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.

1. Introduction

Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is indicated when there is continued positivity for the hepatitis B virus (HBV) and the course of the disease exceeds half a year or the date of infection is not known, with clinical manifestations of the disease[1]. The clinical manifestations are asthenia, fear of food, nausea, abdominal distension, liver pain and other symptoms[2, 3]. The liver is large, moderately hard and tender. Severe cases can be accompanied by symptoms of chronic liver disease, spider nevus, liver palm, and abnormal liver function[3, 4]. According to the World Health Organization report, more than 2 billion people have been infected with HBV worldwide, and approximately 240 million of them are chronically infected[5]. The current CHB guidelines recommend tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or entecavir (ETV) for the treatment of CHB. As first-line drugs for CHB treatment, they have the common advantages of high antiviral efficacy, good tolerance and excellent genetic barrier, and it is not easy to develop drug resistance to them[6].

Patients with CHB need long-term antiviral treatment. Currently, there is no clear drug withdrawal guideline for antiviral treatment[7]. It is generally believed that antiviral drugs require long-term or even lifelong oral administration to achieve the goal of controlling CHB[8]. Patients often have questions about whether TDF or ETV is more appropriate at the time of initial treatment or in the early stages of CHB and whether TDF is better than ETV in terms of efficacy and safety[9]. In this study, the efficacy and safety of TDF and ETV in CHB patients were compared to provide a basis for patients to choose the more appropriate antiviral drug.

Prior to this study, there were similar systematic analysis articles, but at that time, there were few reliable randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In the past two years, relevant RCT studies have been published in journals. This study collected and analyzed those studies.

2. Methods

2.1. Design and registration

A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of TDF and ETV in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive CHB. This protocol was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD42019134194 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). No ethics approval is required because this study used data that were already in the public domain.

2.2. Study selection

2.2.1. Study type

The studies in this analysis were RCTs.

2.2.2. Study subjects

Patients with definite CHB and no prior experience with nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy were included. The following patients were excluded: patients who were infected with HIV or other hepato-tropic viruses; those who had drug-induced liver diseases, alcoholic liver disease or autoimmune liver diseases, tumors, serious complications in the heart, kidney, brain and other organs; and patients who were in pregnant or lactating.

2.2.3. Intervention

In the TDF group, the enrolled patients were given the conventional dosage of tenofovir 300 mg/day orally. In the ETV group, the enrolled patients were given the conventional dosage of entecavir 0.5 g/day orally.

2.2.4. Outcome indicator

The following outcomes were assessed and compared between the TDF and ETV groups: (1) differences in the probability of normalized ALT indicators, (2) differences in the probability of HBV-DNA negative results (undetectable), (3) differences in the probability of hepatitis E antigen clearance (HBeAg clearance), (4) differences in the probability of HBeAg seroconversion, and (5) differences in the probability of increased creatine kinase (CK) levels.

2.2.5. Exclusion criteria

Studies with data that could not be extracted or utilized, studies with animal experiments; and literature reviews were excluded.

2.3. Data sources and searches

We searched English and Chinese language publications through June 2019 using the following databases: Web of Science, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Clinical Trials and the CNKI. The search terms included "Tenofovir", "Entecavir", and "Hepatitis B, Chronic". In Fig 1, we use the PubMed database as an example.

Fig 1

PubMed database retrieval strategy.

2.4. Study screening, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias

Data were collected independently by two researchers. The unqualified studies were eliminated, and the qualified ones were selected after reading the title, abstract and full text. Then, the research data were extracted and checked, and disagreements were discussed or a decision was made by the authors. The extracted data included the following: 1. basic information of the study, including title, author and year of publication; 2. characteristics of the included study, consisting of the study duration, the sample size of the test group and the control group, and the intervention measures; 3. The outcome indicators and data; and 4. the information needed to assess the risk of bias. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using the RCT bias risk assessment tool recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (5.1.0).

