (grade ≥3). The median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-treatment discontinuation (TTD) were 13.6, 5.7, and 3.6 months, respectively. Group 2 demonstrated significantly superior OS compared to group 1 (9.5 months) and group 3 (5.6 months), with a median OS of 23.0 months (p < 0.001). Furthermore, group 2 demonstrated significantly better outcomes in terms of PFS and TTD compared to both group 1 and group 3 (p < 0.001 for both). Multivariate analysis identified mild irAEs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.353; p = 0.010), ALBI grade 1 (HR, 0.389; p = 0.006), Child-Pugh class A (HR, 0.338; p = 0.002), and the absence of PVTT (HR, 0.556; p = 0.043) as independent predictors of better OS. Conclusion: Our study highlights the significant impact of irAE severity on the outcomes of patients with HCC receiving A + B. Notably, the occurrence of mild irAEs was independently associated with favourable survival, suggesting their potential role as surrogate indicators of HCC prognosis.

Differential liver function at cessation of atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus lenvatinib in HCC: a multicenter, propensity-score matched comparative study.

Background: Atezolizumab+bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib have been proposed as first-line treatment options for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but comparative efficacy and associated factors are controversial. Materials and methods: This real-world multicenter study analysed patients with HCC who received AB (n=169) or lenvatinib (n=177). Results: First, 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, resulting in 141 patients in both the AB and lenvatinib groups. After PSM, overall survival (OS) was better in the AB group than in the lenvatinib group [hazard ratio (HR)=0.642, P=0.009], but progression-free survival (PFS) did not vary between the two groups (HR=0.817, P=0.132). Objective response rate (ORR) was also similar between AB and lenvatinib (34.8% vs. 30.8%, P=0.581). In a subgroup of patients with objective responses (OR, n=78), OS (HR=0.364, P=0.012) and PFS (HR=0.536, P=0.019) were better in the AB group (n=41) than in the lenvatinib group (n=37). Time-to-progression from time of OR was also better in the AB group (HR=0.465, P=0.012). Importantly, residual liver function was a significant factor related to OS in both treatments. Child-Pugh score following cessation of the respective treatments was better in the AB group (n=105) than in the lenvatinib group (n=126) (median 6 versus 7, P=0.008), and proportion of salvage treatment was also higher in the AB group (52.4% versus 38.9%, P=0.047). When we adjusted for residual liver function or salvage treatment, there was no difference in OS between the two treatments. Conclusion: Our study suggests that residual liver function and subsequent salvage treatments are major determinants of clinical outcomes in patients treated with AB and lenvatinib; these factors should be considered in future comparative studies.