scholarly journals Kushenin Combined with Nucleos(t)ide Analogues for Chronic Hepatitis B: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhe Chen ◽  
Xiao Ma ◽  
Yanling Zhao ◽  
Jiabo Wang ◽  
Yaming Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hbeag Seroconversion ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Undetectable Serum ◽  
One Year

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Kushenin (KS) combined with nucleoside analogues (NAs) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB).Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of KS combined with NAs for CHB were identified through 7 databases. Frequencies of loss of serum HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, undetectable serum HBV-DNA, ALT normalization, and adverse events at 48 weeks were abstracted by two reviewers. The Cochrane software was performed to assess the risk of bias in the included trials. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3 software.Results. 18 RCTs involving 1684 subjects with CHB were included in the analysis. KS combined with NAs including lamivudine (LAM), entecavir (ETV), adefovir dipivoxil (ADV), and telbivudine (TLV) showed different degree of improvement in CHB indices. KS combined with NAs increased the frequency of loss of serum HBeAg, HBeAg seroconversion, undetectable HBV-DNA levels, and ALT normalization compared with single agents. It also decreased serum ALT and AST level after one-year treatment. However, KS combined with TLV did not show a significant difference in CHB indices. The side-effects of KS combined with NAs were light and of low frequency.Conclusion. KS combined with NAs improves the efficacy of NAs in CHB.

scholarly journals Antiviral Therapy in Lamivudine-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui-Lian Wang ◽  
Xi Lu ◽  
Xudong Yang ◽  
Nan Xu
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Rescue Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Effect ◽  
Similar Rate ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Lamivudine Resistance ◽  
Significant Difference

The relative efficacy of different strategies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine resistance (LAM-R) has not yet been systematically studied. Clinical trials were searched in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CNKI databases up to February 15, 2016. Nine trials including 764 patients met the entry criteria. In direct meta-analysis, TDF showed a stronger antiviral effect than any one of ETV, LAM/ADV, and ADV against LAM-R hepatitis B virus. LAM/ADV therapy was superior to ADV in suppressing viral replication. ETV achieved similar rate of HBV DNA undetectable compared to ADV or LAM/ADV. In network meta-analysis, TDF had higher rates of HBV DNA undetectable compared to ETV (OR, 24.69; 95% CrI: 5.36–113.66), ADV (OR, 37.28; 95% CrI: 9.73–142.92), or LAM/ADV (OR, 21.05; 95% CrI: 5.70–77.80). However, among ETV, ADV, and LAM/ADV, no drug was clearly superior to others in HBV DNA undetectable rate. Moreover, no significant difference in the rate of ALT normalization or HBeAg loss was observed compared the four rescue strategies with each other. TDF appears to be a more effective rescue therapy than LAM/ADV, ETV, or ADV. LAM plus ADV therapy was a better treatment option than ETV or ADV alone for patients with LAM-R.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis on Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B with Telbivudine and Entecavir

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 216-223
Author(s):  
Zhen Ye ◽  
Min Zhao ◽  
He Jiao ◽  
Yang Feng ◽  
Ying-zi Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Seroconversion Rate ◽  
Antiviral Treatment ◽  
Hbeag Seroconversion ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Hbeag Seroconversion Rate

Objective To evaluate the therapeutic effects of telbivudine and entecavir on patients with chronic hepatitis B by meta-analysis method. Methods Databases including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and HighWire were searched from January 2008 to October 2012. Randomized controlled trials on treatment of chronic hepatitis B with telbivudine and entecavir were included. According to the Cochrane systematic reviews, the methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated and effective data was extracted from these studies and analyzed. Results Six studies were included eventually. The telbivudine group included 417 cases and the entecavir group included 396 cases. For 12-week antiviral treatment of chronic hepatitis B, the rate of undetectable HBV DNA was 39.1% with telbivudine and 38.6% with entecavir [OR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.62, 1.73), P > 0.05]; for treatment of HBeAg (+) hepatitis B, the HBeAg clearance rate was 23.8% with telbivudine and 3.8% with entecavir [OR= 8.07, 95% CI (2.69, 24.21), P < 0.05], and the HBeAg seroconversion rate was 6.7% with telbivudine and 3.8% with entecavir [OR = 4.95, 95% CI (1.60, 15.31), P < 0.05]; the ALT normalization rate was 54.3% with telbivudine and 58.5% with entecavir [OR = 0.84, 95% CI (0.49, 1.45), P > 0.05]; and for early-stage treatment, the incidence of adverse events was 17.2% with telbivudine and 22.0% with entecavir [OR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.33, 1.32), P > 0.05]. For 1-year antiviral treatment of chronic hepatitis B, the rate of undetectable HBV DNA was 79.4% with telbivudine and 89.7% with entecavir [OR = 0.46, 95% CI (0.28, 0.74), P < 0.05]; for treatment of HBeAg (+) hepatitis B, the HBeAg clearance rate was 28.9% with telbivudine and 15.6% with entecavir [OR = 2.21, 95% CI (1.06, 4.58), P < 0.05], and the HBeAg seroconversion rate was 31.2% with telbivudine and 18.5% with entecavir [OR = 2.31, 95% CI (1.23, 4.31), P < 0.05]; the ALT normalization rate was 85.8% with telbivudine and 84.9% with entecavir [OR = 0.90, 95% CI (0.29, 2.84), P > 0.05]; and the resistance rate was 6.0% with telbivudine and 0.76% with entecavir [OR = 5.71, 95% CI (1.67, 19.47), P < 0.05]. Conclusions For 1-year treatment of chronic hepatitis B, the difference in ALT normalization between telbivudine and entecavir was not statistically significant; and telbivudine was superior over entecavir in terms of HBeAg undetectable and HBeAg seroconversion; entecavir was superior over telbivudine in terms of HBV DNA undetectable and resistance; and both drugs had similar rates of adverse events in early-stage treatment and no severe adverse event was noted. Both telbivudine and entecavir are effective antiviral drugs against hepatitis B.

