Comparison of the efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir in chronic hepatitis B

Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in antiviral treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients treated with entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a network meta-analysis

Background

Long-term antiviral treatments are associated with a significantly lower hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients by reducing HBV DNA concentrations. However, it is still controversial whether antiviral strategies affect HCC development in antiviral treatment-naïve CHB patients. This study aimed to estimate the incidence of HCC in antiviral treatment-naïve CHB patients who were treated with Entecavir (ETV) and Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) and compare the efficacy of two treatment regimens in HCC reduction.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang databases were systematically searched until June 24, 2021. The pooled incidence and 95% confidence interval of HCC were calculated by the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation method. The efficacies of ETV and TDF treatments in HCC reduction were compared through a network meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 27 studies were identified as eligible for this systematic review. The incidence densities in the ETV and TDF treatment groups were 2.78 (95% CI: 2.21-3.40) and 2.59 (95% CI: 1.51-3.96) per 100 persons-year among patients with preexisting cirrhosis and 0.49 (95% CI: 0.32-0.68) and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.06-0.70) per 100 persons-year among patients without preexisting cirrhosis. As the proportion of CHB patients with preexisting cirrhosis increased, the incidence density of HCC also increased gradually. Compared with other Nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs) treatments, ETV and TDF treatments significantly lowered the risk of HCC, with hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.40-0.90) and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.35-0.89), respectively. However, there was no difference in the incidence density of HCC between ETV and TDF treatments (HR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.71-1.20) regardless of preexisting cirrhosis.

Conclusion

ETV and TDF treatments were associated with significantly lower risks of HCC than other NAs treatments. However, no difference was observed between ETV and TDF treatments in the risk of HCC development regardless of preexisting cirrhosis among treatment-naïve CHB patients.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09413-7.

Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Is Superior to Entecavir in Reducing Hepatitis B Surface Antigen for Chronic Hepatitis B in China: 2-Year Comprehensive Comparative Result of a Matched Comparative Study

Aim: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are equally recommended as the first-line antiviral treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) at present. We aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety between ETV and TDF therapy in CHB patients who had not received nucleoside analog treatment.

Method: In this single-center retrospective study, 414 patients who received ETV (290 patients) or TDF (124 patients) therapy at our center from January 2017 to May 2019 were included. To reduce the imbalance of baseline variables, propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to yield 124 pairs of patients at a ratio of 1:1 based on the treatment regimen.

Result: After PSM, the cumulative rate of patients who achieved complete virological response (CVR) was not different by drug therapy at each inspection time (1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months). Subgroup analysis on HBeAg status and level of HBV DNA demonstrated that evolution of proportion of achieving CVR was not significantly different between groups. Despite the insignificant incidence of HBsAg seroclearance in either group, patients in TDF group achieved higher on-treatment HBsAg decline at each inspection time (1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months), 0.39, 0.51, 0.61, 0.64, 0.68, 0.76, and 0.91 log IU/mL, respectively; while the corresponding reduction were 0.27, 0.37, 0.40, 0.45, 0.48, 0.55, and 0.66 log IU/mL in ETV group (p < 0.05). In subgroup analysis, we found that the significant difference still existed in patients with high baseline HBsAg level (>3 log IU/mL). Additionally, the proportion of patients who achieved on-treatment HBsAg decline >1 log IU/mL in TDF and ETV group was 33.3 and 17.1% (p < 0.01) at the 12th month, 44.4 and 29.5% (p = 0.03) at the 24th month, respectively. Mean increase in serum creatinine from baseline was 0.10 and 0.08 mg/dL in TDF and ETV group (p = 0.11), with no patient experienced acute kidney injury.

Conclusions: TDF has higher potency in reducing HBsAg than ETV in this study. Considering the effect still existed in patients with high HBsAg level (>3 log IU/mL), TDF might be a superior therapeutic regimen combining with its relatively safety.

A long-term multicenter study: Entecavir versus Tenofovir in treatment of nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarat (TDF) are the two first-line therapies recommended in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B because of having potent antiviral effect and high genetic barriers against resistance. We aimed to compare efficacy of these drugs and to evaluate predictors of viral suppression.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study was conducted in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients from different 6 centers.

RESULTS

Of the 252 patients, 166 received ETV and 86 TDF. The two groups were similar in terms of age, gender, baseline ALT levels and fibrosis scores. ETV had significantly higher baseline HBV DNA, histological activity index and lower hepatitis B early antigen (HBeAg) seropositivity. Treatment duration was longer in ETV group (P<0.001). In univariate analysis, undetectable HBV DNA and ALT normalization rates were detected significantly higher in ETV groups (P<0.001 and 0.049, respectively). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of HBeAg seroconversion, virological breakthrough, time to virological breakthrough and time to ALT normalization. Entecavir was more effective in reducing HBV DNA levels at the 3rd, 6th and 12th months of the treatment (P=0.06, 0.021 and 0.012, respectively). However, multivariate Cox regression analysis indicated that TDF therapy compared to ETV had an increased probability of achieving complete viral suppression (HR=1, 66; 95% CI 1.21-2.33; P=0.010). Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroconversion was occurred in only one patient in ETV group.

