Efficacy and safety of Fuzheng Huayu tablet on persistent advanced liver fibrosis following 2 years entecavir treatment: A single arm clinical objective performance criteria trial.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Antiviral therapy can alleviate liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis B, but it has a limited effect on advanced liver fibrosis/cirrhosis. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), particularly FuZheng HuaYu (FZHY) tablet, appears to have an antifibrotic effect, but its improving resolution of hepatitis b virus (HBV) -associated advanced fibrosis and experienced anti-viral treatment has not been investigated. AIM OF THE STUDY: To observe the safety and efficacy of adjunctive FZHY on the HBV-associated cirrhosis patients who received 2 years of entecavir but still with advanced fibrosis. METHODS: An open-label, multicentre, single arm trial. 251 patients were included and treated with TCM consisted of FZHY tablets 1.6 g and granules, three times a day in addition to entecavir 0.5 mg daily for an additional 48 weeks. Primary outcome was regression of fibrosis (the proportion of patients with a 1-point decrease in the Ishak liver fibrosis score from baseline to week 48). RESULTS: Fibrosis regression occurred in 94 of 184 patients with paired liver biopsy (51.09%, 95% CI: 43.9～58.0). In 132 compensated cirrhosis patients (Ishak score ≥5), 56.06% (74/132, 95% CI: 47.5～64.2) showed fibrosis regression and reached the goal of 54% (15% more than entecavir mono-therapy). 10 patients occurred adverse reaction, most of them were mild, and all recovered or achieved remission. CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy of FZHY, TCM granules and ETV could regress the liver fibrosis in the patients with HBV cirrhosis, who experienced 2 years of ETV treatment, and it is safe and well tolerated.

Higher risk of kidney function decline with entecavir than tenofovir alafenamide in patients with chronic hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) are the preferred agents in patients with predisposing factors for nephrotoxicity, but no studies to date have directly compared the renal safety of the two antiviral agents. Hence, we compared the risk of kidney function decline among patients with treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treated with ETV or TAF. METHODS: This study included 1988 patients with treatment-naïve CHB who were treated with ETV (n = 1839) or TAF (n = 149) between 2007 and 2020 for ETV and between 2017 and 2020 for TAF. The primary outcome was chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression, defined as an increase in CKD stage by at least one stage for at least three consecutive months. RESULTS: A 1:1 propensity score match yielded 149 patients in each treatment group. The mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was 100.6 ml/min/1.73 m2 vs. 101.3 ml/min/1.73 m2 in the ETV and TAF groups respectively. A total of 61 patients developed a progression in CKD stage ≥ 1, of which 47 and 14 patients were from the ETV- and TAF-treated groups respectively (19.9 vs. 5.1 per 1000 person-years; p < .001). The risk of progression in CKD stage ≥1 was significantly higher in patients treated with ETV, even when adjusted for potential confounders (adjusted hazard ratio 4.05; 95% CI 2.14-7.68; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ETV was associated with a higher risk of kidney function decline than TAF in patients with treatment-naïve CHB. Therefore, further prospective randomized studies are needed.

Soluble programmed cell death-1 predicts hepatocellular carcinoma development during nucleoside analogue treatment.

Soluble immune checkpoint molecules are emerging novel mediators of immune regulation. However, it is unclear whether soluble immune checkpoint proteins affect the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) during nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA) treatment in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. This study included 122 NA-naïve patients who received NA therapy. We assessed the associations of clinical factors, including soluble immune checkpoint proteins, with HCC development during NA treatment. The baseline serum concentrations of 16 soluble immune checkpoint proteins were measured using multiplexed fluorescent bead-based immunoassay. In total, 13 patients developed HCC during the follow-up period (median duration, 4.3 years). Of the 16 proteins, soluble inducible T-cell co-stimulator (≥ 164.71 pg/mL; p = 0.014), soluble programmed cell death-1 (sPD-1) (≤ 447.27 pg/mL; p = 0.031), soluble CD40 (≤ 493.68 pg/mL; p = 0.032), and soluble herpes virus entry mediator (≤ 2470.83 pg/mL; p = 0.038) were significantly associated with HCC development (log-rank test). In multivariate analysis, an sPD-1 level ≤ 447.27 pg/mL (p = 0.014; hazard ratio [HR], 4.537) and α-fetoprotein level ≥ 6.4 ng/mL (p = 0.040; HR, 5.524) were independently and significantly associated with HCC development. Pre-treatment sPD-1 is a novel predictive biomarker for HCC development during NA treatment.

