Differential Effectiveness of Tenofovir and Entecavir for Prophylaxis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Depending on Coexisting Cirrhosis and Prior Exposure to Antiviral Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Are the New Nucleos(t)ide Analogs Better than the Old Nucleos(t)ide Analogs?

In treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide have a minimal or no risk of drug-resistance. These 3 nucleos(t)ide analog agents are highly potent inducing high rate of virologic response (reducing serum HBV DNA to levels undetectable by polymerase chain reaction assays) in most treatment-naïve patients. Our randomized trials have demonstrated that monotherapy with TDF can provide a successful virological response in most of the heavily pretreated patients with multidrug resistance to ETV or adefovir.

TACE versus TACE + entecavir versus TACE + tenofovir in the treatment of HBV associated hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

At present, there are a variety of antiviral drugs for HBV in clinical practice, but there is no standard scheme for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization(TACE) combined with antiviral drugs. The aim of this study was to investigate whether TACE must be combined with antiviral therapy in patients of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC). Meanwhile, the efficacy and safety of TACE combined with entecavir and TACE combined with tenofovir in the treatment of HBV-related HCC were compared.

METHOD

This study included 536 patients with HBV-related HCC who underwent TACE in Union Hospital from March 2017 to March 2020, and they met the criteria. They were divided into three groups: control group (N = 212): TACE alone; Entecavir group (N = 220): TACE combined with entecavir; and Tenofovir group (N = 228): TACE combined with tenofovir. We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the efficacy and safety of the three groups of patients.

RESULTS

Objective response rate(ORR): 29.2% in control group, 54.1% in entecavir group, and 63.2% in tenofovir group (P < 0.05). Disease control rate(DCR): 63.7% in control group, 80.9% in entecavir group, and 88.1% in tenofovir group (P < 0.05). Median overall survival(mOS): control group, 12.2 months; entecavir group, 17.3 months; tenofovir group, 22.5 months (p < 0.05). Median progression-free survival (mPFS): control group, 9.3 months; entecavir group, 15.5 months; tenofovir group, 16.6 months (p < 0.05). At 6 months, there was an increase in creatinine(Cr) and a decrease in glomeruar filtration rate(GFR) in tenofovir group, which were statistically different from control and entecavir groups (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

TACE combined with entecavir and TACE combined with tenofovir had higher ORR and DCR, longer OS and PFS than TACE alone. The OS of TACE combined with tenofovir was higher than that of TACE combined with entecavir. TACE combined with tenofovir is a safe strategy, but we cannot completely ignore the impact of tenofovir on renal function.

Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Comparison of the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Antiviral-Naive Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Treated with Entecavir versus Tenofovir: The Devil in the Detail

Simple Summary

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are the preferred anti-viral agents used as first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B. Despite many meta-analyses being conducted, it is still not clear whether TDF is more effective than ETV at reducing the risk of HCC due to the inconsistent statistical methodologies employed in previous observational studies. To reduce heterogeneity, we analysed only hospital cohort data studies with anti-viral naive patients. Additionally, unlike previous studies, we conducted subgroup analyses with enrolment criteria and socioeconomic factors that could not be corrected with statistical techniques. There is no difference between the two drugs in terms of reducing the risk of HCC in a pooled analysis of PS-matched patients. In the subgroup analysis, if there was interval of over three years from the start point of patient enrolment, we found that TDF was associated with significantly lower HCC risk. This result will provide new perspectives for future research.

Abstract

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are the preferred anti-viral agents used as first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, the efficacy of these agents in reducing the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of anti-viral agent on preventing HCC in CHB. Two investigators independently searched all relevant studies that examined the efficacy of anti-viral agent for preventing HCC using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through August 2021. The extracted data were analysed using a random-effects meta-analysis model based on the inverse-variance method (DerSimonian–Laird) and expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We included 19 retrospective studies in the analysis. Although there was substantial heterogeneity between the studies, the overall pooled HR indicated that TDF significantly lowered the risk of HCC (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58–0.90, I² = 66.29%). However, the pooled analysis of propensity score (PS)-matched subpopulations showed no significant differences (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65–1.06; I² = 52.30%) between TDF and ETV. In a subgroup analysis, an interval of over three years in the start point of patient enrolment and excluding alcoholic liver disease patients significantly lowered the HCC risk associated with TDF. In conclusion, TDF may be more effective than ETV at reducing HCC incidence in treatment-naive CHB patients, but this effect was not consistent in the PS-matched subpopulation that reduced heterogeneity. As a result of subgroup analysis, the conflicting findings of previous studies may result from heterogeneous inclusion criteria. Further studies with standardised protocols are needed to reduce the residual heterogeneity.