Jung Woo Shin1, Joonho Jeong1, Seok Won Jung1, Seung Bum Lee1, Bo Ryung Park2, Min-Ju Kim3, Eun Ji Park2, Neung Hwa Park4,5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, 877 Bangeojinsunhwando-ro, Dong-gu, Ulsan, 44033, Republic of Korea. 2. Biomedical Research Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, ASAN Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, 877 Bangeojinsunhwando-ro, Dong-gu, Ulsan, 44033, Republic of Korea. nhpark@uuh.ulsan.kr. 5. Biomedical Research Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan, Republic of Korea. nhpark@uuh.ulsan.kr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Adherence to medication and maintained virologic response (MVR) are related to the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in relation to the adverse clinical outcomes among chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients stratified according to adherence to medication and MVR. METHODS: A total of 1794 treatment-naive CHB patients treated with ETV (n = 894) or TDF (n = 900) for > 1 year were identified. RESULTS: Adherence rates were significantly higher in the TDF than in the ETV (93.4% vs. 89.1%, respectively; P < 0.001). The MVR of ETV and TDF were 64.5% and 71.7%, respectively (P = 0.001). The MVR of ETV and TDF in the good adherence group were 72.1% and 76.4%, respectively (P = 0.083); in the poor adherence group, the MVR of ETV and TDF were 63.0% and 54.0%, respectively (P = 0.384) Multivariate analysis showed that the risk of HCC and death or transplantation was similar between groups (HR 0.826, 95% CI 0.522-1.306; P = 0.413 and HR 0.636, 95% CI 0.258-1.569; P = 0.325, respectively) after adjusting for adherence to medication and MVR. In the 589 propensity-matched pairs of patients, risk of HCC and death or transplantation was similar between treatment groups after stratification according to adherence rates and MVR. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for adherence and MVR, ETV, and TDF did not differ in terms of the risk of HCC and death or transplantation in all patients and propensity score-matched cohorts.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Adherence to medication and maintained virologic response (MVR) are related to the risk of adverse clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in relation to the adverse clinical outcomes among chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients stratified according to adherence to medication and MVR. METHODS: A total of 1794 treatment-naive CHB patients treated with ETV (n = 894) or TDF (n = 900) for > 1 year were identified. RESULTS: Adherence rates were significantly higher in the TDF than in the ETV (93.4% vs. 89.1%, respectively; P < 0.001). The MVR of ETV and TDF were 64.5% and 71.7%, respectively (P = 0.001). The MVR of ETV and TDF in the good adherence group were 72.1% and 76.4%, respectively (P = 0.083); in the poor adherence group, the MVR of ETV and TDF were 63.0% and 54.0%, respectively (P = 0.384) Multivariate analysis showed that the risk of HCC and death or transplantation was similar between groups (HR 0.826, 95% CI 0.522-1.306; P = 0.413 and HR 0.636, 95% CI 0.258-1.569; P = 0.325, respectively) after adjusting for adherence to medication and MVR. In the 589 propensity-matched pairs of patients, risk of HCC and death or transplantation was similar between treatment groups after stratification according to adherence rates and MVR. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for adherence and MVR, ETV, and TDF did not differ in terms of the risk of HCC and death or transplantation in all patients and propensity score-matched cohorts.
Authors: Patrick Marcellin; Edward Gane; Maria Buti; Nezam Afdhal; William Sievert; Ira M Jacobson; Mary Kay Washington; George Germanidis; John F Flaherty; Raul Aguilar Schall; Jeffrey D Bornstein; Kathryn M Kitrinos; G Mani Subramanian; John G McHutchison; E Jenny Heathcote Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-12-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Patrizia Burra; Giacomo Germani; Renè Adam; Vincent Karam; Alfredo Marzano; Pietro Lampertico; Mauro Salizzoni; Franco Filipponi; Jurgen L Klempnauer; Denis Castaing; Murat Kilic; Luciano De Carlis; Peter Neuhaus; Sezai Yilmaz; Andreas Paul; Antonio D Pinna; Andrew K Burroughs; Francesco P Russo Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: S K Sarin; M Kumar; G K Lau; Z Abbas; H L Y Chan; C J Chen; D S Chen; H L Chen; P J Chen; R N Chien; A K Dokmeci; Ed Gane; J L Hou; W Jafri; J Jia; J H Kim; C L Lai; H C Lee; S G Lim; C J Liu; S Locarnini; M Al Mahtab; R Mohamed; M Omata; J Park; T Piratvisuth; B C Sharma; J Sollano; F S Wang; L Wei; M F Yuen; S S Zheng; J H Kao Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 6.047
Authors: Anna S F Lok; Brian J McMahon; Robert S Brown; John B Wong; Ahmed T Ahmed; Wigdan Farah; Jehad Almasri; Fares Alahdab; Khalid Benkhadra; Mohamed A Mouchli; Siddharth Singh; Essa A Mohamed; Abd Moain Abu Dabrh; Larry J Prokop; Zhen Wang; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Khaled Mohammed Journal: Hepatology Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 17.425
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