Kayaaslan Bircan, Akinci Esragul, Ari Alpay, Tufan Zeliha Kocak, Alpat Saygın Nayman, Gunal Ozgur, Tosun Selma, Guner Rahmet, Tabak Fehmi
Yildirim Beyazit University, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara Ataturk Education and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Disease and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Turkey.
Ankara Numune Education and Research Hospital, Department of Infectious Disease and Clinical Microbiology, Ankara, Turkey.
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb;42(1):40-47. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2017.06.008. Epub 2017 Jul 27.
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.
This multicenter retrospective study was conducted in nucleos(t)ide analogue-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients from different 6 centers.
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.
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.
恩替卡韦(ETV)和替诺福韦酯(TDF)是治疗慢性乙型肝炎推荐的两种一线疗法,因其具有强大的抗病毒作用和较高的耐药基因屏障。我们旨在比较这些药物的疗效并评估病毒抑制的预测因素。
这项多中心回顾性研究在来自6个不同中心的初治核苷(酸)类似物的慢性乙型肝炎(CHB)患者中进行。
252例患者中,166例接受ETV治疗,86例接受TDF治疗。两组在年龄、性别、基线丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)水平和纤维化评分方面相似。ETV组的基线乙肝病毒(HBV)DNA、组织学活动指数显著更高,乙肝e抗原(HBeAg)血清学阳性率更低。ETV组的治疗持续时间更长(P<0.001)。单因素分析中,ETV组中HBV DNA检测不到和ALT正常化率显著更高(分别为P<0.001和0.049)。两组在HBeAg血清学转换、病毒学突破、病毒学突破时间和ALT正常化时间方面无显著差异。恩替卡韦在治疗第3、6和12个月时降低HBV DNA水平更有效(分别为P=0.06、0.021和0.012)。然而,多因素Cox回归分析表明,与ETV相比,TDF治疗实现完全病毒抑制的概率增加(风险比=1.66;95%置信区间1.21-2.33;P=0.010)。ETV组仅1例患者发生乙肝表面抗原(HBsAg)血清学转换。
ETV在治疗的第一年导致对HBV DNA下降的早期反应。然而,TDF在实现病毒学抑制方面比恩替卡韦更成功。