2.5. Statistical analysis

RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. The dichotomous variables are expressed as the relative risk (RR) as an effect indicator, the continuous variables are expressed as the mean difference (MD) as the effect indicator, and the estimated value and 95% confidence interval (CI) were included as effect analysis statistics. A heterogeneity test was conducted with the results of each study. The fixed effect model was used for the analysis if there was no statistical heterogeneity among the results (I2≤50%). The sources of heterogeneity needed to be analyzed if there was statistical heterogeneity among the results (I2>50%). After excluding the influence of obvious clinical heterogeneity, the random effects model was used for the analysis. The significance level was set at α = 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Retrieved results

A total of 3254 studies were initially selected, and 5[10-14] studies were finally included after screening; 4 studies were written in English, and 1 study was written in Chinese. The literature screening process and results are shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2

PRISMA flow diagram of evidence acquisition during the study.

3.2. Basic information of studies

The basic characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 1, and the bias risk evaluation results are shown in Table 2.

Table 1

Basic information of the study.

First author	Year	Nation	Type	Drug resistance	Study duration	Sample size		Intervention		Selection results
						TDF	ETV	TDF	ETV
Dachuan Cai	2019	China	RCT	not	144 weeks	157	158	Oral administration of TDF 300 mg per day	Oral administration of ETV 0.5 g per day	①②③④
K. Koike	2018	Japan	RCT	not	24–48 weeks	109	56			①②④⑤
T. Sriprayoon	2017	Thailand	RCT	not	144 weeks	200	200			①②③④
D. Zhang	2017	China	RCT	not	48 weeks	98	98			①②④⑤
Hou-xing Lin	2016	China	RCT	not	96 weeks	45	66			②③④⑤

① Differences in the probability of normalized ALT indicators, ② differences in the probability of HBV-DNA negative results (undetectable), ③ differences in the hepatitis E antigen clearance (HBeAg clearance), ④ differences in the HBeAg seroconversion, and ⑤ differences in the increased probability of creatine kinase (CK).

Table 2

Bias risk assessments included in the study.

Study		Random sequence generation	Allocation concealment	Blinding method		Incomplete outcome data	Selective reporting	Other bias
				Blinding of participants and personnel	Blinding of outcome assessment
Dachuan Cai	2019	statisticians using the SAS software	Center management	double blind	Blind	drop out or lose 5 patients	unclear	unclear
K. Koike	2018	unclear	unclear	double blind	unclear	drop out or lose 1 patient	unclear	unclear
T. Sriprayoon	2017	unclear	unclear	double blind	unclear	drop out or lose 11 patients	high risk	unclear
D. Zhang	2017	computer generated random sequence	unclear	single blind	unclear	drop out or lose 12 patients	unclear	unclear
Hou-xiong Lin	2016	unclear	unclear	unclear	unclear	unclear	unclear	unclear

3.3. Meta-analysis results

Five studies were included in this study, four in English and one in Chinese. A total of 1,187 individuals were included, including 609 patients who received TDF orally and 578 patients who received ETV orally. This study used medication duration as the basis for subgroups.

3.3.1. Differences in the probability of normalized ALT indicators

Four studies reported differences in the probability of normalized ALT indicators between the TDF group and the ETV group. There were 538‬ patients in the TDF group and 497 patients in the ETV group. A fixed effect model was adopted; at week 24, more patients in the TDF group than in the ETV group had normal ALT levels: I2 = 0% [RR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.77, 0.98), P = 0.02]; at weeks 96 and 144, there were no statistically significant differences in the probability of normalized ALT indicators between the TDF group and the ETV group: I2 = 0% [RR = 0.94, 95% CI (0.88, 1.01), P = 0.08], I2 = 0% [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.92, 1.03), P = 0.42] (Fig 3).

Fig 3

Forest plot comparing the probability of normalized ALT indicators between TDF and ETV.

