Is it better to treat chronic hepatitis B as early as possible?—Con

Ideally, treatment of chronic hepatitis B in its early stage prior to irreversible liver damage should be most effective in preventing adverse clinical outcome. However, currently available treatments have low efficacy in achieving sustained response among patients in the early phase of chronic hepatitis B infection when the immune response to hepatitis B virus is weak. This review will provide evidence why a ‘wait and monitor’ approach is appropriate for chronic hepatitis B patients who are in the immune tolerant phase.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73513/1/j.1440-1746.2004.03660.x.pd

Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B: a 2008 update

Large amounts of new data on the natural history and treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have become available since 2005. These include long-term follow-up studies in large community-based cohorts or asymptomatic subjects with chronic HBV infection, further studies on the role of HBV genotype/naturally occurring HBV mutations, treatment of drug resistance and new therapies. In addition, Pegylated interferon α2a, entecavir and telbivudine have been approved globally. To update HBV management guidelines, relevant new data were reviewed and assessed by experts from the region, and the significance of the reported findings were discussed and debated. The earlier “Asian-Pacific consensus statement on the management of chronic hepatitis B” was revised accordingly. The key terms used in the statement were also defined. The new guidelines include general management, special indications for liver biopsy in patients with persistently normal alanine aminotransferase, time to start or stop drug therapy, choice of drug to initiate therapy, when and how to monitor the patients during and after stopping drug therapy. Recommendations on the therapy of patients in special circumstances, including women in childbearing age, patients with antiviral drug resistance, concurrent viral infection, hepatic decompensation, patients receiving immune-suppressive medications or chemotherapy and patients in the setting of liver transplantation, are also included

Myotoxicity of telbivudine in pre-existing muscle damage

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>It is unknown if telbivudine causes muscle damage only in patients with pre-existing muscle pathology.</p> <p>Case report</p> <p>A 27 yo male of African origin received telbivudine for hepatitis B during 3 months. Three weeks after initiation of the drug he developed myalgia, and tiredness. Creatine-kinase increased from 278 U/l (n, <170 U/l) at baseline to 3243 U/l. Shortly after discontinuation of telbivudine muscle symptoms and hyper-CK-emia disappeared. The findings suggest that pre-existing muscle damage favored the myotoxic effect of telbivudine.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Telbivudine appears to cause accelerated muscle toxicity if given to patients who already have muscle damage. Patients under telbivudine should be closely monitored for muscular side effects and those with pre-existing muscle damage should not receive the drug.</p

52-week efficacy and safety of telbivudine with conditional tenofovir intensification at week 24 in HBeAg-positive chronic Hepatitis B

Background and Aims: The Roadmap concept is a therapeutic framework in chronic hepatitis B for the intensification of nucleoside analogue monotherapy based on early virologic response. The efficacy and safety of this approach applied to telbivudine treatment has not been investigated. Methods: A multinational, phase IV, single-arm open-label study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT00651209) was undertaken in HBeAg-positive, nucleoside-naive adult patients with chronic hepatitis B. Patients received telbivudine (600 mg once-daily) for 24 weeks, after which those with undetectable serum HBV DNA (<300 copies/mL) continued to receive telbivudine alone while those with detectable DNA received telbivudine plus tenofovir (300 mg once-daily). Outcomes were assessed at Week 52. Results: 105 patients commenced telbivudine monotherapy, of whom 100 were included in the efficacy analysis. Fifty-five (55%) had undetectable HBV DNA at Week 24 and continued telbivudine monotherapy; 45 (45%) received tenofovir intensification. At Week 52, the overall proportion of undetectable HBV DNA was 93% (93/100) by last-observation-carried-forward analysis (100% monotherapy group, 84% intensification group) and no virologic breakthroughs had occurred. ALT normalization occurred in 77% (87% monotherapy, 64% intensification), HBeAg clearance in 43% (65% monotherapy, 16% intensification), and HBeAg seroconversion in 39% (62% monotherapy, 11% intensification). Six patients had HBsAg clearance. Myalgia was more common in the monotherapy group (19% versus 7%). No decrease in the mean glomerular filtration rate occurred in either treatment group at Week 52. Conclusions: Telbivudine therapy with tenofovir intensification at Week 24, where indicated by the Roadmap strategy, appears effective and well tolerated for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0065120