Adding Base-Excision Repair Inhibitor TRC102 to Standard Pemetrexed-Platinum-Radiation in Patients with Advanced Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results of a Phase I Trial.

PURPOSE: TRC102, a small-molecule base-excision repair inhibitor, potentiates the cytotoxicity of pemetrexed and reverses resistance by binding to chemotherapy-induced abasic sites in DNA. We conducted a phase I clinical trial combining pemetrexed and TRC102 with cisplatin-radiation in stage III nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (NS-NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients were enrolled from 2015 to 2019. The primary objective was to determine the dose-limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose of TRC102 in combination with pemetrexed, cisplatin, and radiotherapy. Secondary objectives were to assess toxicity, tumor response, and progression-free survival at 6 months. Based on our preclinical experiments, pemetrexed-TRC102 was given on day 1, and cisplatin/radiotherapy was initiated on day 3. This schedule was duplicated in the second cycle. After completion, two additional cycles of pemetrexed-cisplatin were given. Toxicities were assessed using NCI CTACAE versions 4/5. RESULTS: The median age was 69 years (45-79) with the median follow-up of 25.7 months (range, 7.9-47.4). No dose-limiting toxicities and no grade 5 toxicity were seen. Hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities were the most common side effects. No clinical radiation pneumonitis was seen. Of 15 evaluable patients, three had complete response (20%), and 12 had partial response (80%). The 6-month progression-free survival was 80%, and the 2-year overall survival was 83%. CONCLUSIONS: Pemetrexed-TRC102 combined with cisplatin/radiotherapy in NS-NSCLC is safe and well tolerated. The recommended phase II dose is 200 mg TRC102 along with cisplatin-pemetrexed. No additional safety signal was seen beyond the expected CRT risks. A phase II trial, integrating post-CRT immunotherapy with this aggressive DNA-damaging regimen, is warranted.

Tenofovir is Associated With Higher Risk of Kidney Function Decline Than Entecavir in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B.

Of the antiviral agents currently available to patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are 2 of 3 first-line agents.1-3 Given the well-known renal and bone toxicity associated with TDF,4 major international hepatitis B virus treatment guidelines recommend ETV over TDF in patients with predisposing factors to kidney function decline.1-3 However, as evidenced by recent studies, nephrotoxicity of antiviral agents is still an issue under debate.5-7 Therefore, we investigated the differences in the risk of kidney function decline in patients with treatment-naive CHB who were treated with ETV or TDF.

Entecavir-associated thrombocytopenia.

Entecavir (ETV) is widely used in the treatment of hepatitis B, but there are only a few reports about entecavir-associated thrombocytopenia, and it is considered as an immediate response and inappropriate to continue the treatment with other nucleoside analogues. Now, we report the third case, and this case was delayed response and we switched to treatment with tenofovir (TDF). There was a 66-year-old female who was infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV). Her platelet count decreased from 111*109/L to 3*109/L and was prone to gum bleeding and skin ecchymosis after she received ETV treatment for 88 days. As a treatment option, ETV was replaced by TDF immediately, frequent platelets transfusions and thrombopoietin were applied for several days, daily prednisone of 50 mg was concomitantly taken, and then platelet count improved after 10 days. She was diagnosed with entecavir-associated thrombocytopenia after analysis of the temporal relationship and exclusion of other causes of thrombocytopenia by blood and bone marrow examinations. Our case suggested that the platelet count should be monitored regularly in patients during ETV treatment, and it may be a feasible option to choose TDF to maintain antiviral treatment when entecavir-associated thrombocytopenia occurs.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Entecavir and Tenofovir in Reducing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Risk in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: A Real-Life Study in Turkey.

