Comparison of the long-term efficacy between entecavir and tenofovir in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients

被引:40
|
作者
Park, Ji Won [1 ,2 ]
Kwak, Kyeong Min [3 ,4 ]
Kim, Sung Eun [1 ]
Jang, Myoung Kuk [5 ]
Suk, Ki Tae [6 ]
Kim, Dong Joon [6 ]
Park, Sang Hoon [7 ]
Lee, Myung Seok [7 ]
Kim, Hyoung Su [5 ]
Park, Choong Kee [1 ]
机构
[1] Hallym Univ, Dept Internal Med, Sacred Heart Hosp, Med Ctr, 22,Gwanpyeong Ro 170 Beon Gil, Anyang Si 14068, Gyeonggi Do, South Korea
[2] Hallym Univ, Dept Biomed Gerontol, Grad Sch, 1 Hallymdaehak Gil, Chuncheon Si 24252, Gangwon Do, South Korea
[3] Hallym Univ, Dept Occupat & Environm Med, Sacred Heart Hosp, Med Ctr, 22,Gwanpyeong Ro 170 Beon Gil, Anyang Si 14068, Gyeonggi Do, South Korea
[4] Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Environm Hlth, Sch Publ Hlth, 1 Gwanak Ro, Seoul 08826, South Korea
[5] Hallym Univ, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Med Ctr, 18,Cheonho Daero 173 Gil, Seoul 05355, South Korea
[6] Hallym Univ, Chuncheon Sacred Heart Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Med Ctr, 77 Sakju Ro, Chuncheon Si 24253, Gangwon Do, South Korea
[7] Hallym Univ, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hosp, Dept Internal Med, Med Ctr, 1 Singil Ro, Seoul 07441, South Korea
来源
BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY | 2017年 / 17卷
关键词
Entecavir; Tenofovir; Hepatitis B virus; DISOPROXIL FUMARATE; NUCLEOS(T)IDE ANALOGS; LAMIVUDINE; ADHERENCE; RESISTANCE; ADEFOVIR; THERAPY; BREAKTHROUGH; EPIDEMIOLOGY; SUPPRESSION;
D O I
10.1186/s12876-017-0596-7
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: There have been limited studies directly comparing the long-term efficacy between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). This study was aimed to compare the long-term efficacy between them in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods: Out of 345 CHB patients who received first line therapy with ETV (n = 200) or TDF (n = 145) in a cohort, 210 patients were analyzed using propensity score matching, at a ratio of 1: 1. Results: Two groups showed no difference in baseline characteristics. During the follow-up of 12 months, HBV DNA levels were similarly suppressed in both groups (ETV vs. TDF; -5.01 vs. -5.242 log10IU/ mL, P = 0.559). At month 12, both groups showed no difference in terms of the serologic, biochemical and virologic (VR) response. In multivariate analysis, the initial virologic response at 3 months (IVR-3) was independent factor for VR at 1 year. During the long-term follow-up, HBV DNA levels were more strongly suppressed by TDF than ETV in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) positive patients (P = 0.035), especially with high viral load (P = 0.012), although there was no significant difference in overall VR between two groups. The type of antivirals was not an independent factor for long-term VR. Conclusions: Although either ETV or TDF, overall, may show a comparable long-term antiviral efficacy in treatment-naive CHB, TDF might be better regimen than ETV in the subgroup of HBeAg-positive CHB, especially with a higher HBV DNA levels.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The comparison of the long-term efficacy between entecavir and tenofovir in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients
    Kim, Hyoung Su
    Park, Ji Won
    Kim, Sung Eun
    Suk, Ki Tae
    Jang, Myoung Kuk
    Park, Sang Hoon
    Kim, Dong Joon
    Lee, Myung Seok
    Kim, Hak Yang
    Park, Choong Kee
    JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2016, 31 : 374 - 374
  • [2] Comparison of the long-term efficacy between tenofovir and entecavir in chronic hepatitis B patients
    Liu, Kecheng
    Peng, Peng
    Cai, Fuqing
    Huang, Jiean
    GUT, 2021, 70 (08) : 1599 - 1600
  • [3] Long-term outcomes of entecavir monotherapy in patients with treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B
    Kim, Hyung Joon
    Lee, Hyun Woong
    Park, Ji Hoon
    Lee, Kyeong Heon
    JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2012, 27 : 248 - 249
  • [4] Comparison of the long-term efficacy between entecavir and tenofovir in treatment- naïve chronic hepatitis B patients
    Ji Won Park
    Kyeong Min Kwak
    Sung Eun Kim
    Myoung Kuk Jang
    Ki Tae Suk
    Dong Joon Kim
    Sang Hoon Park
    Myung Seok Lee
    Hyoung Su Kim
    Choong Kee Park
    BMC Gastroenterology, 17
  • [5] Efficacy of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and tenofovir alafenamide in treatment-naive hepatitis B patients
    Chon, Hye Yeon
    Ahn, Sang Hoon
    Kim, Yoon Jun
    Yoon, Jung-Hwan
    Lee, Jeong-Hoon
    Sinn, Dong Hyun
    Kim, Seung Up
    HEPATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, 2021, 15 (06) : 1328 - 1336
  • [6] Efficacy of entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and tenofovir alafenamide in treatment-naive hepatitis B patients
    Hye Yeon Chon
    Sang Hoon Ahn
    Yoon Jun Kim
    Jung-Hwan Yoon
    Jeong-Hoon Lee
    Dong Hyun Sinn
    Seung Up Kim
    Hepatology International, 2021, 15 : 1328 - 1336
  • [7] THE COMPARISON OF 24 WEEKS TREATMENT EFFICACY BETWEEN ENTECAVIR AND CLEVUDINE IN TREATMENT-NAIVE PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEPATITIS B
    Sul, Hye Ryoung
    Kim, Hyung Joon
    Lee, Hyun Woong
    Kim, Sung Jin
    Chung, Sun Joo
    Hwang, Seung Jae
    Choi, Chang Hwan
    Kim, Jung Uk
    Do, Jae Hyuk
    Chang, Sae Kyung
    Park, Sill Moo
    HEPATOLOGY, 2008, 48 (04) : 715A - 715A
  • [8] Long-term entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate therapy in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients in the real-world setting
    Idilman, R.
    Gunsar, F.
    Koruk, M.
    Keskin, O.
    Meral, C. E.
    Gulsen, M.
    Elhan, A. H.
    Akarca, U. S.
    Yurdaydin, C.
    JOURNAL OF VIRAL HEPATITIS, 2015, 22 (05) : 504 - 510
  • [9] Letter: tenofovir may be superior to entecavir for treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients
    Wang, Ji-Gan
    Chen, Rui
    Wang, Li-Chuan
    ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS, 2021, 53 (09) : 1048 - 1049
  • [10] Virologic Response and Safety of Tenofovir Versus Entecavir in Treatment-Naive Chronic Hepatitis B Patients
    Yu, Hyung Min
    Kwon, So Young
    Kim, Jiwan
    Chung, Hyun Ah
    Kwon, Se Woong
    Jeong, Taek Gun
    An, Sang Hee
    Jeong, Gyung Won
    Yun, Seon Ung
    Min, Jae Ki
    Kim, Jeong Han
    Choe, Won Hyeok
    SAUDI JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2015, 21 (03): : 146 - 151