ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental hepatology
Efficacy and Safety of Tenofovir Plus Entecavir Combination Therapy Versus Tenofovir Monotherapy in Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Patients With Resistance or Partial Response to Entecavir: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental hepatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: Chronic hepatitis B virus remains a significant cause of liver disease in the developing world, leading to sequelae such as hepatocellular carcinoma. While entecavir (ETV) serves as a first-line treatment, its growing resistance rates underscore the need to explore viable alternatives. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) monotherapy and entecavir plus tenofovir (TDF + ETV) combination therapy are both employed as treatments, but one's efficacy over another is in question. This meta-analysis aims to investigate any primacy of either treatment. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search across PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from inception till 7th October 2024. Studies comparing the safety and efficacy of TDF monotherapy versus TDF + ETV combination therapy in patients resistant to entecavir were considered. Data about the virologic response (VR), virologic breakthrough, HbeAg seroconversion, HbeAg/HbsAg seroclearance, and alanine aminotransferase normalization were extracted. Relative risks (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, pooled, and analyzed in a random-effects model. Results: Nine studies, comprising 335 patients undergoing monotherapy and 352 patients undergoing combination therapy, satisfied the criteria. TDF + ETV combination therapy was found slightly advantageous to TDF monotherapy, stimulating a VR at 48 weeks (RR 1.081 95% CI: [1.001-1.167] Conclusions: TDF + ETV shows slightly better efficacy to TDF monotherapy over a 48-week treatment regimen, with minimal safety concerns. However, further high-quality studies like randomized controlled trials are needed to further solidify conclusions, with this meta-analysis only achieving borderline significances. Registration: This review is registered on the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42024581443).
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.