Table 2 Virologic and biochemical response to entecavir.

From: A five years study of antiviral effect of entecavir in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients

 

NA-naïve (n = 33)

LAM-experienced (n = 21)

ADV-experienced (n = 33)

No LAM-resistance (n = 11)

Prior history LAM-Resistance (n = 10)

Partial virology response (n = 4)

primary treatment failure (n = 29)

Baseline HBV DNA(log10IU/ml)

6.2 ± 1.9

7.0 ± 1.5

5.4 ± 1.9

3.5 ± 1.4

5.6 ± 1.4

Median follow-up (y)

5.75 (5–6.25)

6 (1.5–6.25)

5 (1.75–6)

5.75 (5–6)

4.25(1–5.75)

ALT normalization

18/18 (100%)

2/3 (67%)

3/3 (100%)

0/0

6/8 (75%)

Virologic response

 1 year

28/33 (85%)

7/11 (64%)

6/10 (60%)

4/4 (100%)

14/29 (48%)

 2 year

30/33 (91%)

7/10 (70%)

6/8 (75%)

4/4 (100%)

16/28 (57%)

 3 year

32/33 (97%)

7/10 (70%)

6/7 (86%)

4/4 (100%)

20/28 (71%)

 4 year

32/33 (97%)

8/10 (80%)

7/7 (100%)

3/3 (100%)

27/27 (100%)

 5 year

33/33 (100%)

8/10 (80%)

6/6 (100%)

3/3 (100%)

10/10 (100%)

Virologic breakthrough

 1 year

0/33 (0%)

0/11 (0%)

0/10 (0%)

0/4 (0%)

0/29 (0%)

 2 year

0/33 (0%)

2/10 (20%)

2/8 (25%)

0/4 (0%)

0/29 (0%)

 3 year

0/33 (0%)

3/10 (30%)

3/7 (43%)

0/4 (0%)

0/29 (0%)

 4 year

0/33 (0%)

3/10 (30%)

3/7 (43%)

1/4 (25%)

0/29 (0%)

 5 year

0/33 (0%)

3/10 (30%)

4/6 (67%)

1/4 (25%)

0/29 (0%)

 6 year

0/33 (0%)

3/10 (30%)

4/6 (67%)

1/4 (25%)

1/29 (3%)

 Genotypic ETV-resistance

0/33 (0%)

3/11 (27%)

4/10 (40%)

1/4 (25%)

1/29 (3%)

 HBeAg loss

6/18 (33%)

1/8 (13%)

1/7 (14%)

1/4 (25%)

6/27 (22%)

 1 year

1/18 (6%)

0/8 (0%)

1/7 (14%)

0/4 (0%)

1/26 (4%)

 2 year

3/18 (17%)

1/7 (14%)

1/7 (14%)

0/4 (0%)

2/25 (8%)

 3 year

5/18 (28%)

1/7 (14%)

1/7 (14%)

0/4 (0%)

4/25 (16%)

 4 year

5/18 (28%)

1/7 (14%)

1/7 (14%)

0/4 (0%)

4/24 (17%)

 5 year

6/18 (33%)

1/7 (14%)

1/7 (14%)

1/4 (25%)

3/10 (30%)

 HBsAg loss

0/33 (0%)

0/11 (0%)

0/10 (0%)

0/4 (0%)

0/29 (0%)

  1. To explore the role of ETV as rescue therapy for ADV-treated patients, the antiviral effect of ETV is described for those patients, who did not receive LAM therapy and were directly switched to ETV monotherapy (n = 33/43, 77%).