| Literature DB >> 35774746 |
Feng He1, Zhongjiang Xia1, Hui Wang1, Jinjun Zhu1, Laiwen Hu1.
Abstract
The negative rate of serum HBV DNA, HBeAg, and ALT in the tenofovir group was significantly higher than that in the entecavir group (86.67%, 3.33%, and 80.00%) (all P < 0.05). In the tenofovir group, 2cases were considered. Objective. The aim of this study is to analyze the clinical effect and safety of tenofovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. Methods. A total of 60 patients with CHB who were admitted and treated in Anqing First People's Hospital Affiliated to Anhui Medical University from January 2019 to July 2020 were randomly assigned at a ratio of 1 : 1 into the tenofovir group (treated with tenofovir) and the entecavir group (treated with entecavir) via the random number table method. The clinical therapeutic effect and safety of the two groups were compared. Results. The serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels in the two groups decreased after treatment, but there was no significant difference. Ths (2.50%) had nausea, 1 (1.25%) had headache, and 0 had an elevated creatine kinase. In the tenofovir group,1(3.33%) had nausea, 0 had headache, and 0 had an elevated creatine kinase. In the entecavir group, there were 3 (10.00%) cases of nausea, 2 (6.67%) cases of headache, and 1 (3.33%) case of elevated creatine kinase. The overall incidence of adverse reactions in the tenofovir group (3.33%) was significantly lower than that in the entecavir group (20.00%) (all P < 0.05). Conclusion. Tenofovir is more effective than entecavir in the treatment of patients with CHB due to low incidence of adverse events and a good safety profile.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35774746 PMCID: PMC9239785 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1673453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Patient profiles ( ± s).
| Groups |
| Male | Female | Age | Average age | BMI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tenofovir group | 30 | 24 | 6 | 25–65 | 41.90 ± 11.40 | 22.48 ± 0.64 |
| Entecavir group | 30 | 20 | 10 | 24–69 | 42.10 ± 10.52 | 22.53 ± 0.59 |
|
| — | — | — | — | 0.445 | 0.514 |
|
| — | — | — | — | 0.657 | 0.608 |
Figure 1Comparison of serum HBV DNA levels between the two groups of patients. After treatment, tenofovir group serum HBV DNA levels (0.94 ± 0.28) IU/ml and entecavir group serum HBV DNA levels (1.11 ± 0.44) IU/ml were significantly decreased compared with those of tenofovir group (7.45 ± 0.53) IU/ml and entecavir group (7.48 ± 0.67) IU/ml (P < 0.05) before treatment, no statistically significant difference. P < 0.05.
Comparison of antiviral efficacy between the two groups of patients (%).
| Groups |
| HBV-DNA negative rate | HBeAg negative conversion rate | ALT normalization |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tenofovir group | 30 | 30 (100.00) | 6 (20.00) | 29 (96.67) |
| Entecavir group | 30 | 26 (86.67) | 1 (3.33) | 24 (80.00) |
|
| — | 4.286 | 4.043 | 4.043 |
|
| — | 0.038 | 0.044 | 0.044 |
Comparison of adverse reactions in the two groups of patients (%).
| Groups |
| Nausea | Headache | Elevated creatine kinase | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tenofovir group | 30 | 1 (3.33) | 0 (0.00) | 0 (0.00) | 1 (3.33) |
| Entecavir group | 30 | 3 (10.00) | 2 (6.67) | 1 (3.33) | 6 (20.00) |
|
| — | 4.043 | |||
|
| — | 0.044 |