A multicenter study of entecavir vs. tenofovir on prognosis of treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B in South Korea
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Seung Up | - |
dc.contributor.author | Seo, Yeon Seok | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Han Ah | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Mi Na | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Yu Rim | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Hye Won | - |
dc.contributor.author | Park, Jun Yong | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Do Young | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ahn, Sang Hoon | - |
dc.contributor.author | Han, Kwang-Hyub | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hwang, Seong Gyu | - |
dc.contributor.author | Rim, Kyu Sung | - |
dc.contributor.author | Um, Soon Ho | - |
dc.contributor.author | Tak, Won Young | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kweon, Young Oh | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kim, Beom Kyung | - |
dc.contributor.author | Park, Soo Young | - |
dc.date.available | 2020-11-02T06:33:47Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019-09 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0168-8278 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1600-0641 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://scholarworks.korea.ac.kr/kumedicine/handle/2020.sw.kumedicine/1665 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Background & Aims: It is currently unclear which antiviral agent, entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), is superior for improving prognosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Here, we assessed the ability of these 2 antivirals to prevent liver-disease progression in treatment-naive patients with CHB. Methods: From 2012 to 2014, treatment-naive patients with CHB who received ETV or TDF as a first-line antiviral agent were recruited from 4 academic teaching hospitals. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at enrollment were excluded. Cumulative probabilities of HCC and death or orthotopic liver transplant (OLT) were assessed. Results: In total, 2,897 patients (1,484 and 1,413 in the ETV and TDF groups, respectively) were recruited. The annual HCC incidence was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups (1.92 vs. 1.69 per 100 person-years [PY], respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.975 [p = 0.852] by multivariate analysis). Propensity score (PS)-matched and inverse probability of treatment weighting (ITPW) analyses yielded similar patterns of results (HR 1.021 [p = 0.884] and 0.998 [p = 0.988], respectively). The annual incidence of death or OLT was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups (0.52 vs. 0.53 per 100 PY, respectively; adjusted HR 1.202 [p = 0.451]). PS-matched and ITPW analyses yielded similar patterns of results (HR 1.248 [p = 0.385] and 1.239 [p = 0.360], respectively). These findings were consistently reproduced in patients with compensated cirrhosis (all p >0.05). Conclusions: The overall prognosis in terms of HCC and death or OLT was not statistically different between the ETV and TDF groups. Further studies are needed to validate our results. Lay summary: It is currently unclear which antiviral agent, entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, is superior for improving prognosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection. In this analysis we found that there was no difference in terms of overall prognosis, including risk of hepatocellular carcinoma, death, or the need for a liver transplant, in patients receiving either antiviral. (C) 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. | - |
dc.format.extent | 9 | - |
dc.language | 영어 | - |
dc.language.iso | ENG | - |
dc.publisher | ELSEVIER | - |
dc.title | A multicenter study of entecavir vs. tenofovir on prognosis of treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B in South Korea | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.publisher.location | 네델란드 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.03.028 | - |
dc.identifier.scopusid | 2-s2.0-85067170621 | - |
dc.identifier.wosid | 000481571400003 | - |
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation | JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY, v.71, no.3, pp 456 - 464 | - |
dc.citation.title | JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY | - |
dc.citation.volume | 71 | - |
dc.citation.number | 3 | - |
dc.citation.startPage | 456 | - |
dc.citation.endPage | 464 | - |
dc.type.docType | Article | - |
dc.description.isOpenAccess | N | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | sci | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scie | - |
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass | scopus | - |
dc.relation.journalResearchArea | Gastroenterology & Hepatology | - |
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory | Gastroenterology & Hepatology | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | CLINICAL-PRACTICE GUIDELINES | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | HEPATOCELLULAR-CARCINOMA | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | NUCLEOS(T)IDE ANALOGS | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | RISK | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | MANAGEMENT | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | ASSOCIATION | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | PREDICTORS | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | CIRRHOSIS | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | FIBROSIS | - |
dc.subject.keywordPlus | EFFICACY | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Entecavir | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Tenofovir | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Hepatocellular carcinoma | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Prognosis | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | Comparison | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | HBV | - |
dc.subject.keywordAuthor | HCC | - |
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
73, Goryeodae-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea (02841)82-2-2286-1265
COPYRIGHT 2020 KOREA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL LIBRARY ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Certain data included herein are derived from the © Web of Science of Clarivate Analytics. All rights reserved.
You may not copy or re-distribute this material in whole or in part without the prior written consent of Clarivate Analytics.