scholarly journals Efficacy Comparison of Tenofovir and Entecavir in HBeAg-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B Patients with High HBV DNA

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Shi ◽  
Mingxing Huang ◽  
Guoli Lin ◽  
Xiangyong Li ◽  
Yuankai Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Adverse Reactions ◽  
Treated Patient ◽  
Hbeag Seroconversion ◽  
Total Duration ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Positive Chronic Hepatitis

Objectives. To compare entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) effects in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with high HBV DNA.Method. 96 patients treated initially with tenofovir (TDF group) or entecavir (ETV group) were included in this retrospective study. The following parameters were assessed: HBeAg and hepatitis B e antibody (anti-HBe) status, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), and HBV-DNA levels at weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 96; time to ALT normalization, undetectable HBV-DNA levels, and HBeAg seroconversion; total duration of follow-up and adverse reactions.Results. The patients included 66 (69%) and 30 (31%) individuals administered ETV and TDF, respectively, comprising 75% males. They were35.1±4.5and33.7±4.6years old in ETV and TDF groups, respectively. At 36 weeks, the response rate was significantly higher in the TDF group than in ETV treated patients (90% versus 69.7%,p=0.03). At 48 weeks, less patients administered ETV showed undetectable HBV-DNA levels compared with the TDF group (86.4% versus 96.7%), a non-statistically significant difference (p=0.13). Only 1 ETV treated patient developed virological breakthrough at 48–96 w. No adverse reactions were found.Conclusion. ETV and TDF are comparable in efficacy and safety to suppress HBV-DNA replication in HBeAg-positive CHB patients with high HBV DNA.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Tenofovir-Based Combination Therapy versus Tenofovir Monotherapy in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Presenting with Suboptimal Responses to Pretreatment: A Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ling Chen ◽  
Xiwei Wang ◽  
Qiongfang Zhang ◽  
Jiaojiao Gong ◽  
Shasha Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hbeag Seroconversion ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Standard Mean Difference

Background/Aims. It remains unclear whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate- (TDF-) based combination therapy produces better outcomes than TDF monotherapy in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the two regimens by performing a meta-analysis.Methods. A comprehensive literature search was performed on the comparison of TDF-based combination therapy and monotherapy for CHB patients in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Libraries. Both dichotomous and continuous variables were extracted and pooled outcomes were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or standard mean difference (SMD).Results. Nine eligible studies (1089 subjects in total) were included in our analysis. The proportion of patients with undetectable HBV DNA at 24, 48, and 96 weeks were similar between the two comparable groups (62.5% versus 70.9%,P=0.086; 78.1% versus 83.7%,P=0.118; 86.4% versus 87.9%,P=0.626, resp.). HBV DNA reduction, rates of ALT normalization, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) loss, and HBeAg seroconversion were also similar between the two groups.Conclusions. On the current data, TDF-based combination therapy seemed to be no better than those achieved by monotherapy. Further studies are needed to verify this comparison.

scholarly journals Laboratory Evaluation of Three Regimens of Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B: Tenofovir, Entecavir and Combination of Lamivudine and Adefovir

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (01) ◽  
pp. 010-016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rajeswari Jayakumar ◽  
Yogendra Kumar Joshi ◽  
Sarman Singh
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Hbeag Seroconversion ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Laboratory Evaluation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Hbeag Status

