Search

Aim: Entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) are first‐line nucleos(t)ide analogues for hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐infected patients. However, consecutive TDF treatment causes renal dysfunction, and the safety and efficacy of TAF have not been established in severe renal dysfunction patients, including hemodialysis patients. The efficacy and safety of ETV in these populations has not been clarified. The study aimed to clarify this. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study, between 2006 and 2018, a total of 567 HBV‐infected patients treated with ETV monotherapy were screened. Patients were included if >20 years old, treated with ETV monotherapy for >1 year, and had proper clinical information. The efficacy of ETV and changes in renal function were evaluated according to renal function. Results: A total of 273 patients were included: 9.2% (25/273), 1.8% (5/273), and 3.7% (10/273) had chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage G3, CKD stage G4/5, and were on hemodialysis, respectively. Overall, 84.2%, 94.0%, and 96.2% of patients experienced serum HBV‐DNA disappearance at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, after treatment initiation. In patients with CKD stage G3–5, estimated glomerular filtration rate tended to restore with time, which was in contrast to patients without renal dysfunction. The rate of disappearance in serum HBV‐DNA, alanine transaminase normalization, and virological breakthrough was similar between patients with or without renal dysfunction. ETV showed high efficacy for all 10 hemodialysis patients without virological breakthrough. Conclusions: Entecavir for HBV‐infected patients with severe renal dysfunction, including hemodialysis patients, is highly effective and does not affect renal function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The safety and efficacy of sofosbuvir (SOF) and ribavirin (RBV) have not been well clarified in patients with renal dysfunction because clinical trials have not included such patients. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of SOF and RBV for genotype 2 hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐infected patients with renal dysfunction. Methods: The study included genotype 2 HCV‐infected patients who received SOF and RBV between July 2014 and May 2017. The sustained virologic response (SVR) after the treatment and safety during the therapy were evaluated according to renal function. Results: A total of 231 patients were included in this study. The median age was 62 years old, and 45.9% (106/231) were men. Of the 231 patients, 191 (82.8%) and 40 (17.2%) were classified as having chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages G1/2 and G3, respectively. The overall SVR rate was 97% (224/231). The SVR rates in patients with CKD stages G1, 2, G3a, and G3b were 98.1%, 98.6%, 87.9%, and 100%, respectively, and this therapy was tolerated. Multivariate analysis indicated that renal dysfunction was significantly associated with a non‐SVR (odds ratio, 6.963; 95% confidence interval, 1.494–32.41; P = 0.013). The patients with renal dysfunction were older, had advanced liver fibrosis, lower baseline platelet and hemoglobin levels, and a higher rate of RBV dose reduction. Conclusions: Sofosbuvir and RBV therapy is highly effective and safe for genotype 2 HCV‐infected Japanese patients. However, attention should be paid to baseline renal function when SOF‐ and RBV‐containing regimens are used for patients with renal dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Sofosbuvir (SOF), a nucleotide analog pro-drug, targets hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS5B polymerase and shows potential for treating HCV infection, given its high efficacy and good barrier to resistance. However, in addition to the rare resistant-associated variant (RAV) of non-structural protein NS5B S282T, several new potential RAVs of SOF have been reported, especially related to HCV genotype 1b. However, the prevalence and characteristics of these RAVs have not been clarified. Methods We analyzed the prevalence of variants in the NS3/NS5A/NS5B regions in 96 patients treated with simeprevir (SMV) combination therapy, and the prevalence of RAVs in patients showing treatment failure was determined by direct- or deep-sequencing methods. Associations between these potential RAVs and clinical factors were also analyzed. Results Prevalence of NS5B RAV C316N was high (46.9%, 45/96), whereas that of NS5B L159F was relatively low (1.04%, 1/96); however, deep sequencing showed that 30.0% of patients with C316N also had NS5B RAV L159F. Additionally, there was no significant relationship between the existence of potential NS5B and NS5A or NS3 RAVs. However, the presence of NS5B C316N was significantly associated with an HCV core amino acid 91 substitution. No significant difference was detected between each RAV and sustained virological response in simeprevir combination therapy. Conclusion We provide clear evidence of the high prevalence of two potential naturally occurring NS5B RAVs (C316N and L159F) in Japan. It may be important to pay particular attention to these new potential RAVs, especially when using SOF-based therapy in patients with RAVs due to previous direct-acting antiviral therapy failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]