CONCLUSION

ETV leads to an early response on HBV DNA decline in the first year of the treatment. However, TDF is more successful than entecavir in achieving virological suppression.

Efficacy and safety of entecavir versus tenofovir treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are considered among the most potent antiviral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. We aimed to compare treatment efficacy and safety of ETV and TDF in nucleoside-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were compensated chronic hepatitis B patients who were either hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative. Exclusion criteria were co-infection with hepatitis C virus and/or HIV, concurrent malignancy, and decompensated cirrhosis. Virological, biochemical, and serological end-points at week 96 and 144 were compared. Of 400 patients, 200 patients received ETV and 200 received TDF.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the two groups in baseline characteristics including age (41.6 ± 11.5 vs. 41.2 ± 11.6, mean baseline hepatitis B virus DNA (5.91 ± 1.79 vs. 5.94 ± 1.68 log₁₀ IU/mL), mean baseline alanine aminotransferase (68.1 ± 64.1 vs. 76.8 ± 79.8 U/L), and cirrhosis (15.5% vs. 14.5%). At week 144 of treatment, 91 and 94% of the ETV and TDF groups, respectively, achieved undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA. In HBeAg-positive patients, HBeAg seroconversion could be achieved in 27.4% and 33.7% at week 144 for ETV and TDF groups, respectively. Quantitative hepatitis B surface antigen dropped significantly over 144 weeks of treatment period but only 1.0 to 1.5% experienced hepatitis B surface antigen loss. Safety profiles were consistent with previous reports of monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Both ETV and TDF showed potent antiviral activity against hepatitis B. Either ETV or TDF can be recommended as a treatment of choice for patients with chronic hepatitis B. Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.

Effect of Entecavir and Tenofovir Treatment on Noninvasive Fibrosis Scores: Which One Is Better? Am J Ther. 2016;23:e429-e438. [PMID: 25650531 DOI: 10.1097/mjt.0000000000000203]

Liver biopsy is the best method for detecting fibrosis grade of the liver in chronic hepatitis B. However, the invasiveness of liver biopsy complicates its routine use in follow-up of treatment. We planned to determine the usage of fibrosis predicting noninvasive scores in the follow-up of the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with entecavir or tenofovir. Two hundred twenty-eight patients with hepatitis B with liver biopsy were included in the study. Fibrosis grade was determined by Ishak score. The laboratory data at months 0, 12, and 24 during treatment were collected and noninvasive fibrosis scores (aspartate aminotransferase to alanine aminotransferase ratio [AAR], aspartate aminotransferase to platelet ratio index [APRI], fibrosis index based on the 4 factors [FIB-4] and red cell distribution width to platelet ratio [RPR]) were calculated. Statistically significant increase in all scores and decrease in platelet count were observed as the fibrosis level increased. For differentiation of patients with fibrosis ≥grade 2, the highest sensitivity and specificity rates were shown by APRI score (sensitivity 67%, specificity 69%, and cutoff ≥0.5). FIB-4 was the most successful score for differentiation of patients with fibrosis ≥grade 3 (sensitivity 83%, specificity 74%, and cutoff ≥1.45). A significant decrease in all noninvasive fibrosis scores was observed at months 12 and 24 during treatment with both entecavir and tenofovir (P < 0.001). Among these, only the improvement in APRI score was found better in entecavir group with statistical significance (P < 0.05). APRI score was effective in demonstrating early-stage fibrosis. FIB-4, RPR, and platelet count were better in demonstrating advanced fibrosis. Although noninvasive scores cannot replace liver biopsy for diagnosis, they can be used for monitoring the response to treatment.

