AIM To demonstrate the non-inferiority(15% non-inferiority limit) of monotherapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate(TDF) vs the combination of lamivudine(LAM) plus adefovir dipivoxil(ADV) in the maintenance of virolog...AIM To demonstrate the non-inferiority(15% non-inferiority limit) of monotherapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate(TDF) vs the combination of lamivudine(LAM) plus adefovir dipivoxil(ADV) in the maintenance of virologic response in patients with chronic hepatitis B(CHB) and prior failure with LAM.METHODS This study was a Phase IV prospective, randomized, open, controlled study with 2 parallel groups(TDF and LAM+ADV) of adult patients with hepatitis B e antigen(HBe Ag)-negative CHB, prior failure with LAM, on treatment with LAM+ADV for at least 6 mo, without prior resistance to ADV and with an undetectable viral load at the start of the study, in 14 Spanish hospitals. The follow-up time for each patient was 48 wk after randomization, with quarterly visits in which the viral load, biochemical and serological parameters, adverse effects, adherence to treatment and consumption of hospital resources were analysed.RESULTS Forty-six patients were evaluated [median age: 55.4 years(30.2-75.2); 84.8% male], including 22 patients with TDF and 24 with LAM+ADV. During study development, hepatitis B virus DNA(HBV-DNA) remained undetectable, all patients remained HBe Ag negative, and hepatitis B surface antigen(HBs Ag) positive. Alanine aminotransferase(ALT) values at the end of the study were similar in the 2 groups(25.1± 7.65, TDF vs 24.22 ± 8.38, LAM+ADV, P = 0.646). No significant changes were observed in creatinine or serum phosphorus values in either group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were noted in the identification of adverse effects(AEs)(53.8%, TDF vs 37.5%, LAM+ADV, P = 0.170), and none of the AEs which occurred were serious. Treatment adherence was 95.5% and 83.3% in the TDF and the LAM+ADV groups, respectively(P = 0.488). The costs associated with hospital resource consumption were significantly lower with the TDF treatment than the LAM+ADV treatment(€4943 ± 1059 vs €5811 ± 1538, respectively, P < 0.001).CONCLUSION TDF monotherapy proved to be safe and not inferior to the LAM+ADV combination therapy in maintaining virologic response in patients with CHB and previous LAM failure. In addition, the use of TDF generated a significant savings in hospital costs.展开更多
AIM:To evaluates the effectiveness and safety of the first generation,NS3/4A protease inhibitors(PIs) in clinical practice against chronic C virus,especially in patients with advanced fibrosis. METHODS:Prospective stu...AIM:To evaluates the effectiveness and safety of the first generation,NS3/4A protease inhibitors(PIs) in clinical practice against chronic C virus,especially in patients with advanced fibrosis. METHODS:Prospective study and non-experimental analysis of a multicentre cohort of 38 Spanish hospitals that includes patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1,treatment-na?ve(TN) or treatment-experienced(TE),who underwent triple therapy with the first generation NS3/4A protease inhibitors,boceprevir(BOC) and telaprevir(TVR),in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. The patients were treatment in routine practice settings. Data on the study population and on adverse clinical and virologic effects were compiled during the treatment period and during follow up.RESULTS:One thousand and fifty seven patients were included,405(38%) were treated with BOC and 652(62%) with TVR. Of this total,30%(n = 319) were TN and the remaining were TE:28%(n = 298) relapsers,12%(n = 123) partial responders(PR),25%(n = 260) null-responders(NR) and for 5%(n = 57) with prior response unknown. The rate of sustained virologic response(SVR) by intention-to-treatment(ITT) was greater in those treated with TVR(65%) than in those treated with BOC(52%)(P < 0.0001),whereas by modified intention-to-treatment(m ITT) no were found significant differences. By degree of fibrosis,56% of patients were F4 and the highest SVR rates were recorded in the non-F4 patients,both TN and TE. In the analysis by groups,the TN patients treated with TVR by ITT showed a higher SVR(P = 0.005). However,by m ITT there were no significant differences between BOC and TVR. In the multivariate analysis by m ITT,the significant SVR factors were relapsers,IL28 B CC and non-F4; the type of treatment(BOC or TVR) was not significant. The lowest SVR values were presented by the F4-NR patients,treated with BOC(46%) or with TVR(45%). 28% of the patients interrupted the treatment,mainly by non-viral response(51%):this outcome was more frequent in the TE than in the TN patients(57% vs 40%,P = 0.01). With respect to severe haematological disorders,neutropaenia was more likely to affect the patients treated with BOC(33% vs 20%,P ≤ 0.0001),and thrombocytopaenia and anaemia,the F4 patients(P = 0.000,P = 0.025,respectively). CONCLUSION:In a real clinical practice setting with a high proportion of patients with advanced fibrosis,effectiveness of first-generation PIs was high except for NR patients,with similar SVR rates being achieved by BOC and TVR.展开更多
