Comparison of the long-term efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naïve HBeAg-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B: A large, multicentre, randomized controlled trials

Antiviral Therapy of Chronic Hepatitis B Virus between Present and Future

Background/Objectives: The objective of this study was to analyze the results of clinical trials regarding long-term antiviral therapies in chronic hepatitis with HBV to compare current therapeutic protocols and to analyze the results of preliminary studies with new antiviral therapies for HBV. Methods: Clinical studies and meta-analyses from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Research Gate from 2011 to 2024 were analyzed on patients undergoing chronic antiviral therapy for HBV, and a retrospective observational study performed in our clinic on a group of 76 patients undergoing chronic therapy with entecavir was presented. Also, a summary of the results of preliminary studies with various innovative antiviral molecules for HBV was performed. Results: The results of extensive clinical trials reveal that current therapies for chronic HBV are well tolerated and maintain good viral suppression if the patient is adherent to therapy. Innovative therapies aim to eliminate HBsAg and, thus, significantly shorten the duration of treatment, and the preliminary results of the studies are promising. Conclusions: Being an asymptomatic condition that requires life-long therapy, adherence to therapy is a real problem. Also, the risk of decompensation of liver cirrhosis and adenocarcinoma remains important in these patients. Future research is needed to perfect some antiviral therapy schemes that shorten the treatment period but also decrease the rate of progression towards decompensated cirrhosis and liver adenocarcinoma.

Cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide versus entecavir for chronic hepatitis B patients in Greece

Aim: This study assessed the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) to either tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) or entecavir (ETV) in a Greek chronic hepatitis B (CHB) population. Patients & methods: A Markov model from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece quantified the health and economic benefits of switching from TDF to either TAF or ETV over a lifetime horizon. Results: Over a lifetime, patients who switch from TDF to TAF versus patients who switch from TDF to ETV had an overall lower incidence of compensated cirrhosis (0.4% lower), decompensated cirrhosis (0.04% lower) and hepatocellular carcinoma (0.25% lower). Chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease were also lower in patients who switch to TAF; major osteoporotic fractures were similar for both groups. While total costs were higher for switching from TDF to TAF versus TDF to ETV due to the higher cost of TAF, switching from TDF to TAF versus ETV was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €17,113 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusion: Switching from TDF to TAF in patients living with CHB is a cost effective strategy to reduce adverse liver disease outcomes, while improving bone- and renal-related safety outcomes.

Relevance of HBx for Hepatitis B Virus-Associated Pathogenesis

The hepatitis B virus (HBV) counts as a major global health problem, as it presents a significant causative factor for liver-related morbidity and mortality. The development of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC) as a characteristic of a persistent, chronic infection could be caused, among others, by the pleiotropic function of the viral regulatory protein HBx. The latter is known to modulate an onset of cellular and viral signaling processes with emerging influence in liver pathogenesis. However, the flexible and multifunctional nature of HBx impedes the fundamental understanding of related mechanisms and the development of associated diseases, and has even led to partial controversial results in the past. Based on the cellular distribution of HBx-nuclear-, cytoplasmic- or mitochondria-associated-this review encompasses the current knowledge and previous investigations of HBx in context of cellular signaling pathways and HBV-associated pathogenesis. In addition, particular focus is set on the clinical relevance and potential novel therapeutic applications in the context of HBx.

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B receiving tenofovir- vs. entecavir-based regimens: Individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The comparative risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs. entecavir (ETV) remains controversial. In this individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis, we aimed to compare HCC risk between the two drugs and identify subgroups who may benefit more from one treatment than the other.

METHODS

Published meta-analyses, electronic databases and congress proceedings were searched to identify eligible studies through January 2021. We compared HCC risk between the two drugs using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with anonymised IPD from treatment-naïve patients with CHB receiving TDF or ETV for ≥1 year. Treatment effect consistency was explored in propensity score matching (PSM), weighting (PSW) and subgroup analyses for age, sex, hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) positivity, cirrhosis and diabetes status.

RESULTS

We included 11 studies from Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong involving 42,939 patients receiving TDF (n = 6,979) or ETV (n = 35,960) monotherapy. Patients receiving TDF had significantly lower HCC risk (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.98; p = 0.03). Lower HCC risk with TDF was consistently observed in PSM (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.88; p <0.01) and PSW (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.67-1.03; p = 0.10) analyses and in all subgroups, with statistical significance in the ≥50 years of age (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.58-1.00; p <0.05), male (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.96; p = 0.02), HBeAg-positive (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97; p = 0.03) and non-diabetic (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-1.00; p <0.05) subgroups.

