The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
A correction has been published: N Engl J Med 2006;354(17):1863.

Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 354:1011-1020 March 9, 2006 Number 10
NextNext

Entecavir versus Lamivudine for Patients with HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B
Ching-Lung Lai, M.D., Daniel Shouval, M.D., Anna S. Lok, M.D., Ting-Tsung Chang, M.D., Hugo Cheinquer, M.D., Zachary Goodman, M.D., Ph.D., Deborah DeHertogh, M.D., Richard Wilber, M.D., Richard C. Zink, Ph.D., Anne Cross, Ph.D., Richard Colonno, Ph.D., Lori Fernandes, M.D., for the BEHoLD AI463027 Study Group

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF
-PDA Full Text
-PowerPoint Slide Set

Commentary
-Editorial
 by Hoofnagle, J. H.

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited
-E-mail When Letters Appear

More Information
-Related Article
ABSTRACT

Background Entecavir is a potent and selective antiviral agent that has demonstrated efficacy in phase 2 studies in patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)–negative chronic hepatitis B.

Methods In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 648 patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B who had not previously been treated with a nucleoside analogue to receive 0.5 mg of entecavir or 100 mg of lamivudine once daily for a minimum of 52 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was histologic improvement (a decrease by at least two points in the Knodell necroinflammatory score, without worsening of fibrosis).

Results Histologic improvement after 48 weeks of treatment occurred in 208 of 296 patients in the entecavir group who had adequate baseline liver-biopsy specimens that could be evaluated (70 percent), as compared with 174 of 287 such patients in the lamivudine group (61 percent, P=0.01). More patients in the entecavir group than in the lamivudine group had undetectable serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels according to a polymerase-chain-reaction assay (90 percent vs. 72 percent, P<0.001) and normalization of alanine aminotransferase levels (78 percent vs. 71 percent, P=0.045). The mean reduction in serum HBV DNA levels from baseline to week 48 was greater with entecavir than with lamivudine (5.0 vs. 4.5 log [on a base-10 scale] copies per milliliter, P<0.001). There was no evidence of resistance to entecavir. Safety and adverse-event profiles were similar in the two groups.

Conclusions Among patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B who had not previously been treated with a nucleoside analogue, the rates of histologic improvement, virologic response, and normalization of alanine aminotransferase levels were significantly higher at 48 weeks with entecavir than with lamivudine. The safety profile of the two agents was similar, and there was no evidence of viral resistance to entecavir. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00035789 [ClinicalTrials.gov] .)


Source Information

From the Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China (C.-L.L.); Hadassah-Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel (D.S.); University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (A.S.L.); National Cheng Kung University Medical College, Tainan, Taiwan (T.-T.C.); Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (H.C.); Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C. (Z.G.); University of Connecticut, Farmington (D.D.); and Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute, Wallingford, Conn. (R.W., R.C.Z., A.C., R.C., L.F.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Lai at the University Department of Medicine, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China, or at hrmelcl{at}hkucc.hku.hk.

Full Text of this Article


This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.