Cargando…
Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) exhibits similar antiviral efficacy against treatment-naïve and lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few clinical reports on the antiviral effects of TDF–LAM combination therapy compared to TDF monotherapy in pa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Association for the Study of the Liver
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4825170/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27044766 http://dx.doi.org/10.3350/cmh.2016.22.1.152 |
_version_ | 1782426174473895936 |
---|---|
author | Park, Chan Ho Jung, Seok Won Shin, Jung Woo Bae, Mi Ae Lee, Yoon Im Park, Yong Tae Chung, Hwa Sik Park, Neung Hwa |
author_facet | Park, Chan Ho Jung, Seok Won Shin, Jung Woo Bae, Mi Ae Lee, Yoon Im Park, Yong Tae Chung, Hwa Sik Park, Neung Hwa |
author_sort | Park, Chan Ho |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND/AIMS: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) exhibits similar antiviral efficacy against treatment-naïve and lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few clinical reports on the antiviral effects of TDF–LAM combination therapy compared to TDF monotherapy in patients with LAM-resistant CHB. METHODS: We investigated the antiviral efficacy of TDF monotherapy vs. TDF–LAM combination therapy in 103 patients with LAM-resistant CHB. RESULTS: The study subjects were treated with TDF alone (n=40) or TDF–LAM combination therapy (n=63) for ≥6 months. The patients had previously been treated with TDF-based rescue therapy for a median of 30.0 months (range, 8–36 months). A virologic response (VR) was achieved in 99 patients (96.1%): 95.0% (38/40) of patients in the TDF monotherapy group and 96.8% (61/63) of patients in the TDF–LAM combination therapy group. The VR rates were not significantly different between the TDF monotherapy and TDF–LAM combination therapy groups (88.9 vs. 87.3% at month 12, and 94.4 vs. 93.7% at month 24, log-rank p=0.652). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that none of the pretreatment factors were significantly associated with VR. CONCLUSIONS: TDF monotherapy was as effective as TDF–LAM combination therapy for maintaining viral suppression in the vast majority of patients with LAM-resistant CHB, which suggests that TDF add-on therapy with LAM is unnecessary. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4825170 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | The Korean Association for the Study of the Liver |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-48251702016-04-11 Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B Park, Chan Ho Jung, Seok Won Shin, Jung Woo Bae, Mi Ae Lee, Yoon Im Park, Yong Tae Chung, Hwa Sik Park, Neung Hwa Clin Mol Hepatol Original Article BACKGROUND/AIMS: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) exhibits similar antiviral efficacy against treatment-naïve and lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few clinical reports on the antiviral effects of TDF–LAM combination therapy compared to TDF monotherapy in patients with LAM-resistant CHB. METHODS: We investigated the antiviral efficacy of TDF monotherapy vs. TDF–LAM combination therapy in 103 patients with LAM-resistant CHB. RESULTS: The study subjects were treated with TDF alone (n=40) or TDF–LAM combination therapy (n=63) for ≥6 months. The patients had previously been treated with TDF-based rescue therapy for a median of 30.0 months (range, 8–36 months). A virologic response (VR) was achieved in 99 patients (96.1%): 95.0% (38/40) of patients in the TDF monotherapy group and 96.8% (61/63) of patients in the TDF–LAM combination therapy group. The VR rates were not significantly different between the TDF monotherapy and TDF–LAM combination therapy groups (88.9 vs. 87.3% at month 12, and 94.4 vs. 93.7% at month 24, log-rank p=0.652). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that none of the pretreatment factors were significantly associated with VR. CONCLUSIONS: TDF monotherapy was as effective as TDF–LAM combination therapy for maintaining viral suppression in the vast majority of patients with LAM-resistant CHB, which suggests that TDF add-on therapy with LAM is unnecessary. The Korean Association for the Study of the Liver 2016-03 2016-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4825170/ /pubmed/27044766 http://dx.doi.org/10.3350/cmh.2016.22.1.152 Text en Copyright © 2016 by The Korean Association for the Study of the Liver This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Park, Chan Ho Jung, Seok Won Shin, Jung Woo Bae, Mi Ae Lee, Yoon Im Park, Yong Tae Chung, Hwa Sik Park, Neung Hwa Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B |
title | Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B |
title_full | Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B |
title_fullStr | Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B |
title_short | Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B |
title_sort | comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis b |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4825170/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27044766 http://dx.doi.org/10.3350/cmh.2016.22.1.152 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT parkchanho comparisonoftenofovirpluslamivudineversustenofovirmonotherapyinpatientswithlamivudineresistantchronichepatitisb AT jungseokwon comparisonoftenofovirpluslamivudineversustenofovirmonotherapyinpatientswithlamivudineresistantchronichepatitisb AT shinjungwoo comparisonoftenofovirpluslamivudineversustenofovirmonotherapyinpatientswithlamivudineresistantchronichepatitisb AT baemiae comparisonoftenofovirpluslamivudineversustenofovirmonotherapyinpatientswithlamivudineresistantchronichepatitisb AT leeyoonim comparisonoftenofovirpluslamivudineversustenofovirmonotherapyinpatientswithlamivudineresistantchronichepatitisb AT parkyongtae comparisonoftenofovirpluslamivudineversustenofovirmonotherapyinpatientswithlamivudineresistantchronichepatitisb AT chunghwasik comparisonoftenofovirpluslamivudineversustenofovirmonotherapyinpatientswithlamivudineresistantchronichepatitisb AT parkneunghwa comparisonoftenofovirpluslamivudineversustenofovirmonotherapyinpatientswithlamivudineresistantchronichepatitisb |