Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2017
Baracle
Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maintaining Antiviral Efficacy after Switching to Generic Entecavir 1 mg for Antiviral-resistant Chronic Hepatitis B.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2021Trial
- Development of Polyvinyl Alcohol/Polyethylene Glycol Copolymer-based Orodispersible Films Loaded with Entecavir: Formulation andCurrent drug delivery · 2024Article
- Entecavir: A Review and Considerations for Its Application in Oncology.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison of clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic hepatitis B: When to start, when to change, and when to stop.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveEntecavir (ETV) is a standard of care for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). In a bioequivalence study, ETV from Dong-A ST (Baracle
methodsIn this multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled, stratified-randomized, parallel group, comparative trial, 118 treatment-naïve patients with CHB were randomly assigned to receive either 0.5 mg of ETV from Dong-A ST or ETV from BMS once daily for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was virologic improvement (a mean reduction from baseline in serum HBV DNA levels) at 24 weeks. Secondary efficacy endpoints included a mean reduction in serum HBV DNA levels at 48 weeks, proportion of patients with undetectable levels of serum HBV DNA, rates of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) loss and seroconversion, rates of HBsAg loss and seroconversion, and rates of normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels.
resultsFrom baseline to week 24, HBV DNA levels (log
conclusionIn patients with previously untreated HBeAg-positive or negative HBV infection, the efficacy of ETV from Dong-A ST was noninferior to that of ETV from BMS, and there were no significant differences in efficacy or safety between two groups.
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.