Current Hepatitis Reports

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 90–94 | Cite as

Partial Response to Entecavir and Tenofovir in Naïve Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: Clinical Relevance and Management

  • Pietro LamperticoEmail author
  • Mauro Viganò
  • Massimo Colombo
Hepatitis B: Therapeutics (P Martin, Section Editor)


Entecavir and tenofovir are the currently recommended first line analogues for treatment of naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B. Despite their overall efficacy and high genetic barrier granting for a low risk of resistance, both regimens will fail to completely suppress HBV DNA at week 48 in 10% of HBeAg-negative and 30% of HBeAg-positive patients. A pre-treatment level >8 log10 IU/mL HBV DNA and poor medication adherence were the most significant predictors of a partial virological response (PVR). While the clinical relevance of PVR is still poorly understood, nucleos(t)ide (NUC)-naive PVR patients who maintained detectable levels of viremia in follow up, were at risk of developing resistance to ETV. Patients with a suboptimal decline of viremia during the first 48 weeks of therapy with ETV and/or a residual viremia >1,000 IU/mL, can be protected by a rescue switch to TDF. Resistance to TDF has not been described so far, yet the long-term risk of PVR in TDF-treated patients remains unclear.


HBV infection Chronic hepatitis Antiviral treatment Entecavir Tenofovir Drug resistance Rescue therapy Add-on strategy Long-term treatment Clinical resistance 



Dr. M. Colombo has received grant support from Merck, Roche, BMS, and Gilead Science, payment for development of educational presentations and travel and accommodation reimbursement from Tibotec, Roche, Novartis, Bayer, BMS, Gilead Science and Vertex; Dr. P. Lampertico has received payment for development of educational presentations and travel and accommodation reimbursement from GSK, Gilead, BMS, and Roche; Dr. M. Viganò reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •• European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of chronic hepatitis B. J Hepatol. 2009;50:227–42. The most recent and update international practice guidelines in the management of patients with chronic hepatitis B.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lok AS, McMahon BJ. Chronic hepatitis B: update 2009. Hepatology. 2009;50:661–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lampertico P. Partial virological response to nucleos(t)ide analogues in naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B: from guidelines to field practice. J Hepatol. 2009;50:644–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zoulim F, Locarnini S. Hepatitis B virus resistance to nucleos(t)ide analogues. Gastroenterology. 2009;137:1593–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang TT, Gish RG, de Man R, et al. BEHoLD AI463022 study group. A comparison of entecavir and lamivudine for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1001–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lai CL, Shouval D, Lok AS, et al. Entecavir versus lamivudine for patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:1011–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Tenney DJ, Rose RE, Baldick CJ, et al. Long-term monitoring shows hepatitis B virus resistance to entecavir in nucleoside-naive patients is rare through 5 years of therapy. Hepatology. 2009;49:1503–14. In this long-term study in NUCs-naïve patients treated with ETV, the 5-year cumulative probability of genotypic ETV-resistance was 1.2%.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leung N, Peng CY, Hann HW, et al. Early hepatitis B virus DNA reduction in hepatitis B e antigen-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B: a randomized international study of entecavir versus adefovir. Hepatology. 2009;49:72–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Liaw YF, Raptopoulou-Gigi M, Cheinquer H, et al. Efficacy and safety of entecavir versus adefovir in chronic hepatitis B patients with hepatic decompensation: a randomized, open-label study. Hepatology. 2011;54:91–100. This randomized, open-label comparative study in subjects with CHB and hepatic decompensation showed that patients treated with ETV had a higher rate of undetectable serum HBV DNA at weeks 48 compared to those treated with ADV.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lampertico P, Viganò M, Facchetti F, et al. Effectiveness and safety of entecavir treatment of nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients: a 4-year multicenter field practice study of 418 patients in Italy. (submitted)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Zoutendijk R, Reijnders JG, Brown A, et al. Entecavir treatment for chronic hepatitis B: adaptation is not needed for the majority of naïve patients with a partial virological response. Hepatology. 2011;54:443–51. This study showed that ETV monotherapy can be continued in NUCs-naïve patients with detectable HBV DNA at week 48, particularly in those with a viral load <1,000 IU/mL because long-term ETV leads to a virological response in the vast majority of those patients.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chon YE, Kim SU, Lee CK, et al. Partial virological response to entecavir in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B. Antivir Ther. 2011;16:469–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lok AS, Trinh HN, Carosi G, et al. Entecavir (ETV) monotherapy for 96 weeks is comparable to combination therapy with ETV plus tenofovir (TDF) in nucleos(t)ide-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB): the below study. Hepatology. 2011;54:471A.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lee JM, Ahn SH, Kim HS, et al. Quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen and hepatitis B e antigen titers in prediction of treatment response to entecavir. Hepatology. 2011;53:1486–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ha NB, Ha NB, Garcia RT, et al. Medication nonadherence with long-term management of patients with hepatitis B e antigen-negative chronic hepatitis B. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:2423–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suzuki F, Akuta N, Suzuki Y, et al. Selection of a virus strain resistant to entecavir in a nucleoside-naıve patient with hepatitis B of genotype H. J Clin Virol. 2007;39:149–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guo JJ, Li QL, Shic XF, et al. Dynamics of hepatitis B virus resistance to entecavir in a nucleoside/nucleotide-naıve patient. Antiviral Res. 2009;81:180–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kobashi H, Fujioka S, Kawaguchi M, et al. Two cases of development of entecavir resistance during entecavir treatment for nucleoside-naive chronic hepatitis B. Hepatol Int. 2009;3:403–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yuen MF, Seto WK, Fung J, et al. Three years of continuous entecavir therapy in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients: viral suppression, viral resistance, and clinical safety. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1264–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    •• Marcellin P, Heathcote EJ, Buti M, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus adefovir dipivoxil for chronic hepatitis B. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2442–55. In this large multinational trial in chronic hepatitis B patients, TDF at a daily dose of 300 mg had superior antiviral efficacy with a similar safety profile as compared with ADV at a daily dose of 10 mg through week 48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marcellin P, Heathcote EJ, Corsa A, et al. No detectable resistance to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) following 240 weeks of treatment in patients with HBeAg + and HBeAg- chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Hepatology. 2011;54:480A.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liaw YF, Sheen IS, Lee CM, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), emtricitabine/TDF, and entecavir in patients with decompensated chronic hepatitis B liver disease. Hepatology. 2011;53:62–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lampertico P, Soffredini R, Viganò M, et al. 2-year effectiveness and safety of tenofovir in 302 NUC-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B: a multicenter European study in clinical practice. Hepatology. 2011;54:1041A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carey I, Nguyen HL, Joe D, et al. De-novo antiviral therapy with nucleos(t)ide analogues in “real-life” patients with chronic hepatitis B infection: comparison of virological response between lamivudine + adefovir vs entecavir vs tenofovir therapy. Hepatology. 2011;54:1022A.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pan C, Hu K, Yu AS, et al. Response to tenofovir monotherapy in chronic hepatitis B patients with prior suboptimal response to entecavir. J Viral Hep 2011, in pressGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarrecchia C, Svicher V, Volpi A, et al. Successful switch to tenofovir after suboptimal response to entecavir in an immunocompromised patient with chronic hepatitis B and without genotypic hepatitis B virus resistance. Infection. 2011;39:367–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pietro Lampertico
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mauro Viganò
    • 2
  • Massimo Colombo
    • 1
  1. 1.1st Division of Gastroenterology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda—Ospedale Maggiore PoliclinicoUniversità di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.Hepatology Unit, Ospedale San GiuseppeUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations