PREAMBLE
Background and Aims
Clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) were
originally published in 2004 by the Korean Association for the Study of the
Liver (KASL) in order to provide specific medical information regarding CHB that
would facilitate treatment of infected patients. Other than an update on
treatment of antiviral resistance in 2014, which is a partial revision, the
guidelines for the treatment of CHB have been revised entirely three times in
2007, 2011, and 2015. The Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver
(APASL), the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), and the
American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) also presented and
continued to revise their clinical practice guidelines, and the latest updates
were in 2015, 2017, and 2018. However, since the medical environment in each
country is somewhat different depending on race, region, institution, and
economic conditions, it is necessary to revise the Korean guidelines to reflect
our medical environment and research results.
The clinical practice guidelines committee has begun revising guidelines to
reflect the results of Korean and international research published since the
revision of the KASL clinical practice guidelines for management of CHB in 2015
and to develop new recommendations. In particular, recent information on newly
available antiviral agents has been added, and the goals and the aims of
treatment as well as starting and cessation of treatment have been clearly
defined. The present guidelines also summarize updates for management of drug
resistance, partial virological response, and side effects. In addition,
additional data on the topics of epidemiology, prevention, natural history,
diagnosis, monitoring, and management of CHB in specific situations are
reflected in this update. Expert opinions were solicited in cases of
insufficient data to make definitive conclusions. However, as the guidelines do
not represent a standard treatment protocol, clinicians should keep in mind that
the best management may vary depending on the individual patient.
Target population
Patients newly diagnosed with CHB and those previously diagnosed and treated are
the primary target population for these guidelines. In addition, the guidelines
have been designed to help manage patients with CHB and those with other special
conditions such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), renal dysfunction, metabolic
bone disease, immunosuppression, anticancer chemotherapy, liver/non-liver organ
transplantation, or co-infections with other viruses such as hepatitis C virus
(HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), or hepatitis delta virus (HDV).
Guidelines for pregnant women or those who are preparing for pregnancy, as well
as children and adolescents are also presented separately.
Readership
These guidelines aim to provide useful information and medical guidelines for
clinicians responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CHB in
Korea. It is also intended to provide practical and educational information for
residents, fellows, and their supervisors.
Information about the committee and funds
The Committee for the Revision of Clinical Practice Guidelines for CHB 2018,
launched in accordance with the initiative of the Board of Directors of the KASL
and approved by the council, was composed of ten hepatologists. In addition,
specialists representing the Korean Pediatric Society, Korean Society of
Infectious Diseases, and Korean Society for Transplantation were invited to
participate as external consultants. The cost of revising the guidelines was
covered by the KASL.
Collection of evidence
The committee searched newly published articles related to hepatitis B from
PubMed, MEDLINE (up to 2018), and KoreaMed since publication of the 2015
guidelines and systematically reviewed these articles to recommend updated
clinical guidelines based on the latest medical data. In addition, we searched
abstracts and proceedings of academic conferences in Korea and abroad and
collected necessary data. The language of the related literature was limited to
articles published in English and Korean, and the search terms included
“hepatitis B,” “hepatitis B virus (HBV),” “chronic hepatitis.” Other keywords
covered clinically important topics related to epidemiology, natural history,
prevention, diagnosis and initial evaluation, treatment goals and aims,
treatment targets and strategies, drugs, monitoring, and antiviral resistance,
as well as special situations.
Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation
The collected data were analyzed through a systematic review, and the levels of
evidence were classified by the revised Grading of Recommendations, Assessment,
Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The levels of evidence were based on
the possibility of change in the estimate of clinical effect by further
research, and were described as high (A), moderate (B) or low (C).
Classification of grades of recommendation were either strong (1) or weak (2),
by the GRADE system, according to the level of evidence, generalizability, the
clinical effect of the research result, and socioeconomic aspects. Each
recommendation is combined with the level of relevant evidence (A-C) and
corresponding recommendation grade (1, 2) as follows: A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2
(Table 1).
List of the clinical questions
The committee listed clinical questions related to CHB treatment that were
addressed in the main text and the recommendations (Supplementary
Material).
Review of the manuscript
Initial drafts of the revised guidelines were thoroughly reviewed and agreed upon
over the course of several committee meetings. An updated manuscript was
reviewed at a meeting of the advisory board and opened to a public hearing where
KASL members, members of related organizations, and representatives from patient
associations attended. After further modification prior to publication, the
final manuscript was approved by the Board of Directors of the KASL.
Announcement of the revised guidelines
The revised CHB guidelines were released on November 24, 2018. The Korean version
can be found on the KASL website (http://www.kasl.org).
EPIDEMIOLOGY
Of the 3.5 billion patients who suffer from CHB worldwide, 600,000 die from related
diseases annually [1]. In Korea, the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive
rate
was high — up to 10% — in the 1980s. After introduction of HBV vaccinations in 1983,
HBsAg-positivity rates dropped significantly to 3% by 2008. However, the most common
etiologies of liver cirrhosis and/or HCC are related to HBV, and CHB remains
prevalent even in the late 2010s [2,3].
NATURAL HISTORY
CHB is defined as persistence of serum HBsAg for more than 6 months. The natural
course consists of five phases: immune-tolerant, hepatitis B e antigen
(HBeAg)-positive immune-active, immune-inactive, HBeAg-negative immune-active, and
HBsAg loss (Table 2). Duration
of these phases varies, sequences of phases are not continuous in patients, and
there can be a gray zone in which the features are not compatible with any specific
phase. Therefore, assigning phases of infection or making a decision regarding
antiviral treatment based on a single alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and HBV DNA is
insufficient (Fig. 1)
[4].
Immunological features of CHB during five phases
CHB, immune-tolerant phase (Immune-tolerant CHB) In cases of perinatal infection,
the immune-tolerant phase is characterized by HBeAg positivity, very high levels
of serum HBV DNA (generally ≥107 IU/mL), persistently normal levels
of ALT, and minimal or no liver necroinflammation [5,6]. In a follow-up of immune-tolerant
CHB patients, serum
ALT was elevated in 16% of cases, and the follow-up fibrosis stage was not
different from the initial stage in those who remained in the immune-tolerant
phase for five years [5]. In another study from Taiwan, 5% of 240 immunetolerant
CHB patients progressed to liver cirrhosis and did not develop HCC in 10 years
of follow-up [7]. However, there was a small in vitro study
that suggested early hepatocarcinogenesis could be underway even during the
immune-tolerant phase, as was evident by a high level of HBV DNA integration and
clonal hepatocyte expansion [8]. Further studies are needed to
confirm these issues.
The immune-tolerant phase can last for more than three decades in patients
infected with HBV genotype C due to late HBeAg seroconversion. Therefore, many
female patients infected with this genotype are in the immune-tolerant phase
when they are of childbearing age, which can lead to vertical transmission of
HBV to a child [9].
HBeAg-positive CHB, immune-active phase (Immuneactive HBeAg-positive
CHB)
With increasing age, most patients in the immune-tolerant phase experience immune
responses to HBV. Such changes are due to increased response of cytotoxic T
lymphocytes to hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg) and HBeAg [10], resulting in
destruction of infected hepatocytes. This phase is characterized by HBeAg
positivity and fluctuating courses of serum ALT and HBV DNA levels
[11,12]. Histological
findings reveal moderate-to-severe necroinflammation [13]. There can be
various stages of liver fibrosis according to the severity of liver injury.
Once HBeAg seroconversion occurs, the natural course of the disease may have one
of three clinical features: (1) repeated HBeAg reversion and seroconversion, (2)
an immune-inactive phase of CHB, or (3) HBeAg-negative CHB [14,15]. Typically, 10–40%
of patients
who experience seroconversion revert to an HBeAgpositive state and then
experience recurrence of seroconversion at least once with progression of
hepatitis activity [16,17].
In particular, reversion frequently occurs in patients with HBV genotype C, and
the rate decreases with age [9]. Hepatic decompensation, which
occurs in 5% of patients with acute exacerbation, may be fatal [18].
CHB, immune-inactive phase (Immune-inactive CHB)
Most patients who seroconvert during the immune-active phase progress to the
immune-inactive phase, which is characterized by HBeAg negativity, antibody to
hepatitis B e antigen (anti-HBe) positivity, persistent normal ALT levels, and
HBV DNA levels below 2,000 IU/mL [19-21]. Typical histological findings in
the third phase are mild liver inflammation [19], and various stages of liver
fibrosis can reflect previous liver injury [22].
This phase persists for an extended period in most patients, but with a
relatively good prognosis. However, an estimated 20% of such patients will
return to the HBeAg-negative or HBeAg-positive immune-active phase, and may
experience recurring periods of reactivation and inactivation throughout their
lives, which can lead to cirrhosis or HCC [23,24].
HBeAg-negative CHB, immune-active phase (Immuneactive HBeAg-negative
CHB)
Approximately 20% of patients who experience HBeAg seroconversion during their
immune-active HBeAg-positive phase progress to the immune-active HBeAg-negative
phase, with HBV DNA levels ≥2,000 IU/mL, increased ALT levels, and active
necroinflammation of liver [15]. These patients show HBeAg
negativity because they harbor HBV variants in the precore (PC) or basal core
promoter (BCP) regions of HBV DNA, resulting in failure to produce HBeAg
[25-27]. The
immune-active HBeAg-negative phase is associated with older age and low rates of
prolonged spontaneous disease remission, and most patients in this phase will
experience persistent hepatocellular inflammation and progress to hepatic
fibrosis and cirrhosis [27-29].
Severe fluctuations of HBV DNA and ALT levels can make it difficult to
differentiate these patients from those in the immune-inactive phase
[30].
HBsAg loss phase (Resolved CHB)
Patients in the immune-inactive phase subsequently progress to the HBsAg loss or
clearance phase at a rate of 1–2% annually [30-32]. According to Liaw’s prospective
data, HBsAg loss occurs in 0.5% of CHB patients per year, and 0.8% of
asymptomatic chronic HBV carriers per year [33]. Korean patients reportedly
experience a relatively low rate of HBsAg loss (0.4% annually) [34]. In a few
patients, serum HBV DNA can be detected at a very low titer during this phase.
HBsAg loss is the state of functional cure, and it is associated with a reduced
risk of cirrhosis. However, significant risk of HCC development remains even
after HBsAg loss in male patients, and in settings where HBsAg loss has been
achieved late (presence of cirrhosis or age ≥50 years) [35,36].
Risk factors that influence the natural history and progression of liver
disease in CHB
In Korea, the reported annual and five-year accumulated incidences of cirrhosis
are 5.1% and 23%, respectively, while those for HCC are 0.8% and 3%
[37].
The risk factors for hepatitis B progressing to cirrhosis or HCC can be divided
into host, viral, socialenvironmental factors (Table 3). For host factors, cirrhosis,
persistent
necroinflammation, old age, male gender, family history of HCC, co-infection of
other hepatitis virus or HIV affects the risk [17]. High levels of serum HBV DNA
and/or serum HBsAg, HBV genotype C, and specific genotypic mutations are
included in viral factors [38-47].
Social-environmental factors for progression to cirrhosis or HCC include alcohol
consumption, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, obesity, and smoking [17,46]. In contrast,
coffee
[48-50], metformin
[51],
aspirin [52,53] and statins
[54-59] exert protective
effects against the development of HCC.
Multiple prognostic prediction models have been developed to estimate the risk of
HCC development in CHB patients. The Risk Estimation for Hepatocellular
Carcinoma in Chronic Hepatitis B (REACH-B) model, which consists of gender, age,
serum ALT, HBeAg, and serum HBV DNA levels, has been developed for HCC risk
prediction in non-liver cirrhosis, treatment-naïve CHB patients. REACH-B model
has been validated in Hong Kong and Korean cohort of CHB patients including
liver cirrhosis. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve
(AUROCs) for HCC prediction at 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years are 0.77–0.81 in
those cohort [60]. A modified REACH-B model, which substituted serum HBV DNA
for the liver stiffness value from the original REACH-B model, showed better
outcomes in assessment of three-year and five-year HCC prediction in several
prospective Korean studies [61,62]. Meanwhile, the PAGE-B
(platelets, age, gender, and hepatitis B scores) model, which was developed from
Western studies [63], has been validated by several Korean retrospective studies
[64,65]. Modified PAGE-B
(adding serum albumin) was superior to original PAGE-B in the prediction of
five-year HCC risk in Korean CHB patients [65].
PREVENTION
The following section describes methods for avoiding new HBV infection in
non-infected persons, and for minimizing the risk of disease progression and
development of complications in CHB patients.
HBV non-infected persons
Because chronic HBV infection is endemic in Korea, any person at high risk for
liver disease or with suspected liver disease is recommended to have their HBsAg
and antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen (anti-HBs) statuses checked
[66,67]. For individuals
negative for HBsAg and anti-HBs (<10 mIU/mL), and who have not been
vaccinated, hepatitis B vaccination is recommended. In particular, 1) patients
with chronic liver diseases such as HCV infection, alcohol-related liver
disease, fatty liver disease, autoimmune hepatitis, and cirrhosis, as well as
those with elevated ALT or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) of unknown etiology
[68],
and 2) patients at increased risk of HBV infection, such as healthcare workers,
inmates and staff at correctional facilities, residents and staff of facilities
for the developmentally disabled, household members and sexual partners of
HBsAg-positive persons, hemodialysis patients, persons who inject drugs, those
at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV-coinfected patients should be
vaccinated for hepatitis B [67].
The three doses constituting the hepatitis B vaccine series administered
intramuscularly at birth and 1 and 6 months induce a protective antibody
response (anti-HBs >10 mIU/mL) in >90% of recipients. Most non-responders
(44–100%) subsequently respond to a further three-dose vaccination
[69,70]. Although
serological testing for anti-HBs is not necessary after routine vaccination in
immunocompetent adults, post-vaccination testing of anti-HBs status is
recommended in some subjects, such as newborns of HBV-infected mothers or nine-
to 18-month-old infants with family members with CHB, healthcare workers,
dialysis patients, workers in dialysis units and operation rooms,
immunocompromised subjects (e.g., HIV infected individuals, hematopoietic stem
cell transplant (HSCT) recipients, patients undergoing chemotherapy), and sexual
partners of patients with chronic HBV infection should be tested 1–2 months
after completion of the HBV immunization series [69,70]. While anti-HBs levels can
decline or disappear over several decades, vaccinated subjects remain protected
against HBV infection and there is no need for booster vaccinations in
immunocompetent individuals. However, an anti-HBs level of <10 mIU/mL in
dialysis patients indicates an increased risk of HBV infection, and a booster
vaccination is needed if annual testing reveals an anti-HBs level of <10
mIU/mL [70]. This also applies to immunocompromised patients
[69,70].
A person without protective anti-HBs exposed to HBV-contaminated blood or body
fluids should receive hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG, 0.06 mL/kg) and the
hepatitis B vaccine as soon as possible; preferably within 24 hours, otherwise
post-exposure prophylaxis should be initiated within seven days for percutaneous
exposure or within 14 days for sexual exposure [71]. Sexual partners who have not
been tested for HBV serological markers, have not completed the full
immunization series, or who are negative for anti-HBs should use barrier
protection methods, such as condoms.
As HBV is endemic in Korea, the most common etiology of isolated antibody to
hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc)-positive patients who are negative for HBsAg
and anti-HBs is past HBV infection. They rarely require immunization, but those
who are at increased risk of HBV infection should be vaccinated for HBV
[72,73]. Isolated
anti-HBc positive patients with abnormal liver function results should be
considered for the possibility of serum HBV DNA detection.
Patients with chronic HBV infection
Chronically HBV-infected patients are not the indication for HBV vaccination.
Co-infection with hepatitis A in HBV carriers increases the risk of mortality
5.6- to 29-fold [74]. Therefore, hepatitis A vaccination is recommended for
persons negative for the protective hepatitis A virus antibody immunoglobulin G
(anti-HAV IgG) [75].
CHB patients can transmit the virus to others, and should be counseled regarding
how to modify their lifestyle to prevent HBV transmission. Mother-to-child
transmission (MTCT) is the most important route of HBV infection. Refer to
“Pregnant women or women preparing for pregnancy” sections in the “Management in
Special Conditions” chapter, for details on antiviral treatment during pregnancy
to prevent MTCT. HBIG and vaccination after delivery can prevent 90–95% of
transmission to newborns from HBsAg-positive mothers [76,77]. Such infants should
receive 0.5
mL HBIG and start the HBV vaccination series within 12 hours of birth.
The rates of HBV infection among newborns from HBsAg-positive mothers were not
different between breast- and formulafeeding (0–8% vs. 3–9%, respectively)
[78,79].
Chronic alcohol consumption is an independent risk factor for cirrhosis and HCC,
and even more harmful in patients with chronic liver diseases [80]. Abstinence from
alcohol is recommended in patients with chronic HBV infection [81].
According to several retrospective studies, smoking is associated with HCC
development [82,83],
and the risk of HCC development is much higher in smoking CHB patients with
metabolic syndrome [84].
No specific dietary measures have been shown to affect the natural course in CHB
patients. However, one prospective study showed fatty liver disease is
associated with fibrosis progression independent of viral factors [85]. In addition,
patients with metabolic syndrome resulting from diabetes mellitus,
hyperlipidemia, and obesity were associated with an increased risk of HCC
development in several retrospective studies [86-88]. CHB patients should therefore
be
counseled on lifestyle modifications regarding metabolic syndromes.
[Recommendations]
1. If HBsAg and anti-HBs are negative, hepatitis B vaccination is
recommended. (A1) However, vaccination is not necessary if anti-HBc is
positive or anti-HBs was lost after past vaccination; nevertheless,
vaccination may be recommended in the presence of high risk of HBV
infection. (B1)
2. Newborns with HBV-infected mothers should receive HBIG and the hepatitis B
vaccine at delivery and complete the recommended vaccination series.
(A1)
3. The hepatitis A vaccine should be given to patients with chronic HBV
infection who are negative for anti-HAV IgG. (A1)
4. Patients with chronic HBV infection should abstain from alcohol. (A1)
5. Patients with chronic HBV infection are recommended to stop smoking.
(B1)
6. Patients with chronic HBV infection are recommended to maintain adequate
body weight to prevent metabolic syndrome or fatty liver disease, and to
manage metabolic complications including diabetes and hyperlipidemia.
(B1)
DIAGNOSIS AND INITIAL EVALUATION
CHB is defined as the presence of HBsAg for longer than 6 months. The initial
evaluation of CHB patients should include a thorough history and physical
examination, with an emphasis on risk factors such as alcohol consumption or drug
use, HAV or HCV co-infection, and a family history of chronic HBV infection and HCC.
In high-risk groups, the possibility of HDV or HIV co-infection should also be
considered. To establish the causal relationship between HBV infection and liver
disease, comorbidities such as obesity, diabetes mellitus, and metabolic syndrome
should be assessed. Appropriate longitudinal long-term follow-up is crucial for
patients with CHB. Serological, virological, and biochemical tests, non-invasive
liver stiffness measurement and/or liver biopsies are used to assess HBV replication
and the degree of liver injury in patients with CHB.
Antigen/antibody test
HBsAg immunoassay is a necessary and accurate test for diagnosis of CHB. By
definition, patients who remain positive for HBsAg for longer than 6 months are
sufficient to diagnose CHB.
Serological tests, including those for anti-HBs and anti-HBc, can assist in
screening populations for HBV infection and differentiating among acute,
chronic, past infection and immunized individuals.
Persistently positive anti-HBc is shown when an anti-HBs titer from past HBV
infection becomes undetectable over time or in cases with occult hepatitis B
infection [89-92]. Patients who
recover from HBV infection will be negative for HBsAg and positive for anti-HBs
and anti-HBc. Patients who respond adequately to hepatitis B vaccines will be
negative on anti-HBc and positive on antiHBs testing, as anti-HBc emerges only
after HBV infection and persists for life.
Laboratory tests for patients with CHB should include those for HBeAg and
anti-HBe. HBeAg positivity generally indicates a high level of viral
replication, and anti-HBe positivity a low level. HBeAg-negative,
anti-HBe-positive patients with a normal ALT level and an HBV DNA level of
<2,000 IU/mL (<10,000 copies/mL) may be in the inactive phase.
HBeAg-negative CHB patients have elevated ALT and an HBV DNA level of >2,000
IU/mL.
Acute hepatitis A co-infection in CHB patients can result in increased icteric
manifestations, longer recovery time, and increased risk of fulminant hepatic
failure. Indeed, underlying chronic liver disease is an important risk factor
for fulminant hepatic failure and death in patients with acute HAV infection
[93-95]. The
seropositivity graph has shifted horizontally to the right for 20 years in age
in the last 30 years, and there is a possibility of acute hepatitis A in all age
groups [96]. Therefore, CHB patients should undergo testing for anti-HAV
IgG, and all patients with a negative immune status for hepatitis A should
receive the HAV vaccine. Laboratory tests should include tests for co-infection
with HCV. Additionally anti-HDV, and/or anti-HIV should be tested in those who
are at risk [97,98].
Biochemical tests
Assessments of the severity of liver disease should include biochemical markers
such as AST, ALT, gamma glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT), alkaline phosphatase
(ALP), bilirubin, albumin, and creatinine. A complete blood count (CBC), and
prothrombin time should also be assessed. A progressive decline in serum albumin
levels and prolongation of the prothrombin time (PT), often accompanied by a
decrease in platelet count, are characteristically observed after cirrhosis
develops. The serum ALT level has been commonly used in assessments of liver
disease and is an important criterion for defining which patients are candidates
for therapy [99]. The ALT level is usually higher than that of AST, but the
ratio may be reversed when the disease progresses to cirrhosis. HBVinfected
patients with normal or mildly elevated ALT levels have been thought to have no
or mild necroinflammation on liver biopsy. However, there is no correlation
between the degree of liver cell necrosis and ALT level [100].
Data from clinical studies have shown that the true normal level of ALT is
significantly lower than the previously established limits: 40 IU/L for males
and 30 IU/L for females. Moreover, data from cohort studies indicate that the
upper limit of normal (ULN) ALT and AST levels should be decreased to 30 IU/L
for males and 19 IU/L for females [100]. Meanwhile, according to a
study in Korea involving 12,000 patients with chronic HBV infection, the best
cut-off values for liver-related mortality prediction were >34 IU/L in men, and
>30 IU/L in women [101]. Despite being a retrospective study, the research
included various age groups (40–79 years), did not excluded the data of mild
fatty liver-disease patients, and reflected realistic values of Korean patients
with chronic HBV infection. Those levels were associated with liver-related
mortality prediction, which is the most important issue in clinical settings.
Therefore, it would be relevant to use cut-offs of ALT ≤34 IU/L in men, and ALT
≤30 IU/L in women until this issue can be clarified by further study.
However, ALT activity might also be affected by age, body mass index, gender,
abnormal lipid and carbohydrate metabolism, and uremia [100,102]. Therefore, relying
solely on
the finding of elevated ALT as a prerequisite for treatment candidacy has
limitations.
Serum HBV DNA tests
Serum HBV DNA testing provides a direct measure of the level of viral
replication. This quantification is essential for characterizing the status of
infection, diagnosing the disease, making the decision to treat, and subsequent
monitoring of patients. It is also important for predicting the risks of
cirrhosis and HCC and should be applied to all patients diagnosed with CHB. The
most frequently recommended method for serum HBV DNA quantification is real-time
polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The introduction of the international unit (IU)
as a recommended reporting unit for HBV DNA has facilitated standardized
reporting and comparison of serum HBV DNA levels [103]; 1 IU/mL is equivalent to
roughly 5 copies/mL, but it differs between test equipment types (Roche
Diagnostics: 5.8 copies/mL, Abbott Diagnostics: 3.4 copies/mL). The same test
should be utilized for each HBV DNA level test in a given patient in clinical
practice to ensure consistency.
HBV genotypes
HBV genotypes appear to influence the progression of liver disease, risk of HCC,
and response to therapy (including interferon therapy) [104-106]. Some studies in
Asia have
suggested that genotype C is associated more frequently with late HBeAg
seroconversion, HBV reactivation or HBeAg seroreversion after achievement of
seroconversion, severe liver disease, and HCC than is genotype B [107]. The specific
genotype has also been shown to affect the response to interferon therapy, with
the rate of an antiviral response to pegylated interferon (peginterferon)
therapy being higher for genotypes A and B than for genotypes C and D
[108].
HBV genotyping can be recommended to help identify patients who might be at
greater risk of disease progression and to determine the most appropriate
candidates for peginterferon therapy [109]. However, genotyping is
considered unnecessary in Korea, where patients are almost exclusively infected
with genotype C.
Serum HBsAg quantification
A quantitative HBsAg (qHBsAg) assay is used to indirectly assess the amount and
transcriptional activity of covalently closed circular (ccc) DNA, which acts as
a template for HBV transcription. HBsAg is not only generated by transcription
and translation of cccDNA, but also can be generated from HBV DNA episomally
integrated into the host genome. Therefore the role of qHBsAg as viral
replication is more limited than serum HBV DNA [110]. However, qHBsAg can help
differentiate among multiple phases of natural courses, combining HBV DNA levels
in the assessment. Serum qHBsAg level is higher in HBeAg-positive patients than
in HBeAgnegative patients. In HBeAg-positive patients, qHBsAg level is higher in
the immune-tolerant phase than in the immune-active phase [111,112]. In HBeAg-negative
patients,
one-time measurement of serum HBV DNA <2,000 IU/mL and HBsAg <1,000 IU/mL
is suggestive of future inactive carriers [113,114]. In contrast, among
HBeAg-negative patients with lower viral loads (HBV DNA <2,000 IU/mL), HCC
risk is higher in those with a high qHBsAg titer (>1,000 IU/mL) than in those
with a low qHBsAg titer [115].
Additionally, the role of serum qHBsAg in prediction of ontreatment or
off-treatment response has been widely studied. Serum qHBsAg was useful to
predict treatment response during peginterferon therapy in HBeAg-positive
patients, possibly providing a guide to stopping treatment ealier [116]. Serum qHBsAg
levels were useful predictors of a sustained off-treatment response in CHB
patients who were previously treated with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NA)
[117,118].
Liver biopsy
Liver biopsy can be helpful in determining the degree of necroinflammation and
stage of fibrosis. Although it is invasive, the rate of serious complications is
very low (1/4,000–1/10,000). A liver biopsy is recommended even in CHB patients
with normal ALT levels, to evaluate the need for antiviral treatment in the
presence of the risk of significant liver fibrosis, such as increasing age and
serum HBV DNA levels [119]. However, there are limitations in that only a small
portion of the liver is sampled, leading to low intra/interobserver reliability
[120].
Also, biopsy may be contraindicated in patients with bleeding tendency. Thus, it
is not required when cirrhosis is clinically evident or when treatment is
indicated irrespective of the grade of activity or the stage of fibrosis. The
efficacy of non-invasive methods such as transient elastography (TE) or serum
markers in assessing fibrosis in CHB has increased [120].
Non-invasive fibrosis tests
The severity of liver fibrosis and determination of ALT and HBV DNA levels have
essential roles in treatment decisions. Non-invasive methods to estimate liver
fibrosis have been developed. Commonly used serum markers are aspartate
aminotransferase-platelet ratio index (APRI) and fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index
(platelets, ALT, AST, Age). FibroTest, Hepascore, FibroMeter, Enhanced Liver
Fibrosis test using direct markers such as serum α-2 macroglobulin, hyaluronic
acid, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1, type III procollagen
aminopeptide, apolipoprotein A1, haptoglobin, L-glutamyl transpeptidase are also
available [120,121].
APRI is calculated by the formula of
(AST/ULN for AST)×100/platelet count (×109/L) [122].
APRI was useful for exclusion of significant fibrosis at a low cut-off level and
diagnosis of cirrhosis at a high cut-off level in several meta-analyses
[123,124].
FIB-4 is calculated by the formula of age(yr)×AST (IU/L)/platelet count
(×109/L)×
ALT
(
IU
/
L
)
[125]. According to several studies,
FIB-4 is useful for exclusion of significant fibrosis or diagnosis of cirrhosis
[126,127].
TE using Fibroscan® (Echosense, Paris, France) has a high degree of accuracy for
assessment of advanced liver fibrosis. It is the most commonly used method for
monitoring chronic liver disease because of its non-invasiveness and
high-reproducibility [128]. TE can be performed rapidly (5 min) in outpatient
clinics and yields immediate results [129,130]. However, only procedures
involving ≥10 successful measurements are considered reliable. Moreover, a
success rate of at least 60% and an interquartile range (IQR) of less than 30%
of the median value are required (IQR/median) [131]. TE has limitations in subjects
with ascites, obesity, or narrow intercostal spaces. Moreover, the system may
yield false-positive results in subjects with acute hepatitis and extrahepatic
biliary tract obstruction) [132-134]. In a meta-analysis from Korea,
AUROCs for diagnosis of significant fibrosis (≥F2) and cirrhosis were 0.86 and
0.93, respectively, with diagnosis cut-offs for F2, F3, and F4 of 7.8 kPa, 8.8
kPa, 11.7 kPa, respectively [135]. TE (Fibroscan®;
Echosense) had greater diagnostic accuracy than APRI or FIB-4 for liver
cirrhosis in a study that compared liver biopsy, aspartate
aminotransferase-to-alanine aminotransferase ratio, APRI, TE, and FIB-4 in
patients with chronic hepatitis [136].
Newly developed non-invasive tools to assess fibrosis are acoustic radiation
force impulse imaging, shear-wave elastography, real-time elastography, and
magnetic resonance elastography (MRE), which needs to be further validated in
large cohorts of CHB patients. MRE showed high diagnostic accuracy for
biopsy-confirmed liver fibrosis in several retrospective studies [137,138] and is
at least as accurate as
TE for assessment of fibrosis [139-141]. MRE was more reliable in the
obese patients [142].
Screening for HCC
The initial evaluation of patients with CHB should include screening tests for
HCC. Periodic surveillance is also needed in these patients to ensure early
detection of HCC during follow-up, irrespective of antiviral treatment. Standard
tools for HCC surveillance include measuring the alfa-fetoprotein level and
ultrasonography every 6 months [143]. Patients at a high risk of HCC
include those older than 40 years and those with cirrhosis even when they are
younger than 40. Periodic surveillance leads to a higher probability for
applying curative treatment [144,145]. Magnetic resonance imaging and
computed tomography may be preferred for some patients with severe cirrhosis or
obesity, as ultrasonography has poor sensitivity in those conditions. The use of
antiviral therapies may lower the risk or delay the progression of disease but
cannot prevent all possible complications. Therefore, active surveillance for
HCC is required at regular intervals for early diagnosis and treatment.
[Recommendations]
1. The initial evaluation of patients with CHB should include taking a
detailed medical history and physical examination, with an emphasis on risk
factors such as co-infection, alcohol consumption, and family history of HBV
infection and HCC. (A1)
2. In the evaluation of CHB patients, CBC, AST, ALT, ALP, GGT, bilirubin,
albumin, creatinine, prothrombin time are required. (A1)
3. HBeAg/anti-HBe and serum HBV DNA quantification should be assessed as HBV
replication markers in CHB patients. The most frequently recommended method
for serum HBV DNA quantification is real-time PCR. (A1)
4. IgG anti-HAV test is recommended in CHB patients. (B1)
5. In patients with CHB, an anti-HCV test is recommended to rule out HCV
co-infection. (B1)
6. In patients with CHB, an anti-HDV and an anti-HIV test may be recommended
to rule out HDV or HIV co-infection. (B2)
7. Liver biopsy can be performed to determine the degree of liver
necroinflammation and fibrosis in CHB patients. (A2)
8. If a liver biopsy is difficult to perform in patients with CHB,
non-invasive tests such as serum markers or liver elasticity measurement are
recommended to assess liver fibrosis. (B1)
9. Patients with CHB should be tested for HCC regardless of hepatitis B
treatment; abdominal ultrasonography and serum alfa-fetoprotein are the
surveillance tools that should be performed every 6 months. (A1)
TREATMENT GOAL AND AIMS
The ultimate goals of hepatitis B treatment are to decrease mortality and increase
survival by alleviating hepatic inflammation and preventing the development of
fibrosis, which ultimately reduces the frequency of progression of hepatitis to
liver cirrhosis or HCC [146-152].
The ultimate goals could only be achieved by eradication of HBV in the liver in the
early stages of infection; however, cccDNA persists in the hepatocyte nucleus
despite antiviral treatment until now, so it is difficult to expect complete
elimination of HBV. Therefore, it is most important to consistently maintain
complete viral suppression [153].
Since the goals of treatment can only be assessed after a substantially long-term
follow-up period, alternative clinical biomarkers reflecting treatment goals may be
considered when deciding to discontinue treatment. Currently, clinically available
biomarkers that reflect achievement of treatment goals are ALT, HBV DNA, HBeAg, and
HBsAg. Thus, ALT normalization, undetectable HBV DNA, HBeAg loss or seroconversion,
and HBsAg loss or seroconversion can be used as clinical treatment aims or
endpoints. Among these, serum HBsAg loss or seroconversion is the ideal endpoint of
CHB treatment [154].
[Recommendations]
1. The ultimate goals of CHB treatment are to decrease mortality from liver
disease and improve survival by preventing HBV replication and alleviating
hepatic inflammation, and by preventing the progression of fibrosis, development
of liver cirrhosis, and HCC. (A1)
2. Clinical endpoints (aims) of treatment are ALT normalization (male ≤34 IU/L,
female ≤30 IU/L), undetectable serum HBV DNA, serum HBeAg loss or
seroconversion, and serum HBsAg loss or seroconversion. Serum HBsAg loss or
seroconversion is the ideal endpoint of hepatitis B treatment. (A1)
TREATMENT INDICATION
Active HBV replication is associated with increased risk of liver damage, progression
of liver disease, and liver-related complications [22]. Nowadays, antiviral therapy
has been
developed that can effectively inhibit replication of the virus. Inhibition of HBV
replication by antiviral therapy can improve hepatic inflammation, normalize serum
ALT levels, improve liver fibrosis, reduce the incidence of HCC, and decrease
liver-related death [155]. However, currently available antiviral therapies cannot
eradicate or eliminate the virus. Furthermore, the efficacy and side effects of the
same drug may vary depending on the clinical situation [156]. Therefore benefits
and risks of antiviral therapy should be carefully evaluated on an individual basis
in the context of the clinical situation. The following three factors are
fundamental components that should be taken into consideration when deciding
antiviral therapy: 1) The severity of liver disease, 2) the degree of HBV
replication, and 3) the presence of liver injury (Fig. 2). The severity of liver disease
can be categorized
into chronic hepatitis, compensated cirrhosis, and decompensated cirrhosis. The
degree of HBV replication can be assessed by measuring serum HBV DNA levels. The
presence of liver injury can be estimated using serum ALT levels or can be assessed
by a liver biopsy.
CHB, immune-tolerant phase
The immune-tolerant phase is characterized by HBeAg positivity, very high serum
HBV DNA levels (usually ≥107 IU/mL), and persistently normal serum ALT levels.
In this phase, long-term prognosis is excellent without antiviral therapy
[67,157,158]. To verify the immune-tolerant
phase, a liver biopsy is necessary and will show no or mild inflammation without
fibrosis on liver biopsy. However, liver biopsy is an invasive procedure with
potential complications that limit its widespread use and repetitive testing in
clinical practice. Hence, in real-life clinical practice, a combination of
clinical findings is typically used to define the immune-tolerant phase without
liver biopsy. However, caution should be exercised considering the results of a
recent study suggesting that when patients are defined as in the immune-tolerant
phase by a combination of clinical findings without liver biopsy (HBeAg
positive, high serum HBV DNA levels, normal ALT levels, and no evidence of
cirrhosis), HCC and liver cirrhosis-related complications still occur in a
considerable number of patients during long-term follow-up [159]. In several
studies, older age, being male, relatively low serum HBV DNA levels, high liver
stiffness value, and normal but high-normal ALT levels were factors associated
with HCC development or liver-related complications among patients presumed to
be in the immune-tolerant phase by combinations of clinical findings without a
liver biopsy [159-161]. The immune-tolerant phase is usually observed in young
adults, and is not common in elderly patients. Although other clinical findings
suggest the immune-tolerant phase, liver biopsy may show significant fibrosis or
necroinflammation in elderly patients [162], as age is associated with
increased risk of HCC and death during follow-up [159,161]. Therefore, even when all
the
other clinical findings suggest the immune-tolerant phase, a liver biopsy can be
considered to verify the immune-tolerant phase in older adults. An age cutoff
for liver biopsy consideration was suggested to be 30–40 years [67,97]; however, evidence
to support
this approach is limited.
The immune-tolerant phase is also characterized by very high levels of HBV DNA,
as there is little or minimal immune response to the virus [67,97]. In one study,
among patients
presumed to be in the immune-tolerant phase, relatively low serum HBV DNA level
was associated with a higher risk of HCC and death compared to those with very
high serum HBV DNA levels (≥107 IU/mL) [159,161]. Relatively low serum HBV DNA
levels indicate that the immune response has already begun to suppress the
virus. The immunetolerant phase is also characterized by little or no
necroinflammation without liver fibrosis. Hence, significant fibrosis as seen
using non-invasive serum fibrosis markers (e.g., APRI, FIB-4) or TE
(Fibroscan®; Echosense) suggests that patients are not in the
genuine immune-tolerant phase.
ALT is a good indicator of liver necroinflammation, so patients in the
immune-tolerant phase show persistently normal ALT levels, as there is no or
little liver necroinflammation. Hence, patients with slightly elevated ALT
levels are more likely to have fibrosis and necroinflammation on a liver biopsy,
and have a higher risk of developing complications during follow-up
[161,162]. Therefore, if
ALT is at the borderline of ULN or is slightly higher than ULN, this can be a
sign that a patient is not genuinely in the immune-tolerant phase. However,
careful interpretation is needed in defining normal or elevated ALT levels.
There is controversy about what constitutes healthy, normal ALT levels.
Elevation of ALT level can be caused by obesity and other conditions not related
to HBV. Recently, the cutoff level for ALT associated with increased
liver-related mortality among Korean chronic HBV infected patients was reported
to be 34 IU/mL for men and 30 IU/mL for women.101 Therefore, the present
guidelines recommend using these values to define normal ALT levels. For
patients with the previously mentioned risk factors (older age, relatively low
serum HBV DNA levels, non-invasive test suggesting significant fibrosis, or ALT
at ULN or slight higher ULN), a liver biopsy can be considered to guide
management decisions despite other clinical findings suggesting the patient is
in the immune-tolerant phase.
The efficacy of currently available antiviral regimens is limited for patients in
the immune-tolerant phase. Long-term treatment may be necessary and treatment
discontinuation can be difficult. Antiviral treatment using NAs resulted in a
poor antiviral response rate and a low HBeAg seroclearance rate [163]. Furthermore,
when NA treatment was discontinued for those who started oral NA therapy at the
immune-tolerant phase, all patients showed a rebound of serum HBV DNA levels
above 2,000 IU/mL, 70% showed an elevation of ALT levels, and 55% had to
re-start NA therapy [164]. However, in one study from Korea that compared 87
NA-treated immune-tolerant CHB patients to 397 monitored immune-tolerant
patients as a control group, increased risk of HCC and cirrhosis was observed in
the control group despite favorable baseline liver function [165]. This finding
suggests that some patients who are presumed to be in the immune-tolerant phase
may develop complications during follow-up, and that antiviral treatment may
decrease the risk of developing complication. Further studies are needed to
identify appropriate antiviral treatment indications in patients in the
immune-tolerant phase.
[Recommendations]
1. Antiviral therapy is not indicated in CHB patients in the immune-tolerant
phase, as defined by HBeAg positivity, very high serum HBV DNA level (≥107
IU/mL), persistently normal ALT level, and no inflammation or fibrosis on
liver biopsy. (B1)
2. Liver biopsy can be considered for HBeAg-positive CHB patients with normal
ALT levels to determine antiviral treatment if the patient’s age is ≥30–40
years old, serum HBV DNA levels are <107 IU/mL, non-invasive
fibrosis tests suggest significant hepatic fibrosis, or ALT is approaching
the borderline of ULN range. (B2)
HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative CHB, immune-active phase
The immune-active phase is characterized by active replication of HBV and
moderate or severe necroinflammation with or without fibrosis. A systematic
review and meta-analysis of 15 randomized controlled trials and 44 observational
studies showed that antiviral treatment in the immune-active phase reduced the
risk of cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and HCC [155]. Therefore,
patients in the immune-active phase are indicated for antiviral treatment.
Nevertheless, careful attention to HCC development is needed, as antiviral
treatment cannot completely eliminate the risk of developing HCC [166]. A recent study
from Korea reported a marked reduction in liver disease mortality by widespread
use of antiviral treatments against HBV, but paradoxical increased burden of
liver cancer [167].
Active replication of HBV can be confirmed by serum HBV DNA measurement using
PCR. Detection of HBV DNA in the serum indicates active replication of the
virus. However, the lower limit of detection is different among different HBV
DNA measurement assays. Moreover, many patients with low-level viremia (serum
HBV DNA level <2,000 IU/mL), shows normal ALT levels, and little or no
necroinflammation or fibrosis on a liver biopsy, and show favorable outcomes
without antiviral therapy [45]. Hence, not all patients with detectable serum HBV
DNA,
but patients with serum HBV DNA levels ≥2,000–20,000 IU/mL (10,000–100,000
copies/mL) for HBeAg-positive patients, and serum HBV DNA levels ≥2,000 IU/mL
(10,000 copies/mL) for HBeAg-negative patients are considered for antiviral
therapy [45,47,168].
Serum ALT is a convenient indicator of necroinflammation of the liver and can be
easily used in clinical practice [169]. Elevation of ALT suggests
hepatocellular injury and requires assessment and evaluation. However, the
degree of ALT elevation does not always correlate with necroinflammation of the
liver and can be affected by body mass index and gender [100,170]. ALT elevation can
arise from
alcohol use, drug use, fatty liver, and other causes unrelated to HBV
[170,171], and a normal
ALT level may not exclude significant liver disease [172]. Hence, the use
of ALT as a criterion for treatment initiation requires consideration of what
degree of ALT elevation should be regarded as a threshold to initiate treatment.
If the ALT level is elevated more than ≥2 times the ULN, antiviral treatment for
HBV is recommended unless the ALT is elevated by other causes [67,97]. When ALT is
elevated above the
ULN but <2 times the ULN, controversy exists as to whether these patients
require antiviral treatment [67,97]. Patients with serum ALT elevated
above the ULN but <2 times the ULN have an increased risk of liver cirrhosis
and HCC compared to patients with serum ALT within the normal range
[173,174]. Yet, “normal”
ALT levels is defined at different cutoff between studies, and “normal” ALT
levels also differs by ethnicity [170,175]. The specific ALT levels used
in clinical trials to initiate antiviral therapy also differ [176-181]. Therefore,
sufficient data are
not available to judge whether it is necessary to start antiviral treatment in
patients with serum ALT elevated above the ULN but <2 times the ULN. In this
case, trends in serum ALT and HBV DNA levels should be closely monitored to
identify possible causes and to verify whether treatment for such patients
should be initiated. If a patient shows persistently elevated ALT levels, but
those levels remain <2 times the ULN, the degree of fibrosis can be further
investigated by non-invasive fibrosis tests or by liver biopsy to verify whether
patients require antiviral treatment.
Histological assessment of the liver, liver biopsy, is a cornerstone in the
evaluation of hepatic necroinflammation and fibrosis [182]. Findings of
moderate to severe necroinflammation or significant fibrosis (≥F2) indicate that
antiviral treatment for HBV is needed [156]. However, a liver biopsy is an
invasive procedure requiring special resources that limit widespread clinical
use. Serum fibrosis biomarkers or TE (Fibroscan®; Echosense) of liver
are alternatives that can be used to estimate degree of fibrosis [183]. These
non-invasive biomarkers for liver fibrosis are less accurate than liver biopsy.
However, they can be used to rule in or rule out patients with significant
fibrosis. Recently, treatment initiation based on liver disease severity as
assessed by non-invasive tests (e.g., Fibroscan®
[Echosense]), has been suggested [183]. However, evidence to support
treatment initiation determined by non-invasive tests remains limited at
present.
Among HBeAg-positive CHB patients, spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion has been
reported for those experiencing increase of ALT level with HBV DNA elevation
[184].
Hence, 3–6 months observation without antiviral treatment can be considered if
spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion is expected [184]. However, biochemical
deterioration leading to liver failure is of concern. A prospective cohort study
of 90 patients from Korea with HBeAg-positive CHB who were monitored without
antiviral therapy showed a very low rate of spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion
(1.1%), while there was frequent biochemical deterioration and one case of liver
transplantation due to liver failure [185]. Therefore, when expecting
HBeAg seroconversion, the risk of acute decompensation leading to liver failure
warrants careful attention. Another report from Korea showed that spontaneous
HBeAg seroconversion can be expected for patients with non-vertical transmission
and low serum HBV DNA levels [186].
CHB patients may present with severe acute exacerbation, characterized by
elevated HBV DNA levels, serum ALT levels 5–10 times greater than ULN, jaundice,
coagulopathy, ascites, and/or hepatic encephalopathy. They can also be
classified as having acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) when they present
with symptoms and signs of liver failure [187]. Severe acute exacerbation can
occur spontaneously [188], by drug resistant HBV during antiviral therapy
[189],
by stopping antiviral therapy [190], or by anticancer chemotherapy
[191].
NA therapy reduces mortality in patients with severe reactivation of CHB
presenting as ACLF [192]. Therefore, immediate antiviral treatment is
recommended for CHB patients with severe acute exacerbation or ACLF. Some
studies have reported a higher mortality rate among entecavir-treated patients
than lamivudine-treated patients [193,194], but a meta-analysis of three
prospective and eight retrospective studies showed similar effects on the
mortality rate between entecavir and lamivudine treatment, with a more favorable
long-term outcome in entecavir than lamivudine [187]. However, antiviral treatment
cannot fully prevent progression to liver failure, which may lead to mortality
in the case of high Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, moderate to
severe ascites, and/or aggravation of hepatic encephalopathy [195-197]. Emergent liver
transplantation
should be considered and prepared. Steroid or plasma exchange has been suggested
in cases of severe acute exacerbation and ACLF, but data are currently limited
to a small number of cases [198,199].
Some HBeAg-negative CHB patients show normal or mildly elevated ALT levels
despite elevated HBV DNA levels (>2,000 IU/mL). Some patients move to the
immune-inactive phase spontaneously —especially patients with low qHBsAg levels
and low serum HBV DNA levels [200]. HBeAg-negative patients are
those who have experienced the prior immune-active phase, and there is
possibility that various degrees of fibrosis remain in these patients. For those
with advanced fibrosis, antiviral treatment can be considered for those with
elevated HBV DNA levels regardless of ALT levels [67,97]. Hence, HBeAg-negative CHB
patients showing elevated HBV DNA levels (>2,000 IU/mL) but normal or mildly
elevated ALT levels require careful evaluation of their degree of fibrosis to
decide if they should undergo antiviral treatment or monitoring.
[Recommendations]
1. Antiviral therapy is recommended in HBeAg-positive CHB patients with HBV
DNA ≥20,000 IU/mL, or HBeAg-negative CHB patients with HBV DNA ≥2,000 IU/mL
if serum ALT level is ≥2 times the ULN. (A1)
In cases where ALT is 1–2 times the ULN, close ALT monitoring or liver biopsy
can be considered. Antiviral therapy is recommended if liver biopsy reveals
moderate to severe necroinflammation or significant fibrosis (≥F2). (A1)
Non-invasive fibrosis tests can be used to guide management decisions in
cases where a liver biopsy is not feasible. (B1)
2. In patients with HBeAg-positive or HBeAg-negative CHB, prompt antiviral
therapy should be initiated in the case of acute exacerbation, with
elevation of ALT ≥5–10 times the ULN, signs of liver failure such as
jaundice, PT prolongation, ascites, or hepatic encephalopathy. (A1)
3. In HBeAg-negative CHB patients with HBV DNA ≥2,000 IU/mL and normal ALT
levels, follow-up can be considered. Otherwise, liver biopsy or non-invasive
fibrosis tests can be considered for assessment of the degree of
necroinflammation and/or fibrosis in order to determine whether treatment is
needed. (B2)
CHB, immune-inactive phase
The immune-inactive phase is characterized by HBeAg-negative, anti-HBe-positive,
persistently normal ALT levels, and undetectable or low (<2,000 IU/mL) serum
HBV DNA levels. In this phase, long-term outcome without antiviral treatment is
good for those without advanced fibrosis [45]. In contrast, risk of HCC is not
low for patients with advanced fibrosis [201]. The immune-inactive phase is a
dynamic phase that can reactivate to an immune-active phase [15]. Hence, patients
in the immune-inactive phase require careful assessment of the degree of
fibrosis and close monitoring of serum ALT and HBV DNA levels to verify whether
they remain in the immune-inactive phase.
HBsAg loss or seroclearance is observed in 1–2% of patients per year in the
immune-inactive phase [31,34].
HBsAg seroclearance is considered a surrogate endpoint for a functional cure of
CHB. Hence, several studies investigated whether antiviral therapy in the
immune-inactive phase can further induce HBsAg seroclearance [202].
Patients who remain in the immune-inactive phase are those with a low risk for
HCC or liver-related complications during follow-up without antiviral treatment.
The clinical benefit of inducing HBsAg loss by antiviral treatment in the
immune-inactive phase, in terms of achieving treatment goals for CHB (improving
overall survival or preventing the development of HCC), has not yet been
demonstrated and requires further investigation.
[Recommendations]
1. Antiviral treatment is not indicated in CHB patients in the
immune-inactive phase, determined by serum HBV DNA <2,000 IU/mL, a normal
ALT level, and no evidence of advanced liver fibrosis. (B1)
Compensated cirrhosis
Antiviral treatment for compensated cirrhosis patients can decrease the risk of
HCC and liver-related complications [155], and can improve liver fibrosis
[149,203]. Serum ALT
level may not be elevated in patients with cirrhosis, and the risk of developing
a complication is high even for those with normal ALT levels [204]. Hence,
cirrhotic patients with active HBV replication require antiviral treatment
regardless of ALT levels. For cirrhotic patients, the risk of HCC decreases but
remains even after achieving a virological response by antiviral therapy
[205],
requiring HCC surveillance.
For compensated cirrhosis patients, those with elevated HBV DNA levels (≥2,000
IU/mL) are indicated for antiviral therapy. For patients with detectable but
low-level viremia (<2,000 IU/mL), recent EASL and AASLD guidelines recommend
antiviral therapy [67,97].
An observational cohort study from Korea reported that 33% of compensated
cirrhosis patients with low-level viremia experienced HBV DNA elevation ≥2,000
IU/mL during follow-up, and this was associated with an increased risk for
developing HCC [206]. Furthermore, HCC risk was higher for patients who
remained at low-level viremia compared to those with undetectable HBV DNA
levels, and antiviral treatment was inversely associated with HCC risk in this
group [206]. For compensated cirrhosis patients with low-level viremia,
prompt antiviral treatment has the advantage of preventing HBV DNA elevation
during follow-up, and may decrease the risk of developing complications in
another observational study from Korea [207]. These data support prompt
antiviral therapy for compensated cirrhosis with low-level viremia. However,
until now, there have not been any randomized controlled trials that can assess
the benefit and risks of prompt antiviral therapy for compensated cirrhosis
patients showing low-level viremia.
[Recommendations]
1. In patients with compensated cirrhosis, antiviral therapy should be
initiated regardless of ALT level if serum HBV DNA level is ≥2,000 IU/mL.
(A1)
2. Antiviral therapy can be considered in compensated cirrhosis patients with
detectable but low-level viremia (<2,000 IU/mL), regardless of ALT level.
(B1)
Decompensated cirrhosis
Decompensated cirrhosis includes cases with ascites, variceal bleeding, hepatic
encephalopathy, or jaundice [208]. Patients with decompensated
cirrhosis might be managed in an institution that can respond appropriately to
complications, and are candidates for liver transplantation. Antiviral therapy
modifies the natural history of decompensated cirrhosis, improves liver
function, decreases the need for liver transplantation, and improves survival
[151,209]. However, even
if antiviral therapy is administered, it takes time to acquire a virological
response and recover clinically. Some patients with severely impaired liver
function may not recover despite antiviral therapy, where liver transplantation
should be considered for such cases [210]. Patients with decompensated
cirrhosis are prone to liver failure when HBV reactivation occurs, which
requires prompt antiviral therapy when serum HBV DNA is detectable, regardless
of its serum levels. Administration of interferon is contraindicated because it
may cause serious side effects including liver failure even with small doses
[211].
[Recommendations]
1. In patients with decompensated cirrhosis, NAs should be initiated if serum
HBV DNA is detected, regardless of ALT level. Liver transplantation should
also be considered. (A1)
MONITORING OF PATIENT WHO ARE NOT INDICATED FOR TREATMENT
Patients with CHB who are not on antiviral therapy need to be monitored on a regular
basis to see if they become indicated for treatment. Patients in the immune-active
phase are indicated for antiviral treatment, while those in the immune-tolerant
phase and immune-inactive phase are not indicated for antiviral treatment. Serum
HBeAg, anti-HBe, AST/ALT, HBV DNA levels, qHBsAg levels, and/or a liver biopsy can
be considered to verify whether patients are indicated for antiviral treatment.
qHBsAg tests are helpful in differentiating those in the immune-active phase from
those in the immune-tolerant or immune-inactive phase [114,212-214]. Antiviral treatment
is considered
independent of the natural course of chronic HBV infection in patients with
compensated or decompensated cirrhosis. Therefore, the severity of liver disease
should be assessed by clinical findings, laboratory results, imaging studies,
non-invasive liver fibrosis markers, and/or by performing a liver biopsy.
Chronic HBV infection is a dynamic process that requires regular monitoring. Serum
ALT, HBV DNA, and HBeAg/anti-HBe should be monitored on a regular basis, and qHBsAg,
non-invasive fibrosis tests, and/or a liver biopsy can be performed additionally
during regular monitoring. For those who are not indicated for treatment, ALT and
HBV DNA should be monitored at 3–6 months intervals, and HBeAg/anti-HBe monitoring
should be performed at 6–12 months intervals. In real-life situations, sometimes it
is difficult to categorize patients into those who are indicated for treatment or
not (grey area). In such cases, more frequent monitoring of serum ALT and HBV DNA
(every 1–3 months) and HBeAg/anti-HBe monitoring (every 2–6 months) can be performed
to see if treatment criteria have developed. Despite close monitoring, some patients
may remain in the grey area, and for them, non-invasive assessment of liver fibrosis
or a liver biopsy should be considered to see whether patients require antiviral
treatment and guide further management plans (Fig. 2).
[Recommendations]
1. In CHB patients not indicated for treatment, monitoring serum ALT and HBV DNA
levels every 3–6 months and HBeAg/antiHBe every 6–12 months is recommended to
assess if treatment criteria have developed. (B1)
2. If it is uncertain whether treatment is indicated, monitoring serum ALT and
HBV DNA levels every 1–3 months and HBeAg/anti-HBe every 2–6 months are
recommended. Otherwise, treatment decisions can be made by non-invasive fibrosis
tests or a liver biopsy (B1).
TREATMENT STRATEGY
Currently approved antiviral treatments include peginterferon alfa and oral NAs. NAs
can be classified into drugs with high genetic barriers and drugs with low genetic
barriers (Table 4).215 When
starting antiviral therapy for HBV, peginterferon monotherapy, oral NA monotherapy,
or combination therapy with peginterferon plus NA can be considered [216-219]. Combination
treatment with
peginterferon plus NA aims to increase the serological response (e.g., HBsAg loss),
which cannot be easily achieved by NA alone [216,217]. However, starting antiviral
treatment with peginterferon plus NA offered no significant advantage over
peginterferon or NA monotherapy [220,221]. Hence, in Korea where genotype C
HBV infection is prevalent, combination treatment with peginterferon plus NA cannot
be recommended as a better initial regimen than peginterferon alone or NA alone
treatment.
Peginterferon treatment is recommended for a finite duration and has the advantage
of
providing immune-mediated control of the HBV and the possibility of achieving a
sustained off-treatment response [219]. However, the major limitation of
peginterferon is that it is a parenteral therapy with various side effects and
limited efficacy. Peginterferon is also contraindicated in patients with decreased
liver function (e.g., decompensated cirrhosis) [219]. Peginterferon treatment can
be
considered for compensated cirrhosis patients, but risks (possibility of
treatment-related side effects and deterioration of liver function) and benefits
(immune-mediated control, and sustained off-treatment response) should be carefully
considered on an individual basis among highly selected patients. Once treatment
with peginterferon has been started, early treatment discontinuation can be
considered by monitoring side effects and the virological response during
peginterferon treatment.