CONCLUSION

TDF was associated with significantly lower HCC risk than ETV in patients with CHB, particularly those with HBeAg positivity. Longer follow-up may be needed to better define incidence differences between the treatments in various subgroups.

IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS

Previous aggregate data meta-analyses have reported inconsistent conclusions on the relative effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This individual patient data meta-analysis on 11 studies involving 42,939 patients from Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong suggested that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-treated patients have a significantly lower hepatocellular carcinoma risk than entecavir-treated patients, which was observed in all subgroups of clinical interest and by different analytical methodologies. These findings should be taken into account by healthcare providers when determining the optimal course of treatment for patients with CHB and may be considered in ensuring that treatment guidelines for CHB remain pertinent.

Methodological challenges of performing meta-analyses to compare the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma between chronic hepatitis B treatments

Despite several recent meta-analyses on the topic, the comparative risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) receiving entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) remains controversial. The controversy partly results from the arbitrary nature of significance levels leading to contradictory conclusions from very similar datasets. However, the use of observational data, which is prone to both within- and between-study heterogeneity of patient characteristics, also lends additional uncertainty. The asynchronous introduction of ETV and TDF in East Asia, where the majority of these studies have been conducted, further complicates analyses, as does the ensuing difference in follow-up time between ETV and TDF cohorts. Researchers conducting meta-analyses in this area must make many methodological decisions to mitigate bias but are ultimately limited to the methodologies of the included studies. It is therefore important for researchers, as well as the audience of published meta-analyses, to be aware of the quality of observational studies and meta-analyses in terms of patient characteristics, study design and statistical methodologies. In this review, we aim to help clinicians navigate the published meta-analyses on this topic and to provide researchers with recommendations for future work.

Treatment of Chronic Hepatitis B Virus with Oral Anti-Viral Therapy

Nucleoside analogues are the drugs most commonly used in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. They act by inhibiting viral replication and have minimal impact on HBsAg loss. Nucleoside analogues are indicated in patients with chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and in those with extrahepatic manifestations. Real-world experience has been ongoing for more than 10 years, and the efficacy and safety results obtained are similar to those reported in clinical trials. Prolonged use is needed to maintain suppression of viral replication, prevent the development of liver cirrhosis and decompensated cirrhosis, and to decrease the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma.

New Thresholds for AFP and Des-γ-Carboxy Prothrombin in Chronic Liver Disease Depending on the Use of Nucleoside Analogs and an Integrated Nomogram

Background

The thresholds of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (PIVKA-II) when detecting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with antiviral nucleoside analog (NA) remain controversial. A relevant integrated nomogram needs to be developed.

Methods

We enrolled a consecutive series of 5666 cases diagnosed with CHB either with or without antiviral agents and randomly allocated them to the training set (n=3966, 70.00%) and the validation set (n=1700, 30.00%).

Results

In the training set, the levels of AFP and PIVKA-II of NA-treated patients were significantly lower than those of untreated patients. The most appropriate cut-off values of AFP and PIVKA-II were 151.40 ng/mL (a sensitivity of 39.77% and a specificity of 92.17%) and 35.50 mAU/mL (a sensitivity of 84.85% and a specificity of 69.43%) for NA-treated patients. As for BCLC-0/A HCC, the most appropriate cut-off values of AFP and PIVKA-II were 151.40 ng/mL and 32.50 mAU/mL for NA-treated patients, respectively. A logistic regression model composed of AFP, PIVKA-II and other clinical parameters to predict the risk of HBV-related HCC for NA-treated patients was established and verified to have an AUROC of 0.868 (95% CI, 0.827–0.909) for all-stage HCC and an AUROC of 0.856 (95% CI, 0.809–0.903) for BCLC-0/A HCC.

Conclusion

The new detection thresholds of AFP and PIVKA-II might lead to the ability to perform early detection for hepatoma in NA-treated patients and the innovative risk prediction model is a valuable tool for identifying high-risk CHB patients.

Asociación Mexicana de Hepatología A.C. Clinical guideline on hepatitis B

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection continues to be a worldwide public health problem. In Mexico, at least three million adults are estimated to have acquired hepatitis B (total hepatitis B core antibody [anti-HBc]-positive), and of those, 300,000 active carriers (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]-positive) could require treatment. Because HBV is preventable through vaccination, its universal application should be emphasized. HBV infection is a major risk factor for developing hepatocellular carcinoma. Semi-annual liver ultrasound and serum alpha-fetoprotein testing favor early detection of that cancer and should be carried out in all patients with chronic HBV infection, regardless of the presence of advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Currently, nucleoside/nucleotide analogues that have a high barrier to resistance are the first-line therapies.

