4.4 Article

Effectiveness of entecavir in chronic hepatitis B NUC-naive patients in routine clinical practice

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 65, 期 8, 页码 866-870

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02719.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Registration studies showed entecavir (ETV) to be effective and safe in NUC-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV), but its effectiveness in routine clinical practice is unknown. Materials and methods: Sixty-nine HBeAg positive and negative NUC naive chronic HBV patients were treated with ETV for 110 weeks. 63% were HBeAg positive, 16% were cirrhotics, mean HBV-DNA was 7.09 log IU/ml and mean ALT was 157 IU/ml. Results: Sixty-one (88%) patients achieved undetectable DNA, with 46%, 77% and 100% virological response rates at week 24, 48 and 96 of treatment, respectively. Thirty-seven (84%) patients in the HBeAg-positive population achieved undetectable DNA, with 67% and 100% virological response rates at week 48 and 96 of treatment, respectively. Twenty-four (96%) patients in the HBeAg-negative population achieved undetectable DNA, with 91% and 100% virological response rates at week 48 and 96 of treatment, respectively. Twenty-three (53%) patients cleared HBeAg and 19 (44%) patients seroconverted to antiHBe positive status; seven (10%) patients cleared hepatitis B surface antigen and five (7%) patients developed antiHBs. At the end of the study, 10 patients successfully stopped therapy: nine HBeAg positive (four developed antiHBs positive) and one HBeAg negative. None of the patients had primary non-response. ETV resistance was not tested. None of the patients developed hepatocellular carcinoma, underwent liver transplantation or died because of liver-related events. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: The ETV monotherapy showed high virological response rates, a favourable safety profile for NUC-naive HBeAg-positive and negative patients treated in routine clinical practice.

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

4.4
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