Efficacy comparison of high-genetic barrier nucleos(t)ide analogues in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients: a network meta-analysis
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background/Aims: Four high-genetic barrier nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB), namely entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), and besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV), have been established. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of four high-genetic barrier NAs using a network meta-analysis of randomized trials and propensity score-matched cohorts. Methods: Systematic search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE and included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that used propensity score matching. Studies on treatment-naïve CHB patients treated with ETV, TDF, TAF, or BSV were included. Outcomes included alanine aminotransferase normalization and hepatitis B e antigen seroclearance at week 48 and undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA at weeks 48 and 96. Network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the results. Results: In total, 15,000 patients from 16 studies were included. In terms of 48- and 96-week virologic response (VR), TDF outperformed ETV with statistical significance (48 weeks: odds ratio [OR], 1.38; p < 0.001; 96 weeks: OR, 1.57; p = 0.004). ETV was ranked first for 48-week biochemical response (BR) and outperformed TDF (OR, 0.76; p = 0.028). In the sensitivity analyses, 48-week VR from randomized-controlled trials were compiled, and the same trend toward the superiority of TDF over ETV was found (OR, 1.51; p = 0.030). Conclusions: Four high-genetic barrier NAs were compared, and TDF was more likely to achieve a VR after 48 weeks, while ETV provided a superior BR after 48 weeks.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Four high-genetic barrier nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) for chronic hepatitis B (CHB), namely entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), and besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV), have been established. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy of four high-genetic barrier NAs using a network meta-analysis of randomized trials and propensity score-matched cohorts. Methods: Systematic search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE and included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies that used propensity score matching. Studies on treatment-naïve CHB patients treated with ETV, TDF, TAF, or BSV were included. Outcomes included alanine aminotransferase normalization and hepatitis B e antigen seroclearance at week 48 and undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA at weeks 48 and 96. Network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize the results. Results: In total, 15,000 patients from 16 studies were included. In terms of 48- and 96-week virologic response (VR), TDF outperformed ETV with statistical significance (48 weeks: odds ratio [OR], 1.38; p < 0.001; 96 weeks: OR, 1.57; p = 0.004). ETV was ranked first for 48-week biochemical response (BR) and outperformed TDF (OR, 0.76; p = 0.028). In the sensitivity analyses, 48-week VR from randomized-controlled trials were compiled, and the same trend toward the superiority of TDF over ETV was found (OR, 1.51; p = 0.030). Conclusions: Four high-genetic barrier NAs were compared, and TDF was more likely to achieve a VR after 48 weeks, while ETV provided a superior BR after 48 weeks.
참고문헌 (43)
- "Hepatitis B" (2022)[URL]
- Yuen MF, "Hepatitis B virus infection", Nat Rev Dis Primers, 4, pp.18035~ (2018)
- Chen CJ, "Long-term outcomes in hepatitis B : the REVEAL-HBV study", Clin Liver Dis, 11, pp.797~816 (2007)
- Sarin SK, "Asian-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatitis B : a 2015update", Hepatol Int, 10, pp.1~98 (2016)
- European Association for the Study of the Liver, "EASL 2017Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection", J Hepatol, 67, pp.370~398 (2017)
- Terrault NA, "Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B : AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance", Hepatology, 67, pp.1560~1599 (2018)
- Korean Association for the Study of the Liver(KASL), "KASL clinical practice guidelines for management of chronic hepatitis B", Clin Mol Hepatol, 28, pp.276~331 (2022)
- Ahn SH, "Efficacy and safety of besifovir dipivoxil maleate compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection", Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 17, pp.1850~1859 (2019)
- Park JW, "Comparison of the longterm efficacy between entecavir and tenofovir in treatmentnaïve chronic hepatitis B patients", BMC Gastroenterol, 17, pp.39~ (2017)
- Wu IT, "Comparison of the efficacy and safety of entecavir and tenofovir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B patients with high viraemia : a retrospective cohort study", Clin Microbiol Infect, 23, pp.464~469 (2017)
- Chen MB, "Comparative efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B : a systematic review and meta-analysis", PLoS One, 14, pp.e0224773~ (2019)
- Ma X, "Tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir: which is the most effective drug for chronic hepatitis B? A systematic review and meta-analysis", J Clin Transl Hepatol, 9, pp.335~344 (2021)
- Zuo SR, "A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection", J Clin Pharmacol, 55, pp.288~297 (2015)
