Tenofovir Treatment Has Lower Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma than Entecavir Treatment in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7506291 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionEntecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are recommended as first-line therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection. Although both drugs reduce hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk, their comparative effectiveness remains controversial. We aimed to determine whether TDF is superior to ETV in preventing HCC.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception until June 9, 2020, were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Key terms included entecavir, tenofovir, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by the Cochran Q test and I.ResultsThirteen observational studies (4 of which were conference abstracts) were included with 85,008 patients with CHB (ETV: 56,346; TDF: 28,662). TDF was associated with a lower HCC risk (adjusted HR [aHR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.99). This beneficial effect was present in cirrhotic patients (aHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62-0.85) and retrospective cohort studies using electronic data sets (aHR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.51-0.78). However, this beneficial effect did not reach statistical significance for noncirrhotic patients (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.51-1.35) and retrospective/prospective cohort studies using clinical records (aHR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.80-1.18).DiscussionTDF was associated with a lower HCC risk compared with ETV among patients with CHB, particularly cirrhotic patients. Further prospective large-scale studies with longer follow-up periods were required to identify specific subgroups that will benefit most from TDF.
| S-EPMC7544163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsChronic 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 resultsWe 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).ConclusionsTDF may be associated with lower risk of HCC when compared to ETV.
| S-EPMC8022893 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major concern during antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis B. There are conflicting opinions regarding the effects of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) on HCC prevention. We assessed these two antiviral medications for preventing HCC in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using nationwide claims data from the Korea Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. We included 55,473 treatment-naïve adult cases where ETV or TDF treatment was started between 2013 and 2017 (cohort 1). The ETV and TDF groups were matched 1:2 based on age, sex, comorbidities, hospital type, and index date year. Patients were followed up until December 2018. The outcome was the development of HCC. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to sex, age, hospital type and the presence of cirrhosis. We also compared the outcomes of patients who had started antiviral therapy during the 2012-2014 period (cohort 2).ResultsThe matched participants (18,491 in the ETV and 36,982 in the TDF groups) were a part of the study for, on average, 41.2 months. The incidence of HCC did not differ significantly between the ETV (1.46 per 100 patient-years) and the TDF (1.36 per 100 patient-years) treatments (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.86-1.01; P = 0.081). By contrast, HCC incidence was significantly higher in the ETV group than tenofovir group of cohort 2.ConclusionIn patients with chronic hepatitis B, the ETV treatment did not result in a higher rate of HCC than the TDF treatment.
| S-EPMC8042481 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC7419516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is superior to entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients remains controversial. We aimed to clarify this controversy. Several databases, including PubMed and Embase, were retrieved through November 2020. Cohort studies comparing the effectiveness of TDF and entecavir in reducing HCC incidence among treatment-naïve CHB patients were included if they reported multivariable-adjusted or propensity-score-matched risk estimates. A random-effects model was used to pool hazard ratios (HRs). Thirteen cohort studies, involving 4097 HCC cases and 80202 CHB patients, were included. Multivariable-adjusted meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in HCC incidence between TDF and entecavir groups (HR 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.04), which was consistent with propensity-score-matched meta-analysis (HR 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.03). Subgroup analysis showed that the observed similarity of TDF to entecavir for HCC prevention persisted in studies with follow-up length of ≥4 years but not in those with follow-up length of <4 years (Pinteraction<0.01). In conclusion, TDF is similar to entecavir in reducing HCC incidence among treatment-naïve CHB patients. Heterogeneous results of included studies may result from their disparity in follow-up length. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.
| S-EPMC7993671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur study aimed to compare the predictive performance of different hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prediction models in chronic hepatitis B patients receiving entecavir or tenofovir, including discrimination, calibration, negative predictive value (NPV) in low-risk, and proportion of low-risk.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature research in PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before January 13, 2022. The predictive performance was assessed by area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration index, negative predictive value, and the proportion in low-risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses of discrimination and calibration were conducted. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to validate the stability of the results.ResultsWe identified ten prediction models in 23 studies. The pooled 3-, 5-, and 10-year AUROC varied from 0.72 to 0.84, 0.74 to 0.83, and 0.76 to 0.86, respectively. REAL-B, AASL-HCC, and HCC-RESCUE achieved the best discrimination. HCC-RESCUE, PAGE-B, and mPAGE-B overestimated HCC development, whereas mREACH-B, AASL-HCC, REAL-B, CAMD, CAGE-B, SAGE-B, and aMAP underestimated it. All models were able to identify people with a low risk of HCC accurately. HCC-RESCUE and aMAP recognized over half of the population as low-risk. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis showed similar results.ConclusionConsidering the predictive performance of all four aspects, we suggest that HCC-RESCUE was the best model to utilize in clinical practice, especially in primary care and low-income areas. To confirm our findings, further validation studies with the above four components were required.
| S-EPMC10428529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Simple Summary Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are the preferred anti-viral agents used as first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B. Despite many meta-analyses being conducted, it is still not clear whether TDF is more effective than ETV at reducing the risk of HCC due to the inconsistent statistical methodologies employed in previous observational studies. To reduce heterogeneity, we analysed only hospital cohort data studies with anti-viral naive patients. Additionally, unlike previous studies, we conducted subgroup analyses with enrolment criteria and socioeconomic factors that could not be corrected with statistical techniques. There is no difference between the two drugs in terms of reducing the risk of HCC in a pooled analysis of PS-matched patients. In the subgroup analysis, if there was interval of over three years from the start point of patient enrolment, we found that TDF was associated with significantly lower HCC risk. This result will provide new perspectives for future research. Abstract Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are the preferred anti-viral agents used as first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, the efficacy of these agents in reducing the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of anti-viral agent on preventing HCC in CHB. Two investigators independently searched all relevant studies that examined the efficacy of anti-viral agent for preventing HCC using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through August 2021. The extracted data were analysed using a random-effects meta-analysis model based on the inverse-variance method (DerSimonian–Laird) and expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We included 19 retrospective studies in the analysis. Although there was substantial heterogeneity between the studies, the overall pooled HR indicated that TDF significantly lowered the risk of HCC (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58–0.90, I2 = 66.29%). However, the pooled analysis of propensity score (PS)-matched subpopulations showed no significant differences (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65–1.06; I2 = 52.30%) between TDF and ETV. In a subgroup analysis, an interval of over three years in the start point of patient enrolment and excluding alcoholic liver disease patients significantly lowered the HCC risk associated with TDF. In conclusion, TDF may be more effective than ETV at reducing HCC incidence in treatment-naive CHB patients, but this effect was not consistent in the PS-matched subpopulation that reduced heterogeneity. As a result of subgroup analysis, the conflicting findings of previous studies may result from heterogeneous inclusion criteria. Further studies with standardised protocols are needed to reduce the residual heterogeneity.
| S-EPMC9179302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEntecavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have comparable efficacy in achieving surrogate end points, including virologic response, and are equally recommended as first-line treatments for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, it is unclear whether treatment with these drugs is associated with equivalent clinical outcomes, especially development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).ObjectiveTo compare entecavir and tenofovir in terms of the risk of HCC and death or liver transplant in patients with CHB infection.Design, setting, and participantsA nationwide historical population cohort study involving treatment-naive adult patients with CHB who started treatment with entecavir (n = 11 464) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (n = 12 692) between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014, using data from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database. As validation, a hospital cohort of patients with CHB treated with entecavir (n = 1560) or tenofovir (n = 1141) in a tertiary referral center between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016, were analyzed. Nationwide cohort data were retrieved from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2016, and hospital cohort data from January 1, 2010, to October 31, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresCumulative incidence rates of HCC and death and transplant rates.ResultsAmong the population cohort of 24 156, the mean (SD) age was 48.9 (9.8) years, and 15 120 patients (62.6%) were male. Among the hospital cohort of 2701, the mean (SD) age was 48.8 (10.5) years and 1657 patients (61.3%) were male. In the population cohort, the annual incidence rate of HCC was significantly lower in the tenofovir group (0.64 per 100 person-years [PY]) than in the entecavir group (1.06 per 100 PY). By multivariable-adjusted analysis, tenofovir therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of HCC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54-0.70) and all-cause mortality or transplant (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92) compared with entecavir. The tenofovir group also showed a significantly lower risk of HCC in the 10 923-pair propensity score-matched population cohort (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.54-0.70) and 869-pair propensity score-matched hospital cohort (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46-0.99) compared with the entecavir group.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that tenofovir treatment was associated with a significantly lower risk of HCC compared with entecavir treatment in a population-based cohort of adults with CHB; these findings were validated in a hospital cohort. Given the poor prognosis of patients with HCC, these findings may have considerable clinical implications in prevention of this cancer in patients with CHB infection.
| S-EPMC6439769 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsThe therapeutic effect of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) on chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients remains inconsistent. The aim of this study was to explore the differences in virological responses to TAF, TDF and ETV in patients with CHB.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted of the PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials and observational studies published up to July 21, 2020. Statistical comparisons of virological response between TDF, ETV, and TAF were carried out with pooled odds ratio (OR) values.ResultsThe virological response in TDF-treated CHB patients was notably superior to that of the ETV-treated CHB patients after 12-weeks [OR=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-1.41], 24-weeks (OR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.11-1.61), 48-weeks (OR=1.62, 95% CI: 1.16-2.25), 72-weeks (OR=1.43, 95% CI: 0.78-2.62), and 96-weeks (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 0.87-2.81) treatment. No significant difference was observed for the virological responses in CHB patients after 48-weeks treatment with TAF or TDF. The virological response in TDF+ETV-treated CHB patients was superior to that of TDF-treated CHB patients after 24-weeks, 48-weeks (OR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.17-2.02), 96-weeks, and 144-weeks.ConclusionsThe virological response in TDF-treated CHB patients was superior to that in ETV-treated CHB patients, but there was no significant difference between TAF and TDF. In addition, the therapeutic effect of TDF+ETV was superior to TDF alone.
| S-EPMC8237148 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are highly effective and well-tolerated nucleos(t)ide analogs commonly prescribed for hepatitis B virus (HBV) treatment. Yet, it is unclear whether survival outcomes differ for HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with ETV and TDF. Thus, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the prognostic effectiveness of ETV and TDF in HBV-related HCC patients.MethodsWe comprehensively searched four databases, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, to identify pertinent studies utilizing keywords "entecavir," "tenofovir," "hepatocellular carcinoma," and "liver resection." Our primary outcomes of interest encompassed overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), early recurrence, and late recurrence. The statistical effect size for these measures was expressed in terms of hazard ratios (HRs).ResultsOur search yielded 10 studies encompassing 11 datasets involving 7,400 patients. Our meta-analysis revealed that patients treated with TDF achieved better OS (HR = 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.40-0.70, p < 0.0001), RFS (HR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.57-0.80; p < 0.0001), early recurrence (HR = 0.80; 95% CI = 0.67-0.94; p < 0.0077), and late recurrence (HR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.43-0.97; p = 0.0368). We detected publication bias potentially affecting OS but not RFS.ConclusionOur findings demonstrated that TDF outperformed ETV regarding RFS for HBV-related HCC patients. However, to bolster the evidence and establish more conclusive conclusions, further validation via extensive and high-quality randomized controlled trials is essential.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, identifier CRD 42024542579.
| S-EPMC11317427 | biostudies-literature