3.3.2. Differences in the probability of negative HBV-DNA results

Five studies reported differences in the probability of negative HBV-DNA results between the TDF group and the ETV group. There were 609‬ patients in the TDF group and 578 patients in the ETV group. At week 48, the heterogeneity test result was I2 = 87%, and the sensitivity analysis suggested that the data from the study by D. Zhang was the main source of heterogeneity. Those data were retained, and the random effects model was adopted, yielding the following results: I2 = 87% [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (0.90, 1.30), P = 0.42]. Then those data were eliminated, and the fixed effect model was adopted, yielding the following results: I2 = 0% [RR = 1.14, 95% CI (1.04, 1.26), P<0.01]. At week 96, more patients in the TDF group seroconverted to become negative for HBV-DNA than in the ETV group (I2 = 0%) [RR = 1.08, 95% CI (1.03, 1.13), P<0.01]. At week 144, there was no statistically significant difference in the probability of negative HBV-DNA results between the TDF group and the ETV group (I2 = 0%) [RR = 1.04, 95% CI (1.00, 1.09), P = 0.07] (Fig 4).

Fig 4

Forest plot comparing the probability of negative HBV-DNA results between TDF and ETV.

3.3.3. Differences in the probability of HBeAg clearance

Three studies reported differences in the probability of HBeAg clearance between the TDF group and the ETV group. There were 294‬ patients in the TDF group and 319 patients in the ETV group. At weeks 48 and 96, there were no statistically significant differences in the probability of HBeAg clearance between the TDF group and the ETV group; the fixed effect model was adopted (I2 = 0%) [RR = 0.97, 95% CI (0.64, 1.47), P = 0.87], (I2 = 0%) [RR = 0.96, 95% CI (0.71, 1.28), P = 0.77]. At week 144, the heterogeneity test yielded an I2 of 87%, and the heterogeneity was likely the result of having too few studies. There was no statistically significant difference in the probability of HBeAg clearance between the TDF group and the ETV group. A random effects model was adopted (I2 = 0%) [RR = 1.05, 95% CI (0.68, 1.62), P = 0.82] (Fig 5).

Fig 5

Forest plot comparing the probability of HBeAg clearance between TDF and ETV.

3.3.4. Differences in the probability of HBeAg seroconversion

Five studies reported differences in the probabilities of HBeAg seroconversion between the TDF group and the ETV group. There were 397‬ patients in the TDF group and 402 patients in the ETV group. At weeks 48 and 96, there were no statistically significant differences in the probability of HBeAg seroconversion between the TDF group and the ETV group; a fixed effect model was adopted (I2 = 0%) [RR = 0.96, 95% CI (0.63, 1.47), P = 0.85], (I2 = 14%) [RR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.53, 1.16), P = 0.22]. At week 144, the heterogeneity test yielded an I2 of 69%, and the heterogeneity was likely the result of too few studies. There was no statistically significant difference in the probability of HBeAg seroconversion between the TDF group and the ETV group. A random effects model was adopted (I2 = 69%) [RR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.54, 1.61), P = 0.80] (Fig 6).

Fig 6

Forest plot comparing the probability of increased creatine kinase levels between TDF and ETV.

3.3.5. Differences in the probability of increased creatine kinase levels

Three studies reported differences in the probability of increased creatine kinase between the TDF group and the ETV group. There were 214‬ patients in the TDF group and 178 patients in the ETV group. There was no statistically significant difference in the probability of increased creatine kinase between the TDF group and the ETV group: fixed effect model was adopted, I2 = 0% [RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.27, 1.60), P = 0.35] (Fig 7).

Fig 7

Forest plot comparing the probability of HBeAg seroconversion between TDF and ETV.

4. Discussion

TDF and ETV are both first-line treatments for CHB, and their efficacy and safety are widely recognized[15, 16]. However, it is difficult to choose between TDF and ETV for patients who are initially diagnosed with CHB.

The treatment of CHB is usually considered a clinical cure, which refers to a sustained virological response with negative HBsAg or positive HBsAb transformation, normal ALT levels, and mild or no lesions in the liver tissue[17]. Therefore, HBV-DNA conversion and ALT normalization were selected as indicators. The normal value of ALT varies from person to person, region to region, or device to device. In the analysis of the data included in this study, no special requirements were imposed for the normalcy of ALT. Similarly, different studies have different methods for measuring HBV-DNA and different units for the measurement results. The units of HBV-DNA measurement are converted as follows: 1 IU/mL is approximately equal to 5–6 copies/mL. Therefore, the lower limit of quantitation (LLQ) of each experiment is similar. However, when different approaches are used to determine the HBV-DNA level, then extremely low HBV levels in the blood cannot be measured. This study will not impose special requirements for measuring HBV-DNA.