In contrast, NA treatment has no fixed treatment duration and requires indefinite
treatment for most of the cases [156]. However, NA treatment has the
advantage of being safe in most cases including patients with decompensated
cirrhosis. There is a risk of drug resistance with NA treatment, and when
drug-resistant HBV mutants develop, it can lead to treatment failure and progression
of liver disease [222]. Newer agents with a high genetic barrier for antiviral
resistance have significantly reduced the risk of drug resistance and can
effectively suppress HBV replication with monotherapy alone. Hence, when starting
antiviral treatment with NAs, monotherapy with a high genetic barrier to resistance
is recommended. When choosing a specific NA, one should consider the efficacy and
safety of the drug. Although the class effects of NAs remain unclear, each NA has
a
unique side effect profiles [223]. Hence, when the efficacy of one NA is expected
to be
similar to another NA, one should consider patient co-morbidities and the future
risk of drug-related side effects when selecting an NA (Refer to “Management in
Special Conditions” chapter).
[Recommendations]
1. For the treatment of patients with CHB, monotherapy using NAs with high
genetic barriers to resistance or peginterferon alfa is recommended. (A1)
2. For the treatment of patients with compensated cirrhosis, monotherapy using
NAs with high genetic barriers to resistance is recommended. (A1)
If underlying liver function is well preserved, treatment with peginterferon alfa
may be considered with careful monitoring for deterioration of liver function
and adverse drug reactions. (B2)
3. For the treatment of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, monotherapy using
NAs with high genetic barriers to resistance is recommended. (A1)
Peginterferon alfa is contraindicated due to the risk of liver failure. (A1)
THERAPEUTIC AGENTS
In 2017, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (tenofovir AF) and besifovir dipivoxil
maleate (besifovir) were newly approved for treatment of CHB in adults. Currently,
there are eight treatment options for CHB patients in Korea (Table 4).
Among the newly approved drugs, tenofovir AF is a nucleotide analogue with the same
mechanism as the existing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir DF) and is
maintained at a stable concentration in plasma, effectively metabolized in
hepatocytes, and shows similar antiviral activity to tenofovir DF even at a smaller
dose. As the amount of systemic exposure is small, tenofovir AF induces less renal
and bone toxicity than tenofovir DF [224-227].
Besifovir is an acyclic nucleotide phosphonate that was developed in Korea as an oral
antiviral agent and is similar to adefovir and tenofovir DF in structure
[228,229]. Although clinical
data are limited, besifovir has shown little effect on renal and bone toxicity and
has similar effects to tenofovir DF in the Phase 3 trial [230]. Table 4 summarizes
newly added
drugs and existing treatments including peginterferon alfa 2a. NAs are classified
into those associated with high genetic barrier to resistance (entecavir, tenofovir
DF, tenofovir AF, besifovir) and those with low genetic barrier to resistance
(lamivudine, telbivudine, clevudine, adefovir) (Table 4). In addition, although the
efficacy of
antiviral agents was not analyzed in head-to-head comparisons, the antiviral
efficacy of individual drugs is described in Table 5.
NAs with high genetic barrier
Entecavir, tenofovir DF, tenofovir AF, and besifovir are recommended as
first-line treatment for HBeAg-positive and -negative CHB patients. In
particular, many clinical data of entecavir and tenofovir DF have been verified
to show their long-term safety and efficacy [231-233]. Recently, clinical studies
with up to 2 years of follow-up have suggested that tenofovir AF and besifovir
exhibit better safety profiles than tenofovir DF, with similar antiviral
efficacy [224-227,230]. Further
clinical investigation focusing on long-term treatment outcomes should be
performed to verify the antiviral efficacy and safety of these new antiviral
agents.
NAs with low genetic barrier
Lamivudine, telbivudine, clevudine, and adefovir are not recommended as
first-line treatment for patients with HBeAg-positive or -negative CHB because
of viral resistance. However, these drugs have been used in clinical practice
before introduction of antiviral agents with high genetic barriers, and they are
still being prescribed in patients showing optimal virological responses.
Interferons
Interferon is a cytokine produced and secreted by immune cells in viral infection
and has an antiviral effect and immunity-controlling activity. Although the
precise mechanism is unclear, interferon alfa plays a role in destruction of
cccDNA and viral mRNA, inhibition of the replication of viral DNA, and effective
control of the immune response to virus-infected hepatocytes [234].
Peginterferon is a combination of interferon and polyethylene glycol molecules
that has a long half-life, is easier to administer once per week, and has a
stronger therapeutic effect compared to conventional interferon. The greatest
advantage of peginterferon is the finite treatment period. The rate of HBsAg
seroclearance was shown to be 2–7% at the first year after the end of treatment
and increased to 12% at the fifth year [216,217,220,235-238].
[Recommendations]
1. NAs with high genetic barriers to resistance include entecavir, tenofovir
DF, tenofovir AF, and besifovir. (A1)
DEFINITION AND PREDICTORS OF ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT RESPONSE
Definition of response
NAs
The virological response is defined as undetectable HBV DNA by a sensitive
PCR assay (Table 6). A
maintained virological response is defined by achieving a virological
response and maintaining undetectable HBV DNA levels as assessed using a
sensitive PCR assay. A partial virological response is defined as a decrease
but detectable HBV DNA level after at least 24 weeks of therapy when using
low genetic barrier drugs (e.g., lamivudine, telbivudine), and at least 48
weeks of therapy when using high genetic barrier drugs (e.g., entecavir or
tenofovir) in compliant patients. A serological response is defined for
HBeAg loss and HBeAg seroconversion for an HBeAg serological response in
HBeAg-positive patients, and HBsAg loss or seroconversion for an HBsAg
serological response. A viral breakthrough is defined as an increase in
serum HBV DNA level of more than 1 log10 IU/mL compared with the lowest HBV
DNA level on-therapy, or redetection of serum HBV DNA at levels of 10-fold
the lower detection limit after achieving a virological response. A
virological breakthrough usually precedes a biochemical breakthrough. A
biochemical response is defined as a normalization of ALT levels, and a
biochemical breakthrough is defined by an increase in ALT levels for
patients who have achieved a biochemical response. Genotypic resistance is
defined when HBV DNA mutations known to confer antiviral resistance during
antiviral therapy have been detected. Phenotypic resistance is defined as
decreased susceptibility (in vitro testing) to inhibition by antiviral drugs
associated with genotypic resistance. Cross-resistance is defined as an HBV
mutation selected by one antiviral agent that also confers resistance to
other antiviral agents. HBV resistance to NAs is characterized by the
presence of HBV variants with amino-acid substitutions that confer reduced
susceptibility to the administered NA. Such resistance may result in primary
treatment failure or virological breakthrough during therapy.
Peginterferon alfa
A primary non-response to peginterferon alfa is defined as a decrease of less
than 1 log10 IU/mL in serum HBV DNA from baseline to after 3 months of
therapy. A virological response is defined as an HBV DNA level of less than
2,000 IU/mL after 6 months or at the end of therapy. A sustained off-therapy
virological response is defined as an HBV DNA level of less than 2,000 IU/mL
at least 6 months after the end of therapy. A serological response is
defined by HBeAg loss or HBeAg seroconversion for an HBeAg serological
response in patients with HBeAg-positive CHB, and HBsAg loss or HBsAg
seroconversion for HBsAg serological response.
Predictors of response
NAs
Pre-treatment serum ALT levels, HBV DNA levels, HBeAg levels, and qHBsAg
levels are factors associated with the virological response [99,239]. Serum HBV DNA
levels, ALT
levels, severe necroinflammation as observed on a liver biopsy, and a
maintained virological response are factors associated with the HBeAg
serological response in HBeAg-positive CHB [240-243]. When using low genetic
barrier drugs such as lamivudine, adefovir, or telbivudine, undetectable HBV
DNA at 6–12 months of treatment was also associated with a virological
response [244-247]. Caucasian patients, those infected with HBV genotype A
or D, males (as opposed to females), and the virological response were
factors associated with HBsAg serological response during entecavir therapy
[248]. Caucasian race, less than 4 years of infection, HBV
genotype A or D, and a reduction in HBsAg levels >1 log10 U/mL by week 24
were factors associated with HBsAg serological response during tenofovir
therapy [249]. In Asian patients with CHB, achieving a viral
suppression took longer for patients who had a high baseline viral load (≥9
log10 copies/mL) [250]. HBV genotype was not associated with the
virological response to NA therapy.
Peginterferon alfa
The HBV genotype is associated with the treatment response to peginterferon
alfa therapy. Those with HBV genotype A or B showed a more favorable HBeAg
response, HBsAg response, and virological response than those with HBV
genotype C or D [108,220,251,252].
In Korea, almost all patients are infected with HBV genotype C, which should
be considered when treating patients with peginterferon. High serum ALT
levels, low HBV DNA levels, severe necroinflammation, and HBV genotype are
factors associated with HBeAg serological response in HBeAg-positive CHB
[216,253]. High serum
ALT levels, low HBV DNA levels, young age, and female sex are factors
associated with the virological response in HBeAgnegative CHB [217,253].
On-treatment factors, such as HBV DNA levels, quantitative HBeAg levels, and
qHBsAg levels, are also associated with virological response during
peginterferon therapy [116,254-256].
MONITORING DURING ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT
NAs
Persistent HBV replication during antiviral treatment is a major risk for
hepatitis progression and viral mutation [257]. Serum HBV DNA should be
measured every 1 to 6 months during antiviral therapy to facilitate treatment
adjustments based on serum HBV DNA levels.
Although serum HBV DNA is less than 2,000 IU/mL during therapy, the incidence of
HCC is higher in patients with detectable HBV DNA persistently or intermittently
than in patients with undetectable HBV DNA persistently [205]. Therefore,
serum HBV DNA should be measured every 3 to 6 months during antiviral therapy
even after virological response. Serum HBV DNA reduction to an undetectable
levels by real-time PCR (<10–15 IU/mL) should ideally be achieved
[97,258].
Although qHBsAg levels is less likely to decrease with NAs compared to
peginterferon alfa [259-261], the degree of reduction in HBV DNA is correlated with
the
degree of reduction in HBsAg levels [259]. Low pretreatment HBsAg levels
and greater HBsAg decline after 24 weeks of treatment were reported to be
positive predictors of a long term virological response [262-264]. In patients with
CHB having
received ten years of NA therapy, low baseline HBsAg levels (<1,000 IU/mL)
and a greater rate of HBsAg reduction on-therapy (>0.166 log10 IU/mL/year)
were predictive of HBsAg loss [265]. Low HBsAg levels (10–200
IU/mL) on cessation of therapy have been reported to be a good predictor of
persistent virological response and HBsAg loss after antiviral cessation
[118,266-269]. Therefore, monitoring of
qHBsAg could be helpful in practice.
Drug compliance and emergence of antiviral-resistance mutations should be
monitored in patients who develop virological breakthrough while receiving NAs,
and an appropriate rescue therapy should be initiated if necessary (Fig. 3) [35,79,270-272].
Most NAs are excreted through the kidney, and hence dose adjustment is required
in patients with renal insufficiency (refer to section on renal impairment).
Regular monitoring of renal function and bone mineral density should be
performed in patients receiving adefovir or tenofovir DF [273,274]. A large prospective
study of
entecavir-related carcinogenicity found comparable cancer incidence between
entecavir and other NAs [232]. There have been few reports on telbivudine-related
myositis; however, monitoring of serum creatine kinase (CK) levels is
recommended due to the possibility of CK elevation [178,275]. Levels Serum CK levels
and
related symptoms should also be monitored in patients receiving clevudine (Fig. 3)
[276,277].
Peginterferon alfa
The serum CBC and ALT levels of patients receiving peginterferon alfa should be
tested monthly. Serum HBV DNA should be measured after 1–3 months of treatment
to facilitate treatment adjustments based on serum HBV DNA levels. There is a
high probability of HBsAg loss if serum HBV DNA becomes undetectable during
treatment. Patients with who are HBeAg-positive should be tested for HBeAg and
anti-HBe at 6 and 12 months during treatment and 6 months post treatment.
Patients should be monitored for 6–12 months after treatment cessation. For
response prediction, a qHBsAg levels can be used before treatment and after 12
and 24 weeks of treatment [116,255,256,278,279]. All patients treated with
peginterferon alfa should be assessed for known adverse effects of interferon at
every visit.
[Recommendations]
1. During treatment with NAs, liver function tests and serum HBV DNA
measurement at 1–6 month intervals and HBeAg/antiHBe at 3–6 month intervals
are recommended. (B1)
HBsAg quantification may be considered, which may help predict antiviral
response and determine treatment cessation. (B2)
2. During peginterferon alfa therapy, CBC and liver function tests every
month, serum HBV DNA at intervals of 1–3 months, and HBeAg/anti-HBe at 6
months and one year during treatment and 6 months after treatment are
recommended. (B1)
HBsAg quantification is recommended pre-treatment, after 12 and 24 weeks of
treatment, and at the end of treatment. (B1)
3. Even after virological response, serum HBV DNA measurement is recommended
at intervals of 3–6 months. (B1)
4. Monitoring the side effects of each drug during antiviral therapy is
necessary. (A1)
CESSATION OF TREATMENT AND MONITORING ANTIVIRAL TREATMENT
Clinical biomarkers for treatment endpoint
In patients with CHB, it is realistically difficult or impossible to determine
the appropriate timing of treatment cessation after achieving the ultimate goal
of therapy, which is improvement in survival. Therefore, alternative biomarkers
that reflect achievement of treatment goals that can easily be measured are
needed when evaluating treatment cessation. ALT normalization, undetectable HBV
DNA, HBeAg loss or seroconversion and HBsAg loss or seroconversion have been
used as treatment endpoints. Cessation of therapy is not recommended in patients
with liver cirrhosis because there is a risk of serious liver failure due to
relapse and flare after cessation of therapy [67,97].
The standard treatment duration of peginterferon alfa is 48 weeks [217,238]. However,
there have been some
reports that extended dosing could be more effective in HBeAg-negative CHB
[280,281].
ALT normalization
Normalization of ALT in CHB treatment reflects a decrease in hepatic
inflammatory response, mostly associated with undetectable HBV DNA, and
reduces clinical deterioration [174]. Normalization of ALT
during treatment reflects improvement in cirrhosis and therefore could be
considered reflective of treatment goals [149].
However, 14–40% of patients with persistently normal ALT could have more than
significant fibrosis (≥F2) and there are a variety of factors affecting ALT,
such as non-alcoholic or alcoholic fatty liver [162,172,282]. As such,
ALT normalization alone is insufficient when determining the endpoint of
treatment.
Undetectable HBV DNA
HBV DNA level is the strongest predictor of disease progression and long-term
outcomes in the natural course of CHB [45,47]. HBV DNA levels are
associated with histological activity in patients with CHB, and rate of
progression to decompensation is low and that of survival is high in
patients with low HBV DNA [283,284].
Antiviral therapy can reduce HBV DNA, and histological improvement can be
achieved in proportion to HBV DNA reduction [285]. When HBV DNA is not
detectable for long-term and virological response is well maintained
[286,287], the HBsAg
loss rate increases even after cessation of therapy in HBeAg-negative CHB
patients [286,288]. Therefore, cessation of therapy could be considered in
HBeAg-negative CHB patients with long-term undetectable HBV DNA
[289]. However, in practice, most patients relapsed after
cessation of therapy [290-292]. Hence, undetectable HBV DNA cannot be the sole factor
determining treatment cessation.
HBeAg loss and/or seroconversion
HBeAg seroconversion in HBeAg-positive CHB is accompanied by HBV DNA
reduction, ALT normalization, and improvement in histological findings after
antiviral therapy [285,293]. After HBeAg seroconversion, HBsAg loss also increases
to 1.15% per year [31]. The incidence of liver cirrhosis and HCC is reduced
and survival is improved in both patients with spontaneous or
treatment-induced HBeAg seroconversion compared to patients who are
persistently HBeAg positive [7,15,283,294,295]. Therefore, HBeAg
loss/seroconversion in HBeAg-positive CHB could be considered biomarkers
reflecting achievement of treatment goal.
However, HBeAg-negative hepatitis has been reported in 24% of patients even
after HBeAg seroconversion [15]. Furthermore, the incidence
of HBeAg reversion and an increase in HBV DNA was noted after treatment
cessation in patients who achieved HBeAg loss/seroconversion on antiviral
therapy [286,287,296,297]. Therefore, the evidence for recommending treatment
cessation depending on HBeAg loss/seroconversion alone is lacking.
Nevertheless, the risk of recurrence is reduced if treatment is discontinued
after being maintained for a sufficient period of time (e.g., more than 12
months) after HBeAg loss/seroconversion [298,299].
HBsAg loss
HBsAg levels quantified by qHBsAg assay reflect the natural course of disease
in patients with CHB [112], and are also proportional to the levels of cccDNA
in the liver [300]. HBsAg levels may decrease after HBeAg loss during
antiviral therapy [259]. The incidence of HCC is significantly reduced when
HBsAg loss occurs before age 45–50 [23,301]. Some patients with HBsAg
loss/conversion during antiviral therapy showed HBsAg reversion or low but
detectable HBV DNA, but most patients maintain HBsAg loss and undetectable
HBV DNA levels, and their incidence of HCC is significantly lower compared
to patients without HBsAg loss [154,302]. Therefore, HBsAg loss is
the ideal endpoint of antiviral therapy in CHB, reflecting the treatment
goal, at which point NAs can be discontinued. Recently, it has been reported
that HBsAg reversion can be better avoided if antiviral therapy is
discontinued after maintaining treatment for 6–12 months or longer despite
HBsAg loss [302].
However, HBsAg loss is very rare and long-term treatment (50 years or longer)
is required based on the decreasing dynamics of HBsAg levels during
treatment with NAs [303,304]. Despite HBsAg loss, there is always a risk of
developing HCC and surveillance is still necessary [301,305,306]. It remains
unclear whether HBsAg loss will further improve the long-term clinical
prognosis beyond that expected by undetectable HBV DNA.
Monitoring after antiviral treatment
The response to antiviral treatment persists in some patients, while others
relapse. Therefore, regular monitoring of liver function tests, HBeAg,
anti-HBe, and HBV DNA is needed to evaluate the durability of the treatment
response, relapse, and deterioration in liver function. qHBsAg levels may be
helpful in monitoring HBsAg reduction or loss in patients without HBsAg loss
after cessation of therapy. Even in patients in whom HBsAg loss has been
achieved, there is the potential risk for reversion of HBsAg or development
of HCC [154,301,302]. Therefore, serum HBsAg and/or antiHBs should be
monitored and HCC surveillance should be performed continuously.
[Recommendations]
1. Cessation of NAs is recommended after serum HBsAg loss in CHB
patients. (A1)
2. In HBeAg-positive CHB patients, cessation of NA therapy could be
considered at least 12 months after HBV DNA is undetectable and serum
HBeAg loss or seroconversion has been achieved. (B2)
3. Long-term treatment should be considered in patients with liver
cirrhosis. Indefinite NA therapy is recommended in patients with
decompensated liver cirrhosis. (B1)
4. Peginterferon alfa is administered for 48 weeks. (A1)
5. Liver function testing and serum HBV DNA measurement at 1–6-month
intervals and HBeAg/anti-HBe testing at 3–6-month intervals are
recommended during the first year after cessation of antiviral
treatment. Liver function testing and serum HBV DNA measurement at
3–6-month intervals and HBeAg/anti-HBe testing at 6–12-month intervals
are recommended if treatment response is maintained beyond one year
after antiviral therapy. (B1)
6. If virological response is maintained after cessation of antiviral
treatment, follow-up HBsAg/anti-HBs testing should be performed to
confirm HBsAg loss, maintenance, or reversion. (B1)
ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE
The development of antiviral resistance decreased significantly after the use of
drugs with high genetic barriers such as entecavir and tenofovir (including
tenofovir DF and tenofovir AF) as first-line treatments. Nonetheless, antiviral
resistance is an important factor that determines success or failure of CHB
treatment. The emergence of antiviral resistance results in resumption of active
viral replication that had been suppressed by antiviral therapy and can impair
biochemical or histological improvement. Therefore, prevention, early diagnosis, and
management of antiviral resistance may significantly affect the long-term prognosis
of CHB patients undergoing antiviral therapy [307-309].
