Seung Up Kim1, Yeon Seok Seo2, Han Ah Lee2, Mi Na Kim3, Yu Rim Lee4, Hye Won Lee5, Jun Yong Park1, Do Young Kim1, Sang Hoon Ahn1, Kwang-Hyub Han1, Seong Gyu Hwang3, Kyu Sung Rim3, Soon Ho Um2, Won Young Tak4, Young Oh Kweon4, Beom Kyung Kim6, Soo Young Park7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Yonsei Liver Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Yonsei Liver Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Yonsei Liver Center, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: beomkkim@yuhs.ac. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Kyungpook National University Hospital, Daegu, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: psyoung@knu.ac.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is currently unclear which antiviral agent, entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), is superior for improving prognosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Here, we assessed the ability of these 2 antivirals to prevent liver-disease progression in treatment-naïve patients with CHB. METHODS: From 2012 to 2014, treatment-naïve patients with CHB who received ETV or TDF as a first-line antiviral agent were recruited from 4 academic teaching hospitals. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at enrollment were excluded. Cumulative probabilities of HCC and death or orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 2,897 patients (1,484 and 1,413 in the ETV and TDF groups, respectively) were recruited. The annual HCC incidence was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups (1.92 vs. 1.69 per 100 person-years [PY], respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.975 [p = 0.852] by multivariate analysis). Propensity score (PS)-matched and inverse probability of treatment weighting (ITPW) analyses yielded similar patterns of results (HR 1.021 [p = 0.884] and 0.998 [p = 0.988], respectively). The annual incidence of death or OLT was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups (0.52 vs. 0.53 per 100 PY, respectively; adjusted HR 1.202 [p = 0.451]). PS-matched and ITPW analyses yielded similar patterns of results (HR 1.248 [p = 0.385] and 1.239 [p = 0.360], respectively). These findings were consistently reproduced in patients with compensated cirrhosis (all p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The overall prognosis in terms of HCC and death or OLT was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups. Further studies are needed to validate our results. LAY SUMMARY: It is currently unclear which antiviral agent, entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, is superior for improving prognosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. In this analysis we found that there was no difference in terms of overall prognosis, including risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, death, or the need for a liver transplant, in patients receiving either antiviral.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is currently unclear which antiviral agent, entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), is superior for improving prognosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Here, we assessed the ability of these 2 antivirals to prevent liver-disease progression in treatment-naïve patients with CHB. METHODS: From 2012 to 2014, treatment-naïve patients with CHB who received ETV or TDF as a first-line antiviral agent were recruited from 4 academic teaching hospitals. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at enrollment were excluded. Cumulative probabilities of HCC and death or orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 2,897 patients (1,484 and 1,413 in the ETV and TDF groups, respectively) were recruited. The annual HCC incidence was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups (1.92 vs. 1.69 per 100 person-years [PY], respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.975 [p = 0.852] by multivariate analysis). Propensity score (PS)-matched and inverse probability of treatment weighting (ITPW) analyses yielded similar patterns of results (HR 1.021 [p = 0.884] and 0.998 [p = 0.988], respectively). The annual incidence of death or OLT was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups (0.52 vs. 0.53 per 100 PY, respectively; adjusted HR 1.202 [p = 0.451]). PS-matched and ITPW analyses yielded similar patterns of results (HR 1.248 [p = 0.385] and 1.239 [p = 0.360], respectively). These findings were consistently reproduced in patients with compensated cirrhosis (all p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The overall prognosis in terms of HCC and death or OLT was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups. Further studies are needed to validate our results. LAY SUMMARY: It is currently unclear which antiviral agent, entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, is superior for improving prognosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. In this analysis we found that there was no difference in terms of overall prognosis, including risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, death, or the need for a liver transplant, in patients receiving either antiviral.
Authors: Ho Soo Chun; Jae Seung Lee; Hye Won Lee; Beom Kyung Kim; Jun Yong Park; Do Young Kim; Sang Hoon Ahn; Seung Up Kim Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Sehwa Kim; Yoonseok Lee; Soo Min Bang; Haein Bak; Sun Young Yim; Young Sun Lee; Yang Jae Yoo; Young Kul Jung; Ji Hoon Kim; Yeon Seok Seo; Hyung Joon Yim; Soon Ho Um; Kwan Soo Byun; Jong Eun Yeon Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 4.241