Wu Jing, Xie Shitong, Ma Yanfang, He Xiaoning, Dong Xinyue, Shi Qianling, Wang Qi, Li Meixuan, Yao Naijuan, Yao Liang
School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Apr 22;4(4):CD015536. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015536.pub2.
Chronic hepatitis B is a major worldwide public health concern. Entecavir, one nucleos(t)ide analogue antiviral therapy option, is recommended as the first-line drug for chronic hepatitis B in many clinical guidelines. However, none of the guideline recommendations are based on the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis, where entecavir versus no treatment or placebo are compared directly.
To evaluate the benefits and harms of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo in children and adults with chronic hepatitis B, who are either hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative.
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, three other databases, online trial registries, and reference lists, and contacted authors. The latest search was on 19 July 2024.
We included randomised clinical trials comparing entecavir versus no treatment or placebo in children or adults, or both, with chronic hepatitis B, and irrespective of treatment history with other antiviral drugs and other viral co-infections. We allowed co-interventions when administered equally to all intervention groups.
The outcomes reported in this abstract and in the summary of findings table are all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and proportion of people with serious adverse events at the longest follow-up.
We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included trials.
We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse outcome results, where possible, and presented the results as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Where there was considerable heterogeneity, we performed a narrative analysis. We used a fixed-effect model for sensitivity analysis. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence.
We included 22 randomised clinical trials (published from 2005 to 2022) with 2940 participants diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B. All trials had a parallel-group design. The experimental intervention was oral entecavir, with a follow-up duration of 5 weeks to 228 weeks. The comparator in 12 trials was no treatment, and in 10 trials was placebo. Fourteen trials equally administered co-interventions to the trial participants in the entecavir and no treatment and placebo groups. One trial included participants between 14 years and 55 years of age, one trial included only children, 19 trials included only adults, and one trial did not provide the age of participants.
Twenty trials contributed data to the quantitative analysis. Ten trials (1379 participants) reported all-cause mortality with a mean follow-up duration of 48.9 weeks (range 5 to 100 weeks). The result was not estimable because no deaths occurred in any of the entecavir and no treatment or placebo groups. None of the trials provided data on health-related quality of life. We are very uncertain about the effect of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo on the proportion of people with serious adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32; absolute risk difference 22 fewer per 1000 (from 44 fewer to 21 more); 15 trials, 1676 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean follow-up duration was 58.4 weeks (range 5 weeks to 228 weeks). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for these outcomes to very low, mainly because the overall risk of bias in most trials was with some concerns or high, and serious imprecision (no events or few events).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the issues of risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, we could not determine the effect of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo on critical outcomes such as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. There is a lack of data on health-related quality of life. Given the first-line recommendation and wide usage of entecavir in people with chronic hepatitis B, further evidence on clinically important outcomes, analysed in this review, is needed.
This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.
Registration: Entecavir for children and adults with chronic hepatitis B, CD015536 via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015536.
慢性乙型肝炎是全球主要的公共卫生问题。恩替卡韦作为一种核苷(酸)类似物抗病毒治疗药物,在许多临床指南中被推荐为慢性乙型肝炎的一线用药。然而,这些指南推荐均未基于对恩替卡韦与未治疗或安慰剂进行直接比较的系统评价和荟萃分析结果。
评估恩替卡韦与未治疗或安慰剂相比,在慢性乙型肝炎e抗原(HBeAg)阳性或HBeAg阴性的儿童和成人中的获益与危害。
我们检索了Cochrane肝胆疾病组对照试验注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、MEDLINE(Ovid)、Embase(Ovid)、其他三个数据库、在线试验注册库及参考文献列表,并联系了作者。最新检索日期为2024年7月19日。
我们纳入了比较恩替卡韦与未治疗或安慰剂在儿童或成人或两者兼有的慢性乙型肝炎患者中的随机临床试验,且不考虑其他抗病毒药物的治疗史及其他病毒合并感染情况。当所有干预组均同等给予联合干预措施时,我们允许联合干预。
本摘要及结果总结表中报告的结局指标为全因死亡率、健康相关生活质量以及最长随访期时严重不良事件的发生比例。
我们使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估纳入试验的偏倚风险。
我们尽可能使用随机效应模型对结局结果进行荟萃分析,并将结果表示为风险比(RR)及95%置信区间(CI)。当存在显著异质性时,我们进行叙述性分析。我们使用固定效应模型进行敏感性分析。我们使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。
我们纳入了22项随机临床试验(发表于2005年至2022年),共2940名被诊断为慢性乙型肝炎的参与者。所有试验均采用平行组设计。试验干预为口服恩替卡韦,随访期为5周至228周。12项试验中的对照为未治疗,10项试验中的对照为安慰剂。14项试验对恩替卡韦组、未治疗组和安慰剂组的试验参与者同等给予联合干预措施。一项试验纳入了14岁至55岁的参与者,一项试验仅纳入儿童,19项试验仅纳入成人,一项试验未提供参与者年龄。
20项试验为定量分析提供了数据。10项试验(1379名参与者)报告了全因死亡率,平均随访期为48.9周(范围为5至100周)。由于恩替卡韦组、未治疗组或安慰剂组均未发生死亡,因此结果无法估计。没有试验提供与健康相关生活质量的数据。我们对恩替卡韦与未治疗或安慰剂相比对严重不良事件发生比例的影响非常不确定(RR 0.66,95%CI 0.33至1.32;每1000人绝对风险差减少22例(从减少44例至增加21例);15项试验,1676名参与者;极低确定性证据)。平均随访期为58.4周(范围为5周至228周)。我们将这些结局的证据确定性降至极低,主要是因为大多数试验的总体偏倚风险存在一些担忧或较高,且存在严重不精确性(无事件或事件极少)。
鉴于纳入试验存在偏倚风险和效能不足的问题,以及现有证据的极低确定性,我们无法确定恩替卡韦与未治疗或安慰剂相比对全因死亡率和严重不良事件等关键结局的影响。缺乏与健康相关生活质量的数据。鉴于恩替卡韦在慢性乙型肝炎患者中的一线推荐及广泛应用,需要进一步获取本综述中分析的有关临床重要结局的证据。
本Cochrane综述无专项资助。
注册:用于慢性乙型肝炎儿童和成人的恩替卡韦,CD015536,DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015536