Mechanism of antiviral resistance and definitions
Mutations in HBV can occur in all four open reading frames (ORF) of preS/S,
polymerase, precore/core, and X. Among the mutations in the polymerase ORF,
which is the target of several NAs, those that can replicate under the influence
of the antiviral agent are selected, and the ratio is increased. Although the
first-occurring antiviral-resistant mutant has decreased replication capacity, a
compensatory mutation develops over time that restores replication capacity to
the wild-type level [310]. Selection for a particular mutation affects both
resistance to the drug being administered and the replication capacity.
A genetic barrier is defined as the number of genetic mutations needed to develop
antiviral resistance, with a higher genetic barrier indicating a lower risk of
resistance [311]. The antiviral potency of drugs also influences the
development of resistance. Therefore, as a first-line treatment, it is important
to use drugs with a high barrier to HBV resistance such as entecavir, tenofovir,
and besifovir, which have a high inhibitory effect on virus proliferation, or,
alternately, peginterferon alfa. If other drugs have been used, careful
monitoring for resistance development is required.
Mutations conferring resistance to antiviral agents
Antiviral agents used in treatment of HBV infection are classified into two
groups: nucleoside analogues (L-nucleoside analogues [lamivudine,
telbivudine, and clevudine] and cyclopentenes
[entecavir]) and nucleotide analogues (acyclic phosphonates
[adefovir, tenofovir, besifovir]) [312]. Cross-resistance between
nucleosides and nucleotide analogues is rarely observed. Tables 7 and 8 summarize
the types and
frequencies of known drug resistance mutations.
Nucleoside analogues
L-nucleoside analogues (lamivudine, telbivudine, and clevudine):
All L-nucleosides have a similar molecular structure and target site of
action, resulting in similar patterns of antiviral resistance mutations.
Mutations at rtM204 are the primary resistance mutations to L-nucleosides
[309,313-315]. The
rtM204V and rtM204I mutations involve substitution of methionine with valine
and isoleucine, respectively, at codon 204 of the reverse transcriptase gene
[316]. Originally, these were termed YMDD mutations
[316]. The specific primary mutations conferring resistance
are rtM204V/I substitutions for lamivudine and only the rtM204I substitution
for telbivudine and clevudine [178,317-319]. An rtM204V mutant may
commonly accompany rtL180M but not rtM204I [320]. These mutants are
sensitive to nucleotide analogues, but they exhibit cross-resistance to
entecavir and an eight-fold decrease in sensitivity. The rtA181T mutation
has been detected in 5% of lamivudine-resistant patients, in whom
susceptibility to telbivudine and clevudine is also reduced. This mutation
confers concomitant resistance to adefovir, but these mutants remain
susceptible to entecavir [321].
Cyclopentene (entecavir): Resistance to entecavir occurs through
a two-hit mechanism. rtL180M and rtM204V first develop as background
mutations, and then additional mutations such as rtT184L/F/A/M/S/I/C/G,
rtS202G/I/C, or rtM250V/I/L develop as primary resistance mutations to
entecavir, resulting in a marked decrease in drug susceptibility
[311,322]. rtI169T is
a compensatory mutation that increases the fold resistance of rtT184,
rtS202, and rtM250 mutants. Since multiple genetic mutations are needed to
develop high-level resistance to entecavir (high genetic barrier), the
resistance rate in treatment-naïve CHB patients is very low. However, a
resistance rate as high as 51% has been reported after five years of
treatment in lamivudine-refractory subjects [323]. In addition, exposure to
lamivudine increases the risk of resistance to entecavir even if no previous
resistance has occurred [324]. Thus, it is important to
use drugs with a high barrier to HBV resistance as first-line treatment.
Nucleotide analogues
Adefovir: rtN236T and rtA181V/T are the primary resistance
mutations to adefovir [325,326]. The levels of resistance
of rtN236T and rtA181T to adefovir are 7- to 10-fold and 2.5- to 5-fold,
respectively, compared to the wild-type virus [312,321]. rtA181T can be detected in
subjects receiving lamivudine monotherapy or combination therapy comprising
adefovir plus lamivudine [327,328].
Tenofovir: rtA194T can decrease susceptibility to tenofovir by
6.9- to 10-fold in the presence of rtL180M+rtM204V mutations [329-331]. It has
been reported that rtS78T/sC69* inhibits tenofovir sensitivity 1.6-fold
[332], but its clinical significance needs to be confirmed.
Recently, a novel mutation was found in sera of patients with viral
breakthrough in the treatment of tenofovir DF in Korea [333]. In a
laboratory phenotypic resistance study, rtS106C+ rtH126Y+rtD134E+rtL269I
conferred a 15.3-fold increase in resistance to tenofovir.
Besifovir: In a multicenter clinical study, viral breakthrough
was observed in patients with poor compliance, but no mutations associated
with resistance of besifovir were observed [230,334,335].
MANAGEMENT OF ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE
Prior antiviral resistance predisposes individuals to subsequent viral mutations and
limits the choice of rescue therapies due to cross-resistance [312,336]. In addition,
even if antiviral
agents without cross-resistance are selected, resistance to rescue therapy is more
frequent than in treatment-naïve subjects [336-338]. Careful selection of a first-line
antiviral agent is essential to minimize resistance and cross-resistance to other
agents.
Antiviral resistance testing is required when a virological or biochemical
breakthrough is detected in subjects with good compliance. In cases of resistance,
an appropriate rescue therapy should be initiated with the most effective antiviral
agent without crossresistance to minimize the risk of inducing multiple
drug-resistant strains [339]. Table
9 shows recommendations for treatment adaptation.
Management of nucleoside analogue resistance
Patients with confirmed resistance to nucleoside analogues such as lamivudine,
telbivudine, clevudine, and entecavir can be changed to treatment with tenofovir
alone. A prospective study showed that tenofovir DF monotherapy was highly
efficacious in patients with lamivudine-resistant HBV and comparable to the
combination of tenofovir DF and emtricitabine, without emergence of additional
resistance mutations to tenofovir DF throughout 96 weeks of treatment
[340].
Although data on rescue therapy with telbivudine and clevudine are lacking,
their resistance mutations are very similar, and we recommend that treatment be
based on lamivudine resistance. A recent multicenter randomized trial with
patients who had lamivudine/entecavir-resistant HBV, found that the proportion
of patients with HBV DNA <15 IU/mL was not significantly different between
the tenofovir DF and tenofovir DF/ entecavir groups (71% vs. 73%) [341]. A
retrospective study that compared tenofovir DF with tenofovir DF/entecavir among
patients who had lamivudine/entecavir-resistant HBV found that the HBV
undetectable rate up to 24 months (HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) did not differ
significantly between groups (85.4% vs. 89.2%) [342]. However, tenofovir
DF/entecavir combination therapy was superior to tenofovir DF monotherapy in
patients with a high baseline viral load (HBV DNA >4 log IU/mL).
Management of nucleotide analogue resistance
Switching to tenofovir monotherapy or tenofovir/entecavir combination therapy is
recommended in cases of adefovir resistance. In vitro studies showed that
susceptibility of adefovir-resistant HBV with a single rtN236T or rtA181V/T
mutation to tenofovir is similar to that of wild-type HBV, but susceptibility is
lower when both mutations are present [321]. Clinically, most studies have
found that tenofovir is effective in suppressing adefovir-resistant HBV.
Tenofovir DF alone or tenofovir DF and emtricitabine are similarly effective in
patients with CHB treated with adefovir (82% vs. 84%) [343]. However, this
study reported that only 27.6% of patients had HBV with adefovir resistance
mutations. A recent multicenter randomized trial with patients who had
adefovir-resistant HBV found that the proportion of patients with HBV DNA <15
IU/mL was not significantly different between those treated with tenofovir DF
and tenofovir DF/entecavir (62.0% vs. 63.5%) [344]. When these patients were
followed for three years, there was no difference in incidence of undetectable
HBV DNA level between the two groups. However, the decrease in serum HBV DNA
level tended to be smaller in a subgroup of patients with HBV that had both
adefovir resistance mutations, (rtA181T/V and rtN236T), though longer follow-up
is needed to confirm this finding [345]. A Korean retrospective study
reported that tenofovir DF had inferior efficacy in adefovir-experienced CHB
patients [346]. Thus, CHB patients with a history of adefovir exposure
should be monitored closely for response to tenofovir monotherapy and
virological breakthrough.
We recommend adding entecavir to tenofovir in cases of tenofovir resistance.
However, if the resistance is accompanied by that to entecavir, treatment with a
nucleos(t)ide antiviral agent is difficult, indicating the need for a new
therapeutic agent.
Management of multidrug resistance
Although there is no clear international definition, management of multidrug
resistance (MDR) is defined as resistance to two or more classes of antiviral
drugs [336]. This is due to the low efficacy of adefovir and entecavir
used as previous rescue therapy for L-nucleoside analogue resistant-HBV and
their sequential therapy alone. Most studies on MDR management have few patients
with heterogeneous resistance mutations and a diverse combination of therapies.
Although there is no established treatment, tenofovir/entecavir combination
therapy, tenofovir monotherapy, and adefovir/entecavir combination therapy are
the preferred treatment options [347]. The serum HBV DNA
non-detection rate (<12 IU/mL) was reported to be 62.5% in a prospective
multicenter study of 64 patients with MDR CHB after 48 weeks of treatment with
tenofovir DF/entecavir combination therapy [348]. Tenofovir DF monotherapy had
non-inferior antiviral efficacy compared with tenofovir DF-based combination
therapy in MDR CHB patients in a multicenter cohort studies [47,349]. In addition,
there was no
significant difference in virological response at 48 weeks between tenofovir DF
monotherapy and tenofovir DF/entecavir combination therapy (66.3% vs. 68.0%) in
CHB patients with resistance mutations to ETV and/or adefovir [345]. In this
regard, patients with MDR CHB may be treated with tenofovir monotherapy.
There has been a recent report of tenofovir resistance in Korea [350]. Also, a
prospective study found that approximately onequarter of patients, particularly
those with adefovir-resistant CHB, did not have a satisfactory virological
response until three years of rescue therapy [345]. It is therefore necessary to
identify factors predictive of treatment response and to verify long-term
therapeutic effects.
[Recommendations]
1. If a virological breakthrough occurs during NA treatment, patient
medication compliance should be assessed, and antiviral resistance testing
should be performed. (A1)
2. Rescue therapy for antiviral resistance should be initiated as soon as
possible once a virological breakthrough is detected and genotypic
resistance is confirmed. (A1)
3. For CHB resistant to L-nucleoside analogues such as lamivudine,
telbivudine, and clevudine, switch to tenofovir monotherapy. (A1)
4. For entecavir-resistant CHB, switch to tenofovir monotherapy, or add
tenofovir. (A1)
5. For adefovir-resistant CHB, switch to tenofovir monotherapy or tenofovir
and entecavir combination therapy. (A1)
6. For tenofovir-resistant CHB, add entecavir. (B1)
7. For multidrug-resistant CHB, switch to tenofovir and entecavir combination
therapy or tenofovir monotherapy. (A1)
MANAGEMENT ACCORDING TO TREATMENT RESPONSE
Persistent viral replication during antiviral treatment for CHB is a risk factor for
the progression of hepatic fibrosis and the development of antiviral-resistant
mutations. Thus, treatment response should be evaluated by measuring serum HBV DNA
levels with sensitive real-time PCR methods at 3–6-month intervals. Even for
patients who achieved virological response, treatment response needs to be monitored
at 3–6 month intervals until the patient is able to stop medication after achieving
the treatment goal [109]. When patients under peginterferon alfa treatment show
insufficient virological response, early cessation of treatment can be
considered.
Management of partial virological response to NAs
Although there have been few studies on partial virological response, it is
recommended to switch from one NA to other NA options with no cross-resistance
and a high genetic barrier for treatment-adherent patients with partial
virological response (Fig.
3). Upon switching to entecavir 1 mg per day in patients with a partial
virological response to lamivudine, 67.6% of patients demonstrated an
undetectable HBV DNA (<60 IU/mL) rate at week 96 [351]. However, as
lamivudine-experienced patients treated with entecavir showed a relatively
higher risk of developing entecavir-resistant mutation in lamivudine-experienced
patients [324], caution is needed when switching to entecavir. In
contrast, tenofovir was reported to provide good antiviral efficacy regardless
of prior exposure or resistance to lamivudine [336]. In the case of partial
virological response to either entecavir or tenofovir, which have a high genetic
barrier, medication can be maintained if serum HBV DNA decreases continuously,
since the risk of developing a resistant mutation is low and delayed virological
response can be expected without changing the antiviral regimen. However,
switching to another drug might be considered if the decrease in HBV DNA is not
remarkable within 12 months (Fig.
3) [97]. Recently, a prospective randomized trial in Korea reported
that upon switching to tenofovir DF, 55% of patients with partial virological
response to 12 months of entecavir treatment showed undetectable serum HBV DNA
(<20 IU/mL) at month 12, compared to 20% in an entecavir maintaining group
[352].
A meta-analysis also reported that switching to tenofovir DF is effective for
those patients [353]. Prior research on the optimal treatment strategy for
partial virological response to tenofovir has been highly limited. In a Korean
study, 90.2% of patients who showed partial virological response to tenofovir DF
treatment at month 12 achieved virological response at year three when they
continued tenofovir DF treatment [354].
Management after achieving virological response with NA treatment
Tenofovir DF monotherapy showed comparable antiviral efficacy to tenofovir
DF/entecavir combination therapy for patients with entecavir- or
adefovir-resistant mutations in prospective randomized trials [341,344,345,349,355].
Based on these studies, a
switch to tenofovir monotherapy can be considered in patients achieving
virological response to rescue combination therapy with tenofovir and entecavir.
Since long-term treatment is currently inevitable for CHB, the potential benefit
and risk, or cost of combination therapy should be weighed. A Korean
retrospective study reported that virological response was sustained in all 76
patients during a median 2-year follow-up when the rescue treatment was switched
from combination treatment with tenofovir DF plus entecavir to tenofovir DF
monotherapy [356].
The ideal endpoint of antiviral treatment for CHB patients is a functional cure
with HBsAg loss. Although HBsAg can be lost with NAs alone, the annual rate was
as low as 0.8% [357]. Therefore, there have been a number of studies on
additional interferon treatment and/or therapeutic vaccination on NAs to
maximize treatment effect.
Several randomized controlled trials reported 4–9.8% HBsAg seroclearance rates
when NA was changed to 48-week peginterferon alfa treatment with/without
maintaining NA [358-362]. In addition, 96-week peginterferon alfa treatment
increased the HBsAg seroclearance rate to 15.3%. However, another study showed
no difference in HBsAg seroclearance rate between the adding peginterferon alfa
group (n=92) and continuing NA group (n=93) (7.8% vs. 3.2%;
P=0.15) in HBeAg-negative patients achieving virological
response with NAs [363]. A recent Korean randomized controlled study reported a
16.2% HBsAg seroclearance rate with an additional 48-week peginterferon alfa-2a
treatment period (180 µg every week) and sequential HBV vaccination in patients
who achieved virological response with entecavir and qHBsAg was <3,000 IU/mL
[364].
However, although additional treatment with interferon and/or therapeutic
vaccination can be an option to increase the chance of HBsAg loss, the treatment
benefit of combination or sequential therapy over monotherapy with NAs is
unclear in Korea, where genotype C HBV is prevalent. Further studies comparing
treatment benefit and cost or adverse event of those additional treatments are
warranted prior to applying those additional treatment strategies in clinical
practice.
Management of suboptimal response to peginterferon alfa
Serum qHBsAg titer is a good predictor of response to peginterferon alfa and is
utilized as a stopping rule [67,97]. In HBeAg-positive CHB patients,
a decline of qHBsAg levels below 1,500 IU/mL at 12 weeks in a reasonable
predictor of HBeAg seroconversion. However, qHBsAg levels >20,000 IU/mL at 12
or 24 weeks are associated with a very low probability of subsequent HBeAg
seroconversion and can be considered as peginterferon alfa stopping rules
[116,256].
In HBeAg-negative CHB patients, a decline of HBV DNA by ≥2 log10 IU/mL at 12
weeks and a ≥10% decline in serum qHBsAg from baseline to week 12 had a higher
probability of achieving a sustained response. However, the combination of a
lack of decrease in qHBsAg levels and <2 log10 IU/mL decline in HBV DNA at 12
weeks predicts no treatment response and are considered peginterferon alfa
stopping rules [254,255,365].
[Recommendations]
1. Compliance with medication should be carefully monitored in patients with
a partial virological response to NA therapy. (A1)
2. In CHB patients with a partial virological response to NAs with low
genetic barriers, switching to NAs with high genetic barriers and no
cross-resistance is recommended. (A1)
3. In CHB patients with a partial virological response to NAs with high
genetic barriers, treatment can be continued while monitoring virological
responses at 3–6-month intervals. (B1)
However, in the case of partial virological response to entecavir, switching
to tenofovir can be considered. (A2)
4. During peginterferon alfa treatment, qHBsAg levels >20,000 IU/mL after 24
weeks of therapy in HBeAg-positive CHB patients as well as a combination of
stable qHBsAg levels and a reduction in serum HBV DNA levels to less than 2
log10 IU/mL after 12 weeks of therapy in HBeAg-negative CHB patients are
associated with a very low probability of subsequent treatment response, and
cessation of therapy should be considered. (B2)
MANAGEMENT IN SPECIAL CONDITIONS
Patients with HCC
The aims of antiviral treatment in patients with HBV-related HCC are: i) the
suppression of HBV replication to prevent the progression of hepatic
dysfunction, thereby enabling active treatment of HCC and ii) the reduction of
HCC recurrence after potentially curative treatment [97].
Antiviral treatment after curative treatment of HCC
There have been several studies that reported antiviral treatment was
associated with lower risk of tumor recurrence after curative treatment
(i.e., surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation [RFA],
and percutaneous ethanol injection) for HBV-related HCC. A Taiwanese
large-scale retrospective study reported that patients who underwent NA
treatment with entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, etc. showed a
significantly lower risk of tumor recurrence or overall death after surgical
resection for HCC, although the prevalence of cirrhosis was significantly
higher [366]. Even in patients with low-level viremia (HBV DNA
<2,000 IU/mL), antiviral treatment was associated with longer
recurrence-free survival (P=0.016) and overall survival
(P=0.004) [367]. A meta-analysis showed
that the antiviral treatment group had significantly lower risk of tumor
recurrence (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval
[CI], 0.35–0.97; P=0.04), liver-related
mortality (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02–0.69; P=0.02), and
overall mortality (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14–0.50;
P<0.001), than the no antiviral treatment group
[368]. In a retrospective Korean study, antiviral treatment
with high-potency NAs (i.e., entecavir and tenofovir) showed significantly
longer recurrence-free survival than both antiviral treatment with
lowpotency NAs (i.e., lamivudine, clevudine, and telbivudine) and no
antiviral treatment [369]. In contrast, a randomized controlled trial
reported that adjuvant interferon alfa-2b treatment was not associated with
lower risk of post-resection tumor recurrence (P=0.828)
[370].
