Trial reportChinese medical journal2017
Efficacy of Real-world Entecavir Therapy in Treatment-naïve Chronic Hepatitis B Patients.
Trial report in Chinese medical journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Switching from Entecavir to Tenofovir Alafenamide for Chronic Hepatitis B Patients with Low-Level Viremia.Current medical science · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of antiviral treatment in HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B patients with normal or mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Viral Hepatitis - The Road Traveled and the Journey Remaining.Hepatic medicine : evidence and research · 2022Review
- An Overview of the Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine Formula Granules.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019Review
- Corrigendum: Efficacy of Real world Entecavir Therapy in Treatment NaïveChronic Hepatitis B Patients.Chinese medical journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background: Entecavir (ETV) has been shown to be effective in randomized controlled trials in highly selected patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of ETV in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients in the real-world setting.
methods: A total of 233 treatment-naïve, CHB patients who received at least 12 months of ETV treatment were included in this retrospective study. Rates of virological response (VR), hepatitis B s antigen (HBsAg) loss, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) clearance/seroconversion, virological breakthrough, cirrhosis, and hepatocellular carcinoma were evaluated.
results: Of 233 patients, 175 patients were male, with mean age of 43 years old, and 135 patients were HBeAg positive. The mean baseline levels of serum alanine aminotransferase and HBV DNA in all patients were 230 U/L and 6.6 log 10 IU/ml, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 28 months. The cumulative rates of achieving VR increased from 3.4% at 3 months to 94.4% at 60 months. Primary nonresponse occurred in 3 (1.3%) patients. Partial VR (PVR) occurred in 61 (26.2%) patients at 12 months. The baseline serum HBV DNA level (hazard ratio [HR], 2.054; P < 0.001) was an independent risk factor for PVR. HBsAg loss did not occur. The cumulative rates of HBeAg clearance increased from 2.2% at 3 months to 28.2% at 60 months. PVR was the significant determinant of HBeAg clearance (HR, 0.341; P = 0.026). Age (HR, 1.072; P = 0.013) and PVR (HR, 5.131; P = 0.017) were the significant determinants of cirrhosis.
conclusions: ETV treatment was effective for HBV DNA suppression in this study, but HBsAg loss and HBeAg clearance/seroconversion rates were lower compared with previous clinical trials. PVR was associated with HBeAg clearance and cirrhosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.