A comparison between entecavir and tenofovir in chronic hepatitis B in the clinical practice: a single-center experience

Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) affects 350-400 million of patients worldwide. Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are two nucleoside/nucleotide analogs recommended as first-line treatments in CHB.This retrospective study aimed at comparing effectiveness and renal safety of ETV and TDF through the analysis of data obtained from our CHB outpatients from June 2007 to September 2014. 41 out of 126 CHB outpatients were treated with ETV and 18 with TDF.TDF showed greater, though not statistically significant, effectiveness, in the three groups considered, i.e. naïve, pretreated with nucleoside/nucleotide analogs other than ETV or TDF, and pretreated with ETV or TDF patients. In particular, in naïve patients, those treated with TDF attained not detectable levels of viremia more rapidly (7 months versus 9 months) than ETV-treated patients, even starting from higher HBV DNA levels. In addition, virologic failure was observed in 0 versus 11% in TDF and ETV group, respectively. Also in patients pretreated with nucleoside/nucleotide analogs other than ETV or TDF, virologic failure was observed just in ETV patients. In patients who switched from ETV or TDF the mean time to attain undetectable HBV DNA levels was shorter in TDF group (3 months versus 6 months).Considering renal toxicity, there was no difference in creatinine and GFR levels between the two groups. Proteinuria and phosphaturia were greater in TDF patients, reaching statistical significance just in those pretreated with nucleoside/nucleotide analogs other than ETV or TDF

Report of 4 Cases and Review of the Literature

We reviewed the clinical, microbiologic, and outcome characteristics of 72 patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated histoplasmosis (4 newly described) reported in Europe over 20 years (1984-2004). Seven cases (9.7%) were acquired in Europe (autochthonous), whereas the majority involved a history of travel or arrival from endemic areas. The diagnosis of progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH) was made during life in 63 patients (87.5%) and was the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-presenting illness in 44 (61.1%). Disease was widespread in 66 patients (91.7%) and localized in 6 (8.3%), with the skin being the most frequent site of localized infection. Overall skin involvement was reported in 47.2% of the patients regardless of whether histoplasmosis was acquired in Africa or South America. Reticulonodular or diffuse interstial infiltrates occurred in 52.8%. The diagnosis was made during life by histopathology plus culture in 44 patients (69.8%), histopathology alone in 18 (28.5%), and culture alone in 1 (1.5%). During the induction phase amphotericin B and itraconazole (74.6%) were the single most frequently used drugs. Both drugs were also used either in combination (10.2%) or in sequential therapy (11.8%). Cumulative mortality rate during the induction phase of treatment was 15.2%. Overall, 37 patients died (57.8%); death occurred early in the course in 18 (28.1%). Seven of 40 patients (17.5%) who responded to therapy subsequently relapsed. Autopsy data in 13 patients confirmed the widespread disseminated nature of histoplasmosis (85%) among AIDS patients with a median of 4.5 organs involved. The results of the present report highlight the need to consider the diagnosis of PDH among patients with AIDS in Europe presenting with a febrile illness who have traveled to or who originated from an endemic area

A comparison between entecavir and tenofovir in chronic hepatitis B in the clinical practice: a single-center experience

Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) affects 350-400 million of patients worldwide. Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are two nucleoside/nucleotide analogs recommended as first-line treatments in CHB. This retrospective study aimed at comparing effectiveness and renal safety of ETV and TDF through the analysis of data obtained from our CHB outpatients from June 2007 to September 2014. 41 out of 126 CHB outpatients were treated with ETV and 18 with TDF. TDF showed greater, though not statistically significant, effectiveness, in the three groups considered, i.e. naïve, pretreated with nucleoside/nucleotide analogs other than ETV or TDF, and pretreated with ETV or TDF patients. In particular, in naïve patients, those treated with TDF attained not detectable levels of viremia more rapidly (7 months versus 9 months) than ETV-treated patients, even starting from higher HBV DNA levels. In addition, virologic failure was observed in 0 versus 11% in TDF and ETV group, respectively. Also in patients pretreated with nucleoside/nucleotide analogs other than ETV or TDF, virologic failure was observed just in ETV patients. In patients who switched from ETV or TDF the mean time to attain undetectable HBV DNA levels was shorter in TDF group (3 months versus 6 months). Considering renal toxicity, there was no difference in creatinine and GFR levels between the two groups. Proteinuria and phosphaturia were greater in TDF patients, reaching statistical significance just in those pretreated with nucleoside/nucleotide analogs other than ETV or TDF