Antiviral treatment during HCC treatment
An increase in serum HBV DNA or HBV reactivation accompanied by abnormalities
on biochemical liver function testing has been observed in 14–32% of CHB
patients who undergo surgical resection for HCC [371]. A
prospective study reported that the HBV reactivation rate after surgical
resection was 2.5% in patients that underwent antiviral prophylaxis with
telbivudine and 31.8% in controls [372].
The post-RFA risk of HBV reactivation was reported to be 5.6–9.1%, whereas no
reactivation was reported after percutaneous ethanol injection
[373,374]. After
transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), approximately 4–40% of patients with
HBV-related HCC developed HBV reactivation [375-380]. Post-TACE risks of HBV
reactivation, flare-up hepatitis, and liver failure due to HBV reactivation
were 2.8%, 2.8%, and 0%, respectively, in the prophylactic lamivudine
treatment group and 40.5%, 29.7%, and 8.1% in the control group. There was a
significant difference between the two groups [378]. After hepatic artery
infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), HBV reactivation was reported in 24–67% of
patients, which was relatively higher than after TACE. This finding can
potentially be explained by a larger total amount of cytotoxic
chemotherapeutic agent due to shorter treatment interval than TACE
[381,382].
In patients who underwent external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for HCC,
reactivation and ALT elevation were reported in 0% and 2.3%, respectively,
of the lamivudine-prophylaxis group, and 21.8% and 12.5%, respectively, of
the control group. The control group had significantly higher risk of HBV
reactivation [383]. The combination treatment with TACE and EBRT had
twice the risk of HBV reactivation compared to TACE treatment alone
[384]. The incidence of HBV reactivation after cytotoxic
chemotherapy was reported to be 30–60%, 30% of which resulted in death
[380,381].
In CHB patients, prophylactic antivirals should be maintained for at least 6
months after cessation of cytotoxic chemotherapy and life-long
administration is recommended. Interferon is not recommended as a
prophylactic antiviral due to bone marrow suppression and transient
hepatitis aggravation. There was no reactivation reported during sorafenib
treatment in a retrospective study [385], while another study
reported a high risk of HBV reactivation [386]. Thus, further
observational studies are warranted. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as
nivolumab and pembrolizumab, may enhance host immunity and consequently have
a lower risk of HBV reactivation. However, immune checkpoints can result in
severe acute aggravation of hepatitis since it can upregulate antiviral
immunity against HBV. Therefore, suppression of HBV replication with
antiviral treatment is necessary before use of immune checkpoint inhibitors
[387].
In conclusion, HBV reactivation after various treatments for HBV-related HCC
is frequently observed and prophylactic antiviral treatment can reduce the
risk of HBV reactivation. Thus, prophylactic antiviral treatment is
recommended for patients who undergo surgical treatment, locoregional
treatment, radiation treatment, and systemic treatment for HBV-related HCC,
regardless of detectable serum HBV DNA.
[Recommendations]
1. In patients with HBV-related HCC, antiviral therapy should be
initiated if serum HBV DNA is detected. (A1)
2. In patients with HBV-related HCC who undergo anticancer treatment,
prophylactic antiviral therapy with NAs should be considered regardless
of detectable serum HBV DNA. (B1)
Patients with renal dysfunction or metabolic bone disease
Long-term administration of adefovir or tenofovir DF in the patients with CHB,
may result in decreased renal function and bone mineral density. Side effects
such as acute on chronic renal failure, hypophosphatemia, and Fanconi syndrome
have been reported [274,388-390]. If patients
already have risk factors for renal dysfunction and/or metabolic bone disease,
or if worsening kidney function or bone disease is detected during treatment, a
change in treatment regimens needs to be considered.
Patients with renal dysfunction or metabolic bone disease prior to
starting the treatment
Patients with chronic kidney disease are known to have relatively higher rate
of exposure to HBV infection [391]. In Korea, around 5% of
HBsAg positive rate has been reported among the hemodialysis patients
[392-396]. When
starting the oral antiviral agents in the patients with chronic kidney
disease, we need to adjust the dose according to the creatinine clearance
(Table 10). If
creatinine clearance is below 15 mL/min without renal replacement therapy,
tenofovir AF is not recommended. Same goes for besifovir in case of
creatinine clearance below 50 mL/min. Tenofovir DF is not recommended in the
patients with both creatinine clearance below 10 mL/min and no renal
replacement therapy.
Because nucleotide analogue treatment itself may affect renal function or
bone density, it is necessary to select an appropriate drug if there is any
risk factor. In a large Phase 3 trial comparing tenofovir AF and tenofovir
DF over the 96-week treatment period, among those with any risk factor such
as renal insufficiency, decreased bone density, old age, diabetes, or
hypertension, patients treated with tenofovir DF had worsening renal
function and bone density compared to patients treated with tenofovir AF
(Compared to baseline, median changes in estimated glomerular filtration
rate [eGFR] were -5.0 mL/min and -0.3 mL/min, respectively;
bone mineral density changes were -3.290% and 1.233%
[g/cm2 ], respectively) [224-227]. Therefore,
it is recommended to avoid the use of tenofovir DF among patients with risk
factors for renal dysfunction such as baseline eGFR <60 mL/min,
proteinuria, albuminuria (urine albumin: creatinine ratio>30 mg/g),
hypophosphatemia (<2.5 mg/dL), uncontrolled diabetes, or hypertension. If
patients have a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis, need to be on
chronic steroids treatment, or take other medications that may lower the
bone density, other antivirals that affect bone density less should be
considered over tenofovir DF (Fig. 4) [97].
In addition to tenofovir AF, entecavir and besifovir have less of an effect
on renal function and bone metabolism. In a retrospective study comparing
tenofovir DF and entecavir, the mean eGFR percentage decline of was
significant in patients with tenofovir DF at week 48, 96, and 144. Also,
bone density decline in the lumbar spine and hip was greater in patients
with tenofovir DF than those with entecavir. In addition, osteopenia or
osteoporosis prevalence (T score <-1.0) was much higher in the tenofovir
DF group than the entecavir group at week 48, 96, and 144. Multivariate
analysis showed the predictive factor for bone loss at week 144 was
tenofovir DF use [397].
Besifovir, recently approved for use, had been evaluated in a clinical trial
for safety in reduction of renal function and bone density. In a Phase 2b
clinical trial, compared to entecavir, patients on besifovir didn’t have
serum creatinine level increase by more than 0.5 mg/dL or a significant
decrease in eGFR for a 48- week period [398]. During the two-year
extended study period, grade 1 elevation of creatinine level (defined as
increase of more than >0.3 mg/dL or 1.5–2.0 times the baseline
creatinine) was observed in 35.5%, 17.9%, and 53.5% of the group receiving
besifovir 90 mg, 150 mg, and 0.5 mg of entecavir, respectively.
Hypophosphatemia was observed in 12.9%, 10.7%, and 10.0% of the same group,
respectively, but there was no statistical difference among the three
groups, and there was no treatment discontinuation or patients who developed
symptoms of hypophosphatemia [335]. Therefore, besifovir is
thought to have similar effect on renal function or serum phosphate level
compared to entecavir.
Patients who developed renal dysfunction or decrease in bone density on
treatment with NAs
If patient develop renal dysfunction or decrease in bone density while on
NAs, one needs to find the causative factors to correct them and adjust the
dose modification accordingly (Table 10). Or, there needs to be a review of the
need for drug change (Fig.
4).
In a Phase 3 clinical trial comparing tenofovir AF and tenofovir DF, patients
were given either treatment for 96 weeks each, and afterwards, all received
tenofovir AF up until 144 weeks. During the first 96 weeks, regardless of
presence of risk factors, renal function and bone density worsened among
patients receiving tenofovir DF. After the antiviral was switched to
tenofovir AF until the 144th week, both renal function and bone density
improved [224-226,399]. In patients receiving tenofovir DF, eGFR decreased by
-4.6 mL/min compared to the baseline at the 96th week. After switching to
tenofovir AF, the eGFR reduction was 0.06 mL/min compared to the baseline at
the 144th week, showing no significant difference between the two groups
[224-227]. Patients
receiving tenofovir DF showed greater reduction in spine and hip density
during the 96-week compared to those receiving tenofovir AF. After switching
to tenofovir AF, they showed significant improvement in bone density score
at the 144th week compared to the score at the 96th week [399]. Therefore,
it is thought that the reduction in renal function and/or bone density while
on tenofovir DF may be improved by switching to tenofovir AF.
In a Phase 3 trial comparing besifovir with tenofovir DF for 48 weeks,
patients receiving besifovir 150 mg had smaller reduction in the eGFR
compared to those receiving tenofovir DF (-1.7 mL/min and -7.8 mL/min,
respectively). After switching from tenofovir DF to besifovir and
re-evaluated at the 96th week, the eGFR recovered close to the baseline.
Therefore, the decrease in renal function while on tenofovir DF may be
improved after switching to besifovir. In addition, specifically for bone
density change, patients receiving besifovir 150 mg had a small reduction of
the T-score change (reflective of bone density) of -0.02±0.44 at the end of
the 48th week. Those receiving tenofovir DF had higher reduction of
-0.09±0.87. Besifovir had significantly less effect on the bone density. In
particular, after switching from tenofovir DF to besifovir, T-score
reduction changed from -0.09±0.87 to -0.0±0.59, showing an improvement in
the bone mineral density [334].
Therefore, during the NA treatment of CHB, if patients develop renal
dysfunction or metabolic bone disease, and/or carry risk factors,
appropriate drug change can be an option for overcoming the side effects of
the NAs (Fig. 4).
[Recommendations]
1. Entecavir, tenofovir AF, and besifovir are preferred over tenofovir DF
in treatment-naïve CHB patients with or at risk of renal dysfunction or
metabolic bone disease. (B1)
2. Treatment can be switched to tenofovir AF, besifovir, or entecavir
depending on treatment history, in patients on tenofovir DF with or at
risk of renal dysfunction or metabolic bone disease. (B1)
3. NA doses should be adequately adjusted for creatinine clearance.
Tenofovir AF is not recommended for CHB patients with creatinine
clearance <15 mL/min. Besifovir is not recommended for those with
creatinine clearance <50 mL/min, and tenofovir DF is not recommended
for those with creatinine clearance <10 mL/min without renal
replacement therapy. (B1)
Patients with acute hepatitis B
It is well known that more than 95% of adult patients with acute hepatitis B
infection clear the virus without antiviral therapy and do not progress to
chronic illness, but some patients go onto develop severe hepatitis
[400,401]. Severe acute
hepatitis B can be defined as having an international normalized ratio (INR)
>1.5, severe jaundice, or progression to hepatic failure [402,403].
Regarding the need to antiviral therapy for acute hepatitis B, in the past, there
were studies that suggested antiviral therapy could interfere with body’s
natural immune response, prevent developing virus-specific neutralizing
antibodies, and increase the risk of progression to CHB [404]. In a
meta-analysis of 7 studies, involving 597 patients who received antiviral
treatment for acute hepatitis B, those receiving lamivudine compared to placebo
had higher risk of progression to CHB (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.05–3.77)
[405].
A randomized controlled trial of 71 patients with severe acute hepatitis B
showed that those receiving lamivudine (n=31) had significantly lower serum HBV
DNA after 4 weeks (3.7 log10 copies/mL) compared to those receiving placebo
(n=40; 4.2 log10 copies/mL). After 12 months, there was no significant
difference in the HBsAg-negative rates between the two groups (93.5% vs. 96.7%,
respectively). Additionally, after 1 year, anti-HBs seropositive rate for those
receiving lamivudine was 67.7%, lower than 85% for those receiving placebo, but
there was no statistically significant difference between the two [406]. In another
randomized controlled trial involving 80 patients, comparing lamivudine (n=40)
and placebo (n=40), the anti-HBs seropositive rate was significantly lower for
those receiving lamivudine at 62.5% compared to those receiving placebo (85%).
However, those receiving lamivudine had significant improvement in blood levels
such as coagulopathy or jaundice, and significantly lower mortality rate than
those receiving placebo (7.5% vs. 25%, respectively) [407].
There is insufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials for early
antiviral therapy in hepatitis B infection. In one cohort study, on the other
hand, early administration of a potent antiviral medication was associated with
prevention of acute hepatic failure as well as lower rate of liver
transplantation ultimately and improved survival [402,408].
For the treatment of acute hepatitis B, lamivudine has been widely used based on
results from several well-designed controlled trials [406,407,409,410]. In a study
of entecavir
comparing patients who received lamivudine (n=69) and entecavir (n=21), HBsAg
seroconversion rates after 24 weeks were 23.18% for the lamivudine group and
52.38% for the entecavir group [411]. There is a case report of
using tenofovir DF as a treatment for acute hepatitis B [412].
[Recommendations]
1. NAs can be initiated in patients with severe acute hepatitis B (e.g.,
coagulopathy, severe jaundice, liver failure). (B1)
Patients on immunosuppression or chemotherapy
The progression of CHB is determined by the interaction between the virus and
host immune response. Therefore, if the immune response is suppressed by
immunosuppressive therapy or anticancer chemotherapy, the risk of reactivation
increases [413].
Reactivation of CHB
Reactivation of hepatitis B indicates to the recurrence of active necrotizing
inflammatory disease in patients in inactive phase of CHB or those recovered
from previous active infection. It can be largely divided into two
categories, “exacerbation of chronic HBV infection” for those with positive
HBsAg and “relapse of past HBV infection” for those with negative HBsAg and
positive anti-HBc [414]. In the latter category, patients who remained in
an “occult HBV infection” status may show viral replication triggered by
immunosuppression, leading to reverse seroconversion or seroreversion, with
redetection of HBsAg [415-418]. The exacerbation of chronic HBV infection is defined
in those with seropositive HBsAg as an increase of serum HBV DNA by more
than 100 times the baseline level. The relapse of past HBV infection is
defined as seroconversion of HBsAg negative to positive, or detection of
serum HBV DNA from none to positive. Hepatitis flare is defined as serum ALT
level more than 3 times the baseline level or increase by more than 100 IU/L
[419,420].
Various rates of reactivation had been reported, but it is generally known to
be about 20–50%. For an accurate diagnosis, liver damage related to
chemotherapy, tumor metastasis, or hepatitis secondary to other viruses
should be excluded. In many cases, patients are asymptomatic but
occasionally present with jaundice, or are found in various stages such as
decompensated liver diseases or even death [418,421-423]. Typical reactivation is
seen by detection of serum HBV DNA during immunosuppression or chemotherapy,
or elevation of serum ALT after stopping the immunosuppressive therapy. If
the reactivation occurs during chemotherapy, it can lead to reduction or
discontinuation of chemotherapy, adversely affecting the success of the
chemotherapy [424-426]. There are risk factors, related to the virus, the
host, and treatment, which are predictive of hepatitis B reactivation: virus
factors include serum HBV DNA, HBeAg seropositivity, hepatocyte cccDNA, and
PC/BCP mutation prior to the treatment; host factors include types of
malignant tumors, male gender, young age, and high serum ALT levels; and,
treatment factors include the type and intensity of immunosuppressant or
chemotherapy regimen, HSCT, and/or solid organ transplantation
[427]. The type and intensity of chemotherapy regimen related
to the risk of hepatitis B reactivation can be classified into three
categories: high risk group (reactivation risk of 10% or more), moderate
risk group (reactivation risk between 1–10%) and low risk group
(reactivation risk below 10%) (Table 11) [387,428,429].
Reactivation of hepatitis B during chemotherapy for hematologic
malignancy: During the chemotherapy for lymphoma, hepatitis B
reactivation is reported to be frequent with the rate up to 24–67%. It not
only implies that the chemotherapy used for lymphoma is strong enough to
cause bone marrow suppression, but also that patients with lymphoma have
higher rates of seropositive HBsAg than those without lymphoma
[422,430-432]. Rituximab,
commonly used in combination with steroids for the treatment of lymphoma, is
known to increase the risk of reactivation [433,434]. Rituximab therapy
increased the risk of hepatitis B reactivation in patients with
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who had seropositive HBsAg or seronegative
HBsAg/seropositive anti-HBc combination (relative risk [RR],
2.14; 95% CI, 1.42–3.22; P=0.0003). In particular, in
patients with seronegative HBsAg/seropositive anti-HBc combination, the use
of rituximab therapy was associated with higher RR of reactivation (RR,
5.51) [435].
There was a significant difference in the reactivation of hepatitis B in
patients with and without prophylactic antiviral therapy (13.3% vs. 60%)
during treatment with rituximab [436]. Furthermore, prior to
receiving chemotherapy (e.g. rituximab-cyclophosphamide,
hydroxydaunorubicin, Oncovin, prednisone [R-CHOP]),
screening for hepatitis B in all patients, rather than limiting to high-risk
groups, resulted in a 10-fold reduction in hepatitis B reactivation rate and
economic and survival benefits [437].
With other hematologic malignancies, if patients are receiving high-intensity
chemotherapy prior to HSCT, the risk of reactivation is high [438,439]. In
particular, in patients with seropositive HBsAg or seronegative
HBsAg/seropositive anti-HBc awaiting high intensity chemotherapy prior to
HSCT, antiviral therapy with a high barrier to resistance is recommended
[440]. During immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy for
hematologic disorders, for patients with evidence of hepatitis B infection,
prophylactic treatment with lamivudine or entecavir can significantly lower
the reactivation rate of hepatitis B [441,442].
Reactivation of hepatitis B during chemotherapy for solid
tumors: Reactivation of hepatitis B in patients with solid tumors
is known to be about 14–21%, but for those with breast cancer, it is higher
at about 41–70%, which is thought to be related to the high dosages of
breast cancer treatment agents as well as the use of anthracycline-based
chemotherapy and steroids [426,443,444]. Steroids not only suppress
immune system but directly stimulates the replication of HBV, thus raising
the risk of reactivation. It is reported that the use of prophylactic
antiviral agents in most solid tumors, such as breast and lung cancers, has
significantly reduced the rate of hepatitis B reactivation and
discontinuation of chemotherapy treatment [445-448].
Reactivation of hepatitis B during treatment for inflammatory bowel
disease (IBD) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA): The reactivation of
hepatitis B may also be associated with the use of TNF α inhibitors
(infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, etc.) for the treatment of IBD or RA
[449-451]. In case of
TNF α inhibitors and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) used for
RA treatment, the rate of reactivation of hepatitis B was reported to be
around 12.3% in patients with seropositive HBsAg [452]. In another
study, the reactivation was reported in 39% of HBsAg-positive patients and
5% of anti-HBc-positive patients, and among those given antiviral
prophylaxis, the reactivation rate was significantly lower [453].
