96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection

GS-US-320-0110; GS-US-320-0108 Investigators

doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2017.11.039

96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection

GS-US-320-0110, GS-US-320-0108 Investigators

Department of Internal Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

231 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background & Aims: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a new prodrug of tenofovir developed to treat patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection at a lower dose than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) through more efficient delivery of tenofovir to hepatocytes. In 48-week results from two ongoing, double-blind, randomized phase III trials, TAF was non-inferior to TDF in efficacy with improved renal and bone safety. We report 96-week outcomes for both trials. Methods: In two international trials, patients with chronic HBV infection were randomized 2:1 to receive 25 mg TAF or 300 mg TDF in a double-blinded fashion. One study enrolled HBeAg-positive patients and the other HBeAg-negative patients. We assessed efficacy in each study, and safety in the pooled population. Results: At week 96, the differences in the rates of viral suppression were similar in HBeAg-positive patients receiving TAF and TDF (73% vs. 75%, respectively, adjusted difference −2.2% (95% CI −8.3 to 3.9%; p = 0.47), and in HBeAg-negative patients receiving TAF and TDF (90% vs. 91%, respectively, adjusted difference −0.6% (95% CI −7.0 to 5.8%; p = 0.84). In both studies the proportions of patients with alanine aminotransferase above the upper limit of normal at baseline, who had normal alanine aminotransferase at week 96 of treatment, were significantly higher in patients receiving TAF than in those receiving TDF. In the pooled safety population, patients receiving TAF had significantly smaller decreases in bone mineral density than those receiving TDF in the hip (mean % change −0.33% vs. −2.51%; p <0.001) and lumbar spine (mean % change −0.75% vs. −2.57%; p <0.001), as well as a significantly smaller median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate by Cockcroft-Gault method (−1.2 vs. −4.8 mg/dl; p <0.001). Conclusion: In patients with HBV infection, TAF remained as effective as TDF, with continued improved renal and bone safety, two years after the initiation of treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341. Lay summary: At week 96 of two ongoing studies comparing the efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients, TAF continues to be as effective as TDF with continued improved renal and bone safety. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	672-681
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of Hepatology
Volume	68
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.11.039
Publication status	Published - 2018 Apr

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Maurizia Brunetto: Advisory Board – Gilead, Merck, AbbVie, Janssen; Speaker – AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche. Wai Kay Seto: Advisory Board-Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Speaker’s Bureau-Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Alfa Wassermann. Young-Suk Lim: Advisory Board – Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead; Research – Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Novartis; Speaker – Bayer, Gilead. Sang Hoon Ahn: Advisory Board – Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, AbbVie, MSD; Research – Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Roche. Namiki Izumi: Advisory Board-Gilead; Speaker-Gilead, AbbVie, Shionogi, Otsuka, Bayer, MSD. Wan-Long Chuang: Advisory board–Gilead, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, PharmaEssentia; Speaker–Gilead, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, PharmaEssentia, Roche. Ho Bae: Speaker and research grant for Gilead. Harry L.A. Janssen: Grants – AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Innogenetics, Janssen, MedImmune, Medronic, Merck, Roche; Consultant – AbbVie, Benitec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Roche, Arbutus. Calvin Q. Pan: Consultant – Gilead, AbbVie; Advisory Board – Gilead, BMS, AbbVie; Research – Gilead, Merck. Employees and stockholders of Gilead Sciences: John F. Flaherty, Anuj Gaggar, Audrey H. Lau, Vithika Suri, Andrea L. Cathcart, Neeru Bhardwaj, Lanjia Lin, and G. Mani Subramanian. Huy Trinh: Research—Gilead, Intercept; Advisory Board and Speaker—Gilead. Edward J. Gane: Advisory Board – AbbVie, ALIOS, Gilead, Janssen, Roche; Speaker—Gilead, AbbVie. Maria Buti: Advisory Board and Speaker – Gilead, MSD, BMS, Janssen, AbbVie. Henry L.Y. Chan: Advisor and speaker for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead and Roche; Advisor for Janssen; Speaker for MSD. No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose: Scott Fung, Patrick Marcellin, Manoj Sharma, Mustafa Kemal Çelen, Norihiro Furusyo, Dr. Shalimar, Ki Tae Yoon.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 European Association for the Study of the Liver

