American journal of translational research · 2025
Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: safe and effective option for managing high-viral-load chronic hepatitis B.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Song Wenyuan, Bao Jianzhi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study evaluated the therapeutic effects of entecavir (ETV) versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with high viral loads.
METHODS: A total of 120 high-viral-load CHB patients were enrolled and assigned to two treatment groups: the ETV group (n = 56) and the TDF group (n = 64). Comparative assessments included hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid (HBV-DNA) levels, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion rates, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, clinical efficacy, safety, biological and virological responses, biochemical indicators, and treatment satisfaction.
RESULTS: The TDF group showed significantly higher HBV-DNA and HBeAg seroconversion rates, as well as ALT normalization, compared to the ETV group at both 24 and 48 weeks post-treatment (all P < 0.05). Additionally, the TDF group demonstrated better clinical efficacy (P < 0.05). While demonstrating no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions compared to the ETV group (P > 0.05). Significantly higher biological and virological response rates, as well as treatment satisfaction, were also observed in the TDF group (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, the TDF group exhibited superior efficacy for reducing abnormal biochemical markers (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that TDF is more effective than ETV for treating high-viral-load CHB patients.
METHODS: A total of 120 high-viral-load CHB patients were enrolled and assigned to two treatment groups: the ETV group (n = 56) and the TDF group (n = 64). Comparative assessments included hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid (HBV-DNA) levels, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion rates, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, clinical efficacy, safety, biological and virological responses, biochemical indicators, and treatment satisfaction.
RESULTS: The TDF group showed significantly higher HBV-DNA and HBeAg seroconversion rates, as well as ALT normalization, compared to the ETV group at both 24 and 48 weeks post-treatment (all P < 0.05). Additionally, the TDF group demonstrated better clinical efficacy (P < 0.05). While demonstrating no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions compared to the ETV group (P > 0.05). Significantly higher biological and virological response rates, as well as treatment satisfaction, were also observed in the TDF group (all P < 0.05). Furthermore, the TDF group exhibited superior efficacy for reducing abnormal biochemical markers (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that TDF is more effective than ETV for treating high-viral-load CHB patients.