Dataset Information

Randomised clinical trial: 48 weeks of treatment with tenofovir amibufenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for patients with chronic hepatitis B.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Tenofovir amibufenamide (TMF) can provide more efficient delivery than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF).

Aim

To compare the efficacy and safety of TMF and TDF for 48 weeks in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

Methods

We performed a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority study at 49 sites in China. Patients with CHB were assigned (2:1) to receive either 25 mg TMF or 300 mg TDF with matching placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA less than 20 IU/mL at week 48. We also assessed safety, particularly bone, renal and metabolic abnormalities.

Results

We randomised 1002 eligible patients. The baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. After a median 48 weeks of treatment, the non-inferiority criterion was met in all analysis sets. In the HBeAg-positive population, 50.2% of patients receiving TMF and 53.7% receiving TDF achieved HBV DNA less than 20 IU/mL. In the HBeAg-negative population, 88.9% and 87.8%, respectively, achieved HBV DNA less than 20 IU/mL in the TMF and TDF groups. Patients receiving TMF had significantly less decrease in bone mineral density at both hip (P < 0.001) and spine (P < 0.001), and a smaller increase in serum creatinine at week 48 (P < 0.05). Other safety results were similar between groups.

Conclusion

TMF was non-inferior to TDF in terms of anti-HBV efficacy and showed better bone and renal safety. (NCT03903796).

SUBMITTER: Liu Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292801 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is a prodrug of a nucleotide analogue. As an antiviral drug, TDF has been proposed in the first-line treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Qingzhong, a brand name of TDF, commercialized by Jiangsu Chia-tai Tianqing Pharmaceutical Co Ltd., and Viread, another brand name of TDF, commercialized by GlaxoSmithKline, have both been approved by the State Food and Drug Administration, China.AimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of the two TDF agents in the treatment of Chinese CHB patients.MethodsThis trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier number of NCT02287857. A total of 330 Chinese CHB patients, among which 232 were hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive, were included in this 5-year-long, multicenter, double-blinded, double-dummy, randomized-controlled, non-inferiority phase III trial. The participants were initially randomized into two groups: Group A (n = 161), in which the participants received 300 mg Qingzhong once a day for 48 wk; and Group B, in which the participants received 300 mg Viread once a day for 48 wk. Starting from week 49, all the participants in Groups A and B received 300 mg Qingzhong once a day until the 96th week. In this study, the primary endpoint was the decrease in plasma level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA at the 96th week, while the secondary endpoints were suppression of HBV replication, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, HBeAg loss, and HBeAg seroconversion rates.ResultsFor the participants with HBeAg-positive CHB, the decrease in mean HBV DNA level relative to the baseline value was comparable between Groups A and B (5.77 vs 5.73 log10 IU/mL, P > 0.05) at the 96th week. In addition, similar percentages of HBeAg-positive participants in the two groups exhibited undetectable levels of HBV DNA, HBeAg loss, and HBeAg seroconversion (71.05% vs 77.97%, 31.00% vs 27.27%, and 20.22% vs 15.79%, respectively, in Group A vs Group B; P > 0.05). For the participants with HBeAg-negative CHB, the decrease in mean HBV DNA level relative to the baseline value was also comparable between Groups A and B (4.46 vs 4.70 log10 IU/mL, P > 0.05) at the 96th week. In addition, similar percentages of HBeAg-negative participants in the two groups exhibited undetectable levels of HBV DNA (87.23% vs 94.12% in Group A vs Group B, respectively; P > 0.05). Finally, similar percentages of CHB patients (HBeAg-positive or HBeAg-negative) in the two groups exhibited normalization of ALT (80.14% vs 84.57% in Group A vs Group B, respectively; P > 0.05), and similar incidences of adverse events were observed (106 vs 104 in Group A vs Group B, respectively; P > 0.05).ConclusionBoth Qingzhong and Viread are effective and safe in the treatment of Chinese CHB patients according to the results of our clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundIn human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is associated with greater increases in all fasting cholesterol subgroups compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Because lipid abnormalities may contribute to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, cardiovascular risk assessment is integral to routine HIV care. This post hoc study evaluates the impact of lipid changes on predicted atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk and statin eligibility in treatment-naive adults living with HIV treated with TAF or TDF.MethodsParticipants (N = 1744) were randomized (1:1) to initiate TAF or TDF, each coformulated with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine (studies GS-US-292-0104 and GS-US-292-0111). Eligibility for statin therapy and estimated 10-year ASCVD risk among adults aged 40-79 years treated with TAF or TDF for 96 weeks (W96) were analyzed based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations. Categorical shifts in 10-year ASCVD risk from <7.5% to ≥7.5% by W96 on TAF versus TDF were calculated.ResultsParticipants initiating TAF versus TDF in the overall study population showed small but significant increases in median fasting lipid parameters at W96, including total cholesterol (191 vs 177 mg/dL; P < .001), low-density lipoprotein ([LDL] 119 vs 112 mg/dL; P < .001), and high-density lipoprotein ([HDL] 51 vs 48 mg/dL; P < .001), respectively. At baseline, 18% and 23% on TAF versus TDF had a 10-year ASCVD risk score ≥7.5%, with mean risk scores low overall for TAF versus TDF at baseline (4.9% vs 5.4%; P = .35) and W96 (6.1% vs 6.2%; P = .04). Increases in ASCVD risk from baseline to W96 were driven by both increasing age and changes in total cholesterol (TC) and HDL cholesterol. At W96, TC/HDL ratios (median) were 3.7 for both groups (P = .69). There was no difference between shifts in categorical risk for TAF versus TDF (9% vs 5%; P = .19). Eligibility for high-intensity statin therapy were similar for TAF versus TDF groups (19% vs 21%; P = .47).ConclusionsLipid changes with TAF as part of coformulated regimens do not substantively affect CVD risk profiles compared with TDF.