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Hepatology

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jhep.2017.11.039

Cite this

@article{7733da2716de4ad79b7bbf43dcdd6c20,

title = "96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection",

abstract = "Background & Aims: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a new prodrug of tenofovir developed to treat patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection at a lower dose than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) through more efficient delivery of tenofovir to hepatocytes. In 48-week results from two ongoing, double-blind, randomized phase III trials, TAF was non-inferior to TDF in efficacy with improved renal and bone safety. We report 96-week outcomes for both trials. Methods: In two international trials, patients with chronic HBV infection were randomized 2:1 to receive 25 mg TAF or 300 mg TDF in a double-blinded fashion. One study enrolled HBeAg-positive patients and the other HBeAg-negative patients. We assessed efficacy in each study, and safety in the pooled population. Results: At week 96, the differences in the rates of viral suppression were similar in HBeAg-positive patients receiving TAF and TDF (73% vs. 75%, respectively, adjusted difference −2.2% (95% CI −8.3 to 3.9%; p = 0.47), and in HBeAg-negative patients receiving TAF and TDF (90% vs. 91%, respectively, adjusted difference −0.6% (95% CI −7.0 to 5.8%; p = 0.84). In both studies the proportions of patients with alanine aminotransferase above the upper limit of normal at baseline, who had normal alanine aminotransferase at week 96 of treatment, were significantly higher in patients receiving TAF than in those receiving TDF. In the pooled safety population, patients receiving TAF had significantly smaller decreases in bone mineral density than those receiving TDF in the hip (mean % change −0.33% vs. −2.51%; p <0.001) and lumbar spine (mean % change −0.75% vs. −2.57%; p <0.001), as well as a significantly smaller median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate by Cockcroft-Gault method (−1.2 vs. −4.8 mg/dl; p <0.001). Conclusion: In patients with HBV infection, TAF remained as effective as TDF, with continued improved renal and bone safety, two years after the initiation of treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341. Lay summary: At week 96 of two ongoing studies comparing the efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients, TAF continues to be as effective as TDF with continued improved renal and bone safety. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341.",

author = "GS-US-320-0110 and {GS-US-320-0108 Investigators} and Kosh Agarwal and Maurizia Brunetto and Seto, {Wai Kay} and Lim, {Young Suk} and Scott Fung and Patrick Marcellin and Ahn, {Sang Hoon} and Namiki Izumi and Chuang, {Wan–Long L.} and Ho Bae and Manoj Sharma and Janssen, {Harry L.A.} and Pan, {Calvin Q.} and {\c C}elen, {Mustafa Kemal} and Norihiro Furusyo and Dr Shalimar and Yoon, {Ki Tae} and Huy Trinh and Flaherty, {John F.} and Anuj Gaggar and Lau, {Audrey H.} and Cathcart, {Andrea L.} and Lanjia Lin and Neeru Bhardwaj and Vithika Suri and {Mani Subramanian}, G. and Gane, {Edward J.} and Maria Buti and Chan, {Henry L.Y.}",

note = "Funding Information: Maurizia Brunetto: Advisory Board – Gilead, Merck, AbbVie, Janssen; Speaker – AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche. Wai Kay Seto: Advisory Board-Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Speaker{\textquoteright}s Bureau-Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Alfa Wassermann. Young-Suk Lim: Advisory Board – Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead; Research – Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Novartis; Speaker – Bayer, Gilead. Sang Hoon Ahn: Advisory Board – Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, AbbVie, MSD; Research – Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Roche. Namiki Izumi: Advisory Board-Gilead; Speaker-Gilead, AbbVie, Shionogi, Otsuka, Bayer, MSD. Wan-Long Chuang: Advisory board–Gilead, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, PharmaEssentia; Speaker–Gilead, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, PharmaEssentia, Roche. Ho Bae: Speaker and research grant for Gilead. Harry L.A. Janssen: Grants – AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Innogenetics, Janssen, MedImmune, Medronic, Merck, Roche; Consultant – AbbVie, Benitec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Roche, Arbutus. Calvin Q. Pan: Consultant – Gilead, AbbVie; Advisory Board – Gilead, BMS, AbbVie; Research – Gilead, Merck. Employees and stockholders of Gilead Sciences: John F. Flaherty, Anuj Gaggar, Audrey H. Lau, Vithika Suri, Andrea L. Cathcart, Neeru Bhardwaj, Lanjia Lin, and G. Mani Subramanian. Huy Trinh: Research—Gilead, Intercept; Advisory Board and Speaker—Gilead. Edward J. Gane: Advisory Board – AbbVie, ALIOS, Gilead, Janssen, Roche; Speaker—Gilead, AbbVie. Maria Buti: Advisory Board and Speaker – Gilead, MSD, BMS, Janssen, AbbVie. Henry L.Y. Chan: Advisor and speaker for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead and Roche; Advisor for Janssen; Speaker for MSD. No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose: Scott Fung, Patrick Marcellin, Manoj Sharma, Mustafa Kemal {\c C}elen, Norihiro Furusyo, Dr. Shalimar, Ki Tae Yoon. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017 European Association for the Study of the Liver",

