AIM To evaluate the long-term treatment outcomes of tenofovir therapy in patients in a real world Australian tertiary care setting.METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of treatment outcomes among treatment-na?ve and treatment-experienced patients receiving a minimum 3 mo tenofovir therapy through St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Australia. We included patients receiving tenofovir [tenofovir disoproxil fumarate(TDF)] monotherapy, as well as patients treated with TDF in combination with a second antiviral agent. Patients were excluded if they demonstrated human immune-deficiency virus/hepatitis C virus/hepatitis delta virus coinfection or were less than 18 years of age. We considered virological and biochemicalresponse, as well as safety outcomes. Virological response was determined by measurement of hepatitis B virus(HBV) DNA using sensitive assays; biochemical response was determined via serum liver function tests; histological response was determined from liver biopsy and fibroscan; safety analysis focused on glomerular renal function and bone mineral density. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete virological suppression over time, defined by HBV DNA < 20 IU/m L. Secondary efficacy endpoints included rates of biochemical response, and HB e antigen(HBe Ag)/HB surface antigen loss and seroconversion over time.RESULTS Ninety-two patients were identified who fulfilled the enrolment criteria. Median follow-up was 26 mo(range 3-114). Mean age was 46(24-78) years, 64(70%) were male and 77(84%) were of Asian origin. 55(60%) patients were treatment-na?ve and 62 patients(67%) were HBe Ag-negative. Complete virological suppression was achieved by 45/65(71%) patients at 12 mo, 37/46(80%) at 24 mo and 25/28(89%) at 36 mo. Partial virological response(HBV DNA 20-2000 IU/m L) was achieved by 89/92(96.7%) of patients. Multivariate analysis showed a significant relationship between virological suppression at end of follow-up and baseline HBV DNA level(OR = 0.897, 95%CI: 0.833-0.967, P = 0.0046) and HBe Ag positive status(OR = 0.373, 95%CI: 0.183-0.762, P = 0.0069). There was no difference in response comparing treatment-na?ve and treatment-experienced patients. Three episodes of virological breakthrough occurred in the setting of noncompliance. Tenofovir therapy was well tolerated.CONCLUSION Tenofovir is an efficacious, safe and well-tolerated treatment in an Australian real-world tertiary care setting. Our data are similar to the reported experience from registration trials. AIM To evaluate the long-term treatment outcomes of tenofovir therapy in patients in a real world Australian tertiary care setting. METHODS We performed a retrospective analysis of treatment outcomes among treatment-na? Ve and treatment-experienced patients receiving a minimum 3 mo tenofovir therapy through St Vincent’s Hospital Melbourne, Australia. We included patients receiving tenofovir [tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)] monotherapy, as well as patients treated with TDF in combination with a second antiviral agent. Patients were excluded if they demonstrated human immune-deficiency virus / We regard virological and biochemicalresponse, as well as safety outcomes. viral response was determined by measurement of hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA using sensitive assays; biochemical response was determined via serum liver function tests; histological response was determined from liver biopsy and fib The primary efficacy endpoint was complete virological suppression over time, defined by HBV DNA <20 IU / m L. Secondary efficacy endpoints included rates of biochemical response, and HB e antigen ( HBe Ag) / HB surface antigen loss and seroconversion over time .RESULTS Ninety-two patients were identified who fulfilled the enrolment criteria. Median follow-up was 26 months (range 3-114). Mean age was 46 (24-78) years Complete virological suppression was achieved by 64 (70%) were male and 77 (84%) were of Asian origin. 55 (60%) patients were treated with naive and 62 patients (67%) were HBe Ag- Partial virological response (HBV DNA 20-2000 IU / m L) was (10%) at 24 mo and 25/28 (89%) at 36 mo by 89/92 (96.7%) of patients. Multivariate analysis showed a significant relationship between virological suppression at end follow-up and baseline HBV DNA level (OR = 0.897, 95% CI: 0.833-0.967, P = 0.0046) and HBe Ag positive status (OR = 0.373, 95% CI: 0.183-0.762, P = 0.0069). There was no difference in response comparing treatment-na? Ve and treatment-experienced patients Three episodes of virological preparation occurred in the setting of noncompliance. Tenofovir therapy was well tolerated. CONCLUSION Tenofovir is an efficacious, safe and well-tolerated treatment in an Australian real-world tertiary care setting. Our data are similar to the reported experience from registration trials.