- Han Y, "The efficacy and safety comparison between tenofovir and entecavir in treatment of chronic hepatitis B and HBV related cirrhosis : a systematic review and meta-analysis", Int Immunopharmacol, 42, pp.168~175 (2017)
- Jeong J, "Tenofovir alafenamide treatment may not worsen the lipid profile of chronic hepatitis B patients : a propensity score-matched analysis", Clin Mol Hepatol, 28, pp.254~264 (2022)
- Yuen MF, "Two-year treatment outcome of chronic hepatitis B infection treated with besifovir vs. entecavir : results from a multicentre study", J Hepatol, 62, pp.526~532 (2015)
- Jansen JP, "Indirect treatment comparison", network meta-analysis study questionnaire to assess relevance and credibility to inform health care decision making : an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report, 2014, pp.17, 157~173
- Higgins JP, "The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials", BMJ, 343, pp.d5928~ (2011)
- Sterne JA, "ROBINS-I : a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions", BMJ, 355, pp.i4919~ (2016)
- Higgins JP, "Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis : concepts and models for multi-arm studies", Res Synth Methods, 3, pp.98~110 (2012)
- Cai D, "Comparison of the long-term efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naïve HBeAg-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B : a large, multicentre, randomized controlled trials", Medicine(Baltimore), 98, pp.e13983~ (2019)
- Zhao Y, "Antiviral curative effects of tenofovir and entecavir in treatment of aged patients with chronic hepatitis B and their regulation on inflammation factors", J Jilin Univ, 45, pp.117~122 (2019)
- Koike K, "Randomized prospective study showing the non-inferiority of tenofovir to entecavir in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients", Hepatol Res, 48, pp.59~68 (2018)
- Sriprayoon T, "Efficacy and safety of entecavir versus tenofovir treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients : a randomized controlled trial", Hepatol Res, 47, pp.E161~E168 (2017)
- Zhang D, "Clinical efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis b infection in patients naïve to nucleosides and their analogues therapy", Int J Clin Exp Med, 10, pp.12329~12335 (2017)
- Lai CL, "Phase IIb multicentred randomised trial of besifovir(LB80380)versus entecavir in Asian patients with chronic hepatitis B", Gut, 63, pp.996~1004 (2014)
- Jung CY, "Similar risk of kidney function decline between tenofovir alafenamide and besifovir dipivoxil maleate in chronic hepatitis B", Liver Int, 42, pp.2408~2417 (2022)
- Lim J, "Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B", Liver Int, 42, pp.1517~1527 (2022)
- Yang S, "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", Front Med(Lausanne), 8, pp.637126~ (2021)
- Lee SW, "Comparison of tenofovir and entecavir on the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and mortality in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B in Korea : a large-scale, propensity score analysis", Gut, 69, pp.1301~1308 (2020)
- Yip TC, "Tenofovir is associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma than entecavir in patients with chronic HBV infection in China", Gastroenterology, 158, pp.215~225 (2020)
- Choi J, "Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients treated with entecavir vs tenofovir for chronic hepatitis B : a Korean nationwide cohort study", JAMA Oncol, 5, pp.30~36 (2019)
- Shin JW, "Comparable incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with entecavir or tenofovir", Dig Dis Sci, 66, pp.1739~1750 (2021)
- Kim SU, "A multicenter study of entecavir vs. tenofovir on prognosis of treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B in South Korea", J Hepatol, 71, pp.456~464 (2019)
- Wong WWL, "Antiviral treatment for treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B : systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials", Syst Rev, 8, pp.207~ (2019)
- Con D, "Comparison of 48-week efficacy of tenofovir vs entecavir for patients with chronic hepatitis B : a network meta-analysis", J Viral Hepat, 28, pp.40~50 (2021)
- Tan YW, "YMDD motif mutations in chronic hepatitis B antiviral treatment naïve patients : a multi-center study", Braz J Infect Dis, 16, pp.250~255 (2012)
- Farag MS, "Effectiveness and renal safety of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate among chronic hepatitis B patients : real-world study", J Viral Hepat, 28, pp.942~950 (2021)
- Agarwal K, "96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection", J Hepatol, 68, pp.672~681 (2018)
- Buti M, "Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B virus infection : a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial", Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 1, pp.196~206 (2016)
- Chan HL, "Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus infection : a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial", Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 1, pp.185~195 (2016)
- Boglione L, "Serological and virological response in patients with hepatitis B virus genotype E treated with entecavir or tenofovir : a prospective study", Arch Virol, 166, pp.1125~1131 (2021)
- Batirel A, "Comparable efficacy of tenofovir versus entecavir and predictors of response in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B : a multicenter real-life study", Int J Infect Dis, 28, pp.153~159 (2014)