Physicians Infrequently Adhere to Hepatitis Vaccination Guidelines for Chronic Liver Disease

Background and Goals:Hepatitis A (HAV) and hepatitis B (HBV) vaccination in patients with chronic liver disease is an accepted standard of care. We determined HAV and HBV vaccination rates in a tertiary care referral hepatology clinic and the impact of electronic health record (EHR)-based reminders on adherence to vaccination guidelines.Methods:We reviewed the records of 705 patients with chronic liver disease referred to our liver clinic in 2008 with at least two follow-up visits during the subsequent year. Demographics, referral source, etiology, and hepatitis serology were recorded. We determined whether eligible patients were offered vaccination and whether patients received vaccination. Barriers to vaccination were determined by a follow-up telephone interview.Results:HAV and HBV serologic testing prior to referral and at the liver clinic were performed in 14.5% and 17.7%; and 76.7% and 74% patients, respectively. Hepatologists recommended vaccination for HAV in 63% and for HBV in 59.7% of eligible patients. Patient demographics or disease etiology did not influence recommendation rates. Significant variability was observed in vaccination recommendation amongst individual providers (30-98.6%), which did not correlate with the number of patients seen by each physician. Vaccination recommendation rates were not different for Medicare patients with hepatitis C infection for whom a vaccination reminder was automatically generated by the EHR. Most patients who failed to get vaccination after recommendation offered no specific reason for noncompliance; insurance was a barrier in a minority.Conclusions:Hepatitis vaccination rates were suboptimal even in an academic, sub-speciality setting, with wide-variability in provider adherence to vaccination guidelines. © 2013 Thudi et al

The importance of baseline viral load when assessing relative efficacy in treatment-naïve HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To date no network meta-analysis (NMA) has accounted for baseline variations in viral load when assessing the relative efficacy of interventions for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We undertook baseline-adjusted and unadjusted analyses using the same data to explore the impact of baseline viral load (BVL) on CHB treatment response. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, Medline in Process and the Cochrane CENTRAL databases for randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of monotherapy interventions at licensed doses for use in CHB. Search strategies comprised CHB disease and drug terms (a combination of controlled vocabulary and free text terms) and also a bespoke RCT filter.The NMA was undertaken in WinBUGs using fixed and random effects methods, using data obtained from a systematic review. Individual patient data (IPD) from an entecavir clinical trial were used to quantify the impact of different baseline characteristics (in particular undetectable viral load (UVL) at 1 year) on relative treatment effect. Study level mean baseline values from all identified studies were used. Results were generated for UVL and presented as relative risks (RRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) using entecavir as reference treatment. RESULTS: Overall, for all eight relevant interventions we identified 3,000 abstracts. Following full text review a total of 35 (including the contents of six clinical study reports) met the inclusion critera; 19 were in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive patients and 14 of the 19 contained outcome information of relevance to the NMA.Entecavir and tenofovir studies had heterogeneous patient populations in terms of BVL (mean values 9.29 and 8.65 log10 copies/ml respectively). After adjusting UVL for BVL using an informative prior based on the IPD analysis, the difference between entecavir and tenofovir was not statistically significant (RR 1.27, 95% CrI 0.96 to 1.47-fixed effects). A similar conclusion was found in all sensitivity analyses. Adjusted tenofovir results were more consistent with observed clinical trial response rates. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the importance of adjusting for BVL when assessing the relative efficacy of CHB interventions in achieving UVL. This has implications for both clinical and economic decision making