Asociación Mexicana de Hepatología A.C. Clinical guideline on hepatitis B

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection continues to be a worldwide public health problem. In Mexico, at least three million adults are estimated to have acquired hepatitis B (total hepatitis B core antibody [anti-HBc]-positive), and of those, 300,000 active carriers (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg]-positive) could require treatment. Because HBV is preventable through vaccination, its universal application should be emphasized. HBV infection is a major risk factor for developing hepatocellular carcinoma. Semi-annual liver ultrasound and serum alpha-fetoprotein testing favor early detection of that cancer and should be carried out in all patients with chronic HBV infection, regardless of the presence of advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis. Currently, nucleoside/nucleotide analogues that have a high barrier to resistance are the first-line therapies.

Advances in treatment and prevention of hepatitis B

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) continues to contribute to worldwide morbidity and mortality significantly. Scientists, clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, and health organizations have dedicated substantial Intellectual and monetary resources to finding a cure, increasing immunization rates, and reducing the global burden of CHB. National and international health-related organizations including the center for disease control, the national institute of health, the American Association for the study of liver disease (AASLD), The European association for the study of the Liver (EASL), The Asia Pacific association for the study of the Liver (APASL) and the world health organization release periodic recommendations for disease prevention and treatment. Our review of the most recent guidelines by EASL, AASLD, APASL, and Taiwan Association for the Study of the Liver revealed that an overwhelming majority of cited studies were published before 2018. We reviewed Hepatitis B-related literature published 2018 onwards to identify recent developments and current barriers that will likely direct future efforts towards eradicating hepatitis B. The breakthrough in our understanding of the hepatitis B virus life cycle and resulting drug development is encouraging with significant room for further progress. Data from high-risk populations, most vulnerable to the devastating effects of hepatitis B infection and reactivation remain sparse. Utilization of systems approach, optimization of experimental models, identification and validation of next-generation biomarkers, and precise modulation of the human immune response will be critical for future innovation. Within the foreseeable future, new treatments will likely complement conventional therapies rather than replace them. Most Importantly, pragmatic management of CHB related population health challenges must be prioritized to produce real-world results.

Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate and Entecavir: Which is the Most Effective Drug for Chronic Hepatitis B? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The therapeutic effect of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) on chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients remains inconsistent. The aim of this study was to explore the differences in virological responses to TAF, TDF and ETV in patients with CHB.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted of the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies published up to July 21, 2020. Statistical comparisons of virological response between TDF, ETV, and TAF were carried out with pooled odds ratio (OR) values.

RESULTS

The virological response in TDF-treated CHB patients was notably superior to that of the ETV-treated CHB patients after 12-weeks [OR=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-1.41], 24-weeks (OR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.11-1.61), 48-weeks (OR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.16-2.25), 72-weeks (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 0.78-2.62), and 96-weeks (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 0.87-2.81) treatment. No significant difference was observed for the virological responses in CHB patients after 48-weeks treatment with TAF or TDF. The virological response in TDF+ETV-treated CHB patients was superior to that of TDF-treated CHB patients after 24-weeks, 48-weeks (OR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.17-2.02), 96-weeks, and 144-weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The virological response in TDF-treated CHB patients was superior to that in ETV-treated CHB patients, but there was no significant difference between TAF and TDF. In addition, the therapeutic effect of TDF+ETV was superior to TDF alone.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) viral load, liver and renal function in adults treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs. untreated: a retrospective longitudinal UK cohort study

BACKGROUND

Current clinical guidelines recommend treating chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in a minority of cases, but there are relatively scarce data on evolution or progression of liver inflammation and fibrosis in cases of chronic HBV (CHB) that do not meet treatment criteria. We aimed to assess the impact of TDF on liver disease, and the risk of renal impairment in treated CHB patients in comparison to untreated patients.

METHODS

We studied a longitudinal ethnically diverse CHB cohort in the UK attending out-patient clinics between 2005 and 2018. We examined TDF treatment (vs. untreated) as the main exposure, with HBV DNA viral load (VL), ALT, elastography scores and eGFR as the main outcomes, using paired tests and mixed effects model for longitudinal measurements. Additionally, decline of eGFR during follow-up was quantified within individuals by thresholds based on clinical guidelines. Baseline was defined as treatment initiation for TDF group and the beginning of clinical follow-up for untreated group respectively.

