The Korean journal of internal medicine

The Korean Association of Internal Medicine (대한내과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Efficacy comparison of high-genetic barrier nucleos(t)ide analogues in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients: a network meta-analysis

  • Jaejun Lee (The Catholic University Liver Research Center, Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Ahlim Lee (The Catholic University Liver Research Center, Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Pil Soo Sung (The Catholic University Liver Research Center, Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jeong Won Jang (The Catholic University Liver Research Center, Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Si Hyun Bae (The Catholic University Liver Research Center, Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Jong Young Choi (The Catholic University Liver Research Center, Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Seung Kew Yoon (The Catholic University Liver Research Center, Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Hyun Yang (The Catholic University Liver Research Center, Department of Biomedicine & Health Sciences, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2023.07.23
  • Accepted : 2024.01.19
  • Published : 2024.07.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

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.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by The Research Supporting Program of The Korean Association for the Study of the Liver (KASL2020- 03).

References

  1. World Health Organization. Hepatitis B [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization, c2022 [cited 2023 Feb 28]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hepatitis-b.
  2. Yuen MF, Chen DS, Dusheiko GM, et al. Hepatitis B virus infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2018;4:18035.
  3. Chen CJ, Iloeje UH, Yang HI. Long-term outcomes in hepatitis B: the REVEAL-HBV study. Clin Liver Dis 2007;11:797-816, viii.
  4. Sarin SK, Kumar M, Lau GK, et al. Asian-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatitis B: a 2015 update. Hepatol Int 2016;10:1-98.
  5. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 2017;67:370-398.
  6. Terrault NA, Lok ASF, McMahon BJ, et al. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance. Hepatology 2018;67:1560-1599.
  7. Korean Association for the Study of the Liver (KASL). KASL clinical practice guidelines for management of chronic hepatitis B. Clin Mol Hepatol 2022;28:276-331.
  8. Ahn SH, Kim W, Jung YK, et al. Efficacy and safety of besifovir dipivoxil maleate compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus infection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:1850-1859.e4.
  9. Park JW, Kwak KM, Kim SE, et al. Comparison of the longterm efficacy between entecavir and tenofovir in treatmentnaive chronic hepatitis B patients. BMC Gastroenterol 2017;17:39.
  10. Wu IT, Hu TH, Hung CH, et al. 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 2017;23:464-469.
  11. Chen MB, Wang H, Zheng QH, et al. Comparative efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2019;14:e0224773.
  12. Ma X, Liu S, Wang M, et al. 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 2021;9:335-344.
  13. Zuo SR, Zuo XC, Wang CJ, et al. A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection. J Clin Pharmacol 2015;55:288-297.
  14. Han Y, Zeng A, Liao H, Liu Y, Chen Y, Ding H. 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 2017;42:168-175.
  15. Jeong J, Shin JW, Jung SW, Park EJ, Park NH. Tenofovir alafenamide treatment may not worsen the lipid profile of chronic hepatitis B patients: a propensity score-matched analysis. Clin Mol Hepatol 2022;28:254-264.
  16. Yuen MF, Ahn SH, Lee KS, et al. Two-year treatment outcome of chronic hepatitis B infection treated with besifovir vs. entecavir: results from a multicentre study. J Hepatol 2015;62:526-532.
  17. Jansen JP, Trikalinos T, Cappelleri JC, et al. 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. Value Health 2014;17:157-173.
  18. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
  19. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.
  20. Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:98-110.
  21. Cai D, Pan C, Yu W, et al. Comparison of the long-term efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive HBeAg-positive patients with chronic hepatitis B: a large, multicentre, randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e13983.
  22. Zhao Y, Li Y, Qi L, Zhao C. 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 2019;45:117-122.
  23. Koike K, Suyama K, Ito H, Itoh H, Sugiura W. Randomized prospective study showing the non-inferiority of tenofovir to entecavir in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients. Hepatol Res 2018;48:59-68.
  24. Sriprayoon T, Mahidol C, Ungtrakul T, et al. Efficacy and safety of entecavir versus tenofovir treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients: a randomized controlled trial. Hepatol Res 2017;47:E161-E168.
  25. Zhang D, Li S, Lu W, Ma P. Clinical efficacy of tenofovir and entecavir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis b infection in patients naive to nucleosides and their analogues therapy. Int J Clin Exp Med 2017;10:12329-12335.
  26. Lai CL, Ahn SH, Lee KS, et al. Phase IIb multicentred randomised trial of besifovir (LB80380) versus entecavir in Asian patients with chronic hepatitis B. Gut 2014;63:996-1004.
  27. Jung CY, Kim HW, Lee JI, et al. Similar risk of kidney function decline between tenofovir alafenamide and besifovir dipivoxil maleate in chronic hepatitis B. Liver Int 2022;42:2408-2417.
  28. Lim J, Choi WM, Shim JH, et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B. Liver Int 2022;42:1517-1527.
  29. Yang S, Ma X, Cai C, Wang H, Xiao F, Yu C. 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) 2021;8:637126.
  30. Lee SW, Kwon JH, Lee HL, et al. Comparison of tenofovir and entecavir on the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and mortality in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B in Korea: a large-scale, propensity score analysis. Gut 2020;69:1301-1308.
  31. Yip TC, Wong VW, Chan HL, Tse YK, Lui GC, Wong GL. Tenofovir is associated with lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma than entecavir in patients with chronic HBV infection in China. Gastroenterology 2020;158:215-225.e6.
  32. Choi J, Kim HJ, Lee J, Cho S, Ko MJ, Lim YS. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients treated with entecavir vs tenofovir for chronic hepatitis B: a Korean nationwide cohort study. JAMA Oncol 2019;5:30-36.
  33. Shin JW, Jeong J, Jung SW, et al. Comparable incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with entecavir or tenofovir. Dig Dis Sci 2021;66:1739-1750.
  34. Kim SU, Seo YS, Lee HA, et al. A multicenter study of entecavir vs. tenofovir on prognosis of treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B in South Korea. J Hepatol 2019;71:456-464.
  35. Wong WWL, Pechivanoglou P, Wong J, et al. Antiviral treatment for treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Syst Rev 2019;8:207.
  36. Con D, Goodwin T, Majeed A, Roberts S, Kemp W. Comparison of 48-week efficacy of tenofovir vs entecavir for patients with chronic hepatitis B: a network meta-analysis. J Viral Hepat 2021;28:40-50.
  37. Tan YW, Ge GH, Zhao W, et al. YMDD motif mutations in chronic hepatitis B antiviral treatment naive patients: a multi-center study. Braz J Infect Dis 2012;16:250-255.
  38. Farag MS, Fung S, Tam E, et al. Effectiveness and renal safety of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate among chronic hepatitis B patients: real-world study. J Viral Hepat 2021;28:942-950.
  39. Agarwal K, Brunetto M, Seto WK, et al. 96 weeks treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 2018;68:672-681.
  40. Buti M, Gane E, Seto WK, et al. 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 2016;1:196-206.
  41. Chan HL, Fung S, Seto WK, et al. 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 2016;1:185-195.
  42. Boglione L, De Benedetto I, Lupia T, Cusato J, Cariti G, Di Perri G. Serological and virological response in patients with hepatitis B virus genotype E treated with entecavir or tenofovir: a prospective study. Arch Virol 2021;166:1125-1131.
  43. Batirel A, Guclu E, Arslan F, et al. Comparable efficacy of tenofovir versus entecavir and predictors of response in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B: a multicenter real-life study. Int J Infect Dis 2014;28:153-159.