Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2020 Feb;115(2):271-280.
doi: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000428.

Tenofovir Versus Entecavir for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prevention in an International Consortium of Chronic Hepatitis B

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Tenofovir Versus Entecavir for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prevention in an International Consortium of Chronic Hepatitis B

Yao-Chun Hsu et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Introduction: It is unclear whether entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) differ in their effectiveness for preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed an international consortium that encompassed 19 centers from 6 countries or regions composed of previously untreated CHB patients then treated with either ETV or TDF monotherapy. Those who developed HCC before antiviral treatment or within 1 year of therapy were excluded. The association between antiviral regimen and HCC risk was evaluated using competing-risk survival regression. We also applied propensity score matching (PSM) to 1:1 balance the 2 treatment cohorts. A total of 5,537 patients were eligible (n = 4,837 received ETV and n = 700 received TDF) and observed for HCC occurrence until December 23, 2018. Before PSM, the TDF cohort was significantly younger and had generally less advanced diseases.

Results: In the unadjusted analysis, TDF was associated with a lower risk of HCC (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.79; P = 0.005). The multivariable analysis, however, found that the association between TDF and HCC no longer existed (SHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.56; P = 0.52) after adjustment for age, sex, country, albumin, platelet, α-fetoprotein, cirrhosis, and diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, the PSM analysis (n = 1,040) found no between-cohort differences in HCC incidences (P = 0.51) and no association between regimens (TDF or ETV) and HCC risk in the multivariable-adjusted analysis (adjusted SHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.92; P = 0.77).

Discussion: TDF and ETV did not significantly differ in the prevention of HCC in patients with CHB.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Ott JJ, Stevens GA, Groeger J, et al. Global epidemiology of hepatitis B virus infection: New estimates of age-specific HBsAg seroprevalence and endemicity. Vaccine 2012;30:2212–9.
    1. El-Serag HB. Epidemiology of viral hepatitis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2012;142:1264–73.e1.
    1. Lee WM. Hepatitis B virus infection. N Engl J Med 1997;337:1733–45.
    1. Liaw YF, Chu CM. Hepatitis B virus infection. Lancet 2009;373:582–92.
    1. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL 2017 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatitis B virus infection. J Hepatol 2017;67:370–98.

Publication types

MeSH terms