Asia has intermediate-to-high prevalence and high morbidity of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The use of guideline-recommended nucleos(t)ide analogs with high barrier to resistance, such as entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), is one of the key interventions for curbing HBV infection and associated morbidity in Asia. However, there are some challenges to the use of ETV and TDF; while ETV is associated with high resistance in lamivudine (LAM)-exposed (especially LAM-refractory) patients; bone and renal safety issues are a major concern with TDF. Hence, a panel of twenty-eight expert hepatologists from Asia convened, reviewed the literature, and developed the current expert opinion-based review article for the use of TAF in the resource-constrained settings in Asia. This article provides a comprehensive review of two large, phase 3, double-blind, randomized controlled trials of TAF versus TDF in HBeAg-negative (study 0108) and HBeAg-positive (study 0110) chronic HBV patients (> 70% Asians). These studies revealed as follows: (1) non-inferiority for the proportion of patients who had HBV DNA
Asia has an intermediate-to-high prevalence of and high morbidity and mortality from hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Optimization of diagnosis and initiation of treatment is one of the crucial strategies for lowering disease burden in this region. Therefore, a panel of 24 experts from 10 Asian countries convened, and reviewed the literature, to develop consensus guidance on diagnosis and initiation of treatment of HBV infection in resource-limited Asian settings. The panel proposed 11 recommendations related to diagnosis, pre-treatment assessment, and indications of therapy of HBV infection, and management of HBV-infected patients with co-infections. In resource-limited Asian settings, testing for hepatitis B surface antigen may be considered as the primary test for diagnosis of HBV infection. Pre-treatment assessments should include tests for complete blood count, liver and renal function, hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg), anti-HBe, HBV DNA, co-infection markers and assessment of severity of liver disease. Noninvasive tests such as AST-to-platelet ratio index, fibrosis score 4 or transient elastography may be used as alternatives to liver biopsy for assessing disease severity. Considering the high burden of HBV infection in Asia, the panel adopted an aggressive approach, and recommended initiation of antiviral therapy in all HBV-infected, compensated or decompensated cirrhotic individuals with detectable HBV DNA levels, regardless of HBeAg status or alanine transaminase levels. The panel also developed a simple algorithm for guiding the initiation of treatment in noncirrhotic, HBV-infected individuals. The recommendations proposed herein, may help guide clinicians, to optimize the diagnosis and improvise the treatment rates for HBV infection in Asia.
Purpose Selective internal radiation therapy or radioembolization (RE) shows efficacy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) limited to the liver. This study compared the safety and efficacy of RE and sorafenib in patients with locally advanced HCC. Patients and Methods SIRveNIB (selective internal radiation therapy v sorafenib), an open-label, investigator-initiated, phase III trial, compared yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres RE with sorafenib 800 mg/d in patients with locally advanced HCC in a two-tailed study designed for superiority/detriment. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 and stratified by center and presence of portal vein thrombosis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in the treated population. Results A total of 360 patients were randomly assigned (RE, 182; sorafenib, 178) from 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In the RE and sorafenib groups, 28.6% and 9.0%, respectively, failed to receive assigned therapy without significant cross-over to either group. Median OS was 8.8 and 10.0 months with RE and sorafenib, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4; P = .36). A total of 1,468 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported (RE, 437; sorafenib, 1,031). Significantly fewer patients in the RE than sorafenib group had grade ≥ 3 AEs (36 of 130 [27.7%]) v 82 of 162 [50.6%]; P < .001). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were ascites (five of 130 [3.8%] v four of 162 [2.5%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2.3%] v two [1.2%] patients), anemia (zero v four [2.5%] patients), and radiation hepatitis (two [1.5%] v zero [0%] patients). Fewer patients in the RE group (27 of 130 [20.8%]) than in the sorafenib group (57 of 162 [35.2%]) had serious AEs. Conclusion In patients with locally advanced HCC, OS did not differ significantly between RE and sorafenib. The improved toxicity profile of RE may inform treatment choice in selected patients.