Mingxing Huang1, Yusheng Jie2, Hong Shi2, Xinhua Li2, Xiangyong Li2, Yuankai Wu2, Guoli Lin2, Yutian Chong2. 1. Department of Infectious Diseases, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University Tianhe Road No. 600, Guangzhou 510630, China ; Department of Infectious Diseases, The Fifth Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University Meihua Dong Road No. 52, Zhuhai 519000, China. 2. Department of Infectious Diseases, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University Tianhe Road No. 600, Guangzhou 510630, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) have been accepted as the standard treatment drugs for hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of TDF and ETV initial treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of TDF treatment on 33 CHB patients and of ETV treatment on 65 CHB patients by comparing the HBV DNA levels, HBV DNA undetectable rate, HBV DNA negative conversion multi-factor analysis, alanine amino transferase (ALT) normalization rate, and the adverse event incidence at weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72 before and after treatment in each group. RESULTS: The HBV DNA levels in the ETV group were significantly lower than that in the TDF group at week 4 (95.05 ± 39.49 versus 103.3 ± 80.25 U/L, P = 0.005). The differences in HBV DNA levels at the other times between these two treatment groups were not statistically significant. No significant differences were observed with HBV DNA undetectable rate and ALT normalization rate between the two groups (P = 0.114, 0.656, respectively). HBV DNA negativity multi-factor analysis showed that the differences in TDF and ETV treatment were not statistically significant (P = 0.116). Therefore, the proportion of Creatine Kinase (CK) levels that were 2 times over the upper limit of normal (2ULN) showed no significant differences in any time points between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: TDF and ETV treatment both exhibited rapid inhibiting effects on HBV DNA replication in the early phase of naïve CHB patients in Mainland China.
OBJECTIVE:Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) have been accepted as the standard treatment drugs for hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of TDF and ETV initial treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of TDF treatment on 33 CHB patients and of ETV treatment on 65 CHB patients by comparing the HBV DNA levels, HBV DNA undetectable rate, HBV DNA negative conversion multi-factor analysis, alanine amino transferase (ALT) normalization rate, and the adverse event incidence at weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72 before and after treatment in each group. RESULTS: The HBV DNA levels in the ETV group were significantly lower than that in the TDF group at week 4 (95.05 ± 39.49 versus 103.3 ± 80.25 U/L, P = 0.005). The differences in HBV DNA levels at the other times between these two treatment groups were not statistically significant. No significant differences were observed with HBV DNA undetectable rate and ALT normalization rate between the two groups (P = 0.114, 0.656, respectively). HBV DNA negativity multi-factor analysis showed that the differences in TDF and ETV treatment were not statistically significant (P = 0.116). Therefore, the proportion of Creatine Kinase (CK) levels that were 2 times over the upper limit of normal (2ULN) showed no significant differences in any time points between the two groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION:TDF and ETV treatment both exhibited rapid inhibiting effects on HBV DNA replication in the early phase of naïve CHB patients in Mainland China.
Authors: E Jenny Heathcote; Patrick Marcellin; Maria Buti; Edward Gane; Robert A De Man; Zahary Krastev; George Germanidis; Samuel S Lee; Robert Flisiak; Kelly Kaita; Michael Manns; Iskren Kotzev; Konstantin Tchernev; Peter Buggisch; Frank Weilert; Oya Ovunc Kurdas; Mitchell L Shiffman; Huy Trinh; Selim Gurel; Andrea Snow-Lampart; Katyna Borroto-Esoda; Elsa Mondou; Jane Anderson; Jeff Sorbel; Franck Rousseau Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Patrick Marcellin; E Jenny Heathcote; Maria Buti; Ed Gane; Robert A de Man; Zahary Krastev; George Germanidis; Sam S Lee; Robert Flisiak; Kelly Kaita; Michael Manns; Iskren Kotzev; Konstantin Tchernev; Peter Buggisch; Frank Weilert; Oya Ovung Kurdas; Mitchell L Shiffman; Huy Trinh; Mary Kay Washington; Jeff Sorbel; Jane Anderson; Andrea Snow-Lampart; Elsa Mondou; Joe Quinn; Franck Rousseau Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-12-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Scott Fung; Peter Kwan; Milotka Fabri; Andrzej Horban; Mijomir Pelemis; Hie-Won Hann; Selim Gurel; Florin A Caruntu; John F Flaherty; Benedetta Massetto; Phillip Dinh; Amoreena Corsa; G Mani Subramanian; John G McHutchison; Petr Husa; Edward Gane Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-12-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: María Buti; María L Manzano; Rosa M Morillas; Montserrat García-Retortillo; Leticia Martín; Martín Prieto; María L Gutiérrez; Emilio Suárez; Mariano Gómez Rubio; Javier López; Pilar Castillo; Manuel Rodríguez; José M Zozaya; Miguel A Simón; Luis E Morano; José L Calleja; María Yébenes; Rafael Esteban Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-12 Impact factor: 3.240