Background
Bushen Jianpi formula (BSJPF, also known as Lingmao formula) is a traditional Chinese medicine for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The previous study has suggested that the treatment combination of BSJPF and entecavir (ETV) can achieve a significant loss of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) and a significant decrease in serum level of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA in HBeAg-positive CHB patients with mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase.
Conclusion
The combination of BSJPF and ETV can increase the rate of HBsAg loss and the rate of histological fibrosis improvement without serious adverse events in CHB patients.
Methods
A total of 640 patients were assigned randomly to the treatment group (receiving BSJPF combined with ETV for 96 weeks) or the control group (receiving a placebo combined with ETV for 96 weeks) in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary endpoints are the rate of loss of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg). The secondary outcomes included the rate of decrease in the HBsAg concentration to ≥1 lg·IU/mL, the HBV DNA suppression, the decline of the level of covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) in the liver, histological improvements, and the rate of ALT normalization.
Objective
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BSJPF combined with ETV for treating HBeAg-negative CHB patients.
Results
The rate of HBsAg loss in the treatment group was significantly higher than that of the control group (5.5% versus 1.8%, P=0.031). There were 11.1% of patients in the treatment group who recorded a reduction in HBsAg ≥1 lg·IU/mL, which is better than 5.9% of patients in the control group (P=0.043). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the rate of HBV DNA clearance, the reduction in intrahepatic cccDNA, and the rate of ALT normalization (P > 0.05). The rate of liver fibrosis improvement in the treatment group was better than that of the control group (35.5% versus 11.8%, P=0.031), but there was no difference in necroinflammatory improvement (P > 0.05). The adverse events (AEs) were similar between the two groups, except for the abnormal kidney function, with 2.2% in the control group and 0.0% in the treatment group (P=0.028).