Tenofovir is a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor that inhibits reverse transcriptase in a similar way to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and thus has potential anti-HBV activity[18]. Tenofovir bisphosphonates, the active component of tenofovir, inhibit the viral polymerase by directly competing with the natural deoxyribose substrates and terminating DNA strands by inserting DNA. Entecavir is a guanine nucleoside analogue, and its antiviral pharmacological action is similar to that of tenofovir[19]. (Fig 8)

Fig 8

The mechanism of TDF and ETV anti-HBV.

By comparison, tenofovir was found to have an advantage in inhibiting the virus in the early stage (week 96), and entecavir was superior in protecting liver function in the early stage (week 24). However, the difference between tenofovir and entecavir in inhibiting the virus and protecting liver function gradually decreased with the increased duration of treatment, and the difference was not statistically significant by week 144. Koike[11] also suggested that a correlation between ALT and HBsAg may exist and is important in the HBsAg reduction process. Higher ALT in the early stage seems to indicate lower HBV in the later stage.

The reason why TDF is better at suppressing the virus in the early stages of CHB but is less protective of liver function than ETV remains unclear. First, all included studies suggested that both ETV and TDF have strong antiviral and protective liver function effects. These differences are only the differences between TDF and ETV. The reasons for such discrepancies might include the following: (1) a high immune response could suppress the hepatitis B virus but may also damage liver cells; (2) drug metabolites influence liver cells, and ETV and TDF are antiviral drugs but not liver-protecting drugs; thus, although most of their metabolites are excreted through the kidneys, they all target the liver cells and may have different effects on the liver cells while clearing the virus; and (3) bias or other reasons could cause deviations; thus, because meta-analysis collates scattered data for analysis, small effects could be magnified to produce meaningful results. Fewer trials were included in this study, and the possibility of bias was relatively large. It is hoped that by studying the differences between TDF and ETV, more effective and safe antiviral drugs can be developed.

HBeAg clearance or HBeAg seroconversion can be considered indications that CHB is under control. In China, that is referred to as the "big three positives (Hepatitis B HBeAg)" turning to negative or to "small three positive"[20]. Elevated HBeAg levels indicate that the patient is highly infectious and usually appears in the early or active stages of HBV infection[21]. Therefore, the clearance probability and seroconversion probability of HBeAg were selected as indicators in this study. There were no statistically significant differences in the clearance probability and seroconversion probability of tenofovir and entecavir for HBeAg.

As for the adverse reactions to oral tenofovir and entecavir, the data are scattered and lack systematic elaboration and analysis; only the difference in the probability of CK level increase was analyzed. The results suggested that there was no statistically significant difference in the probability of CK level increase between TDF and ETV. In the literature, the discussed adverse reactions were mostly well tolerated. In this study, the adverse reactions in the TDF and ETV groups were considered mild and suitable for the long-term oral treatment of CHB[22, 23].

Because this study included RCTs only, some important outcome measures were not included, for example, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), mortality, transplantation, etc. The results of these studies require long-term observational studies, so cohort studies or case control studies are usually used. Zhang[14] found that compared with ETV, oral TDF carried a lower risk of HCC, but there were no statistically significant differences in mortality or transplantation. A meta-analysis of cohort studies also suggested that there was a better effect of TDF in reducing HCC incidence than ETV, while there was no significant difference in incidence of death or transplantation, encephalopathy or variceal bleeding between the two groups[24].

In this study, we searched for studies in Chinese and English. Our team can only access articles in these two languages, which represents a limitation of our team. In China, there are more than 100 million hepatitis b carriers and tens of millions of CHB patients. Chinese researchers have attached great importance to chronic hepatitis b, and the level of research on CHB in China is recognized worldwide[25].