BACKGROUND: It is controversial whether entecavir or tenofovir differs in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk. We aimed to compare the efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir in reducing HCC risk in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. METHODS: This retrospective study included 607 nucleos(t)ide naive CHB patients who had received entecavir or tenofovir. Patients who developed HCC during the first 12 months of therapy were excluded. Cumulative HCC incidences at years 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 were compared between entecavir and tenofovir groups. Factors associated with HCC were determined by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Nineteen (3.1%) patients developed HCC, 12 (4.8%) in entecavir group and 7 (1.9%) in tenofovir group (P = .045). In the entire cohort, cumulative HCC incidences at years 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 were 1.8%, 2.9%, 4.4%, 5.2% and 9.9% in entecavir group, and 0.6%, 2.4%, 2.4%, 2.4% and 3.7% in tenofovir group, respectively (log-rank P = .130). In multivariate analysis, age ≥50 years, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, high GGT and low platelet levels were associated with HCC in the entire cohort. In advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis cohort, cumulative HCC incidences at years 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 were 4.6%, 7.1%, 8.6%, 12.1% and 15.5% in entecavir group, and 1.8%, 5.6%, 5.6%, 5.6% and 8.5% in tenofovir group, respectively (log-rank P = .267). In multivariate analysis, age ≥50 years, decompensated cirrhosis, high GGT and low platelet levels were associated with HCC in the advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis cohort. CONCLUSION: Entecavir and tenofovir are similarly effective in reducing HCC risk in CHB patients.

Aspirin Reduces the Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B Receiving Oral Nucleos(t)ide Analog.

INTRODUCTION: Aspirin may reduce the risk of chronic hepatitis B (CHB)-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients receiving antiviral treatment. We aimed to investigate the impact of aspirin on reducing HCC risk in patients treated with first-line oral nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs; entecavir and/or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). METHODS: We conducted a territorywide, retrospective cohort study in NA-treated CHB patients between 2000 and 2018 from the electronic healthcare data repository in Hong Kong. Subjects were classified into aspirin users for at least 90 days during NA treatment (aspirin group) or no aspirin or any other antiplatelet use during follow-up period (no aspirin group). Incidence rates of HCC and gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in 2 groups with propensity score matching with 1:3 ratio. RESULTS: Of 35,111 NA-treated CHB patients of mean age of 53.0 years and 61.6% men, sixty-nine (4.0%) and 1,488 (4.5%) developed HCC at a median (interquartile range) of 2.7 (1.4-4.8) years and 3.2 (1.8-6.0) years in the aspirin group and no aspirin group, respectively. A duration-dependent association between aspirin and the risk of HCC was observed (subhazard ratio [sHR] 3 months-2 years: 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.92; sHR 2-5 years: 0.63; 95% CI 0.43-0.94; sHR from ≥5 years: 0.41; 95% CI 0.18-0.91). Patients who took aspirin for ≤2 years had significantly higher risk of GIB (sHR: 1.73, 95% CI 1.07-2.79) than those not receiving aspirin. The risk of GIB started declining with the longer use of aspirin and becoming insignificant for ≥5 years' use (sHR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.19-3.21). DISCUSSION: Long-term aspirin use is associated with a lower risk of HCC in a duration-dependent manner in NA-treated CHB patients without a significant increase in the risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects.

Glutathione conjugates of the mercapturic acid pathway and guanine adduct as biomarkers of exposure to CEES, a sulfur mustard analog.

Sulfur mustard (SM), a chemical warfare agent, is a strong alkylating compound that readily reacts with numerous biomolecules. The goal of the present work was to define and validate new biomarkers of exposure to SM that could be easily accessible in urine or plasma. Because investigations using SM are prohibited by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, we worked with 2-chloroethyl ethyl sulfide (CEES), a monofunctional analog of SM. We developed an ultra-high-pressure liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) approach to the conjugate of CEES to glutathione and two of its metabolites: the cysteine and the N-acetylcysteine conjugates. The N7-guanine adduct of CEES (N7Gua-CEES) was also targeted. After synthesizing the specific biomarkers, a solid-phase extraction protocol and a UHPLC-MS/MS method with isotopic dilution were optimized. We were able to quantify N7Gua-CEES in the DNA of HaCaT keratinocytes and of explants of human skin exposed to CEES. N7Gua-CEES was also detected in the culture medium of these two models, together with the glutathione and the cysteine conjugates. In contrast, the N-acetylcysteine conjugate was not detected. The method was then applied to plasma from mice cutaneously exposed to CEES. All four markers could be detected. Our present results thus validate both the analytical technique and the biological relevance of new, easily quantifiable biomarkers of exposure to CEES. Because CEES behaves very similar to SM, the results are promising for application to this toxic of interest.

A Chemical Link between Meat Consumption and Colorectal Cancer Development?