Acute exacerbation of hepatitis B while on immune check point
inhibitors: Recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors such as
anti-PD-1 (nivolumab) and anti-CTLA4 (ipilimumab) therapy have been used in
various carcinomas including liver cancer. Although there is a concern about
the possibility of acute exacerbation of hepatitis B in relation to these
therapeutic agents, there isn’t sufficient data yet, and the discussion
regarding the consideration of future antiviral prophylaxis is
necessary.
Start and end point of prophylactic antiviral treatment
When the reactivation of hepatitis B occurs, there is a risk of liver failure
or even death. Therefore, the prevention is foremost important. Prior to
starting an immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy, screening for HBsAg
and anti-HBc is necessary. If there is no evidence of HBV infection in the
past (with negative HBsAg and anti-HBc), HBV vaccination may be considered.
In HBsAg positive cases, regardless of serum HBV DNA level, antiviral
prophylaxis is recommended. Instead of waiting for the serum HBV DNA level
to rise, administering an antiviral agent at the start of the
immunosuppressive therapy or chemotherapy, or 7 days prior to the treatment
start date, is reported to be more effective [448,454-456]. The end point of the
prophylactic antiviral treatment should theoretically be continued until the
immune system is adequately recovered, but there is lack of sufficient
evidence to suggest a specific end point. It has been reported that the risk
of HBV reactivation is high when prophylactic lamivudine is discontinued
about 3 months after the end of chemotherapy. The risk is especially higher
when the serum HBV DNA prior to the treatment is elevated (≥2,000 IU/mL)
[457]. Therefore, when HBV is actively replicating before
prophylactic antiviral therapy, following the present CHB treatment
guidelines for the discontinuation of antiviral agents may prevent virus
reactivation after treatment. However, regardless of the serum HBV DNA level
prior to the treatment, reactivation still is reported more than 6 months
after the completion of chemotherapy, so caution is required. Therefore,
antiviral prophylaxis should be maintained for at least 6 months minimum
after the chemotherapy is completed, and extension should be considered
according to the chemotherapy risk. Especially, for patients receiving
chemotherapy involving rituximab, it is recommended to extend the antiviral
prophylaxis to at least 12 months after the completion of chemotherapy
[458-460]. There is a
need to closely monitor for relapse for at least 12 months after the
prophylaxis is over.
On the other hand, reactivation of hepatitis B may occur not only when HBsAg
is positive, as described above, but also when HBsAg is negative and
anti-HBc is positive. Especially, when immunosuppressed, patients with
seropositive anti-HBc alone had a higher risk of hepatitis B reactivation
than patients with both seropositive anti-HBc and anti-HBs [387,461]. Thus, when
patients, who are HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive, receive
rituximab-involving therapy or fall into a high-risk group such as being
considered for HSCT for leukemia, antiviral prophylaxis should be considered
regardless of HBV DNA detection or HBsAg seroconversion. For patients in a
moderate or low-risk group of chemotherapy, HBsAg and HBV DNA levels should
be periodically monitored (at intervals of 1–3 months) during or after
chemotherapy to initiate antiviral treatment when hepatitis B reactivation
is detected [387].
Treatment medications
Lamivudine is the most widely studied drug for prophylactic antiviral
therapy. It is well known to significantly reduce reactivation, liver
failure, and death according to randomized controlled trials of lymphoma
patients in Hong Kong and Taiwan [431,439,454,462] However, lamivudine has
been reported to be resistant even during prophylaxis. If the treatment
duration is expected to be long, it is necessary to select a therapeutic
agent with a high barrier to resistance considering the resistance rate
[431]. In a retrospective study of lymphoma patients, the
incidence of hepatitis and chemotherapy disruption due to HBV reactivation
was significantly lower in the entecavir group than in the lamivudine group
[463]. In a metaanalysis, entecavir prophylaxis was shown to
prevent reactivation of hepatitis B more effectively compared to lamivudine
prophylaxis [464]. Tenofovir DF was also reported to be effective for
this purpose. In a recent randomized prospective controlled trial, under
treatment with rituximab the rate of hepatitis B reactivation was 0% in the
group prophylactically treated with tenofovir DF compared to 10.7% in the
control group (P=0.091) [438]. It is necessary to conduct
prospective studies on appropriate antiviral agents and treatment duration
for various types of cancer, including solid tumors, and chemotherapeutic
agents.
[Recommendations]
1. Screening for HBsAg and anti-HBc before immunosuppression or
chemotherapy is recommended. If either is positive, HBV DNA testing
should be performed. (A1)
2. If either HBsAg is positive or HBV DNA is detected, prophylactic
antiviral therapy should be initiated before or at the start of
immunosuppression or chemotherapy. (A1)
Antiviral agents should be selected based on comprehensive consideration
of serum HBV DNA levels, the intensity and duration of immunosuppression
or chemotherapy, and the cost. If baseline serum HBV DNA is high or
long-term therapy is anticipated, tenofovir or entecavir is preferred.
(B1)
3. In HBsAg-negative, HBV DNA-undetectable, anti-HBc-positive patients,
serum HBsAg and HBV DNA should be monitored during high-risk
immunosuppression/chemotherapy and antiviral therapy started when HBV
reactivation occurs. (A1)
In particular, when a regimen includes rituximab, antiviral therapy can
be initiated promptly at the start of immunosuppression or chemotherapy.
(B1)
4. Prophylactic antiviral therapy should be maintained for at least 6
months after the termination of immunosuppression or chemotherapy and
for at least 12 months after the termination of therapy if rituximab was
included. (B1)
5. Periodic monitoring of serum HBV DNA is recommended during and after
prophylactic antiviral therapy. (A1)
Liver transplant patients
Before the era of prophylactic antivirals, most patients with liver diseases
related to hepatitis B experienced severe liver damage and had low survival
rates from reactivation of hepatitis B after liver transplantation
[465-471]. After the
introduction of HBIG, a large cohort study of 372 HBsAg-positive patients
reported that patients treated with HBIG for more than 6 months
post-transplantation had significantly lower hepatitis B reactivation rates and
higher long-term survival rates compared to patients treated for less than 6
months or who never received prophylaxis [472]. Lamivudine and HBIG
combination therapy reduced the reactivation rate of hepatitis B in 1–2 years to
less than 10%. From the cost-effective perspective, the combination therapy had
better result compared to high-dose HBIG monotherapy (10,000 IU) [473-476]. In a meta-analysis,
lamivudine
and HBIG combination therapy has shown a 12-fold reduction in the reactivation
rates and related mortality rates of hepatitis B virus compared to HBIG alone
[477,478].
HBsAg-positive recipients
Lamivudine therapy without HBIG was associated with 40% reactivation rate of
hepatitis B 4 years after liver transplantation [479,480]. When
adefovir and lamivudine were administered together, no reactivation was
noted during the 22-month follow-up period [481]. In a study using
entecavir, during the 26–53 months follow-up period, HBsAg seronegative rate
was 88–91%, over 98% had non-detectable level of HBV DNA, and reactivation
rate was lower than when lamivudine alone was used [482,483]. In
patients with non-detectable HBV DNA level at the time of liver
transplantation, a study was conducted using a single agent of antiviral
prophylaxis without HBIG was attempted. During the 8-year follow-up of 362
patients, HBsAg negative rate was 88% and hepatitis B reactivation rate was
2% [482]. In the same study group, 265 patients were given
entecavir only and followed for 59 months, and there was no reactivation of
hepatitis B [484]. However, in a meta-analysis of 519 patients from
17 studies, the combination of lamivudine and HBIG (6.1%) had a similar
effect of suppressing reactivation compared to using entecavir or tenofovir
DF alone (3.9%, P=0.51), but had a higher rate of
reactivation compared to the combination therapy of entecavir or tenofovir
DF with HBIG (1%, P<0.001) [485]. Therefore,
to prevent reactivation after the transplantation, a potent antiviral agent
combined with HBIG is recommended.
On the other hand, to reduce the use of expensive HBIG, there have been
studies that use a small amount of HBIG or HBIG combined with an antiviral
agent for a short term and then switched to an antiviral agent alone. Gane
et al. reported in a study of 147 liver transplant patients, lamivudine
combined with low dose HBIG (400–800 IU) resulted in 4% reactivation rate of
hepatitis B over 5 years [486]. In another case where
lamivudine and adefovir were used in combination with low-dose HBIG (400–800
IU) only at the beginning of transplantation and then switched to lamivudine
and adefovir only, no reactivation was reported during the 57-month
follow-up period [481]. When HBIG was used in combination initially, and
then switched to entecavir or tenofovir DF alone, no reactivation was
reported afterward [487,488]. Recently, based on the results of these studies, it
is
recommended to adjust the dose and the duration of HBIG use by assessing the
hepatitis B reactivation risk of an individual patient at the time of the
transplantation. One may consider using HBIG for a short duration in
patients with non-detectable HBV DNA level at the time of transplantation
[489-491].
Conversely, patients with a high risk of hepatitis B reactivation (e.g.
Patients with detectable HBV DNA level, positive HBeAg, HCC, or HDV or HIV
co-infection at the time of transplantation, or those with anticipated poor
compliance with antiviral medications) may require a lifelong use of HBIG
and anti-viral agent [492,493].
HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive donors
If HBsAg-negative patients receive liver transplantation from
HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive donors, about 75% of the recipients are
known to newly develop hepatitis B infection. It is reported to be dependent
on the recipient’s HBV immunization status. Especially when the recipient is
anti-HBs negative, the risk of new hepatitis B infection becomes higher
[494-496]. After
HBsAg-negative patients receive liver transplantation from
HBsAg-negative/antiHBc-positive donors, when HBIG alone was used, more than
20% newly developed hepatitis B but when lamivudine alone was used, only
2–3% went onto develop hepatitis B. However, lamivudine and HBIG combination
therapy did not show any additional preventive effect compared to lamivudine
alone [494,497,498]. Therefore, if HBsAg-negative patient receive liver
transplantation from HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive donors, NA monotherapy
is recommended to prevent new hepatitis B infection after transplantation
[499]. However, in a retrospective study of 14 patients
receiving liver transplantations from HBsAg-nega tive/anti-HBc-positive
donors in Korea, 11 patients receiving HBIG monotherapy had 0% of new
hepatitis B infection [500]. In a small retrospective
study in Japan, HBIG monotherapy had 0% of recurrence rate of hepatitis
B.501 Thus, in clinical practice, HBIG monotherapy may also be considered
[500,501].
Treatment medications
In selecting an antiviral agent, lamivudine was shown to be cost-effective in
a cost-effectiveness analysis using the Markov model [502]. In a study
of NA monotherapy, including entecavir and tenofovir DF, the recurrence rate
with these two agents were similar to lamivudine [502]. However,
when lamivudine was used longterm after liver transplantation, over 50% had
reported lamivudine resistance in 3 years [503-505]. This lamivudine resistance
has negative effects, known to induce inflammatory changes and liver
fibrosis between the grafts, or, in severe incidences, to cause death from
the liver failure [504,506,507]. Therefore, as long-term antiviral therapy may be
required, the use of antiviral agents with low resistance, such as entecavir
and tenofovir, is recommended.
[Recommendations]
1. In hepatitis B-related liver transplant recipients, a combination of
lifelong NAs and HBIG is recommended to prevent recurrence of hepatitis
B after liver transplantation. (B1)
However, in the case of HBV DNA not detected before transplantation,
modification of HBIG dose and duration may be considered after
assessment of risk factors. (B2)
2. After liver transplantation, entecavir or tenofovir DF is recommended.
(B1)
In cases of drug resistance, refer to the antiviral resistance chapter.
(B1)
3. If the recipient is HBsAg negative and the donor is anti-HBc positive,
administration of NAs is recommended after liver transplantation.
(B1)
If NAs cannot be administered, HBIG monotherapy may be considered.
(B2)
Non-liver organ transplant recipients
Non-liver solid organ transplantation
HBsAg-positive renal transplant recipients are at high risk for persistent
viral activity or reactivation and have a significantly higher mortality
rate due to liver-related complications such as liver cirrhosis and HCC
[508]. Recent reports indicate that antiviral therapy
increases the survival of HBsAg-positive renal transplant recipients
[509,510]. Lamivudine
therapy improves the survival of renal transplant recipients, but in cases
of long-term administration, the drug resistance rate is 62% at 4 years
[511]. Entecavir improves virological response, graft
survival, and overall survival compared to lamivudine [512,513].
Small studies of HBsAg-positive heart transplant recipients have also
demonstrated the safety and efficacy of NAs, and the use of entecavir or
tenofovir DF is recommended to avoid liver failure due to drug resistance
[514,515].
The risk of HBsAg reversion is low in recipients who are HBsAg negative and
anti-HBc positive. In a Korean cohort study of 951 recipients of kidney
transplantation recipients with seronegative HBsAg/seropositive anti-HBc,
the HBsAg reversion rate was 5.6% for anti-HBs negative patients, but there
was no difference between anti-HBs-positive and anti-HBc-negative recipients
[516]. However, because HBsAg reversion followed by liver
failure was reported in recipients with seronegative HBsAg/seropositive
anti-HBc, hepatitis B reactivation should be monitored regularly. In
patients who are ABO-incompatible and highly sensitized, rituximab is
commonly used prior to renal transplantation. However, it can lead to liver
failure in those with past HBV infection due to HBsAg reversion or HBV DNA
redetection, albeit this risk is very low at low rituximab doses (200 mg)
[516-518].
In recipients without prior HBV infection who receive a graft from an
HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive donor, the HBsAg positivity rate and
anti-HBc detection rate are 0.3% and 3.2%, respectively [519]. However,
in other studies, the HBsAg positivity rate of recipients of a transplanted
kidney, heart, lung, or other organ from an HBsAg-negative/anti-HBc-positive
donor did not differ from the rate for recipients receiving organs from
anti-HBc-negative donors [520,521]. More studies are needed to
determine whether either prophylactic antiviral treatment or HBIG reduces
hepatitis B reactivation or HBV transmission in recipients of organs
transplanted from a donor with past HBV infection.
Hematopoietic stem cell transplant
Patients with CHB who require HSCT for hematologic malignancies are
immunosuppressed for a prolonged period due to the high-dose chemotherapy
and hematological diseases itself. This increases the risk of hepatitis B
reactivation and leads to a poor prognosis [522,523]. In small retrospective
studies of HBsAg-positive recipients of allogeneic or autologous stem cell
transplantation, prophylactic lamivudine treatment for 6-12 months
significantly reduced the frequency of hepatitis B reactivation (5–10% vs.
45–50%) [439]. In another study, HBsAg-positive recipients of
allogeneic stem cell transplants underwent prophylactic antiviral treatment
for up to 6 months after termination of immunosuppressive therapy and were
followed for 24 months after transplantation. The cumulative reactivation
rate of hepatitis B was significantly higher in patients receiving
lamivudine (24%) compared to patients receiving entecavir (2%). Recent
meta-analyses have also demonstrated the efficacy of entecavir in preventing
hepatitis B reactivation [524,525].
Hepatitis B reactivation is not infrequent in HSCT recipients with
seronegative HBsAg/seropositive anti-HBc. In a prospective cohort study in
which 62 HBsAg-negative and anti-HBc-positive allogeneic stem cell
transplant recipients were followed for 48 weeks, the 2-year cumulative
reactivation rate (detectable HBV DNA >10 IU/mL) was 40.8% [526].
[Recommendations]
1. All HBsAg-positive solid organ transplant recipients and HSCT
recipients should start prophylactic antiviral treatment at the time of
transplantation. (A1)
Entecavir or tenofovir DF is preferred for long-term treatment. (B1)
2. HBsAg-negative, HBV DNA undetectable, but anti-HBc-positive solid
organ transplant recipients need regular follow-up to monitor the
reactivation of hepatitis B. (B1)
3. HBsAg-negative, HBV DNA undetectable, but anti-HBc positive HSCT
recipients are recommended to start prophylactic antiviral treatment at
the time of transplantation. (B1)
Coinfection with other viruses
HCV coinfection
In patients with CHB, the anti-HCV positivity rate varies from 1.5% to 2.37%
in Korea [527,528]. Patients with HBV/HCV coinfection have more severe
necroinflammation and fibrosis than those with a monoinfection, as well as a
high risk of cirrhosis and HCC [529,530]. When introducing
direct-acting agents (DAA) in HBV/HCV coinfection, serum HBV DNA and HCV RNA
levels should be analyzed to evaluate the replicative status of each virus.
If the patient is HCV RNA positive, they should be treated as for HCV
monoinfection. If the patient meets the criteria for antiviral treatment for
CHB, proper treatment should be started promptly. Hepatitis B reactivation
is possible during or after HCV treatment. One meta-analysis showed that
detectible or increased levels of HBV DNA were reported in 14.1% of patients
at 4–12 weeks after DAA treatment, and the incidence of elevated ALT (active
hepatitis) was 12.2% [531]. In a prospective study of patients in Taiwan who
were treated with ledipasvir/sofosbuvir, the HBV DNA detection rate was 83%,
the HBV DNA 10-fold increase rate was 53%, and the active hepatitis rate was
6.3% [532]. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Adverse Event Reporting System, two cases resulted in death, and 1 case
resulted in liver transplantation. Therefore, serological tests, such as
HBsAg and HBV DNA, are recommended before and during DAA therapy. Antiviral
treatment for HBV should be considered if there is a marked HBV DNA
elevation during DAA therapy [533]. Entecavir and tenofovir DF
are recommended for the treatment of CHB in patients with HCV coinfection,
but renal function monitoring is warranted if ledipasvir is used with
tenofovir DF because it can increase the renal toxicity of tenofovir DF
[534]. The drug interactions between HBV and HCV antiviral
agents are summarized in the 2017 KASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for
Management of Hepatitis C.
[Recommendations]
1. CHB patients with HCV co-infection can undergo either treatment
according to each treatment strategy. (B1)
2. HBV DNA levels may be elevated during or after treatment of chronic
hepatitis C, which requires careful monitoring. (B1)
HIV coinfection
The incidences of cirrhosis and HCC are higher in patients with HBV/HIV
coinfection than in those with HBV monoinfection [535]. The rate
of HBV superinfection among Korean HIV patients is estimated to be
approximately 5% [536]. With the changes in treatment strategies for HIV
infection, the initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)
has recently been recommended regardless of the number of CD4+ T cells.
Therefore, simultaneous treatment for each virus is recommended for HIV and
HBV coinfection. Therapeutic agents should be selected from the
tenofovir-based antiretroviral regimen, and combination therapy with
emtricitabine or lamivudine, which can inhibit the replication of both
viruses, is recommended [537]. When HAART regimens are
changed, antiviral agents that are effective against HBV should be included
to avoid HBV reactivation, except in patients who meet the criteria for
cessation of antiviral treatment for HBV.
