Background: We aimed to investigate the long-term effects of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir treatment on bone mineral density and evaluated the fracture risk assessment tool score in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Methods: A total of 58 chronic hepatitis B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n = 40) and entecavir (n = 18) were included in this prospective study from 2012 to 2016. To evaluate bone mineral density, dual-X-ray absorptiometry, fracture risk assessment tool, and laboratory examinations were performed in all patients first at baseline and second at the end of the study. Results: Age, sex, body mass index, fibrosis score, and viral load were similar in both groups. The mean follow-up was 33 months in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group and 31 months in the entecavir group. In patients treated with entecavir, there was no statistically significant difference between baseline and second bone mineral density including lumbar spine (L) and total hip T score. In patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, there was a significant difference in the second bone mineral density compared with baseline bone mineral density for L3 (P = .033) and the major fracture risk assessment tool score (P = .03). When patients were divided into 3 groups (normal bone mineral density, osteopenic, and osteoporotic), there was a significant increase in the number of osteopenic patients in the total hip T score after tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment (P = .034). Conclusion: Our results suggest a decrease in the bone mineral density for lumbar spine (L3), an increase in the number of patients with hip osteopenia, and major fracture risk assessment tool score after long-term tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment in patients with rechronic hepatitis B.
Background: We aimed to investigate the long-term effects of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir treatment on bone mineral density and evaluated the fracture risk assessment tool score in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Methods: A total of 58 chronic hepatitis B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n = 40) and entecavir (n = 18) were included in this prospective study from 2012 to 2016. To evaluate bone mineral density, dual-X-ray absorptiometry, fracture risk assessment tool, and laboratory examinations were performed in all patients first at baseline and second at the end of the study. Results: Age, sex, body mass index, fibrosis score, and viral load were similar in both groups. The mean follow-up was 33 months in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group and 31 months in the entecavir group. In patients treated with entecavir, there was no statistically significant difference between baseline and second bone mineral density including lumbar spine (L) and total hip T score. In patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, there was a significant difference in the second bone mineral density compared with baseline bone mineral density for L3 (P = .033) and the major fracture risk assessment tool score (P = .03). When patients were divided into 3 groups (normal bone mineral density, osteopenic, and osteoporotic), there was a significant increase in the number of osteopenic patients in the total hip T score after tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment (P = .034). Conclusion: Our results suggest a decrease in the bone mineral density for lumbar spine (L3), an increase in the number of patients with hip osteopenia, and major fracture risk assessment tool score after long-term tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment in patients with rechronic hepatitis B.
Authors: D D Byrne; C W Newcomb; D M Carbonari; M S Nezamzadeh; K B F Leidl; M Herlim; Y X Yang; S Hennessy; J R Kostman; M B Leonard; A R Localio; V Lo Re Journal: J Viral Hepat Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 3.728
Authors: K Ishak; A Baptista; L Bianchi; F Callea; J De Groote; F Gudat; H Denk; V Desmet; G Korb; R N MacSween Journal: J Hepatol Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Connie Tien; Jason J Xu; Linda S Chan; Mimi Chang; Carolina Lim; Sue Lee; Brian Huh; Shuntaro Shinada; Ho S Bae; Tse-Ling Fong Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Rachel I Gafni; Rohan Hazra; James C Reynolds; Frank Maldarelli; Antonella N Tullio; Ellen DeCarlo; Carol J Worrell; John F Flaherty; Kitty Yale; Brian P Kearney; Steven L Zeichner Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-08-21 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Norah A Terrault; Natalie H Bzowej; Kyong-Mi Chang; Jessica P Hwang; Maureen M Jonas; M Hassan Murad Journal: Hepatology Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 17.425
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: Lisa Hamzah; Amanda Samarawickrama; Lucy Campbell; Matthew Pope; Keith Burling; Martin Fisher; Yvonne Gilleece; Karen Walker-Bone; Frank A Post Journal: AIDS Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Iwen F Grigsby; Lan Pham; Louis M Mansky; Raj Gopalakrishnan; Kim C Mansky Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 2.423