PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15527714

Chronic Hepatitis B.

Abstract

Interferon alpha, lamivudine, and adefovir are the three drugs currently approved for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). There are pros and cons associated with the use of each drug. Individualization of therapy, based upon factors such as patient comorbidities, response to prior therapies, and stage of disease, is recommended. Patients with abnormal liver enzymes, indices of active viral replication (HBV DNA positive hepatitis B early antigen positive) or evidence of necroinflammatory activity on liver biopsy, and compensated liver disease are potential candidates for treatment with interferon, lamivudine, or adefovir. Patients with abnormal liver enzymes, indices of active viral replication (HBV DNA positive HB(e)Ag positive), and decompensated liver disease are candidates for treatment with lamivudine or adefovir. Consideration of liver transplantation should occur concurrently. Interferon alpha treatment results in hepatitis B surface antigen loss and sustained suppression of HBV DNA replication in 30% to 40% of treated patients. Loss of HBsAg occurs in nearly 10% of patients and a higher than expected frequency of HBsAg loss occurs long-term. The main limitation of therapy is the side effects and the need for parenteral administration. Additionally, interferon therapy is not applicable to all patient groups. Lamivudine achieves HB(e)Ag seroconversion in 15% to 20% of patients treated for 12 months, but (HBsAg) loss is rare. Reduction in HBV DNA to undetectable levels (by hybridization assay) during treatment is nearly universal, and histologic improvement is seen in about 55% of patients. The main limitation of lamivudine therapy is the development of drug resistance, which occurs in 20% of patients after 12 months and increases with duration of therapy (55% at 3 years). Adefovir achieves HB(e)Ag seroconversion in 12% of patients treated for 12 months, but HBsAg loss is rare. An average 3.5 log reduction in HBV DNA levels is and histologic improvement occurs in 50% to 60% of patients. It is effective against both wild-type and lamivudine-resistant HBV. The risk of drug resistance is low and estimated to be approximately 2% to 3% after 2 years of treatment. Several new antiviral agents are currently under evaluation in clinical trials. In addition, there are two drugs (tenofovir and emtricitabine) that have been approved for HIV infection and that have anti-HBV activity. In the future, combination therapy for chronic HBV infection can be anticipated. Utilization of two or more anti-HBV drugs would be predicted to enhance efficacy and reduce the likelihood of emergence of drug resistance.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Stephanie D Straley, Norah A Terrault. 2004. Chronic Hepatitis B.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-004-0007-3

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