O6-carboxymethylguanine (O6-CMG) is a mutagenic DNA adduct that forms at increased levels when people eat meat. It has been studied as a potential initiating event in colorectal carcinogenesis. It can arise from alkylation of guanine in DNA by electrophilic degradation products of N-nitroso compounds. There is significant data regarding biochemical and cellular process, including DNA repair and translesion DNA synthesis that control O6-CMG accumulation, persistence, and mutagenicity. Mutation spectra arising from the adduct closely resemble common mutations in colorectal cancer; however, gaps remain in understanding the biochemical processes that regulate how and where the damage persists in the genome. Addressing such questions relies on advances in chemistry such as synthesis approaches and bioanalytical methods. Results of research in this area help advance our understanding of the toxicological relevance of O6-CMG-modified DNA. Further attention should focus on understanding how a combination of genetic and environmental factors control its biological persistence and how this information can be used as a basis of biomoniotoring and prevention efforts to help mitigate colon cancer risk.

Long-term risk of primary liver cancers in entecavir versus tenofovir treatment for chronic hepatitis B.

It remains controversial whether entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is associated with different clinical outcomes for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This study aimed to compare the long-term risk of ETV versus TDF on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) in CHB patients from a large multi-institutional database in Taiwan. From 2011 to 2018, a total of 21,222 CHB patients receiving ETV or TDF were screened for eligibility. Patients with coinfection, preexisting cancer and less than 6 months of follow-up were excluded. Finally, 7248 patients (5348 and 1900 in the ETV and TDF groups, respectively) were linked to the National Cancer Registry database for the development of HCC or ICC. Propensity score matching (PSM) (2:1) analysis was used to adjust for baseline differences. The HCC incidence between two groups was not different in the entire population (hazard ratio [HR] 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-1.02, p = 0.078) and in the PSM population (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.65-1.06, p = 0.129). Among decompensated cirrhotic patients, a lower risk of HCC was observed in TDF group than in ETV group (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.30-0.98, p = 0.043, PSM model). There were no differences between ETV and TDF groups in the ICC incidence (HR 1.84; 95% CI 0.54-6.29, p = 0.330 in the entire population and HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.31-3.52, p = 0.954 in the PSM population, respectively). In conclusion, treatment with ETV and TDF showed a comparable long-term risk of HCC and ICC in CHB patients.

Maintaining Antiviral Efficacy after Switching to Generic Entecavir 1 mg for Antiviral-resistant Chronic Hepatitis B.

Background/Aims: Clinical equivalence of generic antiviral agents for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) has not been demonstrated, particularly in cases with previous antiviral resistance. Entecavir 1 mg is prescribed frequently as a mono- or combination therapy in antiviral-resistant CHB patients. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching to generic entecavir 1 mg (Baracle®) in CHB patients taking brand-name entecavir 1 mg (Baraclude®) alone or in combination with other nucleotide analogs after the development of antiviral resistance. Methods: This study was a single-arm prospective study. The primary endpoint was undetectable HBV DNA (<20 IU/mL) at 12 months after switching treatment. The biochemical and serologic responses, virologic breakthrough, and antiviral resistance rates were also evaluated. Results: Forty CHB patients with undetectable HBV DNA through the brand-name entecavir 1 mg treatment as a mono- or combination therapy after developing antiviral resistance to nucleos(t)ide analogs were enrolled in this study. No significant difference in the HBV DNA non-detection rate was observed between the baseline and 12 months after switching therapy (p=0.324). Furthermore, non-inferiority of the generic entecavir 1 mg to the brand-name entecavir 1 mg with 10% margin in maintaining undetectable HBV DNA was demonstrated (95% CI -2.80 to 8.20%). Similarly, no difference in the biochemical response rate was observed after switching therapy. Serum hepatitis B e antigen loss was observed in 12.5%. No virologic breakthrough was reported. Conclusions: Generic entecavir 1 mg is a reasonable alternative to the brand-name entecavir 1 mg in antiviral-resistant CHB patients with viral suppression.