year = "2018",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/j.jhep.2017.11.039",

language = "English",

volume = "68",

pages = "672--681",

journal = "Journal of Hepatology",

issn = "0168-8278",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection

AU - GS-US-320-0110

AU - GS-US-320-0108 Investigators

AU - Agarwal, Kosh

AU - Brunetto, Maurizia

AU - Seto, Wai Kay

AU - Lim, Young Suk

AU - Fung, Scott

AU - Marcellin, Patrick

AU - Ahn, Sang Hoon

AU - Izumi, Namiki

AU - Chuang, Wan–Long L.

AU - Bae, Ho

AU - Sharma, Manoj

AU - Janssen, Harry L.A.

AU - Pan, Calvin Q.

AU - Çelen, Mustafa Kemal

AU - Furusyo, Norihiro

AU - Shalimar, Dr

AU - Yoon, Ki Tae

AU - Trinh, Huy

AU - Flaherty, John F.

AU - Gaggar, Anuj

AU - Lau, Audrey H.

AU - Cathcart, Andrea L.

AU - Lin, Lanjia

AU - Bhardwaj, Neeru

AU - Suri, Vithika

AU - Mani Subramanian, G.

AU - Gane, Edward J.

AU - Buti, Maria

AU - Chan, Henry L.Y.

N1 - Funding Information: Maurizia Brunetto: Advisory Board – Gilead, Merck, AbbVie, Janssen; Speaker – AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche. Wai Kay Seto: Advisory Board-Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb; Speaker’s Bureau-Gilead, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Alfa Wassermann. Young-Suk Lim: Advisory Board – Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead; Research – Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Novartis; Speaker – Bayer, Gilead. Sang Hoon Ahn: Advisory Board – Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, AbbVie, MSD; Research – Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Roche. Namiki Izumi: Advisory Board-Gilead; Speaker-Gilead, AbbVie, Shionogi, Otsuka, Bayer, MSD. Wan-Long Chuang: Advisory board–Gilead, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, PharmaEssentia; Speaker–Gilead, AbbVie, BMS, MSD, PharmaEssentia, Roche. Ho Bae: Speaker and research grant for Gilead. Harry L.A. Janssen: Grants – AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Innogenetics, Janssen, MedImmune, Medronic, Merck, Roche; Consultant – AbbVie, Benitec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Roche, Arbutus. Calvin Q. Pan: Consultant – Gilead, AbbVie; Advisory Board – Gilead, BMS, AbbVie; Research – Gilead, Merck. Employees and stockholders of Gilead Sciences: John F. Flaherty, Anuj Gaggar, Audrey H. Lau, Vithika Suri, Andrea L. Cathcart, Neeru Bhardwaj, Lanjia Lin, and G. Mani Subramanian. Huy Trinh: Research—Gilead, Intercept; Advisory Board and Speaker—Gilead. Edward J. Gane: Advisory Board – AbbVie, ALIOS, Gilead, Janssen, Roche; Speaker—Gilead, AbbVie. Maria Buti: Advisory Board and Speaker – Gilead, MSD, BMS, Janssen, AbbVie. Henry L.Y. Chan: Advisor and speaker for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead and Roche; Advisor for Janssen; Speaker for MSD. No relevant conflicts of interest to disclose: Scott Fung, Patrick Marcellin, Manoj Sharma, Mustafa Kemal Çelen, Norihiro Furusyo, Dr. Shalimar, Ki Tae Yoon. Publisher Copyright: © 2017 European Association for the Study of the Liver

