Tenofovir may be superior to entecavir for preventing hepatocellular carcinoma and mortality in individuals chronically infected with HBV: a meta-analysis

Adjuvant Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Curative Treatment: Several Unanswered Questions

Most patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have a poor prognosis. Hepatectomy and local ablation are the main curative treatments for HCC. Nevertheless, the recurrence rate after hepatectomy or ablation is up to 70%, which seriously affects patient prognosis. Several adjuvant therapies have been explored to reduce postoperative recurrence. However, although a variety of adjuvant therapies have been shown to reduce the recurrence rate and improve overall survival, a standard consensus of national HCC guidelines for adjuvant treatment is lacking. Therefore, there are significant differences in the recommendations for adjuvant therapy for HCC between the Eastern and Western guidelines. A variety of adjuvant treatment methods, such as antiviral therapy, transarterial chemoembolization or traditional Chinese medicine, are recommended by the Chinese HCC guidelines. However, Western guidelines make few recommendations other than antiviral therapy. Adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors are recommended only in the recently updated American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines. This review summarized the existing adjuvant therapy options after curative hepatectomy or ablation and discusses several important dilemmas of adjuvant treatments.

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.

Tenofovir versus entecavir on the prognosis of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are first-line treatments for patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. However, the effect of TDF versus ETV on the prognosis of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been fully clarified yet.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase and Web of science were searched up to March, 2021. Meta-analyses were performed for overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) to assess the effect of TDF versus ETV on the prognosis of HBV-related HCC.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies comprising 4706 Asian patients were included. The pooled results revealed that TDF was associated with better OS (adjusted HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.40-0.62; I²=36.0%, p=0.167) and better RFS/DFS (adjusted HR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.55-0.89, I²=71.9%, p=0.002) than ETV in treatment of HBV-related HCC. Subgroup analysis revealed that OS benefit from TDF was generally consistent, except for patients who underwent non-surgical treatment for HCC. Subgroup analysis also indicated that TDF reduces the risk of late recurrence (HR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.18-0.0.93; I²=63.0%, p=0.067) rather than early recurrence (HR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.64-1.52; I²=61.3%, p=0.076).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with ETV, TDF has the advantage of improving OS and reducing late recurrence of patients with HBV-related HCC patients who underwent resection.

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.

Lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma with tenofovir than entecavir treatment in subsets of chronic hepatitis B patients: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous smaller meta-analyses comparing the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) versus entecavir (ETV) provided controversial results. This updated meta-analysis aimed to reliably identify any difference in the HCC incidence between TDF-treated or ETV-treated CHB patients in general or in specific subgroups.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant studies with hazard ratios (HRs) for HCC between TDF-treated and ETV-treated CHB patients. Retrieved dates ranged from January 2009 to October 2021. HRs with or without adjustment were pooled with random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four comparative studies involving 37 771 CHB patients treated with TDF and 72 094 treated with ETV were included. TDF was associated with lower risk of HCC compared with ETV, with pooled unadjusted HR of 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.86) (24 studies) and adjusted HR of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72-0.91) (21 studies). In propensity score matching cohorts, the TDF superiority was confirmed for unadjusted HR 0.83 (95% CI: 0.71-0.97) (14 studies) and was close to significance for adjusted HR (0.78, 95% CI: 0.58-1.04) (8 studies). Subgroup analyses showed that TDF was associated with lower HCC risk than ETV treatment in CHB patients who were from Asia (adjusted HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.87; 15 studies) or nucleos(t)ide naïve (adjusted HR:0.74, 95% CI: 0.65-0.84; 18 studies).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence from a sizable population suggests that TDF is associated with significantly lower HCC risk compared with ETV treatment in patients who are from Asia and/or nucleos(t)ide naïve.

Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the United States

BACKGROUND

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are the first-line treatment agents for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV). Recently, whether the degree to which the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) may be reduced by ETV vs TDF has been debated. We compared the incidence of HCC among treatment-naïve patients receiving TDF vs ETV in the United States.

METHODS

From a large administrative medical claims database of commercially insured patients, we identified 166,933 adults with a diagnosis of chronic hepatitis B and a minimum of 12 months of prior enrolment, of whom 3934 and 6127 initiated ETV and TDF respectively. Fine-Gray hazard regression models incorporating treatment propensity scores (PS) were used to estimate the risk of HCC incidence associated with TDF vs ETV; variables considered for adjustment included demographic characteristics, concomitant medication use and baseline comorbidities, as well as competing events including liver transplantation and medication changes.

RESULTS

After PS weighting, the TDF and ETV groups were well-matched. During the follow-up, 90 patients developed HCC, including 50 receiving ETV and 40 receiving TDF, giving rise to crude incidence rates of 0.62 per 100 person-years (PY) and 0.30 per 100 PY respectively. In PS-weighted, multivariable analysis, TDF was associated with a subdistribution hazard ratio for HCC of 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38-0.89) compared to ETV. Results were similar when patients ≥40 years and men and women were analysed separately.

CONCLUSION

Among commercially insured, treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B in the United States, treatment with TDF was associated with significantly lower risk of HCC than ETV.

Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in antiviral treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients treated with entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a network meta-analysis

Background

Long-term antiviral treatments are associated with a significantly lower hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients by reducing HBV DNA concentrations. However, it is still controversial whether antiviral strategies affect HCC development in antiviral treatment-naïve CHB patients. This study aimed to estimate the incidence of HCC in antiviral treatment-naïve CHB patients who were treated with Entecavir (ETV) and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) and compare the efficacy of two treatment regimens in HCC reduction.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were systematically searched until June 24, 2021. The pooled incidence and 95% confidence interval of HCC were calculated by the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation method. The efficacies of ETV and TDF treatments in HCC reduction were compared through a network meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 27 studies were identified as eligible for this systematic review. The incidence densities in the ETV and TDF treatment groups were 2.78 (95% CI: 2.21-3.40) and 2.59 (95% CI: 1.51-3.96) per 100 persons-year among patients with preexisting cirrhosis and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.32-0.68) and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.06-0.70) per 100 persons-year among patients without preexisting cirrhosis. As the proportion of CHB patients with preexisting cirrhosis increased, the incidence density of HCC also increased gradually. Compared with other Nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs) treatments, ETV and TDF treatments significantly lowered the risk of HCC, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.40-0.90) and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.35-0.89), respectively. However, there was no difference in the incidence density of HCC between ETV and TDF treatments (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.71-1.20) regardless of preexisting cirrhosis.

Conclusion

ETV and TDF treatments were associated with significantly lower risks of HCC than other NAs treatments. However, no difference was observed between ETV and TDF treatments in the risk of HCC development regardless of preexisting cirrhosis among treatment-naïve CHB patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09413-7.

Tenofovir vs. entecavir on recurrence of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma beyond Milan criteria after hepatectomy

Background:

Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) beyond the Milan criteria is shown to be beneficial. However, a high rate of post-operative HCC recurrence hinders the long-term survival of the patients. This study aimed to investigate and compare the impacts of tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) on the recurrence of hepatitis B viral (HBV)-related HCC beyond the Milan criteria.

Methods:

Data pertaining to 1532 patients who underwent hepatectomy and received antiviral therapy between January 2014 and January 2019 were collected from five centers. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) analysis was performed using the Kaplan–Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to determine prognostic factors for HCC recurrence.

Results:

The analysis incorporates 595 HBV-related HCC patients. The overall 5-year RFS was 21.3%. Among them, 533 and 62 patients received ETV and TDF treatment, respectively. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year RFS rates were 46.3%, 27.4%, and 19.6%, respectively, in the ETV group compared with 65.1%, 41.8%, and 37.2%, respectively, in the TDF group (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that TDF treatment (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.604, P = 0.005), cirrhosis (HR: 1.557, P = 0.004), tumor size (HR: 1.037, P = 0.008), microvascular invasion (MVI) (HR: 1.403, P = 0.002), portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) (HR: 1.358, P = 0.012), capsular invasion (HR: 1.228, P = 0.040), and creatinine levels (CREA) (HR: 0.993, P = 0.031) were statistically significant prognostic factors associated with RFS.

Conclusions:

Patients with HCC beyond the Milan criteria exhibited a high rate of HCC recurrence after hepatectomy. Compared to the ETV therapy, TDF administration significantly lowered the risk of HCC recurrence.

Endoplasmic reticulum stress promotes sorafenib resistance via miR-188-5p/hnRNPA2B1-mediated upregulation of PKM2 in hepatocellular carcinoma

Emerging evidence has shown that endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress promotes sorafenib resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to explore the mechanism by which ER stress promotes sorafenib resistance in HCC. We found that pyruvate kinase isoform M2 (PKM2) was highly expressed in human HCC tissues and co-related with worse clinicopathologic features and overall survival. Activation of ER stress positively correlated with PKM2 expression both in HCC tissue samples and tunicamycin (TM)-induced HCC cell lines. PKM2 knockdown increased sorafenib-induced apoptosis and decreased the ability of colony formation, while upregulation of PKM2 reverses this phenomenon. Furthermore, high-throughput sequencing identified that activation of ER stress significantly downregulated the expression of miR-188-5p in HCC cells. According to bioinformatics analysis and dual-luciferase assays, we further confirmed that hnRNPA2B1 is the target gene of miR-188-5p. Downregulating the expression of hnRNPA2B1 with siRNA could decrease the expression of PKM2 and enhance sorafenib-induced apoptosis in HepG2 cells. Our study demonstrated that ER stress could promote sorafenib resistance through upregulating PKM2 via miR-188-5p/hnRNPA2B1. Therefore, targeting the miR-188-5p/hnRNPA2B1/PKM2 pathway and ER stress may prove instrumental in overcoming sorafenib resistance in HCC treatment.

No difference in hepatocellular carcinoma risk in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with tenofovir vs entecavir: evidence from an updated meta-analysis

Whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is superior to entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients remains controversial. We aimed to clarify this controversy. Several databases, including PubMed and Embase, were retrieved through November 2020. Cohort studies comparing the effectiveness of TDF and entecavir in reducing HCC incidence among treatment-naïve CHB patients were included if they reported multivariable-adjusted or propensity-score-matched risk estimates. A random-effects model was used to pool hazard ratios (HRs). Thirteen cohort studies, involving 4097 HCC cases and 80202 CHB patients, were included. Multivariable-adjusted meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in HCC incidence between TDF and entecavir groups (HR 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.04), which was consistent with propensity-score-matched meta-analysis (HR 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.03). Subgroup analysis showed that the observed similarity of TDF to entecavir for HCC prevention persisted in studies with follow-up length of ≥4 years but not in those with follow-up length of <4 years (P_interaction<0.01). In conclusion, TDF is similar to entecavir in reducing HCC incidence among treatment-naïve CHB patients. Heterogeneous results of included studies may result from their disparity in follow-up length. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.

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.