| Title |
Update on rescue therapies in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s33947 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel C Chao, Ke-Qin Hu |
| Abstract |
Chronic hepatitis B continues to be a global problem, with an estimated 240 million cases according to the World Health Organization. Chronic infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV) is associated with cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, and hepatocellular carcinoma. There are currently several US Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for treating chronic hepatitis B, with Lamivudine (LAM) being the first oral agent made available. The major problem with LAM is significantly decreased effectiveness over time due to the development of anti-HBV resistance that can lead to virologic and biochemical breakthrough as well as hepatitis B flare, progression of liver disease, and decompensation of pre-existing cirrhosis. Despite its high anti-HBV resistant rate, LAM remains widely used in underdeveloped countries due to its wide availability and low cost compared to other antiviral medications, including those that are more effective. Therefore, it is still clinically important to learn how to prevent and treat LAM resistant strains of HBV. Several regimens with the other available antiviral agents have been studied, including switching to monotherapy with either Adefovir, Entecavir, or Tenofovir, adding Adefovir to LAM, and switching to a combination of Adefovir and Entecavir. This review article will examine molecular mechanisms and diagnosis of LAM anti-HBV resistance, risks for and approaches to reduce LAM anti-HBV resistance, and currently available rescue therapy regimens for LAM resistance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 29% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 44% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 9% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2019.
All research outputs
#17,604,528
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1,132
of 2,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,274
of 211,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#21
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 211,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.