Comparison between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir treatment in real‐world clinical practice

Ssu‐Han Wang, Keng Hsin Lan, Cheng Chao Liang, Yuan Lung Cheng, Wei Yu Kao, Han Chieh Lin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background and aims Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are effective as two first‐line anti‐viral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, data are limited on directly comparing the safety and effectiveness of these two antivirals. Hence, we compared the efficacy and safety of TDF and ETV on treatment‐naïve patients with CHB. Methods We performed a hospital‐based, retrospective cohort study of 257 treatment‐naïve patients with CHB receiving TDF (n = 79) or ETV (n = 178). Virological and biochemical response as well as nephrotoxicity were assessed between TDF and ETV treatment groups. Results At month 12, TDF group had faster on HBV DNA complete suppression than ETV group (p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that treatment with TDF was a significant predictor of HBV DNA suppression (HR = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.01 – 1.76; p = 0.045). In addition, HBeAg positivity (HR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.52 – 0.96; p = 0.025) and higher baseline HBV DNA level (HR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.76 – 0.92; p < 0.001) were significant negative predictors for viral suppression. The ALT normalization rate between these two treatment groups were similar (p = 0.114). TDF group had more populations in ≧ 20% decrease of eGFR MDRD at month 24 than ETV group (31.5% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.044), but only the baseline eGFR was the independent factor by multivariate analysis (OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.03 – 1.07; p < 0.001). Conclusions TDF was significantly more effective in achieving complete viral suppression beyond month 12, and there was no significance in nephrotoxicity than ETV group. Copyright © 2017, The Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan, The Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan and Taiwan Association for the Study of the Liver.
Original languageEnglish
Article number7
Pages (from-to)87
Number of pages93
JournalAdvances in Digestive Medicine
Volume4
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 7 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Tenofovir
Chronic Hepatitis B
Taiwan
Therapeutics
Antiviral Agents
DNA
Multivariate Analysis
Safety
Hepatitis B e Antigens
entecavir
Endoscopy
Statistical Factor Analysis

Cite this

Comparison between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir treatment in real‐world clinical practice. / Wang, Ssu‐Han; Lan, Keng Hsin; Liang, Cheng Chao; Cheng, Yuan Lung; Kao, Wei Yu; Lin, Han Chieh.

In: Advances in Digestive Medicine, Vol. 4, No. 3, 7, 07.09.2017, p. 87.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, Ssu‐Han ; Lan, Keng Hsin ; Liang, Cheng Chao ; Cheng, Yuan Lung ; Kao, Wei Yu ; Lin, Han Chieh. / Comparison between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir treatment in real‐world clinical practice. In: Advances in Digestive Medicine. 2017 ; Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 87.
@article{54cddef4700c4a6cbf0d5f31df49b772,
title = "Comparison between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir treatment in real‐world clinical practice",
abstract = "Background and aims Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are effective as two first‐line anti‐viral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, data are limited on directly comparing the safety and effectiveness of these two antivirals. Hence, we compared the efficacy and safety of TDF and ETV on treatment‐na{\"i}ve patients with CHB. Methods We performed a hospital‐based, retrospective cohort study of 257 treatment‐na{\"i}ve patients with CHB receiving TDF (n = 79) or ETV (n = 178). Virological and biochemical response as well as nephrotoxicity were assessed between TDF and ETV treatment groups. Results At month 12, TDF group had faster on HBV DNA complete suppression than ETV group (p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that treatment with TDF was a significant predictor of HBV DNA suppression (HR = 1.33; 95{\%} CI = 1.01 – 1.76; p = 0.045). In addition, HBeAg positivity (HR = 0.70; 95{\%} CI = 0.52 – 0.96; p = 0.025) and higher baseline HBV DNA level (HR = 0.84; 95{\%} CI = 0.76 – 0.92; p < 0.001) were significant negative predictors for viral suppression. The ALT normalization rate between these two treatment groups were similar (p = 0.114). TDF group had more populations in ≧ 20{\%} decrease of eGFR MDRD at month 24 than ETV group (31.5{\%} vs. 17.2{\%}, p = 0.044), but only the baseline eGFR was the independent factor by multivariate analysis (OR = 1.05; 95{\%} CI = 1.03 – 1.07; p < 0.001). Conclusions TDF was significantly more effective in achieving complete viral suppression beyond month 12, and there was no significance in nephrotoxicity than ETV group. Copyright {\circledC} 2017, The Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan, The Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan and Taiwan Association for the Study of the Liver.",
author = "Ssu‐Han Wang and Lan, {Keng Hsin} and Liang, {Cheng Chao} and Cheng, {Yuan Lung} and Kao, {Wei Yu} and Lin, {Han Chieh}",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "7",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1002/aid2.12087",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "87",
journal = "Advances in Digestive Medicine",
issn = "2351-9797",
publisher = "John Wiley & Sons, Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir treatment in real‐world clinical practice

