Suppr超能文献

替诺福韦艾拉酚胺与富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯治疗 HBeAg 阳性慢性乙型肝炎病毒感染:一项随机、双盲、III 期、非劣效性试验。

Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

机构信息

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.

出版信息

Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Nov;1(3):185-195. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30024-3. Epub 2016 Sep 22.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel prodrug formulated to deliver the active metabolite to target cells more efficiently than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate at a lower dose, thereby reducing systemic exposure. In patients with HIV, tenofovir alafenamide was as efficacious as tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, with reduced bone and renal toxic effects. We compared the efficacy and safety of the two drugs in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in a non-inferiority study.

METHODS

We did this ongoing double-blind, non-inferiority study in 161 outpatient centres in 19 countries. Patients with chronic HBV infection who were positive for the hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either 25 mg tenofovir alafenamide or 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with matching placebo. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated allocation sequence (block size six) stratified by plasma HBV DNA concentration and previous treatment experience. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL at week 48 in all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug using a missing-equals-failed approach. The pre-specified non-inferiority margin was 10%. Key prespecified safety endpoints were bone and renal parameters at week 48. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01940471.

FINDINGS

Of the 1473 patients screened from Sept 11, 2013, to Dec 20, 2014, 875 eligible patients were randomly assigned and 873 received treatment (581 with tenofovir alafenamide and 292 with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). 371 (64%) patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide had HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL at week 48, which was non-inferior to the 195 (67%) of patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate who had HBV DNA less than 29 IU/mL (adjusted difference -3·6% [95% CI -9·8 to 2·6]; p=0·25). Patients given tenofovir alafenamide had a significantly smaller decrease in bone mineral density at hip (mean change -0·10% [95% CI -0·29 to 0·09] vs -1·72% [-2·02 to -1·41]; adjusted difference 1·62 [1·27 to 1·96]; p<0·0001) and at spine (mean change -0·42% [-0·66 to -0·17] vs -2·29% [-2·67 to -1·92]; adjusted difference 1·88 [1·44 to 2·31]; p<0·0001) as well as smaller mean increases in serum creatinine at week 48 (0·01 mg/dL [0·00-0·02] vs 0·03 mg/dL [0·02-0·04]; p=0·02). The most common adverse events overall were upper respiratory tract infection (51 [9%] of 581 patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide vs 22 [8%] of 292 patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate), nasopharyngitis (56 [10%] vs 16 [5%]), and headache (42 [7%] vs 22 [8%]). 22 (4%) patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide and 12 (4%) patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate experienced serious adverse events, none of which was deemed by the investigator to be related to study treatment. 187 (32%) of 581 patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group and 96 (33%) of 292 patients in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group had grade 3 or 4 laboratory abnormalities, the most common of which were elevations in ALT (62 [11%] of 577 patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide and 36 [13%] of 288 patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) and AST (20 [3%] of 577 patients receiving tenofovir alafenamide and 19 [7%] of 288 patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate).

INTERPRETATION

In patients with HBeAg-positive HBV infection, tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and had improved bone and renal effects. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes.

FUNDING

Gilead Sciences.

摘要

背景

替诺福韦艾拉酚胺是一种新的前药,与富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯相比,它在较低剂量下能更有效地将活性代谢物递送到靶细胞,从而降低全身暴露量。在 HIV 患者中,替诺福韦艾拉酚胺与富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯疗效相当,但骨和肾毒性作用降低。我们在一项非劣效性研究中比较了这两种药物在 HBeAg 阳性慢性乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)感染患者中的疗效和安全性。

方法

我们在 19 个国家的 161 个门诊中心进行了这项正在进行的双盲、非劣效性研究。慢性 HBV 感染且 HBeAg 阳性的患者被随机(2:1)接受 25mg 替诺福韦艾拉酚胺或 300mg 富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯联合匹配安慰剂治疗。随机分组采用计算机生成的分配序列(块大小为 6),按血浆 HBV DNA 浓度和既往治疗经验分层。主要疗效终点是所有随机分组且至少接受一剂研究药物的患者在第 48 周时 HBV DNA 小于 29IU/mL 的比例,采用缺失值等效失败法进行评估。预先设定的非劣效性边界为 10%。关键的预先指定的安全性终点是第 48 周时的骨和肾功能参数。这项研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT01940471。

结果

从 2013 年 9 月 11 日至 2014 年 12 月 20 日筛选的 1473 名患者中,有 875 名符合条件的患者被随机分组,873 名患者接受了治疗(581 名接受替诺福韦艾拉酚胺,292 名接受富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯)。371(64%)名接受替诺福韦艾拉酚胺治疗的患者在第 48 周时 HBV DNA 小于 29IU/mL,与接受富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯治疗的 195(67%)名患者相比,疗效非劣效(调整差异-3·6%[95%CI -9·8 至 2·6];p=0·25)。接受替诺福韦艾拉酚胺治疗的患者在髋部(平均变化-0·10%[95%CI -0·29 至 0·09]与-1·72%[-2·02 至 -1·41];调整差异 1·62[1·27 至 1·96];p<0·0001)和脊柱(平均变化-0·42%[-0·66 至 -0·17]与-2·29%[-2·67 至 -1·92];调整差异 1·88[1·44 至 2·31];p<0·0001)的骨密度下降幅度较小,第 48 周时血清肌酐平均增加(0·01mg/dL[0·00-0·02]与 0·03mg/dL[0·02-0·04];p=0·02)。总体而言,最常见的不良事件是上呼吸道感染(581 名接受替诺福韦艾拉酚胺治疗的患者中有 51 例[9%],292 名接受富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯治疗的患者中有 22 例[8%])、鼻咽炎(56 例[10%]与 16 例[5%])和头痛(42 例[7%]与 22 例[8%])。接受替诺福韦艾拉酚胺治疗的患者中有 22 例(4%)和接受富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯治疗的患者中有 12 例(4%)发生严重不良事件,均未被研究者认为与研究治疗相关。替诺福韦艾拉酚胺组 581 名患者中有 187 名(32%)和富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯组 292 名患者中有 96 名(33%)出现 3 级或 4 级实验室异常,最常见的是 ALT 升高(62 例[11%]接受替诺福韦艾拉酚胺治疗的患者和 36 例[13%]接受富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯治疗的患者)和 AST 升高(20 例[3%]接受替诺福韦艾拉酚胺治疗的患者和 19 例[7%]接受富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯治疗的患者)。

解释

在 HBeAg 阳性 HBV 感染患者中,替诺福韦艾拉酚胺与富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯相比非劣效,且具有改善的骨和肾作用。需要更长时间的随访以更好地了解这些变化的临床影响。

经费

吉利德科学公司。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验