Clinical effect of entecavir versus tenofovir in treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B patients with a high viral load: a comparative analysis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-3418.2017.10.001
- VernacularTitle: 恩替卡韦和替诺福韦酯治疗高病毒载量HBeAg阳性慢性乙型肝炎的对比分析
- Author:
Hong SHI
1
;
Xiangyong LI
;
Jianyun ZHU
;
Chaoshuang LIN
;
Ying ZHANG
Author Information
1. Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University , Guangzhou 510630, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Hepatitis B, chronic;
Therapy;
Clinical eficacy;
Tenofovir;
Entecavir
- From:
Chinese Journal of Hepatology
2017;25(10):721-725
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical effect and safety of entecavir (ETV) versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in the treatment of previously untreated HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with a high viral load.
Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 152 HBeAg-positive CHB patients with a high viral load (HBV DNA≥106 IU/ml) who were firstly treated with ETV (ETV group) or TDF (TDF group), with 76 patients in each group. The serum levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), HBV DNA, HBeAg, anti-HBe, creatinine, and creatine kinase were measured at baseline, and the patients were followed up and evaluated at weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, and 96 of treatment. The Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to analyze cumulative complete virologic response, HBeAg seroconversion, and ALT normalization rate. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify the influencing factors for virologic response. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:There were no significant differences in ALT normalization rate between the ETV group and the TDF group at weeks 4, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 of treatment (18.1%/55.6%/83.3%/90.3%/93.1%/97.2% vs 16.0%/53.6%/75.4%/94.2%/100%/100%, P > 0.05). There were also no significant differences in virologic response rate between the ETV group and the TDF group at weeks 48 and 96 of treatment (89.5%/97.3% vs 93.4%/98.7%, P > 0.05). The multivariate analysis showed that the baseline parameters were not predictive factors for virologic response. At week 48 of treatment, the TDF group had a significantly higher HBeAg seroconversion rate than the ETV group (14.5% vs 3.9%, P = 0.048); at week 96 of treatment, there was no significant difference in HBeAg seroconversion rate between the two groups (15.8% vs 7.9%, P = 0.132). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups in cumulative ALT normalization rate, cumulative HBV DNA undetectable rate, and cumulative seroconversion rate. Only one patient in the ETV group experienced virologic breakthrough from weeks 60 to 72 of treatment, and there were no serious adverse reactions.
Conclusion:TDF and ETV had similar clinical effects, HBeAg seroconversion rate, and safety in previously untreated HBeAg-positive CHB patients with a high viral load.
