Entecavir (ETV) is currently recommended as a rescue therapy purely for adefovir (ADV)resistant chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infections. We evaluated the efficacy of ETV in patients who were resistant to lamivudine (LAM)/ADV sequential therapy and in those resistant to LAM monotherapy. Fifty LAM/
Efficacy of adefovir add-on lamivudine rescue therapy compared with switching to entecavir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B
✍ Scribed by Han Jak Ryu; Jung Min Lee; Sang Hoon Ahn; Do Young Kim; Myoung Ha Lee; Kwang-Hyub Han; Chae Yoon Chon; Jun Yong Park
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2010
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 134 KB
- Volume
- 82
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0146-6615
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Abstract
No study has reported on the comparative effect of adefovir (ADV) add‐on lamivudine (LAM) versus switching to entecavir (ETV) in LAM‐resistant patients with chronic hepatitis B. From October 2007 to September 2008, 92 consecutive LAM‐resistant patients were enrolled (47 LAM + ADV and 45 ETV 1 mg). All patients were followed for at least 12 months. The parameters assessed included normalization of ALT, HBeAg seroconversion, undetectable HBV DNA, reduction of HBV DNA, and predictors of virologic response. In the LAM + ADV and ETV groups, the baseline DNA levels were 7.61 (5.19–9.49) and 7.10 (5.43–9.74) log~10~ copies/ml, respectively. At month 12, a virologic response occurred in 18/47 (38.3%) and 11/45 (24.4%; P = 0.182) patients; ALT normalization, in 39/41 (95.1%) and 36/40 (90.0%; P = 0.432); HBeAg seroconversion, in 5.1% and 2.4% (P = 0.606); and virologic breakthrough, in 2.1% and 11.1% (P = 0.107), respectively. The mean reduction from the baseline HBV DNA level was greater in the LAM + ADV group at month 12 (3.80 ± 1.12 vs. 2.72 ± 1.32 log~10~ copies/ml; P < 0.001). In the multivariate analysis, the independent parameters related to a virologic response at month 12 were baseline ALT (OR = 1.003, 95% CI = 1.000–1.006, P = 0.026) and baseline HBV DNA (OR = 0.495, 95% CI = 0.298–0.823, P = 0.007). Compared with switching to ETV monotherapy, ADV add‐on LAM therapy was more effective at reducing the viral load in patients with LAM resistance, and the baseline HBV DNA and ALT levels were independent predictors of the virologic response. However, ADV add‐on therapy had limitations in patients with a higher baseline HBV DNA in LAM rescue therapy. J. Med. Virol. 82:1835–1842, 2010. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract Factors influencing the therapeutic efficacy of adefovir dipivoxil added to continuing lamivudine have not been elucidated in lamivudine‐resistant patients with type B chronic hepatitis. The viral mutations influencing the efficacy of treatment with adefovir dipivoxil were investigated
Although adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) has a unique profile of delayed and infrequent resistance in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients, the association of ADV resistance with previous lamivudine (LAM) resistance is not well understood. We compared the emergence of the ADV-resistant mutations rt
Lamivudine is effective in suppressing replication of hepatitis B virus (HBV). However, the emergence of HBV variants resistant to lamivudine is a concern. Lamivudine resistance has been attributed mainly to a substitution of isoleucine or valine for methionine at residue 550 (M550I or M550V) in the