The limitations of this meta-analysis are as follow:

The number of retrieved RCT studies was too small, and too much weight was accounted for by the analysis of Dachuan Cai et al.; moreover, the outcome indicators adopted in this study are not sufficiently novel, although new information will be provided in future updates.

The regions included in the study were all in Asia, and whether the results are universal needs to be further demonstrated.

The data regarding adverse events are relatively scattered, and it was only possible to analyze the probability of CK level increase.

Among the studies included in the study, the study by Hou-xiong Lin concluded that TDF was more efficacious than ETV, while the other 4 studies all concluded that TDF and ETV had similar therapeutic effects and adverse reactions. This study suggests that TDF has a greater ability to inhibit the virus in the early stage; ETV has a small effect on the liver in the early stage, but its therapeutic effect is similar in the long term (144 weeks), with a small incidence of adverse reactions, which were mostly tolerable and did not affect the long-term oral treatment of CHB. While patients choose drugs after receiving an initial diagnosis, they can compare characteristics other than the efficacy of the two drugs, such as the generation of long-term oral drug resistance, the price, the convenience of regular review, the habit of taking drugs, the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and mortality. Furthermore, TDF has an advantage in the incidence of HCC. TDF and ETV need to be studied in more RCTs and a large prospective cohort study.

PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

3 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-21194

Effectiveness of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 18 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Seung Up Kim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

'This work was funded by the Guidance plan for social development of

Changzhou Municipal Science and Technology (CE20175008), Changzhou City, Jiangsu Province,P.R.

China. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation,

writing of the report, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.'

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

'X'

4.  Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

'X'

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

5. Please amend either the title on the online submission form (via Edit Submission) or the title in the manuscript so that they are identical.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: There is only minor comment. Since entecavir was prescribed earlier compared to tenofovir, authors should perform a subgroup analysis focusing studies with similar follow-up treatment duration.

Reviewer #2: 1. There are few new information in the present manuscript. The main goals of antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients are decreasing liver related mortality and morbidity by suppressing viral replication. Therefore, the primary goal of the manuscript should be focused in achieving these goals, not the percentage of ALT normalization nor HBV reduction, which are already well-known. Comparing the antiviral effect between entecavir and tenofovir cannot make any significant new finding in the clinical aspect.

Reviewer #3: This study (PONE-D-19-21194) was a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare effectiveness of tenofovir and entecavir.

1. The authors suggested that tenofovir was more effective than entecavir in inhibiting the virus in the early stage, while entecavir was more effective than tenofovir in protecting liver function in the early stage. However, we all know that improvement of liver function follows suppression of HBV replication. Therefore, please discuss why early HBV suppression by tenofovir could not improve the liver function in the early stage.

2. This study compared the HBV DNA suppression and ALT normalization between entecavir and tenofovir. However, there are discrepancies in the definitions of HBV DNA suppression and ALT normalization among studies as follows. How the authors treat these discrepancies in their analysis?

Ref No ULN of ALT Lower limit of HBV DNA detection

8 40 IU/L 20 IU/mL

9 31 IU/L 2.1 log10 copies/mL

10 Not mentioned 20 IU/mL

11 Journal search failed Journal search failed

12 Not mentioned Not mentioned

3. One study (Ref No 11) could be searched only by “China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database”. Therefore, this study could not be reviewed by all peoples except Chinese. I think this study should be excluded in the meta-analysis to improve the clearness of the study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Sep 2019

A point-by-point response

Reviewer #1: There is only minor comment. Since entecavir was prescribed earlier compared to tenofovir, authors should perform a subgroup analysis focusing studies with similar follow-up treatment duration.

Response: We highly appreciate your valuable comments. We performed subgroup analyses for different follow-up times. Accordingly, the abstract, results, and discussion have been revised. These changes did not influence the main content of the paper.