Antiviral Therapy in Lamivudine-Resistant Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

The relative efficacy of different strategies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with lamivudine resistance (LAM-R) has not yet been systematically studied. Clinical trials were searched in PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CNKI databases up to February 15, 2016. Nine trials including 764 patients met the entry criteria. In direct meta-analysis, TDF showed a stronger antiviral effect than any one of ETV, LAM/ADV, and ADV against LAM-R hepatitis B virus. LAM/ADV therapy was superior to ADV in suppressing viral replication. ETV achieved similar rate of HBV DNA undetectable compared to ADV or LAM/ADV. In network meta-analysis, TDF had higher rates of HBV DNA undetectable compared to ETV (OR, 24.69; 95% CrI: 5.36–113.66), ADV (OR, 37.28; 95% CrI: 9.73–142.92), or LAM/ADV (OR, 21.05; 95% CrI: 5.70–77.80). However, among ETV, ADV, and LAM/ADV, no drug was clearly superior to others in HBV DNA undetectable rate. Moreover, no significant difference in the rate of ALT normalization or HBeAg loss was observed compared the four rescue strategies with each other. TDF appears to be a more effective rescue therapy than LAM/ADV, ETV, or ADV. LAM plus ADV therapy was a better treatment option than ETV or ADV alone for patients with LAM-R.

Treatment Outcomes With First-line Therapies With Entecavir and Tenofovir in Treatment-Naive Chronic Hepatitis B Patients in a Routine Clinical Practice

BACKGROUND

Given their high efficacy, entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF), are the recommended first-line therapies for chronic hepatitis B, but it is not clear whether the efficacy reported from pivotal trials is similar to the outcomes seen in routine practice.

GOALS

Our goal was to examine the treatment outcomes of antiviral therapy in such setting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 557 consecutive treatment-naive patients who started either ETV (n=443) or TDF (n=114) at 3 US liver clinics between January 2005 and 2012. Primary study endpoint was complete viral suppression (CVS) rate (hepatitis B virus DNA<40 IU/mL).

RESULTS

The majority of patients in both ETV and TDF groups were Asians, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) negative, male, and with similar pretreatment alanine aminotransferase and hepatitis B virus DNA levels. Similar proportions of patients in the ETV and TDF groups achieved CVS at 24 months: 87.7% versus 87.0%, respectively. Cumulative rates of virological breakthrough in the ETV and TDF groups were 1.0% versus 4.8% (P=0.26) and 3.7% versus 9.8% (P=0.04) at month 12 and 24, respectively; and all were associated with medication nonadherence. Cumulative rate of medication nonadherence was lower in the ETV than TDF group: 4.6% versus 7.8% at month 12 and 8.9% versus 16.9% at month 24, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with either ETV or TDF achieve a similar rate of CVS at 24 months. The primary contributor to suboptimal response was medication nonadherence. Attention to medication adherence is needed in a routine clinical setting.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Entecavir and Tenofovir in Nucleos(T)ide Analogue-Experienced Chronic Hepatitis B Patients

The efficacy of entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir (TDF) for the treatment of nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA)-experienced chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients has been little studied. Here, we compare the efficacy of both ETV and TDF in NA-experienced CHB patients without detectable genotypic resistance. This retrospective cohort study included consecutive NA-experienced patients who had neither current nor previous genotypic resistance and had received ETV or TDF for at least 6 months. Overall, 202 patients (146 patients in the ETV group and 56 in the TDF group) were analyzed. The cumulative probabilities of complete virologic suppression (CVS) at month 12 were 76.1% in the ETV group and 95.0% in the TDF group (P<0.001), respectively. The TDF-treated group achieved CVS more rapidly than the ETV group for both Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative and -positive patients (P = 0.006 and < 0.001, respectively), and for those with both low (< 2,000 IU/mL) and high (≥ 2,000 IU/mL) HBV DNA levels (P = 0.01 and 0.002, respectively). TDF group had an increased probability of achieving CVS (hazard ratio, 2.242; 95% confidence interval, 1.587-3.165; P = 0.001), after adjustment for HBV DNA level, the presence of HBeAg, and a history of CVS during prior treatment. During the treatment period, 23 patients (15.8%) in the ETV group developed virologic breakthrough, compared to none in the TDF group. The cumulative probabilities of developing virologic breakthrough and ETV-resistance at month 24 were 9.7% and 5.3%, respectively. In conclusion, TDF is preferable to ETV for achieving CVS in NA-experienced CHB patients without genotypic resistance.

Virologic response and safety of tenofovir versus entecavir in treatment-naïve chronic Hepatitis B patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the antiviral response and safety of tenofovir (TDF) versus entecavir (ETV) in treatment-naïve CHB patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of treatment-naive CHB patients who were treated with TDF or ETV. We analyzed virologic, biochemical, and serologic responses at 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients (TDF group = 49, ETV group = 58) were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The estimated proportion of complete virologic response (CVR) in the TDF or ETV group was 44.9% versus 39.7% at 6 months and 89.6% versus 83.2% at 12 months, respectively (P = 0.991). Viral breakthrough was not observed in both groups. One patient in the TDF group and two patients in the ETV group experienced HBeAg loss, respectively (P = 0.657). High HBV DNA level at baseline was a significant negative predictor of virologic response by Cox regression analysis (P = 0.007). The safety profile was similar between the two groups. There was no case with serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Both TDF and ETV were effective in achieving CVR and had a favorable safety profile in treatment-naïve CHB patients. High viral load at baseline was a negative predictive factor of CVR.

