You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Comparison of the long-term efficacy between tenofovir and entecavir in chronic hepatitis B patients
  1. Kecheng Liu1,
  2. Peng Peng1,
  3. Fuqing Cai1,
  4. Jiean Huang1,2
  1. 1 Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
  2. 2 Department of Gastroenterology, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
  1. Correspondence to Professor Jiean Huang, Department of Gastroenterology, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530000, China; hjaxiaohua{at}126.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322642

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    We read with interest the work by Su et al concerning whether entecavir and tenofovir are equally effective for chronic hepatitis B patients.1 They concluded that there was no significant difference between tenofovir and entecavir in reducing the risk of death/liver transplant or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Their findings have significant clinical implications, but we believe that the study design and results should be discussed in more detail.

    In the research of Su et al, Cox proportional hazards (PH) model was conducted to identify the relationship between antiviral regimen and clinical outcomes. After correcting for baseline imbalance by an inverse probability weighting method, no difference in reducing HCC or death/liver transplant risks between the two drugs was found, with …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors contributed to the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

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