RESULTS

We included 206 adults (60 on TDF, 146 untreated), with a median ± IQR follow-up duration of 3.3 ± 2.8 years. The TDF group was significantly older (median age 39 vs. 35 years, p = 0.004) and more likely to be male (63% vs. 47%, p = 0.04) compared to the untreated group. Baseline difference between TDF and untreated groups reflected treatment eligibility criteria. As expected, VL and ALT declined significantly over time in TDF-treated patients. Elastography scores normalised during treatment in the TDF group reflecting regression of inflammation and/or fibrosis. However, 6/81 (7.4%) of untreated patients had a progression of fibrosis stage from F0-F1 to F2 or F3. There was no evidence of difference in rates or incidence of renal impairment during follow-up in the TDF vs. untreated group.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk of liver inflammation and fibrosis may be raised in untreated patients compared to those receiving TDF, and TDF may benefit a larger percentage of the CHB population.

Development and validation of a hepatitis B-specific health-related quality-of-life instrument: CLDQ-HBV

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) carries a large global burden. Efforts abound to decrease the burden, which necessitates reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We aimed to develop and validate an HBV-specific PRO instrument using the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ). Data were obtained from patients enrolled in our HBV registries who completed the CLDQ, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and FACIT-F. The sample was split randomly 1:1 into training and testing groups. A standard PRO instrument validation pipeline was used to develop and validate the new CLDQ-HBV instrument. HBV patients (n = 1,339) were 48 ± 13 years old, 60% male, 8% cirrhosis, with 53% receiving oral antivirals (OAV). After reduction of 10 redundant items, exploratory factor analysis for the remaining 19 items found 95% of variance was explained by five factors-emotional function, fatigue, systemic symptoms, worry and sleep. Good-to-excellent internal consistency was found: Cronbach's alphas 0.70-0.90 and item-to-own-domain correlations >0.50 for 18/19 items. Known-group validity tests discriminated between HBV patients with and without cirrhosis, with FIB-4 ≥ 3.25 vs <3.25, with and without history of depression or clinically overt fatigue (all p < 0.0001), and treatment (all p < 0.05, all but one <0.0001). After 48-week follow-up, HBV patients receiving OAV (N = 144) with ≥2.7 log 10/mL decline in HBV viral load experienced significant improvements in fatigue, worry and total CLDQ-HBV scores (p < 0.05). The newly developed CLDQ-HBV is a short, disease-specific PRO instrument for HBV patients which was developed and validated using large data set and an established methodology showing excellent psychometric characteristics.

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.

Tenofovir is Superior to Entecavir in Patients with Treatment-naïve Hepatitis B e-Antigen-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB) is a global health problem affecting around 400 million of people worldwide. Two available first-line antiviral drugs are tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and Entecavir (ETV). Till date,there are few published reports from India comparing efficacy of TDF and ETV in CHB cases. Therefore, this present study was carried out with an aim to compare the efficacy of ETV and TDF in patients with nucleos(t)ide naïve CHB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was carried out in 192 treatment naïve CHB cases, who completed 24 months of treatment with either TDF or ETV between March 2015 and August 2017. The primary end point of the study was undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA after 24 months of therapy.

RESULTS

Of total 192 patients with CHB, 38 hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive and 53 HBeAg-negative patients were treated with tenofovir, whereas 40 HBeAg-positive and 61 HBeAg-negative patients were treated with ETV. Pretreatment characteristics at baseline were not statistically different between the TDF and ETV groups. Patients treated with TDF achieved significantly higher complete viral suppression as compared with ETV-treated patients (Log rank: 7.04, P = 0.008) in HBeAg-positive CHB during the 24 months follow-up time; whereas no significant difference in viral suppression rate could be noticed in HBeAg-negative patients (Log rank: 0.98, P = 0.38). Both univariate and multivariate analysis by cox proportional hazard model confirmed that tenofovir had significant rate of complete viral suppression in comparison with ETV in HBeAg-positive patients (P < 0.05); whereas complete viral suppression rates were similar in HBeAg-negative patients.

CONCLUSION

In our study, tenofovir had more effective antiviral suppressive effect compared with ETV in HBeAg-positive, nucleos(t)ide-naïve CHB cases.

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.

