Shravan Dave1, Sooyoung Park1,2, M Hassan Murad3, Abbey Barnard1, Larry Prokop4, Leon A Adams5, Siddharth Singh1, Rohit Loomba1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea. 3. Division of Preventive Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Division of Library Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 5. Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA, Australia.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Seung Up Kim; Yeon Seok Seo; Han Ah Lee; Mi Na Kim; Yu Rim Lee; Hye Won Lee; Jun Yong Park; Do Young Kim; Sang Hoon Ahn; Kwang-Hyub Han; Seong Gyu Hwang; Kyu Sung Rim; Soon Ho Um; Won Young Tak; Young Oh Kweon; Beom Kyung Kim; Soo Young Park Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Sung Won Lee; Jung Hyun Kwon; Hae Lim Lee; Sun Hong Yoo; Hee Chul Nam; Pil Soo Sung; Soon Woo Nam; Si Hyun Bae; Jong Young Choi; Seung Kew Yoon; Nam Ik Han; Jeong Won Jang Journal: Gut Date: 2019-10-31 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Darren Jun Hao Tan; Cheng Han Ng; Phoebe Wen Lin Tay; Nicholas Syn; Mark D Muthiah; Wen Hui Lim; Ansel Shao Pin Tang; Kai En Lim; Grace En Hui Lim; Nobuharu Tamaki; Beom Kyung Kim; Margaret Li Peng Teng; James Fung; Rohit Loomba; Mindie H Nguyen; Daniel Q Huang Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2022-06-01
Authors: Satinder P Kaur; Arslan Talat; Hamidreza Karimi-Sari; Andrew Grees; Hao Wei Chen; Daryl T Y Lau; Andreea M Catana Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 4.241