[Recommendations]
1. In CHB patients with HIV co-infection, tenofovir should be included in
HAART. (A1)
HDV coinfection
It is estimated that ~20 million people are infected with HDV worldwide, and
HDV infections are prevalent in Mediterranean countries, the Middle East,
central Africa, and South America [538]. In one Korean study, the
HDV coinfection rate was 0.3% in 940 patients with CHB, including 75
patients with HCC. In another study of 194 patients that included 64 CHB
patients and 130 HCC patients, the rate was 3.6% [539,540]. The
incidences of cirrhosis and HCC are higher in patients with HBV/HDV
coinfection than in those with HBV monoinfection [541,542]. HDV
infection can be diagnosed by detecting anti-HDV or HDV RNA in the serum or
by detecting HDV antigens in liver tissues using immunohistochemistry.
The treatment goals are to inhibit HDV replication, normalize ALT levels, and
improve histology findings. If the HBV/HDV coinfection patients meet the
criteria for antiviral treatment for CHB, oral administration of CHB
treatment is necessary to prevent the progression of liver disease. However,
NAs for CHB are not recommended for the treatment of HDV infection in
patients with HDV superinfection because they cannot inhibit HDV
replication. Peginterferon alfa therapy was superior to high-dose interferon
alfa therapy and that a combination therapy using an NAs and peginterferon
alfa did not improve virological response compared to peginterferon alfa
therapy alone [543]. The sustained virological response at 24 weeks
after 48 week of peginterferon alfa therapy is 23–28%, and a sustained
virological response can be predicted 24 weeks after the initiation of
treatment by measuring serum HDV RNA levels [544-546]. However, relapse is
frequent during longterm follow-ups, as seen in one study with an average
follow-up of 4.3 years where sustained virological response was maintained
at only 12% [547]. In a small study using extended peginterferon alfa
therapy for 24 months, 47% of patients achieved sustained virological
response during an average follow-up of 19.5 months after treatment, but
further studies are needed [548].
[Recommendations]
1. CHB patients with HDV co-infection are recommended to be treated with
peginterferon alfa for at least 1 year. (A1)
2. In CHB patients with HDV co-infection, initiation of NAs for CHB is
recommended to prevent the progression of liver disease if either the
indications for CHB treatment are met or liver cirrhosis is present.
(B1)
Pregnant women and women preparing for pregnancy
Treatment in pregnant women and women preparing for pregnancy
Immunological changes during pregnancy: Pregnant women with
chronic HBV infections are usually in the immune tolerance phase, and
changes in the maternal immune system during pregnancy, such as a shift in
the Th1-Th2 balance toward a Th2 response, lead to an increase in HBV DNA
levels and a reduction in ALT levels [549,550]. These immune responses are
restored after delivery causing a reduction in HBV DNA levels and ALT
elevation, and therefore careful monitoring is needed [551,552].
Antiviral treatment: The optimal antiviral treatment strategy
during pregnancy is based on the general principles for the treatment of
CHB. However, all decisions regarding the timing and duration of treatment
in pregnancy should include an analysis of the risks and benefits for both
the mother and the fetus.
Peginterferon alfa preparations are preferred for patients who are planning a
pregnancy as the period of treatment is more clearly defined. However,
peginterferon alfa may cause fetal malformations; thus, it is
contraindicated during pregnancy. Contraception must be emphasized during
therapy and until 6 months after the cessation of therapy.
NAs may cause mitochondrial toxicity by inhibiting mitochondrial DNA
replication [553]. The safety data of various NAs during pregnancy
can be found at the Antiretroviral Pregnancy Registry (APR;
http://www.apregistry.com). According to the APR, the rates of birth defects
among the babies exposed to lamivudine or tenofovir DF in the first
trimester (3.1% and 2.4% of live births, respectively) are similar to that
in the general population (2.7%) as reported by the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention birth defect surveillance system. Recently, further
studies on the efficacy and safety of NAs have been carried out in pregnant
women and infants. A small-scale prospective study of Chinese infants of
patients who received telbivudine during pregnancy reported that mental
development index and psychomotor developmental index at 12–24 months of age
were significantly lower than those of the control group [554]. These
results suggest that prenatal telbivudine exposure may lead to motor
development delay in offspring. Meanwhile, infants exposed to tenofovir DF
did not differ from those who were not exposed in terms of preterm birth,
fetal anomalies, and poor development at birth and up to 6–12 months
postnatally. In a large cohort study on tenofovir DF-based antiretroviral
therapy to prevent MTCT of HIV infection in South Africa and the United
States, there was no difference in the growth rate or the standard growth
curve at 12 to 24 months after birth, regardless of the duration of
antiretroviral therapy exposure or the duration of breastfeeding
[555]. Based on the results of these clinical studies,
tenofovir DF is preferred for treatment in pregnant women or patients
preparing for pregnancy. Tenofovir AF requires further study.
Maintaining or altering the use of NAs: The decision as to
whether to discontinue treatment with NAs in pregnant patients should be
individualized. One retrospective study showed that 14% of pregnant patients
with active CHB who did not receive antiviral therapy progressed to hepatic
failure or maternal or fetal death. Another retrospective study reported
moderate ALT elevations in 16% of pregnant patients who discontinued NAs
pre-pregnancy and in 29–31% of pregnant and postpartum patients who
discontinued NAs in the first trimester [556,557]. Therefore, if there is a
high risk of complications in pregnant women and fetuses due to liver
failure, appropriate maintenance of NAs should be considered. Taken
together, if patients needed to maintain NAs, tenofovir DF can be continued
in patients already taking tenofovir DF. The other agents should be switched
to tenofovir DF in preparation for pregnancy or when a pregnancy is
detected.
Prevention of MTCT of HBV with NAs
Influence of breastfeeding on infants: Several studies show the
effects of breastfeeding on MTCT in HBsAg-positive pregnant women without
antiviral treatment. In a prospective cohort study of 435 HBeAg-positive
pregnant women, the HBsAg positivity rate of infants aged 8–12 months was
8.3% in the breastfeeding group and 9.2% in the formula milk feeding group,
which was not significantly different [558]. Although studies on the
safety of breastfeeding during the administration of NAs are very limited,
recent studies in HIV-positive mother taking tenofovir DF have reported very
low concentrations of the drug found in breast milk and that tenofovir is
not absorbed through the intestines of infants. Therefore, considering the
degree of liver disease in pregnant women and the risk of infants and young
children, tenofovir DF can be carefully administered [559-561]. Based on
this, the World Health Organization recommends the use of tenofovir DF
during pregnancy and lactation [562].
Antiviral treatment for preventing MTCT: In the case of pregnant
women with high serum HBV DNA levels (≥200,000 IU/mL), postnatal HBIG
injections and sequential immunization for the prevention of MTCT have a
high failure rate [563,564]. Therefore, there is a growing interest in lowering the
MTCT rate through NAs during pregnancy.
- Lamivudine or telbivudine: In one prospective
study of HBeAg-positive pregnant women with high serum HBV DNA levels (>107
copies/mL), they were treated with lamivudine from week 24 to week 32 in
addition to neonatal passive-active immunoprophylaxis. The HBsAg-positivity
rates of infants at 1 year after birth were significantly lower in the
treatment group (0%, 0/94) compared to the placebo group (7.7%, 7/91)
[565]. Another prospective study included pregnant with high
serum HBV DNA levels (>106 copies/mL) who were treated with
telbivudine starting at week 12–30 until birth in addition to neonatal
passive-active immunoprophylaxis as the treatment group. The
HBsAg-positivity rates of infants at 6 months after birth were also
significantly lower in the treatment group (0%, 0/54) compared to the
placebo group (8.6%, 3/35) [566].
- Tenofovir DF: In a non-randomized prospective
study on administration of tenofovir DF starting at 30–32 weeks of gestation
until 1 month postpartum, the HBsAg positivity rate of infants at 6 months
of age was significantly lower in the experimental group (1.5% vs. 10.7%)
[567]. In another non-blinded, randomized, prospective study
in which tenofovir DF was administered over the same period, the
per-protocol analysis showed that the HBsAg positivity rate of infants at 24
week of birth was significantly lower in the experimental group (0% vs. 7%)
[568]. In a meta-analysis of ten studies using tenofovir DF,
including the above studies, tenofovir DF was reported to reduce MTCT by 77%
[569]. However, in a recent double-blind, randomized,
prospective study, tenofovir DF was starting at 28 weeks of gestation until
2 months after birth, the difference in HBsAg positivity in infants at 6
months of age was insignificant (0% vs. 2%).570 It should be noted that in
that study, hepatitis B vaccinations were performed 5 times after birth and
the rate of MTCT was relatively low in the control group. In a recent
meta-analysis of the two randomized prospective studies, there was no
significant difference in the intention-to-treat analysis results, but the
per-protocol analysis showed that tenofovir DF reduced MTCT by 98%.571
Therefore, the administration of NAs in pregnant women with serum HBV DNA
levels of 200,000 IU/mL or more beginning at 24 to 32 weeks of gestation
until 2 to 12 weeks postpartum can minimize the MTCT rate. However, in the
case of pregnant women who do not meet into the general criteria for
treatment for CHB, the decision whether to administer NAs to prevent MTCT
should be individualized and consider the timing of drug administration, the
timing of withdrawal, and the preference of the pregnant women.
double-blind, randomized, prospective study, tenofovir DF was starting at 28
weeks of gestation until 2 months after birth, the difference in HBsAg
positivity in infants at 6 months of age was insignificant (0% vs. 2%).570
It should be noted that in that study, hepatitis B vaccinations were
performed 5 times after birth and the rate of MTCT was relatively low in the
control group. In a recent meta-analysis of the two randomized prospective
studies, there was no significant difference in the intention-to-treat
analysis results, but the per-protocol analysis showed that tenofovir DF
reduced MTCT by 98%.571 Therefore, the administration of NAs in pregnant
women with serum HBV DNA levels of 200,000 IU/mL or more beginning at 24 to
32 weeks of gestation until 2 to 12 weeks postpartum can minimize the MTCT
rate. However, in the case of pregnant women who do not meet into the
general criteria for treatment for CHB, the decision whether to administer
NAs to prevent MTCT should be individualized and consider the timing of drug
administration, the timing of withdrawal, and the preference of the pregnant
women.
[Recommendations]
1. The administration of NAs in pregnant women or in patients preparing
for pregnancy should follow the general principles of CHB treatment.
Therapy should be carefully chosen considering the short- and long-term
effects on both the mother and fetus, and tenofovir DF is currently
recommended. (B1)
2. Child-bearing is contraindicated during peginterferon alfa treatment,
and it should not be used in pregnant women. (A1)
3. If a CHB patient becomes pregnant while taking an NA other than
tenofovir DF, it is recommended to switch the medication to tenofovir
DF, which is relatively safe for the fetus as well as for pregnant women
and is not contraindicated during breastfeeding. (B1)
4. There are no limitations regarding breastfeeding in CHB patients
without antiviral treatment. (B1)
5. For pregnant women with serum HBV DNA levels >200,000 IU/mL,
administration of tenofovir DF is recommended for the prevention of MTCT
(A2), starting at 24–32 weeks of gestation and stopping 2–12 weeks after
delivery. (B1)
Children and adolescents
Providing HBIG and HBV vaccines to newborns of HBsAg-positive mothers within 12
hours of birth can prevent 90–95% of cases of perinatal infection [76,77]. Ninety
percent of infants
infected as neonates progress to chronic infection. Most children remain in the
immune-tolerant phase until late childhood or adolescence; however, some
children progress to the immune-active phase. The spontaneous HBeAg
seroconversion rate in Korean children is 4.6%, 7.1%, and 28.0% for patients
aged <6, 6–12, and >12 years, respectively [572]. Children who are in the
immune-active phase are usually asymptomatic. If ALT is continuously elevated in
children with CHB, serum HBV DNA levels should be examined to confirm viral
replication. In a study of 104 children and adolescents in Taiwan with a median
follow-up of 23.7 years, spontaneous HBeAg seroconversion could be predicted in
patients with ALT levels >60 IU/L [573].
If long-term treatment is expected in children with CHB, a prudent decision
should be made based on the adverse effects of the antiviral treatment and the
potential for antiviral resistance to affect future therapies. The treatment
window should not be missed because cirrhosis can occur even in the patient’s
twenties, and HCC can occur later in life. The goals of CHB therapy are to
suppress viral replication, reduce liver inflammation, reverse liver fibrosis,
and prevent cirrhosis and HCC. Treating children in the immune-tolerant phase is
not beneficial, and there is a high risk of developing antiviral resistance,
which would limit treatment options later in life. However, a recent
small-scale, randomized, prospective study reported that HBeAg seroconversion
rates was 32.6% and HBsAg loss rates was 21.6% after 72 weeks of interferon-only
or sequential lamivudine treatment [574].
Children with a persistently elevated serum ALT level should be evaluated for
active viral replication, including measuring HBV DNA levels. Children should be
considered for treatment when their serum ALT levels are ≥2 times the ULN for at
least 6 months and their HBV DNA levels are ≥20,000 IU/mL (for HBeAg-positive
children) or ≥2,000 IU/mL (for HBeAg-negative children). It is important to rule
out other causes of ALT elevation, such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease,
before treatment and necessary to consider any family history of cirrhosis or
HCC. Liver biopsy is helpful in the decision to treat, especially for children
with moderate-tosevere necroinflammation or significant fibrosis (≥F2)
[575].
Interferon alfa
Interferon alfa is approved in children older than 12 months, and its
advantages include a finite duration of treatment and no development of
antiviral resistance. A randomized controlled trial of interferon alfa
therapy involving children with CHB aged 1 to 17 years found that 36% of
those with a baseline ALT level of at least 2 times the ULN lost HBeAg by
the end of treatment. HBsAg seroconversion occurred in 10% of the treated
children [576]. Factors predictive of a positive response among
children are age less than 5 years, low serum HBV DNA levels, and active
inflammation as determined from a liver biopsy [577]. The
recommended treatment regimen for interferon alfa is 6 million IU/m2 three
times per week via subcutaneous injection for 24 weeks. The adverse effects
include fever, flu-like symptoms, bone marrow suppression, depression, and
transient growth delay. In a recent phase 3 study, pediatric and adolescent
CHB patients between 3 and 16 years of age were treated with peginterferon
alfa 2a for 48 weeks. The HBeAg seroconversion rate was significantly higher
in the peginterferon alfa 2a group (25.7%) than in the control group (6%) at
24 weeks after the treatment completion, and the HBsAg disappearance rate,
virological response rate, and ALT normalization rate were all significantly
high [578].
Entecavir
Entecavir and tenofovir DF are potent NAs with a high barrier to resistance,
and entecavir is considered the first-line therapy in children older than 2
years. In a randomized controlled study involving 180 children aged 2 to 17
years with HBeAg-positive CHB, the HBeAg seroconversion and HBV DNA <50
IU/mL rates at week 48 were significantly higher with entecavir than placebo
(24.2% vs. 3.3%). The cumulative probability of entecavir resistance at 1
and 2 years was 0.6% and 2.6%, respectively. Entecavir showed no difference
in safety compared with placebo [579]. A small-scale
retrospective study of Koran pediatric and adolescent patients given
entecavir reported second-year virological response (serum HBV DNA <20
IU/mL) and HBeAg seroconversion rates of 78.6% and 35.7%, respectively
[580]. Entecavir is administered at a daily dose of 0.015
mg/kg (up to 0.5 mg).
Tenofovir DF
Tenofovir DF is approved for use in persons older than 12 years. A randomized
controlled trial of tenofovir DF in adolescents aged 12 to 18 years reported
that the rate of a virological response (HBV DNA <400 copies/mL) at week
72 was significantly higher in patients who received tenofovir DF (n=52)
than in those who received placebo (n=54) (89% vs. 0%) [581]. No
resistance to tenofovir developed during 72 weeks. The rate of grade 3/4
adverse events was higher among patients treated with placebo (24%) than
those treated with tenofovir DF (10%). In a small-scale study in Korean
children and adolescents using tenofovir DF, the virological response (serum
HBV DNA <357 IU/mL) was 93.8% at week 48 and 100% at week 96
[582]. The rate of HBeAg loss associated with undetectable
HBV DNA was 41.7% (5/12) at week 96. Tenofovir DF is administered at a daily
dose of 8 mg/kg (up to 300 mg).
Lamivudine
Lamivudine is approved in children older than 2 years. A randomized
controlled study of lamivudine involving children aged 2–17 years found that
loss of HBeAg at 52 weeks of treatment occurred in 34% of those with a
baseline ALT level of at least ≥2 times the ULN and that the resistance rate
was 18% [583]. The antiviral resistance rate was 64% in children who
received lamivudine for 3 years [584]. Other studies of Korean
children found that the HBeAg seroconversion rates after 2 and 3 years of
treatment were 65% and 70%, respectively. Loss of HBsAg was observed in 20%
of children after 2 years of lamivudine treatment, and the resistance rates
at 1 and 2 years of treatment were 10% and 23%, respectively [585,586]. Lamivudine
is orally administered at a dose of 3 mg/kg/day with a maximum dose of 100
mg/day. If lamivudine resistance develops, it should be treated in
accordance with the guidelines for antiviral resistance management in
adults. In a small-scale study of lamivudine-resistant pediatric patients in
Korea, the virological response rate at week 24 was significantly higher
(P=0.029) in both lamivudine-adefovir combination
therapy and in entecavir therapy alone compared to adefovir alone
[587].
The preferable duration of NA treatment in HBeAg-positive CHB children and
adolescents is at least 1 year from initiation of treatment and more than 1
year after HBeAg seroconversion. In HBeAg-negative CHB children, the optimal
treatment duration is not clear, but the standard recommendations for adults
may be followed.
[Recommendations]
1. In HBeAg-positive CHB patients with HBV DNA levels ≥20,000 IU/mL or
HBeAg-negative CHB patients with ≥2,000 IU/mL, antiviral treatment is
recommended if the ALT level is ≥2 times the ULN or if liver biopsy
shows moderate to severe necroinflammation or significant fibrosis
(≥F2). (A1)
2. Treatment with entecavir, tenofovir DF, or peginterferon alfa 2a is
recommended in children and adolescent CHB patients. (A1)
3. If antiviral resistance develops during treatment, the recommendations
for management of antiviral resistant CHB in adults given in the present
guidelines should be followed. (B1)
Authors’ contribution
Yim HJ, directed the guideline committee, and outlined and supervised the
manuscript writing and editing; Yoon EL edited the manuscript. All the committee
members participated drafting the manuscript; Yim HJ (preamble, and
supplementary material), Yoon EL (epidemiology, natural history, prevention, and
diagnosis and initial evaluation), Kim JH (treatment goal and aims, monitoring
during antiviral treatment, and cessation of treatment and monitoring after
antiviral treatment), Sinn DH (treatment indication, monitoring of patients who
are not indicated for treatment, treatment strategy, and definition and
predictors of antiviral treatment response); Lee HW (therapeutic agents and
management in patients with renal dysfunction or metabolic bone disease); Park
JY (antiviral resistance and management of antiviral resistance), Lee JH
(management according to treatment response and management in patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma), Kwon JH (therapeutic agents and management in
patients with renal dysfunction or metabolic bone disease), Park H (management
in patients with acute hepatitis B, patients on immunosuppression or
chemotherapy, and liver transplant patients), and Lee SH (management in
non-liver organ transplant recipients, coinfection with other viruses, pregnant
women and women preparing for pregnancy, and children and adolescents)
contributed to the manuscript writing.