文摘AIM To demonstrate the non-inferiority(15% non-inferiority limit) of monotherapy with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate(TDF) vs the combination of lamivudine(LAM) plus adefovir dipivoxil(ADV) in the maintenance of virologic response in patients with chronic hepatitis B(CHB) and prior failure with LAM.METHODS This study was a Phase IV prospective, randomized, open, controlled study with 2 parallel groups(TDF and LAM+ADV) of adult patients with hepatitis B e antigen(HBe Ag)-negative CHB, prior failure with LAM, on treatment with LAM+ADV for at least 6 mo, without prior resistance to ADV and with an undetectable viral load at the start of the study, in 14 Spanish hospitals. The follow-up time for each patient was 48 wk after randomization, with quarterly visits in which the viral load, biochemical and serological parameters, adverse effects, adherence to treatment and consumption of hospital resources were analysed.RESULTS Forty-six patients were evaluated [median age: 55.4 years(30.2-75.2); 84.8% male], including 22 patients with TDF and 24 with LAM+ADV. During study development, hepatitis B virus DNA(HBV-DNA) remained undetectable, all patients remained HBe Ag negative, and hepatitis B surface antigen(HBs Ag) positive. Alanine aminotransferase(ALT) values at the end of the study were similar in the 2 groups(25.1± 7.65, TDF vs 24.22 ± 8.38, LAM+ADV, P = 0.646). No significant changes were observed in creatinine or serum phosphorus values in either group. No significant differences between the 2 groups were noted in the identification of adverse effects(AEs)(53.8%, TDF vs 37.5%, LAM+ADV, P = 0.170), and none of the AEs which occurred were serious. Treatment adherence was 95.5% and 83.3% in the TDF and the LAM+ADV groups, respectively(P = 0.488). The costs associated with hospital resource consumption were significantly lower with the TDF treatment than the LAM+ADV treatment(€4943 ± 1059 vs €5811 ± 1538, respectively, P < 0.001).CONCLUSION TDF monotherapy proved to be safe and not inferior to the LAM+ADV combination therapy in maintaining virologic response in patients with CHB and previous LAM failure. In addition, the use of TDF generated a significant savings in hospital costs.
文摘AIM:To evaluates the effectiveness and safety of the first generation,NS3/4A protease inhibitors(PIs) in clinical practice against chronic C virus,especially in patients with advanced fibrosis. METHODS:Prospective study and non-experimental analysis of a multicentre cohort of 38 Spanish hospitals that includes patients with chronic hepatitis C genotype 1,treatment-na?ve(TN) or treatment-experienced(TE),who underwent triple therapy with the first generation NS3/4A protease inhibitors,boceprevir(BOC) and telaprevir(TVR),in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. The patients were treatment in routine practice settings. Data on the study population and on adverse clinical and virologic effects were compiled during the treatment period and during follow up.RESULTS:One thousand and fifty seven patients were included,405(38%) were treated with BOC and 652(62%) with TVR. Of this total,30%(n = 319) were TN and the remaining were TE:28%(n = 298) relapsers,12%(n = 123) partial responders(PR),25%(n = 260) null-responders(NR) and for 5%(n = 57) with prior response unknown. The rate of sustained virologic response(SVR) by intention-to-treatment(ITT) was greater in those treated with TVR(65%) than in those treated with BOC(52%)(P < 0.0001),whereas by modified intention-to-treatment(m ITT) no were found significant differences. By degree of fibrosis,56% of patients were F4 and the highest SVR rates were recorded in the non-F4 patients,both TN and TE. In the analysis by groups,the TN patients treated with TVR by ITT showed a higher SVR(P = 0.005). However,by m ITT there were no significant differences between BOC and TVR. In the multivariate analysis by m ITT,the significant SVR factors were relapsers,IL28 B CC and non-F4; the type of treatment(BOC or TVR) was not significant. The lowest SVR values were presented by the F4-NR patients,treated with BOC(46%) or with TVR(45%). 28% of the patients interrupted the treatment,mainly by non-viral response(51%):this outcome was more frequent in the TE than in the TN patients(57% vs 40%,P = 0.01). With respect to severe haematological disorders,neutropaenia was more likely to affect the patients treated with BOC(33% vs 20%,P ≤ 0.0001),and thrombocytopaenia and anaemia,the F4 patients(P = 0.000,P = 0.025,respectively). CONCLUSION:In a real clinical practice setting with a high proportion of patients with advanced fibrosis,effectiveness of first-generation PIs was high except for NR patients,with similar SVR rates being achieved by BOC and TVR.
