Viral Resistance in Hepatitis B: Prevalence and Management

Hepatitis B is a DNA virus affecting hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide. As the clinical sequelae of cirrhosis and hepatocellular cancer are increasingly recognized to be related to viral levels, the impetus increases to offer treatment to those previously not treated. With the development of more robust antivirals with reasonable safety profiles, long-term treatment is becoming more common. The oral nucleos(t)ide analogs have become the preferred first-line therapies for most genotypes of hepatitis B. Five are now available, all with different potencies and resistance profiles. Long-term data spanning several years are now available for most compounds in this arena. This article focuses on the common natural variants and those secondary to nucleos(t)ide therapy, as well as diagnostic methods to detect resistance

Current Antiviral Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis B: Efficacy and Safety

The treatment of chronic hepatitis B is in constant evolution. Interferon, the first agent licensed for chronic hepatitis B treatment, has been superseded by the growing popularity of nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NA). However, resistance to these agents is a major challenge. Newer NAs, such as entecavir and tenofovir dipivoxil fumarate, have very low resistance rates and favorable safety profiles. Long-term use of these agents can effectively suppress hepatitis B virus DNA, leading to decrease in incidence of hepatitic flares, as well as in the development of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The efficacy and safety of various antiviral agents is discussed in this review

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate versus Adefovir Dipivoxil for Chronic Hepatitis B

Background: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) is a nucleotide analogue and a potent inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase and hepatitis B virus (HBV) polymerase. Methods: In two double-blind, phase 3 studies, we randomly assigned patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative or HBeAg-positive chronic HBV infection to receive tenofovir DF or adefovir dipivoxil (ratio, 2:1) once daily for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was a plasma HBV DNA level of less than 400 copies per milliliter (69 IU per milliliter) and histologic improvement (i.e., a reduction in the Knodell necroinflammation score of 2 or more points without worsening fibrosis) at week 48. Secondary end points included viral suppression (i.e., an HBV DNA level of <400 copies per milliliter), histologic improvement, serologic response, normalization of alanine aminotransferase levels, and development of resistance mutations. Results: At week 48, in both studies, a significantly higher proportion of patients receiving tenofovir DF than of those receiving adefovir dipivoxil had reached the primary end point (P<0.001). Viral suppression occurred in more HBeAg-negative patients receiving tenofovir DF than patients receiving adefovir dipivoxil (93% vs. 63%, P<0.001) and in more HBeAg-positive patients receiving tenofovir DF than patients receiving adefovir dipivoxil (76% vs. 13%, P<0.001). Significantly more HBeAg-positive patients treated with tenofovir DF than those treated with adefovir dipivoxil had normalized alanine aminotransferase levels (68% vs. 54%, P=0.03) and loss of hepatitis B surface antigen (3% vs. 0%, P=0.02). At week 48, amino acid substitutions within HBV DNA polymerase associated with phenotypic resistance to tenofovir DF or other drugs to treat HBV infection had not developed in any of the patients. Tenofovir DF produced a similar HBV DNA response in patients who had previously received lamivudine and in those who had not. The safety profile was similar for the two treatments in both studies. Conclusions: Among patients with chronic HBV infection, tenofovir DF at a daily dose of 300 mg had superior antiviral efficacy with a similar safety profile as compared with adefovir dipivoxil at a daily dose of 10 mg through week 48. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00116805 and NCT00117676.)