ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2021
Comparative role of tenofovir versus entecavir for treating patients with hepatitis B virus-related acute on chronic liver failure.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate versus entecavir in the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure with hepatitis B: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Entecavir, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate, and Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate in Treating Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure with Hepatitis B Virus: A Network Meta-analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of tenofovir versus entecavir for treatment of naive acute on chronic liver failure (ACLF) due to hepatitis B virus (HBV) (ACLF-B).
methodsThirty-two patients aged 14-65 years were enrolled in the study. Diagnosis of ACLF was confirmed by clinical condition, biochemical analysis, and virological data. The causes of both chronic liver damages and acute insult in all patients were HBV. They were expressing HBV DNA in the sera, positive for IgM anti-HBc, had increased levels of serum bilirubin, compromised prothrombin time; and more than 50% patients had encephalopathy. The standard dose of tenofovir and entecavir was given.
resultsThe antiviral effects of tenofovir and entecavir were evident as most patients became negative for HBV DNA in the sera after 90 days of therapy. Also, the levels of serum bilirubin, CTP (Child-Turcotte-Pugh) and MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) score exhibited significant improvement due to antiviral therapy. Although the improvement of liver functions, and liver damages were detected in patients receiving both tenofovir and entecavir, the survival of the patients was significantly higher in those receiving tenofovir compared to entecavir-treated patients.
conclusionThis prospective study with limited number patients provides a challenge to assess the real potential of tenofovir over entecavir as therapeutic option for ACLF-B by conducting a multicenter clinical trial enrolling patient of different races and background.
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.