Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020
Comparison of the on-treatment risks for hepatocellular carcinoma between entecavir and tenofovir: A propensity score matching analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Ha Ingyoon, Chung Jung Wha, Jang Eun Sun, Jeong Sook-Hyang, Kim Jin-Wook
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) may reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, it is not clear whether there is difference in the on-treatment HCC risks between ETV and TDF.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the on-treatment HCC incidence of ETV and TDF in 1340 consecutive nucleos(t)ide analog-naïve CHB patients by propensity score (PS) matching analysis. PS was calculated by using age, sex, drinking history, diabetes, liver cirrhosis, hepatitis B e antigen positivity, hepatitis B virus DNA, hepatitis B s antigen titer, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alpha-fetoprotein, albumin, bilirubin, prothrombin time, platelet count, and calendar year of treatment initiation as covariates. The HCC risk was assessed by Cox regression with death and liver transplantation as competing risks in the 1:1 PS-matched cohorts (n = 596).
RESULTS: TDF had higher cumulative virologic response (P = 0.027) whereas ETV showed higher AST and ALT normalization rates (P = 0.005 and < 0.001, respectively) in PS-matched cohorts. HCC risk was similar between ETV and TDF, either by PS-matching analysis (hazard ratio [HR] for TDF over ETV = 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98-4.33, P = 0.058) or inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.81-2.10; P = 0.276).
CONCLUSIONS: ETV and TDF treatment was associated with similar risk for HCC development in CHB patients.
METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the on-treatment HCC incidence of ETV and TDF in 1340 consecutive nucleos(t)ide analog-naïve CHB patients by propensity score (PS) matching analysis. PS was calculated by using age, sex, drinking history, diabetes, liver cirrhosis, hepatitis B e antigen positivity, hepatitis B virus DNA, hepatitis B s antigen titer, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alpha-fetoprotein, albumin, bilirubin, prothrombin time, platelet count, and calendar year of treatment initiation as covariates. The HCC risk was assessed by Cox regression with death and liver transplantation as competing risks in the 1:1 PS-matched cohorts (n = 596).
RESULTS: TDF had higher cumulative virologic response (P = 0.027) whereas ETV showed higher AST and ALT normalization rates (P = 0.005 and < 0.001, respectively) in PS-matched cohorts. HCC risk was similar between ETV and TDF, either by PS-matching analysis (hazard ratio [HR] for TDF over ETV = 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98-4.33, P = 0.058) or inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis (HR = 1.30, 95% CI = 0.81-2.10; P = 0.276).
CONCLUSIONS: ETV and TDF treatment was associated with similar risk for HCC development in CHB patients.