ArticleCurrent medical science2025
A Real-World Pharmacological Assessment of Tenofovir Amibufenamide and Tenofovir Alafenamide in 48-Week Chronic Hepatitis B Treatment: Efficacy, Safety, and Cost-Effectiveness.
Article in Current medical science, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveChronic hepatitis B (CHB), characterized by a significant global disease burden and substantial healthcare costs, remains a critical public health challenge. Although tenofovir amibufenamide (TMF) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), including formulations from centralized volume-based procurement (CVBP-TAF) and imported sources (I-TAF), are all recommended treatment regimens, comparative studies on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of these three regimens remain relatively limited. This retrospective cohort study aims to systematically compare the application effects of these three regimens in the treatment of CHB.
methodsWe conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study at Tianjin University Central Hospital from September 2019 to September 2024. CHB patients who had received TMF, CVBP-TAF, or I-TAF for 48 weeks were enrolled. Efficacy endpoints included HBV-DNA negative conversion, HBeAg seroclearance, and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization. Safety outcomes encompassed nephrotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, and lipid profile changes. Cost-effectiveness analysis was used to calculate the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) per unit efficacy gain and incremental CER using a healthcare payer perspective.
resultsA total of 173 patients were included, with 58 in the TMF group, 58 in the I-TAF group, and 57 in the CVBP-TAF group. TMF demonstrated superior efficacy to I-TAF and CVBP-TAF, as evidenced by significantly higher HBV-DNA negative conversion rate and ALT normalization rate. No significant differences in safety outcomes were observed among the three groups. Cost-effectiveness analysis showed that CVBP-TAF had the lowest CER (4.62 CNY/%), followed by TMF with an intermediate CER (60.45 CNY/%), while I-TAF had the highest CER (66.49 CNY/%).
conclusionTMF demonstrates stronger antiviral efficacy than both TAF formulations, with comparable safety profiles. Despite the cost advantages of CVBP-TAF resulting from procurement policies, the clinical benefits of TMF support its use. Future strategies should improve the affordability of TMF to expand its accessibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41060358What 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.