Hepatocellular carcinoma incidence with tenofovir versus entecavir in chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir differ in their association with risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B, and previous meta-analyses have shown conflicting conclusions with substantial heterogeneity. We aimed to analyse the updated data and elucidate the source of heterogeneity. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library for relevant studies with time-to-event data for incident hepatocellular carcinoma occurring in patients with chronic hepatitis B who received tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir monotherapy with follow-up of at least 1 year. Studies published between Jan 1, 2006, and April 17, 2020, and abstracts from international conferences in 2018 and 2019 were included. We pooled covariate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma using a random-effects model, assessed heterogeneity among included studies using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q test, and identified the source of heterogeneity using prespecified subgroup analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42020176513. FINDINGS: 31 studies involving 119 053 patients were analysed. The 5-year cumulative incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma was 5·97% (95% CI 5·81-6·13, 28 studies) for entecavir and 3·06% (2·86-3·26, 13 studies) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in studies with unmatched populations (p<0·0001). For all eight studies matched by propensity score, the 5-year cumulative incidence was 3·44% (95% CI 3·08-3·80) for entecavir and 3·39% (2·94-3·83) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (p=0·87). Analysis of 14 comparative studies with covariate adjustment found that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir had similar risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (primary outcome); adjusted HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·73-1·07; p=0·20), although heterogeneity was significant (I2=56·4%, p=0·0038). In a subgroup analysis for hospital-based clinical cohorts, there was no difference in hepatocellular carcinoma incidence between the two regimens (adjusted HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·88-1·21; I2=0%). However, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was associated with a lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma compared with entecavir in administrative database research (adjusted HR 0·67, 0·59-0·76; I2=0%). INTERPRETATION: Our study found no significant difference between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in their association with incident hepatocellular carcinoma. We suggest that treatment should be guided by patient tolerability and affordability rather than whether one drug is more effective than the other. FUNDING: Supported in part by E-DA Hospital (EDAHP 106008; EDAHP 103046).

"Black box warning" rash with entecavir - case report.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis B infection is a significant worldwide health issue, predispose to the development of liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Entecavir is a potent oral antiviral agent of high genetic barrier for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. Cutaneous adverse reaction associated with entecavir has rarely been reported in literature. As our knowledge, this case was the first case reported on entecavir induced lichenoid drug eruption. CASE PRESENTATION: 55 year old gentlemen presented with generalised pruritic erythematous rash on trunk and extremities. Six weeks prior to his consultation, antiviral agent entecavir was commenced for his chronic hepatitis B infection. Skin biopsy revealed acanthosis and focal lymphocytes with moderate perivascular lymphocyte infiltration. Skin condition recovered completely after caesation of offending drug and short course of oral corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: This case highlight the awareness of clinicians on the spectrum of cutaneous drug reaction related to entecavir therapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma and death and transplantation in chronic hepatitis B treated with entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Conflicting results have been reported regarding which of entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is associated with better outcomes. Chronic hepatitis B patients who started ETV or TDF between 2010 and 2015 were analysed. The primary outcomes were hepatocellular carcinoma and death and transplantation. The impact of the treatment on the primary outcomes was analysed using Cox proportional hazards models in the entire and propensity score-matched cohorts. A total of 404 patients (180 and 224 in the ETV and TDF groups, respectively) were analysed. The median duration of follow-up was significantly longer in the ETV group (64.0 vs. 49.1 months; P < 0.001). Virological response (79.4% vs. 68.4%; P = 0.018) and sustained virological suppression (59.7% vs. 45.2%; P = 0.005) were significantly higher in the TDF group. TDF was associated with lower hepatocellular carcinoma [hazard ratio (HR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.12‒0.79; P = 0.014]; however, statistical significance was not reached after adjusting sustained virological suppression using propensity score matching (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12‒1.14; P = 0.08). Death and transplantation was comparable. In conclusion, the impact of TDF on the lower hepatocellular carcinoma was blunted after adjusting sustained virological suppression. Further comparison in a larger number of patients who show sustained virological suppression over a longer period of time is needed.

