Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Virology Journal and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Review

Efficacy and resistance in de novo combination lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil therapy versus entecavir monotherapy for the treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B: a meta-analysis

Fen Liu1, Xiwei Wang12, Fang Wei1, Huaidong Hu12, Dazhi Zhang12, Peng Hu12* and Hong Ren12*

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Infectious Diseases, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

2 Department of Infectious Diseases, Institute for Viral Hepatitis, Key Laboratory of Molecular Biology for Infectious Diseases, Ministry of Education, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China

For all author emails, please log on.

Virology Journal 2014, 11:59  doi:10.1186/1743-422X-11-59

Published: 28 March 2014

Abstract

Background

Currently, there is no consensus on the efficacy and resistance of de novo combination therapy versus monotherapy for treatment naive patients of chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and resistance of de novo combination of lamivudine (LAM) and adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) compared with entecavir (ETV) monotherapy for nucleos(t)ide–naive patients with CHB.

Study design

Publications on the effectiveness and resistance of LAM plus ADV versus ETV monotherapy for nucleos(t)ide-naive patients with CHB were identified by a search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of science, OVID, and CBM (Chinese Biological Medical Literature) until May 1, 2013. Biochemical response, hepatitis B e antigen seroconversion, and viroligic response were extracted and combined to obtain an integrated result. Viral resistance and safety were reviewed.

Results

Five eligible studies (328 patients in total) were included in the analysis. LAM plus ADV combination therapy produced more rapid HBV DNA reduction rate at 12 weeks than that of ETV monotherapy. At 48 weeks, the combination group had superior viroligic response rates compared with ETV group (90.0% vs. 78.9%, P=0.01). The difference in the ALT normalization and HBeAg seroconversion rates was not found. At week 96, LAM + ADV was more effective than ETV in ALT normalization [RR = 1. 11, 95% CI (1.02, 1.21), P =0.01] and HBeAg seroconversion [RR = 2.00, 95% CI (1.26, 3.18, P=0.003)], and no significant difference was found in the virologic response (P =0.23). No viral resistance occurred in combination therapy and six patients in ETV group were experienced with viral breakthrough. Both groups were well tolerated.

Conclusion

The de novo LAM plus ADV combination therapy for treatment-naïve patients with CHB was greater than ETV monotherapy in both biochemical response and HBeAg seroconversion rate up to 96 weeks. The rate of emergence of viral resistance in the combination group was less than that in the ETV monotherapy.

Keywords:
Adefovir dipivoxil; Combination; De novo; Entecavir; Lamivudine; Naive