Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Letter
Tenofovir versus entecavir in prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma and mortality in patients with chronic hepatitis B
  1. Faisal Kamal1,
  2. Muhammad Ali Khan2,
  3. Aijaz Ahmed3,
  4. Satheesh Nair1,4
  1. 1 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
  2. 2 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA
  3. 3 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
  4. 4 Department of Surgery, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Faisal Kamal, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163, USA; fkamal36{at}gmail.com

Statistics from Altmetric.com

We read with interest the study by Lee et al 1 showing no difference in risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and mortality or liver transplantation (LT) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) versus entecavir (ETV). We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane database to identify studies comparing TDF and ETV for prevention of HCC and mortality or LT in CHB patients. A total of 11 studies with 70 860 patients (TDF=20 105 and ETV=50 755) were included in this meta-analysis. We used adjusted HR (aHR) when reported and calculated risk ratios (RR) when adjusted effect sizes were not available. These were pooled separately using random effects model. Six studies compared TDF and ETV in propensity score (PS) matched cohorts (in addition to entire cohorts) which were created by matching two groups based on several variables (table 1) to reduce risk of bias.1–6 We …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors FK and SN initiated the study. FK and MAK conducted search and performed the statistical analysis. FK collected the data. FK and MAK drafted the manuscript. SN and AA reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of manuscript.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.