Treatment with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir in chronic hepatitis B virus-infected patients with renal impairment: results from a 7-year, multicentre retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) safety and effectiveness in chronic hepatitis B virus-infected (CHB) patients with renal impairment (RI). AIMS: To compare real-world data on renal safety and effectiveness of TDF vs entecavir (ETV) in CHB patients with moderate-to-severe RI. METHODS: Retrospective, non-interventional, cohort study analysing medical records for TDF/ETV-treated CHB patients (54 European centres). Included patients experienced moderate-to-severe RI (creatinine clearance 20-60 mL/min [Cockcroft-Gault]) either before TDF/ETV initiation ('before' subgroup [baseline = treatment initiation]) or after TDF/ETV initiation ('after' subgroup [baseline = first RI occurrence]). The primary objective was TDF safety, particularly renal-related adverse events of special interest (AESI). TDF and ETV safety and effectiveness were compared and multivariate analyses were performed using inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: 'Before' subgroup included 107 TDF- and 91 ETV-treated patients; 'after' subgroup included 212 TDF- and 77 ETV-treated patients. Mean baseline creatinine clearance was higher for TDF- vs ETV-treated patients (both subgroups). Median follow-up was 3.1 years (both treatments). AESI were more frequent with TDF vs ETV ('before': 18.7% vs 8.8%; 'after': 9.9% vs 3.9%); however, differences were not significant by multivariate analysis. Only TDF-treated patients experienced renal tubular dysfunction (6.5% 'before'; 1.9% 'after') as well as renal adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (8.4% 'before'; 7.1% 'after'). Effectiveness was similar between treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Overall safety was similar for TDF vs ETV (both subgroups). Given that renal tubular dysfunction occurred with TDF and not with ETV, renal safety concerns may be greater with TDF in CHB patients with RI.

The Risk of Acute Kidney Injury in Hepatitis B Virus-Related Acute on Chronic Liver Failure with Tenofovir Treatment.

AIMS: Tenofovir (TDF) is an antiviral drug with potential risk of kidney injury. The study is aimed at comparing the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) between TDF and entecavir (ETV) treatment in hepatitis B virus- (HBV-) related acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF). METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with HBV-related ACLF were included. Propensity score matching was used to balance the baseline characteristics between ETV and TDF groups. The risk of AKI and the efficacy of TDF and ETV were compared. RESULTS: A total of 95 cases with HBV-related ACLF were included in this study, with 74.74% of male and a mean age of 47.01 ± 14.71 years. The antiviral therapy was initiated within 2 days after admission, with 39 cases on the TDF group and 56 on the ETV group. Patients in the TDF group had higher AST, hemoglobin, and serum sodium levels and lower MELD-Na score. After propensity matching, 39 cases of TDF and 39 of ETV were included in the final analysis. No difference was found in the changes of creatinine and cystatin C from baseline to 4 weeks after treatment between ETV and TDF groups. AKI was developed in 1 (2.56%) patient in the ETV group and 2 (5.13%) in the TDF group within one month (P = 0.556). Survival analysis revealed no significant difference in the 6-month mortality between the two groups (P = 0.813). Cox analysis showed that the type of antiviral drug or the development of AKI was not an independent risk factor for the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ETV, TDF did not increase the risk of AKI nor the mortality in patients with HBV-related ACLF in the short time.

Efficacy of telbivudine and entecavir against virus reactivation in HBeAg-patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The renal protective effect of telbivudine (LdT) was verified by a previous meta-analysis. It was left unclear, however if this effect offsets the associated risk of virological breakthrough in hepatitis B e-antigen-negative (HBeAg-) patients receiving chemotherapy (C/T).Records of 260 HBeAg-, non-cirrhotic cancer patients undergoing systemic C/T with prophylactic LdT or entecavir (ETV) were retrospectively investigated. The investigation was conducted 6 months after completion of C/T, patient death from cancer, or antiviral modification. Treatment duration, outcome, change of renal function, and reason for antiviral modification were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of virological breakthrough during prophylaxis C/T and the change in renal function.Of the 126 HBeAg- patients treated with LdT, 3 (2.38%) experienced HBV virological breakthroughs, whereas none of the patients treated with ETV (P = .07) did. The estimated glomerular filtration rate for the patients treated with LdT was essentially unaltered, decreasing only slightly from 87.5 ±â€Š23.1 to 87.3 ±â€Š21.3 ml/minute/1.73 m (P = .55), while the rate for the ETV-treated patients was significantly lowered from 95.7 ±â€Š32.2 to 85.5 ±â€Š85.7 ml/minute/1.73 m (P = .0009).The absolute risk reduction ARR is 27.8% - 21.2% = 6.6%, comparing ETV with LdT for reduction of renal function impairment and the absolute risk increase for virological breakthrough during C/T, the absolute risk increase (ARI) is 2.38% - 0% = 2.38%. The overall likelihood of being helped over being harmed was 2.77. With careful selection of patients with the criteria of HBeAg-status and non-hematologic cancer, it is feasible that telbivudine raise lower probability of virological breakthroughs during prophylaxis treatment.