Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31426837›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2019

Antiviral treatment for treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

William W L Wong, Petros Pechivanoglou, Josephine Wong, Joanna M Bielecki, Alex Haines, Aysegul Erman, Yasmin Saeed, Arcturus Phoon, Mina Tadrous, Mona Younis and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Entecavir for children and adults with chronic hepatitis B.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William W L WongToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. wwlwong@uwaterloo.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-4630-0052
Petros PechivanoglouToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Josephine WongToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Joanna M BieleckiToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Alex HainesToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Aysegul ErmanUniversity of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Yasmin SaeedUniversity of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Arcturus PhoonToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mina TadrousUniversity of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Mona YounisUniversity of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Noha Z RayadToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Valeria RacToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Harry L A JanssenToronto Centre for Liver Disease, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Murray D KrahnToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment Collaborative (THETA), University of Toronto and University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection poses a significant burden to public health worldwide. Most cases are clinically silent until late in the disease course. The main goal of current therapy is to improve survival and quality of life by preventing disease progression to cirrhosis and liver failure, and consequently hepatocellular carcinoma development. The objective of this review is to provide a contemporary and comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment options.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature for randomized controlled trials involving treatment-naïve CHB adult population who received antiviral therapy. The endpoints were virologic response (VR), normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT norm), HBeAg loss, HBeAg seroconversion, and HBsAg loss for the HBeAg-positive population; and VR and ALT norm for the HBeAg-negative population. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of treatment.

resultsForty-two publications were selected. Twenty-three evaluated HBeAg-positive population, 13 evaluated HBeAg-negative population, and six evaluated both. We applied NMA to the efficacy outcomes of the two populations separately. Treatment strategies were ranked by the probability of achieving outcomes, and pairwise comparisons calculated from NMA were reported in odds ratios (OR). For HBeAg-positive population, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) were the best for VR; OR vs adefovir = 14.29, 95% CI 7.69-25 and 12.5, 95% CI 4.35-33.33 respectively. TAF was the best for achieving ALT norm (OR vs placebo = 12.5, 95% CI 4.55-33.33), HBeAg loss, and seroconversion (OR vs entecavir/TDF combination = 3.03, 95% CI 1.04-8.84 and 3.33, 95% CI 1.16-10 respectively). In the HBeAg-negative population, TDF and TAF were the best for VR (OR vs adefovir = 9.79, 95% CI 2.38-42.7 and 11.71, 95% CI 1.03-150.48 respectively). Telbivudine and TAF were the best for ALT norm. Certain nucleos(t)ide combinations also had high probability of achieving positive outcomes.

conclusionsOur results are consonant with current clinical guidelines and other evidence reviews. For both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative populations, TDF and TAF are the most effective agents for virologic suppression, and TAF is effective across all outcomes.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsHepatitis B, ChronicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAntiviral AgentsChronic hepatitis BNetwork meta-analysisSystematic reviewTreatment-naïve

Identifiers

PMID31426837
PMCPMC6699129
OpenAlexW2969737160

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.