ABSTRACT Background: Chronic hepatitis B is a disease of concern due to its life-threatening complications like cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 20-40% of patients. There are about 400 million people affected worldwide with HBV, and over 300,000 die every year from HBV-related diseases. Oral antivirals like lamivudine, adefovir, entecavir, and tenofovir are commonly used to treat chronic hepatitis B. In this study, we tried to evaluate the comparative efficacy of these drugs alone and in combination. Materials and Methods: Chronic hepatitis B patients with HBV-DNA more than 104 Copies/mL irrespective of their HBeAg status (n = 60) were enrolled in a prospective study. 21, 20, and 19 patients were treated with lamivudine (100 mg/day) plus adefovir (10 mg/day) combination entecavir monotherapy (0.5 mg/day) and tenofovir monotherapy (300 mg/day), respectively and were followed up for 24 weeks with their virological, serological, and biochemical markers measured at 12 and 24 weeks. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, there was no significant difference between the 3 groups in suppressing HBV-DNA to undetectable levels. The median decrease in HBV-DNA levels from baseline was better with tenofovir and entecavir monotherapies than lamivudine and adefovir combination, which was statistically significant. There was no significant difference between the 3 groups in HBsAg and HBeAg seroconversion and normalization of biochemical parameters. Conclusion: Entecavir and tenofovir monotherapy were found to be more effective than lamivudine plus adefovir combination in reducing the HBV-DNA levels. However, lamivudine plus adefovir combination was not too inferior, especially when cost of treatment was taken into consideration.

scholarly journals Kushenin Combined with Adefovir Dipivoxil or Entecavir for Chronic Hepatitis B: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Qingying Liao ◽  
Jianxia Wen ◽  
Kunxiu Jiang ◽  
Yanling Zhao ◽  
Xiao Ma
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Adefovir Dipivoxil ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hbeag Seroconversion ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Combination Group

Kushenin (KS) has become a traditional Chinese medicine preparation that plays an important role in treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Many clinical studies have discussed its curative effect and safety in combination with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) or entecavir (ETV) for treating CHB, but there is still a lack of a systematic analysis. Therefore, this study evaluated the efficacy and safety of KS through a meta-analysis to better guide clinical treatment. Seven databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning KS combined with ADV or ETV for treating CHB. The primary outcomes included serum viral indices and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes were liver function indices. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was appraised by Cochrane software. STATA 15.1 and Review Manager 5.3 software were used for the meta-analysis. Thirty-two RCTs recruiting 3343 patients with CHB were collected for this meta-analysis. KS combined with ETV or ADV led to an amelioration of the CHB index to various degrees. In short, the meta-analysis indicated that the combination group, compared to the single group, showed great improvement in HBeAg seroconversion, frequency of undetectable HBV-DNA levels, loss of serum HBeAg, and loss of serum HBsAg. The combination treatment also decreased serum HBV-DNA levels when compared to the levels after the single treatment. However, KS combined with ADV or ETV displayed no remarkable difference in the incidence of adverse events or in serum ALT levels. Current evidence showed that, compared with the use of either drug alone, KS combined with ADV or ETV can improve the clinical efficacy of CHB treatment.

scholarly journals Observation of genotype C infected chronic hepatitis B patients in clinical practice

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 882-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Myo Nyein Aung ◽  
Wattana Leowattana ◽  
Noppadon Tangpukdee ◽  
Chatporn Kittitrakul
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Hepatitis ◽  
Hepatitis B ◽  
Chronic Hepatitis B ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Hbv Dna ◽  
Hbv Genotype ◽  
Surrogate Outcome ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Genotype C ◽  
One Year

Introduction: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotype C is prevalent in many areas of the world including Thailand and Southeast Asia. It is a strong risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by evidence. We aimed to describe the baseline clinical information of treatment naïve genotype C infected chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients and to describe the treatment response by surrogate outcome markers in genotype C infected CHB patients after one year of nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA) treatment Methodology:  Thirty-four genotype C CHB patients were studied at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, Bangkok, including 12 patients treated with lamivudine, 11 with telbivudine, 8 with adefovir, and 3 with entecavir. Serum HBV DNA levels, serum alanine amino transferase ( ALT ) levels, HBeAg status, and alpha-feto protein (AFP) levels were recorded at the start and after twelve months of ongoing treatment. HBV genotyping was performed by line-probe assay. Results: About half of the patients (58.8%) were HBeAg positive. Mean HBV viral load was 6.53 + 1.15 log10 copies per ml at baseline and reduced to 3.63 + 1.3 log10 copies per ml after one year of NA treatment. Serum HBV DNA levels became undetectable in 47.1 % of the patients and serum ALT was normalized in 23.5 % of the patients. Conclusion: Most of the genotype C patients were aged above 40 years. More than half of the genotype C infected patients did not achieve virological response and biochemical remission. Among the CHB patients, genotype C infected patients are a high priority group for intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document