Tenofovir Versus Entecavir for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prevention in an International Consortium of Chronic Hepatitis B

Comparative Effectiveness of Entecavir Versus Tenofovir for Preventing Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) can lead to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While both tenofovir disoproxil (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) have been shown to reduce the risk of HCC, their comparative effectiveness is unclear. We estimated the comparative effectiveness of these two agents in reducing the risk of HCC in patients with CHB, through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We searched multiple electronic databases from January 1, 1998, to October 31, 2019, for randomized controlled trials and observational comparative effectiveness studies in adults with CHB treated with ETV compared to TDF, reporting the incidence of HCC (minimum follow-up 12 months). Primary outcome was incidence of HCC, calculated as incidence rate ratio (IRR) with 95% confidence interval (CI, unadjusted analysis) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI (adjusted analysis, where reported). Of 1,971 records identified, 14 studies (263,947 person-years) were included for quantitative analysis. On unadjusted meta-analysis of 14 studies, the risk of HCC was not statistically different between ETV and TDF (IRR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.99-1.66). When using available adjusted data (multivariate or propensity-matched data), the risk of HCC among patients treated with ETV was 27% higher when compared to TDF (seven studies; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60, P = 0.04). Additional analysis of adjusted data when separately reported among patients with cirrhosis demonstrated an adjusted HR of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.66-1.23), suggesting no difference between ETV-treated and TDF-treated groups. The overall confidence in estimates was very low (observational studies, high heterogeneity).

CONCLUSIONS

TDF may be associated with lower risk of HCC when compared to ETV.

Comparison of 48-week efficacy of tenofovir vs entecavir for patients with chronic hepatitis B: A network meta-analysis

Both tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are accepted as first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few randomized studies comparing their efficacy. The primary aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of TDF and ETV using a network meta-analysis of randomized trials. The secondary aim was to additionally include propensity-matched cohort studies in a conventional meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science for published English-language randomized and propensity-matched studies between 1/1/2000 and 4/2/2020. Outcomes included undetectable HBV DNA, ALT normalization and HBeAg seroconversion at 48 weeks. We excluded patients who had co-infection or significant prior treatment with antivirals. 13 517 participants from 16 studies (11 RCTs, n = 2675; five propensity-matched cohort studies, n = 10 842) were included. Virological response at 48 weeks was higher in patients receiving TDF compared to ETV using both the network meta-analytic approach (OR 1.69, P < .001) and the conventional meta-analysis including propensity-matched cohort studies (OR 1.40, P < .001). On subgroup analysis, this difference was only significant in HBeAg-positive patients (OR 1.81, P = .037). There was limited evidence to suggest a higher rate of ALT normalization with ETV (OR 0.74, P = .07). There was no difference in rates of HBeAg seroconversion between the two antivirals. TDF is more likely than ETV to induce virological response at 48 weeks in treatment-naïve CHB patients. Future studies should focus on elucidating associations between early and sustained virological response with adverse patient outcomes including development of HCC or cirrhosis.

Secondary prevention for hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B: are all the nucleos(t)ide analogues the same?

Reducing the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is the key ultimate goal set in essentially all treatment guidelines. There has been solid evidence supporting the relationship between serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA level and risk of HCC. Antiviral treatment with oral nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) leads to sustained viral suppression and hence is often adopted as the secondary prevention for HCC in CHB patients. The first-generation NA, lamivudine, reduced the risk of HCC at 3 years compared to placebo; yet, its high emergence of antiviral resistance has made it no longer recommended in the international guidelines. Recent heated debate is about the two current first-line NAs-entecavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-Are they just as good to reduce HCC risk in CHB patients? A handful of cohort studies show two different kinds of observations-TDF is better than entecavir in lowering HCC risk, or these two NAs have led to similarly low risk of HCC. Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), a modified version of TDF higher rate of ALT normalization, would be another potent nucleotide analogue is the treatment of choice for secondary prevention for HCC.

Similar risk of hepatocellular carcinoma during long-term entecavir or tenofovir therapy in Caucasian patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A recent study in Asian patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) reported that the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was lower in patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) than entecavir (ETV), but this finding remains controversial. We aimed to identify any differences in HCC incidence, or other patient outcomes, between patients receiving TDF or ETV in the well monitored, multicenter European PAGE-B cohort.

METHODS

We included 1,935 Caucasians with CHB, with or without compensated cirrhosis, treated with ETV (n = 772) or TDF (n = 1,163) monotherapy. Mean follow-up was 7.1 ± 3.0 years from ETV/TDF onset.

RESULTS

The 5-year cumulative HCC incidence was 5.4% in ETV- and 6.0% in TDF-treated patients (log-rank, p = 0.321), with no significant difference in any patient subgroup (with or without cirrhosis, naïve or experienced to oral antiviral(s) [total, with or without cirrhosis]). In multivariable Cox regression analyses, the hazard of HCC was similar between ETV- and TDF-treated patients after adjustment for several HCC risk factors. ETV- and TDF-treated patients had similar rates of on-therapy biochemical and virological remission, HBsAg loss, liver transplantation and/or death. Elastographic reversion of cirrhosis at year 5 (liver stiffness <12 kPa) was observed in 245/347 (70.6%) patients with pretreatment cirrhosis, being more frequent in TDF- than ETV- treated patients (73.8% vs. 61.5%, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

In Caucasian patients with CHB, with or without cirrhosis, long-term ETV or TDF monotherapy is associated with similar HCC risk, rates of biochemical/virological remission, HBsAg loss and liver transplantation or death, but elastographic reversion of cirrhosis at year 5 was more frequent with TDF.

LAY SUMMARY

In a large cohort of Caucasians with chronic hepatitis B treated with entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) monotherapy, cumulative rates of hepatocellular carcinoma did not differ (up to 12 years). Nor did rates of biochemical/virological remission, HBsAg loss and liver transplantation or death. However, elastographic reversion of cirrhosis at year 5 was more frequent in TDF- than ETV-treated patients with pretreatment cirrhosis.

Hepatocellular carcinoma incidence with tenofovir versus entecavir in chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir differ in their association with risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B, and previous meta-analyses have shown conflicting conclusions with substantial heterogeneity. We aimed to analyse the updated data and elucidate the source of heterogeneity.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library for relevant studies with time-to-event data for incident hepatocellular carcinoma occurring in patients with chronic hepatitis B who received tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir monotherapy with follow-up of at least 1 year. Studies published between Jan 1, 2006, and April 17, 2020, and abstracts from international conferences in 2018 and 2019 were included. We pooled covariate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for hepatocellular carcinoma using a random-effects model, assessed heterogeneity among included studies using the I² statistic and Cochran's Q test, and identified the source of heterogeneity using prespecified subgroup analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, ID CRD42020176513.

FINDINGS

31 studies involving 119 053 patients were analysed. The 5-year cumulative incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma was 5·97% (95% CI 5·81-6·13, 28 studies) for entecavir and 3·06% (2·86-3·26, 13 studies) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in studies with unmatched populations (p<0·0001). For all eight studies matched by propensity score, the 5-year cumulative incidence was 3·44% (95% CI 3·08-3·80) for entecavir and 3·39% (2·94-3·83) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (p=0·87). Analysis of 14 comparative studies with covariate adjustment found that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir had similar risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (primary outcome); adjusted HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·73-1·07; p=0·20), although heterogeneity was significant (I²=56·4%, p=0·0038). In a subgroup analysis for hospital-based clinical cohorts, there was no difference in hepatocellular carcinoma incidence between the two regimens (adjusted HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·88-1·21; I²=0%). However, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was associated with a lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma compared with entecavir in administrative database research (adjusted HR 0·67, 0·59-0·76; I²=0%).

INTERPRETATION

Our study found no significant difference between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in their association with incident hepatocellular carcinoma. We suggest that treatment should be guided by patient tolerability and affordability rather than whether one drug is more effective than the other.

FUNDING

Supported in part by E-DA Hospital (EDAHP 106008; EDAHP 103046).

Comparison of tenofovir versus entecavir on reducing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Studies had shown that tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are widely used as the first-line therapy to inhibit hepatitis B virus replication, which can reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients, but it was unclear which nucleos(t)ide analogue was most effective. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis and a systematic review to compare the incidence of HCC in CHB patients who are either on TDF or ETV.

METHODS

For this study, the following databases were searched for clinical trials published from its inception until November 2019: PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

A total of 11 eligible studies were selected, including 70 864 patients. The meta-analysis showed that TDF was superior to ETV with regard to the incidence of HCC, the incidence of death or transplantation, and virologic response. There were no significant differences in terms of biochemical response and loss of seroconversion response among the entire cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusion was that CHB patients treated with TDF had a reduced incidence of HCC compared with patients treated with ETV.

Hepatocellular carcinoma and death and transplantation in chronic hepatitis B treated with entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

Conflicting results have been reported regarding which of entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is associated with better outcomes. Chronic hepatitis B patients who started ETV or TDF between 2010 and 2015 were analysed. The primary outcomes were hepatocellular carcinoma and death and transplantation. The impact of the treatment on the primary outcomes was analysed using Cox proportional hazards models in the entire and propensity score-matched cohorts. A total of 404 patients (180 and 224 in the ETV and TDF groups, respectively) were analysed. The median duration of follow-up was significantly longer in the ETV group (64.0 vs. 49.1 months; P < 0.001). Virological response (79.4% vs. 68.4%; P = 0.018) and sustained virological suppression (59.7% vs. 45.2%; P = 0.005) were significantly higher in the TDF group. TDF was associated with lower hepatocellular carcinoma [hazard ratio (HR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.12‒0.79; P = 0.014]; however, statistical significance was not reached after adjusting sustained virological suppression using propensity score matching (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12‒1.14; P = 0.08). Death and transplantation was comparable. In conclusion, the impact of TDF on the lower hepatocellular carcinoma was blunted after adjusting sustained virological suppression. Further comparison in a larger number of patients who show sustained virological suppression over a longer period of time is needed.

Tenofovir Treatment Has Lower Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma than Entecavir Treatment in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are both equally recommended as first-line treatments for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). They have comparable efficacy in virologic response, but their effect on the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in CHB is controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare TDF and ETV evaluating the risk of HCC development in CHB patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to November 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases without language and time restrictions. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models were used to estimate combined hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Seven studies containing 35,785 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled HR (95% CI) of HCC in the patients who used TDF versus patients who used ETV was 0.75 (0.56-0.96). There was no significant heterogeneity detected among the included studies results (I² = 47.5%). There was no significant publication bias detected among the included studies (Begg's p = 0.88 and Egger's regression test p = 0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence to date suggests that TDF treatment is associated with significantly fewer cases of HCC when compared to ETV.