Reviewer #2: 1. There are few new information in the present manuscript. The main goals of antiviral therapy in chronic hepatitis B patients are decreasing liver related mortality and morbidity by suppressing viral replication. Therefore, the primary goal of the manuscript should be focused in achieving these goals, not the percentage of ALT normalization nor HBV reduction, which are already well-known. Comparing the antiviral effect between entecavir and tenofovir cannot make any significant new finding in the clinical aspect.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The article is a meta-analysis, which is a quadratic analysis of the literature. Although we would have liked to introduce novel techniques and methods, adopting such novel techniques and methods is difficult if corresponding studies have not been performed or only a single study is available in the literature. Generally, more data can be obtained by adopting more widely used techniques or methods, and more data can make the results of the meta-analysis more reliable. Very novel techniques and methods that have only been reported in one study would not be of significance for a meta-analysis. We will monitor such research and update the meta-analysis if more novel articles are published. These details will be generalized in the limitations section of this study.

Reviewer #3: This study (PONE-D-19-21194) was a systemic review and meta-analysis to compare effectiveness of tenofovir and entecavir.

1. The authors suggested that tenofovir was more effective than entecavir in inhibiting the virus in the early stage, while entecavir was more effective than tenofovir in protecting liver function in the early stage. However, we all know that improvement of liver function follows suppression of HBV replication. Therefore, please discuss why early HBV suppression by tenofovir could not improve the liver function in the early stage.

2. This study compared the HBV DNA suppression and ALT normalization between entecavir and tenofovir. However, there are discrepancies in the definitions of HBV DNA suppression and ALT normalization among studies as follows. How the authors treat these discrepancies in their analysis?

Ref No ULN of ALT Lower limit of HBV DNA detection

8 40 IU/L 20 IU/mL

9 31 IU/L 2.1 log10 copies/mL

10 Not mentioned 20 IU/mL

11 Journal search failed Journal search failed

12 Not mentioned Not mentioned

3.One study (Ref No 11) could be searched only by “China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database”. Therefore, this study could not be reviewed by all peoples except Chinese. I think this study should be excluded in the meta-analysis to improve the clearness of the study.

Response: Thank you for these suggestions.

Why tenofovir is better at suppressing the virus in the early stages of CHB but less protective of liver function than entecavir will be mentioned in the discussion. Few specific basic studies have focused on the differences between oral TDF and ETV, and the answer can only be found through clinical practice and a survey of the literature. First, both ETV and TDF have strong antiviral and liver function improvement effects, and the possible reasons for these effects include the following: (1) a high immune response can damage liver cells but also suppresses the hepatitis B virus; (2) drug metabolites damage liver cells, and ETV and TDF are antiviral drugs and not liver-protecting drugs; thus, although most of their metabolites are excreted through the kidneys, they all target the liver and may have different effects on the liver while clearing the virus; (3) Bias or other reasons may cause deviations, and because meta-analyses collate scattered data for analysis, small effects may be magnified to produce meaningful results. These possibilities are hypothetical; however, if the reasons for these effects can be worked out, antiviral drugs can be effective in protecting liver function while providing high antiviral activity.

Reviewer #3 provided a careful review and identified discrepancies in the definitions. The meta-analysis required that the included studies be similar but also present differences that could not be absolutely unified. For example, different analyzers define the normal value of ALT differently and different analytical methods measure different HBV thresholds. Therefore, the normal amount of ALT was not limited. We believe that the use of different ALT values in the literature used in the meta-analysis will not affect the reliability of this study. The conversion between units of HBV-DNA measurement was as follows: 1 IU/mL is approximately equal to 5-6 copies/mL. Therefore, the lower limit of quantitation (LLQ) of each experiment is similar. These heterogeneities between studies can be discussed in this meta-analysis.

Hou-xiong Lin’s study is in Chinese. In the Methods section of our study, we stated that Chinese literature and English literature will be included. We agree that there are many low-quality papers in the Chinese literature. When performing research, we usually do not search the CNKI database because the quality of some research is unacceptable. However, China has more than one hundred million chronic hepatitis b carriers. Chinese researchers attach great importance to the study of CHB and the level of research on CHB in China is acceptable. Therefore, we do not believe that this research should be left out. The basic requirement of the meta-analysis is to be comprehensive, so this information will be added to the discussion. The reliability of the research will be further analyzed; moreover, we will remove this study and determine whether the results are affected.