Comparable efficacy of tenofovir versus entecavir and predictors of response in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B: a multicenter real-life study

OBJECTIVE

To compare responses to tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) therapy.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study including treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) who received TDF or ETV. The primary end-points were undetectable HBV-DNA at 48 weeks and serological and biochemical responses.

RESULTS

Out of 195 CHB patients, 90 (46%) received TDF and 105 (54%) received ETV; 72% were male, their mean age was 43±12 years, and the mean duration of treatment was 30.2±15.7 months. Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seropositivity was 32% in the TDF group and 34% in the ETV group. HBeAg seroconversion rates in HBeAg-positive patients were 24% in the TDF group and 39% in the ETV group; the difference was not significant (p=0.2). The mean time to alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization and rates of ALT normalization at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months were similar in the two groups (p > 0.05). The mean time to undetectable HBV-DNA levels in the TDF and ETV groups was 11.5±8.9 and 12.9±10.8 months, respectively (p=0.32). A significantly greater decline in HBV-DNA levels at 12 and 18 months was observed in the TDF group (p=0.02 and p=0.03, respectively). Seven (7%) patients on ETV therapy had virological breakthrough (p=0.01). Only one patient in each group had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) clearance. None of the patients developed decompensation or hepatocellular carcinoma during treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The two drugs appear to have similar efficacy in CHB patients. However, 7% of patients on ETV therapy had virological breakthrough, while none of the patients on TDF therapy did.

Tenofovir is superior to entecavir for achieving complete viral suppression in HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B patients with high HBV DNA

BACKGROUND

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are the two first-line anti-viral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, there are limited studies directly comparing their effectiveness.

AIM

To compare the effectiveness of ETV and TDF in nucleos(t)ide-naïve CHB patients with high hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels, defined as serum HBV DNA greater than 6 log10  IU/mL.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult CHB patients who were seen between 2009 and 2012 at four Northern California community gastroenterology and hepatology clinics.

RESULTS

We identified 59 consecutive patients treated with TDF and 216 patients treated with ETV. Pre-treatment characteristics were similar between the two groups. Among HBeAg-negative patients, there was no significant difference in viral suppression rates between ETV and TDF (P = 0.72). In contrast, among HBeAg-positive patients, those treated with TDF achieved viral suppression significantly more rapidly than those treated with ETV (P < 0.0001); the Kaplan-Meier estimated probability of complete suppression was 18% vs. 11% at 6 months, 51% vs. 28% at 12 months and 72% vs. 39% at 18 months respectively. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis indicated that treatment with TDF compared to ETV was a significant predictor of viral suppression, but only for HBeAg-positive patients (HR = 2.59; 95% CI 1.58-4.22; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Tenofovir is significantly more effective than entecavir for achieving complete viral suppression in HBeAg-positive, nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients with HBV DNA greater than 6 log10  IU/mL.

DNA prime-adenovirus boost immunization induces a vigorous and multifunctional T-cell response against hepadnaviral proteins in the mouse and woodchuck model

Induction of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-specific cytotoxic T cells by therapeutic immunization may be a strategy to treat chronic hepatitis B. In the HBV animal model, woodchucks, the application of DNA vaccine expressing woodchuck hepatitis virus (WHV) core antigen (WHcAg) in combination with antivirals led to the prolonged control of viral replication. However, it became clear that the use of more potent vaccines is required to overcome WHV persistence. Therefore, we asked whether stronger and more functional T-cell responses could be achieved using the modified vaccines and an optimized prime-boost vaccination regimen. We developed a new DNA plasmid (pCGWHc) and recombinant adenoviruses (AdVs) showing high expression levels of WHcAg. Mice vaccinated with the improved plasmid pCGWHc elicited a stronger WHcAg-specific CD8(+) T-cell response than with the previously used vaccines. Using multicolor flow cytometry and an in vivo cytotoxicity assay, we showed that immunization in a DNA prime-AdV boost regimen resulted in an even more vigorous and functional T-cell response than immunization with the new plasmid alone. Immunization of naïve woodchucks with pCGWHc plasmid or AdVs induced a significant WHcAg-specific degranulation response prior to the challenge, this response had not been previously detected. Consistently, this response led to a rapid control of infection after the challenge. Our results demonstrate that high antigen expression levels and the DNA prime-AdV boost immunization improved the T-cell response in mice and induced significant T-cell responses in woodchucks. Therefore, this new vaccination strategy may be a candidate for a therapeutic vaccine against chronic HBV infection.