PY - 2018/4

Y1 - 2018/4

N2 - Background & Aims: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a new prodrug of tenofovir developed to treat patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection at a lower dose than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) through more efficient delivery of tenofovir to hepatocytes. In 48-week results from two ongoing, double-blind, randomized phase III trials, TAF was non-inferior to TDF in efficacy with improved renal and bone safety. We report 96-week outcomes for both trials. Methods: In two international trials, patients with chronic HBV infection were randomized 2:1 to receive 25 mg TAF or 300 mg TDF in a double-blinded fashion. One study enrolled HBeAg-positive patients and the other HBeAg-negative patients. We assessed efficacy in each study, and safety in the pooled population. Results: At week 96, the differences in the rates of viral suppression were similar in HBeAg-positive patients receiving TAF and TDF (73% vs. 75%, respectively, adjusted difference −2.2% (95% CI −8.3 to 3.9%; p = 0.47), and in HBeAg-negative patients receiving TAF and TDF (90% vs. 91%, respectively, adjusted difference −0.6% (95% CI −7.0 to 5.8%; p = 0.84). In both studies the proportions of patients with alanine aminotransferase above the upper limit of normal at baseline, who had normal alanine aminotransferase at week 96 of treatment, were significantly higher in patients receiving TAF than in those receiving TDF. In the pooled safety population, patients receiving TAF had significantly smaller decreases in bone mineral density than those receiving TDF in the hip (mean % change −0.33% vs. −2.51%; p <0.001) and lumbar spine (mean % change −0.75% vs. −2.57%; p <0.001), as well as a significantly smaller median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate by Cockcroft-Gault method (−1.2 vs. −4.8 mg/dl; p <0.001). Conclusion: In patients with HBV infection, TAF remained as effective as TDF, with continued improved renal and bone safety, two years after the initiation of treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341. Lay summary: At week 96 of two ongoing studies comparing the efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients, TAF continues to be as effective as TDF with continued improved renal and bone safety. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341.

AB - Background & Aims: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a new prodrug of tenofovir developed to treat patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection at a lower dose than tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) through more efficient delivery of tenofovir to hepatocytes. In 48-week results from two ongoing, double-blind, randomized phase III trials, TAF was non-inferior to TDF in efficacy with improved renal and bone safety. We report 96-week outcomes for both trials. Methods: In two international trials, patients with chronic HBV infection were randomized 2:1 to receive 25 mg TAF or 300 mg TDF in a double-blinded fashion. One study enrolled HBeAg-positive patients and the other HBeAg-negative patients. We assessed efficacy in each study, and safety in the pooled population. Results: At week 96, the differences in the rates of viral suppression were similar in HBeAg-positive patients receiving TAF and TDF (73% vs. 75%, respectively, adjusted difference −2.2% (95% CI −8.3 to 3.9%; p = 0.47), and in HBeAg-negative patients receiving TAF and TDF (90% vs. 91%, respectively, adjusted difference −0.6% (95% CI −7.0 to 5.8%; p = 0.84). In both studies the proportions of patients with alanine aminotransferase above the upper limit of normal at baseline, who had normal alanine aminotransferase at week 96 of treatment, were significantly higher in patients receiving TAF than in those receiving TDF. In the pooled safety population, patients receiving TAF had significantly smaller decreases in bone mineral density than those receiving TDF in the hip (mean % change −0.33% vs. −2.51%; p <0.001) and lumbar spine (mean % change −0.75% vs. −2.57%; p <0.001), as well as a significantly smaller median change in estimated glomerular filtration rate by Cockcroft-Gault method (−1.2 vs. −4.8 mg/dl; p <0.001). Conclusion: In patients with HBV infection, TAF remained as effective as TDF, with continued improved renal and bone safety, two years after the initiation of treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341. Lay summary: At week 96 of two ongoing studies comparing the efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B patients, TAF continues to be as effective as TDF with continued improved renal and bone safety. Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT01940471 and NCT01940341.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041127106&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041127106&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.11.039

DO - 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.11.039

M3 - Article

C2 - 29756595

AN - SCOPUS:85041127106

SN - 0168-8278

VL - 68

SP - 672

EP - 681

JO - Journal of Hepatology

JF - Journal of Hepatology

IS - 4

ER -

96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection

Abstract

Bibliographical note

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this

96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection

Abstract

Bibliographical note

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this

96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection