title: A comparison of treatment with adefovir and entecavir for chronic hepatitis B in China: The 2-year results of a prospective study: Adefovir versus Entercavir for Chronic Hepatitis B.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The reduction of hepatitis B virus replication to minimal levels is emerging as key therapeutic goal in chronic hepatitis B (CHB).
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacies of adefovir (ADV) and entecavir (ETV) in CHB.
  
  
  METHODS
  In this prospective study, 100 naïve patients were assigned to treatment with ADV (33 HBeAg-positive and 19 HBeAg-negative patients) or ETV (32 HBeAg-positive and 16 HBeAg-negative patients). The primary efficacy outcome was ALT normalization, reduction in HBV DNA, and seroconversion of HBeAg. Second efficacy outcomes included resistance and safety. Comparisons of quantitative and qualitative variables between groups were analyzed by student t-test and chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test), respectively.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Among HBeAg-positive patients, ETV was superior to ADV with respect to mean reduction in HBV DNA (-7.5 versus -6.3, respectively, at Month 24, p = 0.003) and the percentage of those with HBV DNA < 103 copies/mL at Month 24 [96.9% (31/32) vs. 69.7% (23/33), respectively, p = 0.002] and < 300 copies/mL at Month 24 [84.4% (27/32) vs. 54.5% (18/33), respectively, p = 0.004]. But, the rates of ALT normalization and HBeAg seroconversion between the groups were similar [87.9% (29/33) vs. 96.9% (31/32), respectively, p=0.355; and 24.2% (8/33) vs. 25.0% (8/32), respectively, p = 0.943]. In HBeAg-negative patients who received ETV or ADV, the reduction in HBV DNA (-6.8 versus -5.9, respectively, p = 0.192), percentage of ALT normalization [100% (16/16) vs. 78.9% (15/19), respectively, p=0.109], HBV DNA < 103 copies/mL [100% (16/16) vs. 89.5% (17/19), respectively, p = 0.489], and HBV DNA < 300 copies/mL [100% (16/16) vs. 84.2% (16/19), respectively, p = 0.234] were similar. No ETV- or ADV-associated mutations were observed, and both agents were well tolerated.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  ETV and ADV are effective therapies for CHB. In HBeAg-positive patients, the efficacy of ETV is significantly superior to that of ADV, and in HBeAg-negative patients, the agents effect similar biochemical and virological responses.
authors.affiliation: Center of Infectious Diseases, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
authors.forename: En Qiang
authors.initials: EQ
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Tao You
authors.initials: TY
authors.lastname: Zhou
authors.forename: Li
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Cong
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Liu
authors.forename: Ming
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Lei
authors.forename: Hong
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Tang
references.citation: Gastroenterology. 2007 Apr;132(4):1574-85
references.pmid: 17408658
references.citation: J Virol. 2008 Nov;82(22):10986-97
references.pmid: 18799575
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Dec 20;362(9401):2089-94
references.pmid: 14697813
references.citation: Hepatology. 2008 Feb;47(2):447-54
references.pmid: 18080339
references.citation: Chin Med J (Engl). 2007 Dec 20;120(24):2157-8
references.pmid: 18167195
references.citation: Antivir Ther. 2009;14(7):985-93
references.pmid: 19918102
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 9;354(10):1011-20
references.pmid: 16525138
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2007 Sep;47(3):366-72
references.pmid: 17561304
references.citation: J Viral Hepat. 2010 Feb 1;17(2):115-22
references.pmid: 19874478
references.citation: Adv Exp Med Biol. 2010;659:175-88
references.pmid: 20204764
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2007 Dec 20;357(25):2576-88
references.pmid: 18094378
references.citation: Antivir Ther. 2008;13(8):1029-37
references.pmid: 19195328
references.citation: Chin Med J (Engl). 2007 Dec 20;120(24):2159-73
references.pmid: 18167196
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2008 May;48(5):714-20
references.pmid: 18207280
references.citation: Hepatol Int. 2008 Dec;2(4):486-93
references.pmid: 19669324
references.citation: J Viral Hepat. 2004 Mar;11(2):97-107
references.pmid: 14996343
references.citation: Hepatology. 2000 Oct;32(4 Pt 1):847-51
references.pmid: 11003633
references.citation: Semin Liver Dis. 2006 May;26(2):162-70
references.pmid: 16673294
references.citation: J Gastroenterol. 2009;44(6):601-7
references.pmid: 19387534
references.citation: Hepatology. 2009 Jan;49(1):72-9
references.pmid: 19065670
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Apr 1;143(7):718-24
references.pmid: 8651234
references.citation: J Clin Microbiol. 2009 Jun;47(6):1830-6
references.pmid: 19386857
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2009 Feb;50(2):227-42
references.pmid: 19054588
references.citation: J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999 May;14 Suppl:S48-52
references.pmid: 10382639
references.citation: Drugs Today (Barc). 2009 Sep;45(9):679-85
references.pmid: 19956809
references.citation: Hepatol Int. 2007 Sep;1(3):373-81
references.pmid: 19669332
references.citation: Hepatol Int. 2008 Sep;2(3):263-83
references.pmid: 19669255