Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
Tenofovir Alafenamide vs. Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate in Lowering the Risk of HCC Development in Patients With CHB.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kang Seong Hee, Yim Hyung Joon, Han Seul Ki, Yim Sun Young, Kim Tae Hyung, Lee Young-Sun, Shin Seung Kak, Jung Young Kul, Kim Moon Young, Kim Ji Hoon, Seo Yeon Seok, Kwon Oh Sang, Yeon Jong Eun, Baik Soon Koo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are guideline-endorsed first-line options for antiviral-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We compared their associations with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurrence.
METHODS: We assembled a multicenter cohort of 1364 treatment-naive CHB patients initiating either TAF (n = 322) or TDF (n = 1042) between 2012 and 2019. Confounding was addressed using 1:2 propensity score (PS) matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).
RESULTS: The PS-matched analytic set comprised 966 patients (TAF 322; TDF 644). Over 60 months, nine HCC events occurred (two TAF and seven TDF events). Crude incidence rates were 0.17 and 0.27 per 100 person-years for TAF and TDF, respectively. Five-year cumulative risks were 0.6% (TAF) versus 1.0% (TDF). In multivariable models, TAF remained protective (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.66; p < 0.01). Findings were directionally consistent across subgroups, with the strongest associations observed among patients without diabetes, those who were hepatitis B e antigen-positive, and those with baseline HBV DNA in the 5-8 log10 IU/mL range. In IPTW analyses, TAF was likewise associated with lower HCC risk (aHR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.14-0.68; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TDF, TAF use was associated with an approximately 71% reduction in HCC hazard. Larger cohorts with longer follow-up are warranted to corroborate these observations.
METHODS: We assembled a multicenter cohort of 1364 treatment-naive CHB patients initiating either TAF (n = 322) or TDF (n = 1042) between 2012 and 2019. Confounding was addressed using 1:2 propensity score (PS) matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).
RESULTS: The PS-matched analytic set comprised 966 patients (TAF 322; TDF 644). Over 60 months, nine HCC events occurred (two TAF and seven TDF events). Crude incidence rates were 0.17 and 0.27 per 100 person-years for TAF and TDF, respectively. Five-year cumulative risks were 0.6% (TAF) versus 1.0% (TDF). In multivariable models, TAF remained protective (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.66; p < 0.01). Findings were directionally consistent across subgroups, with the strongest associations observed among patients without diabetes, those who were hepatitis B e antigen-positive, and those with baseline HBV DNA in the 5-8 log10 IU/mL range. In IPTW analyses, TAF was likewise associated with lower HCC risk (aHR: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.14-0.68; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TDF, TAF use was associated with an approximately 71% reduction in HCC hazard. Larger cohorts with longer follow-up are warranted to corroborate these observations.