Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36572349›Full record

SynthesisJournal of hepatology2023

Hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B receiving tenofovir- vs. entecavir-based regimens: Individual patient data meta-analysis.

Won-Mook Choi, Terry Cheuk-Fung Yip, Grace Lai-Hung Wong, W Ray Kim, Leland J Yee, Craig Brooks-Rooney, Tristan Curteis, Harriet Cant, Chien-Hung Chen, Chi-Yi Chen and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Impact of tenofovirJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 15 institutions in 5 countries.

Won-Mook ChoiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Terry Cheuk-Fung YipCUHK Medical Data Analytics Centre, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Grace Lai-Hung WongCUHK Medical Data Analytics Centre, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
W Ray KimDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Leland J YeeGilead Sciences, Foster City, California, USA.
Craig Brooks-RooneyCostello Medical Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Tristan CurteisCostello Medical Consulting Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Harriet CantCostello Medical Consulting Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Chien-Hung ChenDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chi-Yi ChenDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Ditmanson Medical Foundation Chia-Yi Christian Hospital Chia-Yi, Taiwan.
Yi-Hsiang HuangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Young-Joo JinDigestive Disease Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Inha University Hospital, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Republic of Korea.
Dae Won JunDepartment of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jin-Wook KimDepartment of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Republic of Korea; Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Neung Hwa ParkDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, 877 Bangeojinsunhwando-ro, Dong-gu, Ulsan, 44033, Republic of Korea; Biomedical Research Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, Ulsan, Republic of Korea.
Cheng-Yuan PengCenter for Digestive Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, China Medical University Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan; School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Hyun Phil ShinDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Kyung Hee University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jung Woo ShinDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Ulsan University Hospital, 877 Bangeojinsunhwando-ro, Dong-gu, Ulsan, 44033, Republic of Korea.
Yao-Hsu YangDepartment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chiayi Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan; Health Information and Epidemiology Laboratory, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chiayi, Taiwan.
Young-Suk LimDepartment of Gastroenterology, Liver Center, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: limys@amc.seoul.kr.
Chinese University of Hong Kong · HKCostello Medical Consulting (United Kingdom) · GBKaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWUlsan University Hospital · KRAsan Medical Center · KRChiayi Chang Gung Memorial Hospital · TWGilead Sciences (United States) · USHanyang University Seoul Hospital · KRInha University Hospital · KRKyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong · KRNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWSeoul National University Bundang Hospital · KRStanford University · USUniversity of Ulsan · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsThe comparative risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) vs. entecavir (ETV) remains controversial. In this individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis, we aimed to compare HCC risk between the two drugs and identify subgroups who may benefit more from one treatment than the other.

methodsPublished meta-analyses, electronic databases and congress proceedings were searched to identify eligible studies through January 2021. We compared HCC risk between the two drugs using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with anonymised IPD from treatment-naïve patients with CHB receiving TDF or ETV for ≥1 year. Treatment effect consistency was explored in propensity score matching (PSM), weighting (PSW) and subgroup analyses for age, sex, hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg) positivity, cirrhosis and diabetes status.

resultsWe included 11 studies from Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong involving 42,939 patients receiving TDF (n = 6,979) or ETV (n = 35,960) monotherapy. Patients receiving TDF had significantly lower HCC risk (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.61-0.98; p = 0.03). Lower HCC risk with TDF was consistently observed in PSM (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.59-0.88; p <0.01) and PSW (HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.67-1.03; p = 0.10) analyses and in all subgroups, with statistical significance in the ≥50 years of age (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.58-1.00; p <0.05), male (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.96; p = 0.02), HBeAg-positive (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.49-0.97; p = 0.03) and non-diabetic (HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-1.00; p <0.05) subgroups.

conclusionTDF was associated with significantly lower HCC risk than ETV in patients with CHB, particularly those with HBeAg positivity. Longer follow-up may be needed to better define incidence differences between the treatments in various subgroups. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Previous aggregate data meta-analyses have reported inconsistent conclusions on the relative effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This individual patient data meta-analysis on 11 studies involving 42,939 patients from Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong suggested that tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-treated patients have a significantly lower hepatocellular carcinoma risk than entecavir-treated patients, which was observed in all subgroups of clinical interest and by different analytical methodologies. These findings should be taken into account by healthcare providers when determining the optimal course of treatment for patients with CHB and may be considered in ensuring that treatment guidelines for CHB remain pertinent.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularHepatitis B, ChronicLiver NeoplasmsAntiviral AgentsFemaleGuanineHepatitis B e AntigensHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTenofovirTreatment OutcomeAntiviral AgentsentecavirGuanineHepatitis B e AntigensTenofovirChronic hepatitis Bentecavirhepatocellular carcinomaindividual patient datameta-analysistenofovir disoproxil fumarate

Identifiers

PMID36572349
OpenAlexW4312157397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.