AU - Wang, Ssu‐Han

AU - Lan, Keng Hsin

AU - Liang, Cheng Chao

AU - Cheng, Yuan Lung

AU - Kao, Wei Yu

AU - Lin, Han Chieh

PY - 2017/9/7

Y1 - 2017/9/7

N2 - Background and aims Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are effective as two first‐line anti‐viral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, data are limited on directly comparing the safety and effectiveness of these two antivirals. Hence, we compared the efficacy and safety of TDF and ETV on treatment‐naïve patients with CHB. Methods We performed a hospital‐based, retrospective cohort study of 257 treatment‐naïve patients with CHB receiving TDF (n = 79) or ETV (n = 178). Virological and biochemical response as well as nephrotoxicity were assessed between TDF and ETV treatment groups. Results At month 12, TDF group had faster on HBV DNA complete suppression than ETV group (p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that treatment with TDF was a significant predictor of HBV DNA suppression (HR = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.01 – 1.76; p = 0.045). In addition, HBeAg positivity (HR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.52 – 0.96; p = 0.025) and higher baseline HBV DNA level (HR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.76 – 0.92; p < 0.001) were significant negative predictors for viral suppression. The ALT normalization rate between these two treatment groups were similar (p = 0.114). TDF group had more populations in ≧ 20% decrease of eGFR MDRD at month 24 than ETV group (31.5% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.044), but only the baseline eGFR was the independent factor by multivariate analysis (OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.03 – 1.07; p < 0.001). Conclusions TDF was significantly more effective in achieving complete viral suppression beyond month 12, and there was no significance in nephrotoxicity than ETV group. Copyright © 2017, The Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan, The Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan and Taiwan Association for the Study of the Liver.

AB - Background and aims Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are effective as two first‐line anti‐viral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB); however, data are limited on directly comparing the safety and effectiveness of these two antivirals. Hence, we compared the efficacy and safety of TDF and ETV on treatment‐naïve patients with CHB. Methods We performed a hospital‐based, retrospective cohort study of 257 treatment‐naïve patients with CHB receiving TDF (n = 79) or ETV (n = 178). Virological and biochemical response as well as nephrotoxicity were assessed between TDF and ETV treatment groups. Results At month 12, TDF group had faster on HBV DNA complete suppression than ETV group (p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that treatment with TDF was a significant predictor of HBV DNA suppression (HR = 1.33; 95% CI = 1.01 – 1.76; p = 0.045). In addition, HBeAg positivity (HR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.52 – 0.96; p = 0.025) and higher baseline HBV DNA level (HR = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.76 – 0.92; p < 0.001) were significant negative predictors for viral suppression. The ALT normalization rate between these two treatment groups were similar (p = 0.114). TDF group had more populations in ≧ 20% decrease of eGFR MDRD at month 24 than ETV group (31.5% vs. 17.2%, p = 0.044), but only the baseline eGFR was the independent factor by multivariate analysis (OR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.03 – 1.07; p < 0.001). Conclusions TDF was significantly more effective in achieving complete viral suppression beyond month 12, and there was no significance in nephrotoxicity than ETV group. Copyright © 2017, The Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan, The Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan and Taiwan Association for the Study of the Liver.

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1002/aid2.12087

DO - https://doi.org/10.1002/aid2.12087

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 87

JO - Advances in Digestive Medicine

JF - Advances in Digestive Medicine

SN - 2351-9797

IS - 3

M1 - 7

ER -