Search

Background & Aims The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines for treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection have changed with time. We assessed rates of treatment evaluation and initiation in patients with chronic HBV infection from different practice settings in the past 14 years. Methods Treatment-naive patients with chronic HBV infection were recruited from different practice settings in California from January 2002 through December 2016. The study population comprised 4130 consecutive, treatment-naive patients with chronic HBV infection seen by community primary care physicians (n = 616), community gastroenterologists (n = 2251), or university hepatologists (n = 1263). Treatment eligibility was assessed using data from the first 6 months after initial presentation based on AASLD criteria adjusted for changes over time. Results Within the first 6 months of care, the proportions of patients evaluated by all 3 relevant tests (measurements of alanine aminotransferase, hepatitis B virus e antigen, and HBV DNA levels) were as follows: 36.69% in community primary care, 59.80% in gastroenterologist care, and 79.97% in hepatology care (P <.0001 among the 3 groups). Higher proportions of patients were eligible for treatment in specialty practices: 12.76% in community primary care, 24.96% in gastroenterologist care, and 29.43% in hepatology care (P <.0001). Among treatment-eligible patients, there was no significant difference in the proportions of patients who began antiviral therapy between those receiving treatment from a gastroenterologist (55.65%) vs a hepatologist (57.90%; P =.56). Of 243 evaluable patients receiving community primary care, only 31 were eligible for treatment and only 12 of these (38.71%) received treatment. Conclusions In an analysis of patients receiving care for chronic HBV infection, we found the proportions evaluated and receiving treatment to be suboptimal, according to AASLD criteria, in all practice settings. However, rates of evaluation and treatment were lowest for patients receiving community primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims It is unclear whether drugs used to treat chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection cause significant renal impairment. We compare adjusted mean estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR; mL/min/1.73 m2) of patients with chronic HBV infection treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs patients treated with entecavir. Methods We performed a retrospective study of patients with chronic HBV infections treated with TDF (n = 239) or entecavir (n = 171), from 2000 through 2016, followed for a mean time of 43–46 months. Levels of serum creatinine were measured ≥12 months while patients received treatment. Patients did not have prior exposure to adefovir or HCV, HDV, or HIV co-infection. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) for age, sex, presence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, baseline eGFR, cirrhosis, and follow-up duration. We performed multivariate generalized linear modeling, adjusting for cirrhosis, diabetes, and hypertension, to estimate adjusted mean eGFR for matched and unmatched cohorts. Cox regression was used to identify predictors of renal impairment. Results eGFRs were ≥60, after PSM, in 116 patients given entecavir and in 116 patients given TDF; eGFRs were <60 in 32 patients given entecavir and 26 patients given TDF. Multivariate generalized linear modeling of the unmatched overall and <60 eGFR cohorts revealed significantly lower adjusted mean eGFRs in patients given TDF (all P <.001). However, in the eGFR ≥60 PSM cohort, the adjusted mean eGFR was similar between patients receiving either treatment. In Cox regression analysis, TDF was not associated with mild or moderate renal impairment compared with entecavir. Conclusion In a retrospective study of patients with chronic HBV infections treated with TDF vs entecavir, we found that TDF was not associated with higher risk of worsening renal function during short- or intermediate-term follow-up periods, among patients without significant renal impairment. Additional studies, with longer follow-up periods, are needed because treatment for chronic HBV infection is generally long term or life-long. For patients with baseline renal impairment, significant renal decline was among patients given TDF compared to patients given entecavir. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]