SynthesisClinical drug investigation2019
Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis for Assessing Adverse Effects of Anti-hepatitis B Drugs.
Synthesis in Clinical drug investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the efficacy and safety of tenofovir and adefovir or combined drug treatment for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveOral nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NAs) have been advocated for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treatment with good efficacy. However, less attention has been put on their adverse events. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate the relative safety of five NAs (lamivudine, adefovir dipivoxil, entecavir, telbivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) in CHB treatment among adults.
methodsEligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies were systematically and thoroughly searched until May 1, 2019. Poisson-prior-based Bayesian NMA was performed to synthesize both direct and indirect evidence with reporting hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for serious adverse events (SAEs) and hepatic/renal impairments.
resultsThirty-three RCTs and 11 prospective cohort studies were identified. As to SAEs, no statistically significant difference was found of any comparison among five NAs. In terms of hepatotoxicity, lamivudine was safer than telbivudine (HR 0.45; 95% CrI 0.21, 0.85), and entecavir increased the risk by 102% (entecavir vs lamivudine: HR 2.02; 95% CrI 1.19, 3.27).
conclusionsThe findings from this large NMA could influence clinical practice, and the methodological framework of this study could provide evidence-based support to analyze sparse safety data in the field.
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.