| Literature DB >> 32782369 |
Yeonjung Ha1, Young Eun Chon2, Mi Na Kim2, Joo Ho Lee2, Seong Gyu Hwang2.
Abstract
Conflicting results have been reported regarding which of entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is associated with better outcomes. Chronic hepatitis B patients who started ETV or TDF between 2010 and 2015 were analysed. The primary outcomes were hepatocellular carcinoma and death and transplantation. The impact of the treatment on the primary outcomes was analysed using Cox proportional hazards models in the entire and propensity score-matched cohorts. A total of 404 patients (180 and 224 in the ETV and TDF groups, respectively) were analysed. The median duration of follow-up was significantly longer in the ETV group (64.0 vs. 49.1 months; P < 0.001). Virological response (79.4% vs. 68.4%; P = 0.018) and sustained virological suppression (59.7% vs. 45.2%; P = 0.005) were significantly higher in the TDF group. TDF was associated with lower hepatocellular carcinoma [hazard ratio (HR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.12‒0.79; P = 0.014]; however, statistical significance was not reached after adjusting sustained virological suppression using propensity score matching (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.12‒1.14; P = 0.08). Death and transplantation was comparable. In conclusion, the impact of TDF on the lower hepatocellular carcinoma was blunted after adjusting sustained virological suppression. Further comparison in a larger number of patients who show sustained virological suppression over a longer period of time is needed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32782369 PMCID: PMC7419516 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-70433-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Patient flow.
Baseline patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | ETV (n = 180) | TDF (n = 224) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean ± SD, years | 45.4 ± 10.8 | 44.5 ± 11.4 | 0.51 |
| Male sex, n (%) | 106 (58.9) | 120 (53.6) | 0.31 |
| BMI, kg/m2, median (IQR) | 23.2 (21.2, 25.6) | 23.2 (21.0, 25.5) | 0.49 |
| Cirrhosis, n (%) | 67 (37.2) | 78 (34.8) | 0.68 |
| Diabetes, n (%) | 23 (12.8) | 17 (7.6) | 0.10 |
| Hepatitis e antigen positivity, n (%) | 118 (67.4) | 128 (57.1) | 0.038 |
| HBV DNA, log10(copies/mL), median (IQR) | 7.71 (6.74, 8.64) | 7.44 (6.33, 8.53) | 0.32 |
| Platelet, × 103/μL, median (IQR) | 158 (112, 198) | 155 (115, 200) | 0.93 |
| Albumin, g/dL, median (IQR) | 4.1 (3.7, 4.5) | 4.2 (3.8, 4.5) | 0.68 |
| Bilirubin, mg/dL, median (IQR) | 0.77 (0.54, 1.33) | 0.78 (0.55, 1.07) | 0.36 |
| PT, INR, median (IQR) | 1.06 (1.00, 1.22) | 1.06 (1.00, 1.14) | 0.30 |
| ALT, IU/L, median (IQR) | 83.5 (38.3, 154.0) | 85.0 (42.0, 160.5) | 0.54 |
| Creatinine, mg/dL, median (IQR) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.9 (0.7, 1.0) | 0.013 |
| Child–Pugh score, median (IQR) | 5.0 (5.0, 6.0) | 5.0 (5.0, 5.0) | 0.012 |
| GAG-HCC score, median (IQR) | 85.9 (72.6, 107.8) | 82.7 (65.6, 105.9) | 0.14 |
| CU-HCC score, median (IQR) | 8.5 (7.0, 23.5) | 7.0 (4.0, 20.5) | 0.31 |
| PAGE-B score, median (IQR) | 14.0 (10.0, 16.0) | 12.0 (8.0, 16.0) | 0.40 |
| Biochemical | 116 (67.4) | 132 (62.3) | 0.33 |
| Serologicala | 80 (49.7) | 93 (49.5) | > 0.99 |
| Virologicalb | 117 (68.4) | 170 (79.4) | 0.018 |
| Sustained virological suppression, n (%) | 85 (48.0) | 126 (62.4) | 0.005 |
| Duration of follow-up, month, median (IQR) | 64.0 (30.5, 84.3) | 49.1 (37.7, 62.2) | < 0.001 |
ETV entecavir, TDF tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile ranges, BMI body mass index, HBV hepatitis B virus, PT prothrombin time, INR international normalized ratio, ALT alanine aminotransferase, GAG-HCC guide with age, gender, HBV DNA core promoter mutations and cirrhosis, CU Chinese University.
aHepatitis e antigen seroconversion.
bUndetectable HBV DNA by polymerase chain reaction with a detection limit of 10 IU/mL.
Incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma and death and transplantation.
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | Death and transplantation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ETV (n = 180) | TDF (n = 224) | IRR (95% CI) | ETV (n = 180) | TDF (n = 224) | IRR (95% CI) | |||
| Cumulative incidence | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| CIR (95% CI), per 100 PY | 0.58 (0.03‒2.55) | 0.00 (0.00‒0.00) | ‒ | 0.27 | 0.00 (0.00‒0.00) | 0.00 (0.00‒0.00) | ‒ | ‒ |
| Cumulative incidence | 7 | 5 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| CIR (95% CI), per 100 PY | 1.53 (0.66‒2.95) | 0.85 (0.30‒1.82) | 1.81 (0.57‒5.69) | 0.31 | 0.21 (0.01‒0.90) | 0.32 (0.05‒0.97) | 0.65 (0.06‒7.20) | 0.73 |
| Cumulative incidence | 15 | 6 | 2 | 2 | ||||
| CIR (95% CI), per 100 PY | 2.28 (1.31‒3.63) | 0.74 (0.29‒1.50) | 3.08 (1.19‒7.93) | 0.014 | 0.28 (0.05‒0.86) | 0.23 (0.04‒0.70) | 1.23 (0.17‒8.74) | 0.83 |
| Cumulative incidence | 18 | 6 | 4 | 2 | ||||
| CIR (95% CI), per 100 PY | 2.19 (1.33‒3.36) | 0.71 (0.28‒1.44) | 3.07 (1.22‒7.74) | 0.012 | 0.45 (0.14‒1.05) | 0.23 (0.04‒0.70) | 1.99 (0.37‒10.88) | 0.42 |
ETV entecavir, TDF tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, CIR cumulative incidence rate, IRR incidence rate ratio, CI confidence interval, PY person-years.
Figure 2Time-to-event curves for (a) hepatocellular carcinoma and (b) death and transplantation in a cohort of patients matched for propensity scores including sustained virological suppression as a matching variable.
Figure 3Time-to-event curves for (a) hepatocellular carcinoma and (b) death and transplantation in a subcohort of patients with no treatment modification matched for propensity scores including sustained virological suppression as a matching variable.
Figure 4Time-to-event curves for (a) hepatocellular carcinoma and (b) death and transplantation in a subcohort of patients with cirrhosis matched for propensity scores including sustained virological suppression as a matching variable; and (c) hepatocellular carcinoma and (d) death and transplantation in a subcohort of patients ≥ 50 years matched for propensity scores including sustained virological suppression as a matching variable.