File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1111/jgh.16537
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85188091331
- WOS: WOS:001184565900001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Mortality in patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with tenofovir or entecavir: A multinational study
Title | Mortality in patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with tenofovir or entecavir: A multinational study |
---|---|
Authors | Jang, TYLiang, PCJun, DWJung, JHToyoda, HWang, CWYuen, MFCheung, KSYasuda, SKim, SEYoon, ELAn, JHYEnomoto, MKozuka, RChuma, MNozaki, AIshikawa, TWatanabe, TAtsukawa, MArai, THayama, KIshigami, MCho, YKOgawa, EKim, HSShim, JJUojima, HJeong, SWAhn, SBTakaguchi, KSenoh, TButi, MElena, VAIAbe, HTakahashi, HInoue, KYeh, MLDai, CYHuang, JFHuang, CFChuang, WLNguyen, MHYu, ML |
Keywords | antigen antiviral cohort ETV fibrosis hepatocellular carcinoma liver NA prognosis TDF |
Issue Date | 13-Mar-2024 |
Publisher | Wiley |
Citation | Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2024 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Background and aim: The benefits of entecavir (ETV) versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in reducing the development of chronic hepatitis B (CHB)-related hepatocellular carcinoma remain controversial. Whether mortality rates differ between patients with CHB treated with ETV and those treated with TDF is unclear. Methods: A total of 2542 patients with CHB treated with either ETV or TDF were recruited from a multinational cohort. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between the two patient groups. We aimed to compare the all-cause, liver-related, and non-liver-related mortality between patients receiving ETV and those receiving TDF. Results: The annual incidence of all-cause mortality in the entire cohort was 1.0/100 person-years (follow-up, 15 757.5 person-years). Patients who received TDF were younger and had a higher body mass index, platelet count, hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid levels, and proportion of hepatitis B e-antigen seropositivity than those who received ETV. The factors associated with all-cause mortality were fibrosis-4 index > 6.5 (hazard ratio [HR]/confidence interval [CI]: 3.13/2.15-4.54, P < 0.001), age per year increase (HR/CI: 1.05/1.04-1.07, P < 0.001), alanine aminotransferase level per U/L increase (HR/CI: 0.997/0.996-0.999, P = 0.003), and γ-glutamyl transferase level per U/L increase (HR/CI: 1.002/1.001-1.003, P < 0.001). No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the ETV and TDF groups (log-rank test, P = 0.69). After propensity score matching, no significant differences in all-cause, liver-related, or non-liver-related mortality were observed between the two groups. Conclusions: Long-term outcomes of all-cause mortality and liver-related and non-liver-related mortality did not differ between patients treated with ETV and those receiving TDF. Keywords: ETV; NA; TDF; antigen; antiviral; cohort; fibrosis; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver; prognosis. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/342035 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 3.7 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.179 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Jang, TY | - |
dc.contributor.author | Liang, PC | - |
dc.contributor.author | Jun, DW | - |
dc.contributor.author | Jung, JH | - |
dc.contributor.author | Toyoda, H | - |
dc.contributor.author | Wang, CW | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yuen, MF | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cheung, KS | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yasuda, S | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kim, SE | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yoon, EL | - |
dc.contributor.author | An, JHY | - |
dc.contributor.author | Enomoto, M | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kozuka, R | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chuma, M | - |
dc.contributor.author | Nozaki, A | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ishikawa, T | - |
dc.contributor.author | Watanabe, T | - |
dc.contributor.author | Atsukawa, M | - |
dc.contributor.author | Arai, T | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hayama, K | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ishigami, M | - |
dc.contributor.author | Cho, YK | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ogawa, E | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kim, HS | - |
dc.contributor.author | Shim, JJ | - |
dc.contributor.author | Uojima, H | - |
dc.contributor.author | Jeong, SW | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ahn, SB | - |
dc.contributor.author | Takaguchi, K | - |
dc.contributor.author | Senoh, T | - |
dc.contributor.author | Buti, M | - |
dc.contributor.author | Elena, VAI | - |
dc.contributor.author | Abe, H | - |
dc.contributor.author | Takahashi, H | - |
dc.contributor.author | Inoue, K | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yeh, ML | - |
dc.contributor.author | Dai, CY | - |
dc.contributor.author | Huang, JF | - |
dc.contributor.author | Huang, CF | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chuang, WL | - |
dc.contributor.author | Nguyen, MH | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yu, ML | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-03-26T05:39:12Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-03-26T05:39:12Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2024-03-13 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2024 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0815-9319 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/342035 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>The benefits of entecavir (ETV) versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in reducing the development of chronic hepatitis B (CHB)-related hepatocellular carcinoma remain controversial. Whether mortality rates differ between patients with CHB treated with ETV and those treated with TDF is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 2542 patients with CHB treated with either ETV or TDF were recruited from a multinational cohort. A 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between the two patient groups. We aimed to compare the all-cause, liver-related, and non-liver-related mortality between patients receiving ETV and those receiving TDF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The annual incidence of all-cause mortality in the entire cohort was 1.0/100 person-years (follow-up, 15 757.5 person-years). Patients who received TDF were younger and had a higher body mass index, platelet count, hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid levels, and proportion of hepatitis B e-antigen seropositivity than those who received ETV. The factors associated with all-cause mortality were fibrosis-4 index > 6.5 (hazard ratio [HR]/confidence interval [CI]: 3.13/2.15-4.54, P < 0.001), age per year increase (HR/CI: 1.05/1.04-1.07, P < 0.001), alanine aminotransferase level per U/L increase (HR/CI: 0.997/0.996-0.999, P = 0.003), and γ-glutamyl transferase level per U/L increase (HR/CI: 1.002/1.001-1.003, P < 0.001). No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the ETV and TDF groups (log-rank test, P = 0.69). After propensity score matching, no significant differences in all-cause, liver-related, or non-liver-related mortality were observed between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Long-term outcomes of all-cause mortality and liver-related and non-liver-related mortality did not differ between patients treated with ETV and those receiving TDF.</p><p><strong>Keywords: </strong>ETV; NA; TDF; antigen; antiviral; cohort; fibrosis; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver; prognosis.</p> | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Wiley | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | antigen | - |
dc.subject | antiviral | - |
dc.subject | cohort | - |
dc.subject | ETV | - |
dc.subject | fibrosis | - |
dc.subject | hepatocellular carcinoma | - |
dc.subject | liver | - |
dc.subject | NA | - |
dc.subject | prognosis | - |
dc.subject | TDF | - |
dc.title | Mortality in patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with tenofovir or entecavir: A multinational study | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/jgh.16537 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85188091331 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1440-1746 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:001184565900001 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0815-9319 | - |