4.8 Article

Lamivudine compared with lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 5, Pages 728-735

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2007.12.026

Keywords

CHB; chronic hepatitis B; hepatitis B e-antigen; hepatitis B s-antigen; M204V/I mutation; lamivudine; adefovir dipivoxil; combination therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: We aimed to evaluate nucleoside/nucleotide combination therapy in treatment-naive HBeAg-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods: One hundred and fifteen HBeAg-positive patients received lamivudine 100 mg daily plus placebo (monotherapy) or lamivudine 100 mg plus adefovir dipoxil 10 mg daily (combination therapy) for 104 weeks in a randomized double-blind study. Results: Time-weighted average change in serum HBV DNA from baseline up to week 16 was -4.20 log(10) copies/mL for both groups (p = 0.936). At week 104, median serum HBV DNA change from baseline (log, 0 copies/mL) for monotherapy and combination therapy was -3.41 versus -5.22, respectively. HBV DNA breakthrough was detected in 44% of monotherapy and 19% of combination therapy patients. The M204V/I mutation was detected in 43% (15/35) and 150/4 (6/41) of each group, respectively. ALT normalization at week 100 and 104 was 34% (19/56) in the monotherapy group and 45% (23/51) in the combination therapy group (p = 0.018). By week 104, HBeAg seroconversion occurred in 20% of monotherapy and 13% of combination therapy patients. Both regimens were well tolerated. Conclusions: Lower rates of resistance to lamivudine, lower serum HBV DNA levels and higher rates of ALT normalization were seen in the combination therapy group after two years. However, serological outcomes were similar. (C) 2008 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available