4.8 Article

Relapse of hepatitis B in HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B patients who discontinued successful entecavir treatment: The case for continuous antiviral therapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 50, 期 2, 页码 289-295

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2008.10.017

关键词

Chronic hepatitis B; HBeAg-negative; Antiviral treatment; Entecavir

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: To evaluate the off-treatment durability of response in HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B patients who achieved a protocol-defined 'Response' (HBV-DNA < 0.7 MEq/mL and ALT < 1.25 x ULN) with entecavir at 48 weeks and the efficacy of entecavir in patients treated beyond one year. Methods: Entecavir-treated and lamivudine-treated patients who achieved a protocol-defined 'Response' were evaluated off treatment for HBV-DNA < 300 copies/mL and ALT normalisation. Entecavir- and larnivudine-treated patients who achieved a protocol-defined 'Virological Response' (HBV-DNA < 0.7 MEq/mL but ALT >= 1.25 x ULN) at 48 weeks, continued blinded treatment until they achieved Response or 96 weeks, whichever came first. Results: Among 'Responders' who discontinued treatment after 48 weeks, 7/257 (3%) entecavir-treated and 10/201 (5%) lamivudine-treated patients sustained HBV-DNA below 300 copies/mL at 24-weeks off-treatment. Among the 54 patients who continued blinded treatment in the second year, 7/26 (27%) entecavir-treated and 6/28 (21%) lamivudine-treated patients normalised ALT and 22/26 (85%) entecavir-treated and 16/28 (57%) lamivudine-treated patients maintained HBV-DNA < 300 copies/mL at end-of-dosing. The safety profiles of both drugs remained comparable through a second year of treatment. Conclusions: The majority of protocol-defined Responders relapsed after 1 year when treatment was discontinued. Treatment with entecavir beyond 1 year provided continued virological and biochemical benefit. (C) 2008 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据