4.7 Article

Ten-year efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment for chronic hepatitis B virus infection

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 39, 期 10, 页码 1868-1875

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.14155

关键词

hepatitis B; long-term; TDF

资金

  1. Gilead Sciences - Gilead Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is a first-line treatment for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We aimed to describe the efficacy and safety profiles of TDF treatment for up to 10 years in a well-described cohort of CHB patients. Methods Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative and HBeAg-positive patients from two randomised, double-blind trials (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00117676 and NCT00116805) completed 48 weeks of randomised treatment with TDF or adefovir dipivoxil. A subset of these patients was then eligible to receive open-label TDF treatment for up to 10 years. At Year 10, patients were assessed for virological suppression, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalisation, serological response, safety and tolerability. Results Of 641 randomised and treated patients, 585 (91%) entered the open-label extension phase with 203 (32%) patients completing Year 10 of the study. At Year 10, 118/118 (100%) of HBeAg-negative patients and 78/80 (98%) of HBeAg-positive patients with available data achieved hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA < 69 IU/mL, while 88/106 (83%) and 60/77 (78%) patients achieved ALT normalisation, respectively. Of the 23 patients with HBeAg status available at Year 10, 12 (52%) and six (27%) experienced HBeAg loss and seroconversion, respectively. No resistance to TDF was documented up to Year 10. In the period between Year 8 and Year 10, the safety profile of TDF was similar to previous reports, with few patients experiencing renal- or bone-related adverse events. Conclusions Over 10 years, TDF had a favourable safety profile, was well tolerated, and resulted in continued maintenance of virological suppression with no documented resistance.

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

4.7
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