Antiviral therapy · 2018
Real-world evidence for nucleoside/nucleotide analogues in a 5-year multicentre study of antiviral-naive chronic hepatitis B patients in China: 52-week results.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jia Jidong, Tang Hong, Ning Qin, Jiang Jiaji, Dou Xiaoguang, Zhang Mingxiang, Zhang Shuqin, Shang Jia, Lu Wei, Ye Yinong, Wang Xin, Li Mingshu, Liu Jie, Bo Qingyan, Tan Wenzhong, EVOLVE Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In China, the clinical management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is complicated by the use of variousnucleoside/nucleotide analogue (NUC) regimens in treatment-naive patients, including NUCs with low genetic barriers to resistance, with/without add-on therapy and de novo NUC combinations. This longitudinal observational study therefore investigated the real-world clinical management and efficacy of NUC therapy in treatment-naive CHB patients in China.
METHODS: Treatment-naive CHB patients initiated on NUC therapy were enrolled from 63 hospitals in tier-2 Chinese cities. Demographic and treatment-specific data were collected, with the objective of reporting real-world treatment patterns and comparing the effectiveness of entecavir (ETV) treatment and lamivudine (LAM)-based treatment. We herein report the first-year data.
RESULTS: 3,408 NUC-naive patients were enrolled and treated with NUCs (53% ETV, 18% LAM-based, 29% other). Overall, 6.6% of patients modified their initial treatment, with ETV having lower rates of treatment modification than other major NUCs (P<0.05). At week 52, the virological response rate was higher with ETV than with LAM-based treatment (77.0% versus 61.4%; P<0.0001). LAM-based treatment was associated with a higher probability of virological breakthrough and genotypic resistance (21.4% and 19.6%, respectively) than ETV (1.6% and 0.1%, respectively; P<0.0001). Treatment-related adverse events or serious adverse events were uncommon.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide observational study, more than 50% of patients with CHB in tier-2 city hospitals in China initially received ETV therapy. Consistent with clinical trial results, ETV was more effective than LAM-based treatments in a real-world setting, with the rate of treatment modification being relatively low in ETV-treated patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01726439.
METHODS: Treatment-naive CHB patients initiated on NUC therapy were enrolled from 63 hospitals in tier-2 Chinese cities. Demographic and treatment-specific data were collected, with the objective of reporting real-world treatment patterns and comparing the effectiveness of entecavir (ETV) treatment and lamivudine (LAM)-based treatment. We herein report the first-year data.
RESULTS: 3,408 NUC-naive patients were enrolled and treated with NUCs (53% ETV, 18% LAM-based, 29% other). Overall, 6.6% of patients modified their initial treatment, with ETV having lower rates of treatment modification than other major NUCs (P<0.05). At week 52, the virological response rate was higher with ETV than with LAM-based treatment (77.0% versus 61.4%; P<0.0001). LAM-based treatment was associated with a higher probability of virological breakthrough and genotypic resistance (21.4% and 19.6%, respectively) than ETV (1.6% and 0.1%, respectively; P<0.0001). Treatment-related adverse events or serious adverse events were uncommon.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide observational study, more than 50% of patients with CHB in tier-2 city hospitals in China initially received ETV therapy. Consistent with clinical trial results, ETV was more effective than LAM-based treatments in a real-world setting, with the rate of treatment modification being relatively low in ETV-treated patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01726439.