Submitted filename: Response to revierers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

7 Oct 2019

PONE-D-19-21194R1

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

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr Chen,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 21 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Seung Up Kim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Congratulations on your nice work.

As a handling editor, I'd like to give some more minor comments.

1. As the reviewer indicated, several statistical description seems missed.

2. I also believe that there might be no difference between ETV vs. TDF in long-term prognosis. However, as you know, some recent studies have shown the superiority of TDF over ETV, probably due to many biased selection of these two drugs. Please discuss and focus more on the potential bias that have made the different efficacy of these two drugs in several recent studies, not to provide potentially wrong signals to physicians. You may refer the related editorials to upgrade Discussion section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: It is well known by the key trials that tenofovir is more potent in inhibiting viral replication than entecavir while ALT normalization is less prominent. The manuscript does not show more information by meta-analysis. Moreover, the present study abstracted data performed in small number of patients in Asia. I recommend the authors to collect data from large key studies of each drug and make analysis how tenoforvir and entecavir affected the treatment outcomes. Please, refer to biostatistics specialist for the analysis. Last, please provide how you manage the biases of each study (e,g QUIPS).

Reviewer #3: I think that the authors made appropriate corrections and good responses to my comments. I have no more comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

18 Oct 2019

A point-by-point response

Reviewer #2: It is well known by the key trials that tenofovir is more potent in inhibiting viral replication than entecavir while ALT normalization is less prominent. The manuscript does not show more information by meta-analysis. Moreover, the present study abstracted data performed in small number of patients in Asia. I recommend the authors to collect data from large key studies of each drug and make analysis how tenoforvir and entecavir affected the treatment outcomes. Please, refer to biostatistics specialist for the analysis. Last, please provide how you manage the biases of each study (e,g QUIPS).

Response: We highly appreciate your valuable comments. I have studied the relevant issues carefully and revised my paper.

1.In the discussion section, I analyzed the differences between ALT and HBV-DNA and tried to give possible reasons. These reasons are only speculation. TDF and ETV cause differences between ALT and HBV-DNA, and a mechanism has not been described in the relevant literature. I think there is a potential relationship between ALT and HBV-DNA. As mentioned in Koike’s study, elevated ALT in the early stage might indicate decreased HBV DNA in the later stage, and the prognosis may be better. This was mentioned as a phenomenon in the study. Thank you for your reminder; we further elaborated on their relationship.

2.I want to explain for myself. When I searched the literature, I did not put any restrictions, such as area, race, etc., on the literature. Instead, I wanted to search the literature from different regions. Perhaps more can be drawn from the different regions and races. However, all of the studies were conducted in Asia. It is possible that the incidence of HBV is high in Asia, and relevant studies are abundant. I also hope that there will be more studies in the future, and I will update my meta-analysis at that time. With regard to the inclusion of other outcome indicators, we have increased our discussion in this regard, and we will illustrate the incidence of HCC, death and transplantation in the systematic review.

3.In meta-analysis, we usually use the methods recommended in the Cochrane Handbook to evaluate risk bias. This method is specific to RCTs. I have carried out Bias Risk Assessments. In addition, I tried to perform QUIPS as well (Table 1). I will upload this form as an attachment.

Table 1. Risk of bias/quality scores.

Study Bias field

Study Participation Study Attrition Risk Factor Measurement Outcome Measurement Study Confounding Statistical Analysis and Reporting

Dachuan Cai 2019 low low Moderate low moderate moderate

Koike, K. 2018 low low low low moderate low

Sriprayoon, T. 2017 low low low low low low

D.Zhang 2017 low low low low moderate moderate

Hou-xing Lin 2016 low moderate moderate low moderate low

Submitted filename: Response to revierers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

22 Oct 2019

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

PONE-D-19-21194R2

Dear Dr. Chen,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Seung Up Kim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulation on your nice work.

Reviewers' comments:

12 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-21194R2

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

Dear Dr. Chen:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Seung Up Kim

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE