Among patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B, the rates of therapeutic and histologic response at 1 year were significantly higher in patients treated with telbivudine than in patients treated with lamivudine. In both the HBeAg-negative and the HBeAg-positive groups, telbivudine demonstrated greater HBV DNA suppression with less resistance than did lamivudine. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00057265 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

No abstract

No abstract

Chronic hepatitis B and its life-threatening sequelae are highly prevalent in China. There is a need for effective new therapies to suppress hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication and ameliorate liver disease. In this study, we compared the efficacy of telbivudine, a nucleoside analogue, with lamivudine in Chinese patients. In this phase III, double-blind, multicenter trial conducted in China, 332 patients with compensated hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B were randomly assigned to treatment with 600 mg of telbivudine or 100 mg of lamivudine daily for 104 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was reduction in serum HBV DNA levels at week 52 of treatment. Secondary endpoints included clearance of HBV DNA to undetectable levels, HBeAg loss and seroconversion, therapeutic response, and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization. Viral resistance and safety were assessed. At week 52, among 290 HBeAg-positive patients, mean reductions of serum HBV DNA were significantly greater in telbivudine recipients than lamivudine recipients (6.3 log 10 versus 5.5 log 10 , P < 0.001), and HBV DNA was polymerase chain reaction-negative in significantly more telbivudine recipients than lamivudine recipients (67% versus 38%, P < 0.001). ALT normalization (87% versus 75%, P ‫؍‬ 0.007), therapeutic response (85% versus 62%, P ‫؍‬ 0.001), and HBeAg loss (31% versus 20%, P ‫؍‬ 0.047) were also significantly more common in the telbivudine group. Treatment effects showed similar patterns in the smaller HBeAg-negative group (n ‫؍‬ 42). Viral resistance in telbivudine recipients was approximately half that observed with lamivudine; however, this difference was not statistically significant. Clinical adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups. Conclusion: In Chinese patients with chronic hepatitis B, telbivudine treatment for 52 weeks provided greater antiviral and clinical efficacy than lamivudine, with less resistance. (

Current therapy for chronic hepatitis B is suboptimal as a result of limited durable response rates, cumulative viral resistance, and/or poor tolerability. Telbivudine has potent antiviral activity against hepatitis B virus (HBV) in vitro and in the woodchuck model and has a promising preclinical safety profile. In this first clinical study of telbivudine, safety, antiviral activity, and pharmacokinetics were assessed in 43 adults with hepatitis B e antigen-positive chronic hepatitis B. This placebo-controlled dose-escalation trial investigated 6 telbivudine daily dosing levels (25, 50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 mg/d); treatment was given for 4 weeks, with 12 weeks' follow-up. Serum HBV DNA levels were monitored via quantitative polymerase chain reaction. The results indicate that telbivudine was well tolerated at all dosing levels, with no dose-related or treatmentrelated clinical or laboratory adverse events. telbivudine plasma pharmacokinetics were doseproportional within the studied dose range. Marked dose-related antiviral activity was evident, with a maximum at telbivudine doses of 400 mg/d or more. In the 800mg/d cohort, the mean HBV DNA reduction was 3.75 log 10 copies/mL at week 4, comprising a 99.98% reduction in serum viral load. Correspondingly, posttreatment return of viral load was slowest in the highdose groups. Viral dynamic analyses suggested a high degree of efficiency of inhibition of HBV replication by telbivudine and helped refine selection of the optimal dose. In conclusion, these results support expanded clinical studies of this new agent for the treatment of hepatitis B.