Comparison of incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma between chronic hepatitis B patients with cirrhosis treated with entecavir or tenofovir in Taiwan - a retrospective study

Whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is superior to entecavir in lowering the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development remains controversial. This retrospective study compared the incidences of HCC, cirrhotic events, and mortality between patients treated with entecavir and TDF. The study enrolled 1560 chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with cirrhosis from 2008 through 2018. All patients received entecavir or TDF monotherapy for at least 12 months before enrollment. Patients who had HCC or liver transplantation at initial treatment or within the first year of entecavir or TDF therapy were excluded. In the entire cohort, the cumulative incidence rates of HCC at 3, 5, and 10 years were 9.5%, 15.2%, and 25.4%, respectively. The entecavir group had a higher cumulative incidence of HCC than the TDF group (P = 0.001). A Cox regression analysis showed that entecavir group, old age, male sex, hepatic decompensation, diabetes mellitus, lower albumin levels, and platelet count were independent predictors of HCC. TDF treatment was significantly associated with a lower risk of HCC compared to entecavir treatment after adjustment with propensity score matching or inverse probability of treatment weighting in all patients. However, this association was not observed in patients with compensated cirrhosis at entry or patients enrolled after 2011, including after adjustment with propensity score matching or inverse probability of treatment weighting. No significant differences were observed in cirrhotic events and mortality or liver transplantation between the entecavir and TDF groups. In conclusion, the incidences of HCC did not differ significantly between patients with compensated cirrhosis or those enrolled over the same period treated with entecavir or TDF.

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.

Comparison of the on-treatment risks for hepatocellular carcinoma between entecavir and tenofovir: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) may reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, it is not clear whether there is difference in the on-treatment HCC risks between ETV and TDF.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the on-treatment HCC incidence of ETV and TDF in 1340 consecutive nucleos(t)ide analog-naïve CHB patients by propensity score (PS) matching analysis. PS was calculated by using age, sex, drinking history, diabetes, liver cirrhosis, hepatitis B e antigen positivity, hepatitis B virus DNA, hepatitis B s antigen titer, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alpha-fetoprotein, albumin, bilirubin, prothrombin time, platelet count, and calendar year of treatment initiation as covariates. The HCC risk was assessed by Cox regression with death and liver transplantation as competing risks in the 1:1 PS-matched cohorts (n = 596).

RESULTS

TDF had higher cumulative virologic response (P = 0.027) whereas ETV showed higher AST and ALT normalization rates (P = 0.005 and < 0.001, respectively) in PS-matched cohorts. HCC risk was similar between ETV and TDF, either by PS-matching analysis (hazard ratio [HR] for TDF over ETV = 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98-4.33, P = 0.058) or inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.81-2.10; P = 0.276).

CONCLUSIONS

ETV and TDF treatment was associated with similar risk for HCC development in CHB patients.

Tenofovir versus entecavir in lowering the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a critical systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy exists on whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is superior to entecavir (ETV) in lowering the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development. This meta-analysis was performed to clarify this issue with critical clinical and methodological considerations.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to Oct 28, 2019. Randomized control trials and observational studies reporting the impact of TDF and ETV on the risk of HCC in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) were eligible. Risk ratios (RRs) calculated with cumulative incidence rate and/or annual incidence rate, or hazard ratio (HR) were pooled using random-effect models. Subgroup analyses were performed to assess the potential impact of between-study level and within-study level factors.

RESULTS

A total of 32 studies with 78,136 CHB patients were included. Overall cumulative incidence rate of HCC was lower in TDF group than ETV group (3.07% vs. 5.25%; RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.42-0.72). However, this difference was not statistically significant in pooled results of hazard ratio (HR 0.87; 95% CI 0.73-1.04) and RR calculated with annual incidence rate (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.67-1.16). Potential confounding factors at between-study level included prior nucleos(t)ide usage, disease stage at baseline and region of study. More importantly, at within-study level, disparity in follow-up duration between TDF and ETV groups may impact the result, usually favoring a treatment with shorter follow-up duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ETV, TDF treatment tended to have a lower overall cumulative incidence rate of HCC. However, disparity in follow-up duration may be a key factor to influence the result.

Comparative efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B.

METHODS

The Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Clinical Trials and China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the comparison between tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) since the date of database inception to July 2019. Two researchers independently screened and evaluated the obtained studies and extracted the outcome indexes. RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Early on, tenofovir had a greater ability to inhibit the hepatitis B virus, I2 = 0% [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (1.03, 1.13), P<0.01] (96 weeks). Entecavir can normalize the ALT levels earlier, I2 = 0% [RR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.77, 0.98), P = 0.02] (48 weeks). However, there was no statistically significant difference between TDF and ETV at 144 weeks. Tenofovir was as effective as entecavir in terms of HBeAg clearance and HBeAg seroconversion, I2 = 0% [RR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.68, 1.62), P = 0.82]; I2 = 69% [RR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.54, 1.61), P = 0.80]. The difference in the incidence of elevated creatine kinase levels was not statistically significant I2 = 0% [RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.27, 1.60), P = 0.35].

CONCLUSIONS

Tenofovir and entecavir were equally effective in the treatment of patients with nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B. In addition, TDF has an advantage in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma. Additional RCTs and a large-sample prospective cohort study should be performed.