Abstract

Objective: Hepatitis B virus is an important health problem leading to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and side effects of antiviral drugs used in chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

Methods: Five hundred seventy-two patients who were followed and treated with CHB in our clinic were evaluated retrospectively.

Results: Fifty-six point five of 572 patients were male, 43.5% were female, and the mean age of the patients was 43.4 ± 12.4. Of the patients, 153 (26.8%) used tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), 134 (23.4%) telbivudine (LdT), 114 (20%) entecavir (ETC), 92 (16%) lamivudine (LAM), 26 (4.5%) adefovir (ADV), 27 (4.7%) pegylated interpheron alpha (PEG-IFN-α), and 26 (4.6%) used PEG-IFN-α + nucleoside analogue (NA). No significant difference was detected between the treatment groups in terms of age, sex ratio, fibrosis, histological activity index (HAI) score, baseline platelet, international normalized ratio (INR), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) values (p> 0.05). Seventy (12.3%) of 568 patients were HBeAg (+), 498 (87.7%) were HBeAg (-). At the end of the first year, the virological response rates were 92.5% in LdT, 82.6% in LAM, 72.8% in ETV, 60.7% in TDF, 26.9% in ADV, 22.2% in PEG-IFN-α, 65.3% in PEG-IFN-α+NA groups. Twenty-three point eight of the patients had treatment changes, and 76.3% of these patients preferred TDF as a new treatment. Virological breakthrough was observed at 43.5% in LAM, 13.4% in LdT, 7% in ETV and 0.6% in TDF groups. At the end of 3, 4, and 5 years without treatment change, all patients who continued TDF, ETV, LdT, ADV, and LAM treatment were HBV DNA negative. HBsAg clearance developed in 13 (2.3%) patients. At least one side effect was observed in 169 (29.5%) of all patients, and the group with the most frequent side effects was PEG-IFN-α+NA (92.3%) and PEG-IFN-α (77.8%). Amylase increase in LAM (%3.2), CPK increase in LdT (%27.6), CPK increase in TDF (%3.2) groups were the most common side effects.

Conclusions: The drug with the lowest virological response rate and the most common side effect is PEG-IFN-α, so its use should be limited to selected patient groups. Treatments with the lowest incidence of side effects and development of resistance were found to be with TDF and ETV. Considering the high virological response rates, TDF and ETV should be preferred in the treatment of CHB. When all treatments are evaluated, HBsAg loss and cure rates are inadequate.

Volume 37, Issue 1 Volume 36, Issue 4 Volume 36, Supplement 1 Volume 36, Issue 3 Volume 36, Issue 2 Volume 36, Issue 1 Volume 35, Issue 4 Volume 35, Issue 3 Volume 35, Issue 2 Volume 35, Issue 1 Volume 34, Issue 3 Volume 34, Issue 2 Volume 34, Issue 1 Volume 33, Issue 3 Volume 33, Issue 2 Volume 33, Issue 1 Volume 32, Issue 3 Volume 32, Supplement 1 Volume 32, Supplement 2 Volume 32, Issue 2 Volume 32, Issue 1 Volume 31, Issue 3 Volume 31, Issue 2 Volume 31, Supplement 1 Volume 31, Issue 1 Volume 30, Issue 3 Volume 30, Issue 2 Volume 30, Supplement 1 Volume 30, Issue 1 Volume 29, Issue 3 Volume 29, Issue 2 Volume 29, Issue 1 Volume 28, Supplement 1 Volume 28, Issue 3 Volume 28, Issue 2 Volume 28, Issue 1 Volume 27, Supplement 1 Volume 27, Issue 3 Volume 27, Issue 2 Volume 27, Issue 1 Volume 26, Issue 3 Volume 26, Supplement 1 Volume 26, Issue 2 Volume 26, Issue 1 Volume 25, Issue 3 Volume 25, Issue 2 Volume 25, Issue 1 Volume 24, Issue 3 Volume 24, Issue 2 Volume 24, Issue 1 Volume 23, Issue 3 Volume 23, Issue 2 Volume 23, Issue 1 Volume 22, Issue 3 Volume 22, Issue 2 Volume 22, Issue 1 Volume 21, Issue 3 Volume 21, Supplement 2 Volume 21, Supplement 1 Volume 21, Issue 2 Volume 21, Issue 1 Volume 20, Issue 3 Volume 20, Supplement 2 Volume 20, Issue 2 Volume 20, Issue 1 Volume 20, Supplement 1 Volume 19, Issue 3 Volume 19, Issue 2 Volume 19, Issue 1 Volume 18, Issue 3 Volume 18, Supplement 1 Volume 18, Issue 2 Volume 18, Issue 1 Volume 17, Issue 3 Volume 17, Issue 2 Volume 17, Issue 1 Volume 16, Issue 3 Volume 16, Issue 2 Volume 16, Issue 1 Volume 1, Supplement 1 Volume 15, Issue 3 Volume 15, Issue 2 Volume 15, Issue 1 Volume 14, Issue 3 Volume 14, Issue 2 Volume 14, Issue 1 Volume 13, Issue 3 Volume 13, Issue 2 Volume 13, Supplement 1 Volume 13, Issue 1 Volume 12, Issue 3 Volume 12, Issue 2 Volume 12, Issue 1 Volume 11, Issue 3 Volume 11, Issue 2 Volume 11, Supplement 1 Volume 11, Issue 1 Volume 10, Issue 3 Volume 10, Issue 2 Volume 10, Issue 1 Volume 9, Issue 3 Volume 9, Issue 2 Volume 9, Issue 1 Volume 8, Issue 3 Volume 8, Issue 2 Volume 8, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 3 Volume 7, Issue 1 Volume 7, Issue 2 Volume 7, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 3 Volume 5, Issue 1 Volume 5, Issue 2 Volume 5, Issue 3 Volume 6, Issue 1 Volume 6, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 1 Volume 3, Issue 2 Volume 3, Issue 3 Volume 4, Issue 1 Volume 4, Issue 2 Volume 1, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 1 Volume 2, Issue 2 Volume 2, Issue 3 Volume 1, Issue 1