This study aims to assess the nephrotoxicity and efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir), telbivudine and entecavir. A retrospective study of 587 patients with chronic hepatitis B treated with tenofovir (n = 170), telbivudine (n = 184) and entecavir (n = 233) for at least 1 year. Renal function and efficacy were assessed. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decreased significantly in the tenofovir group after a mean of 17 months treatment (from 92.2 to 85.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2), p < 0.001), but increased in the telbivudine group after a mean of 32 months of treatment (from 86.1 to 95 mL/min/1.73 m(2), p < 0.001). There was no significant change in eGFR in the entecavir group after a mean of 44 months. By multivariate analysis, pre-existing renal insufficiency (p = 0.003), tenofovir (p = 0.007) and diuretic treatment (p = 0.001) were independent predictors for renal function deterioration. Cumulative virological breakthrough was 0% in tenofovir after 2 years, 3.4% in entecavir after 7 years and 22.9% in telbivudine after 5 years. Liver cirrhosis (p = 0.008) and virological breakthrough (p = 0.040) were independently associated with increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma development. Tenofovir may lead to deterioration in renal function as assessed by serial eGFR measurements. Although telbivudine appeared to be associated with an improvement in eGFR, it was associated with high rates of virological breakthrough, which was an independent risk factor for HCC development. With low rates of virological breakthrough and preservation of renal function, entecavir could be the best choice among these three agents.

No abstract

SUMMARY BackgroundThe long-term benefits of interferon-based therapy on preventing cirrhosis at non-cirrhotic stage in chronic hepatitis C patients are not fully clarified.

There are limited data comparing the clinical outcomes between telbivudine and entecavir. We consecutively enrolled 115 telbivudine-naive and 115 entecavir-naive chronic hepatitis B patients, who were matched for age, sex, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status and cirrhosis, and treated for at least 2 years or less than 2 years but had developed resistance. Except for the rate of HBeAg seroconversion, which was similar, patients in the entecavir group had better clinical outcomes than those in the telbivudine group for alanine aminotransferase normalization (85.2% vs 78.4%, p <0.048), undetectable HBV DNA (96.5% vs 74.8%, p <0.001), and viral resistance (0.9% vs 21.7%, p <0.001) after 2 years of treatment, After applying roadmap or super-responders concepts, entecavir still had better outcomes than telbivudine in undetectable HBV DNA and viral resistance. The cumulative incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma development was similar between telbivudine-naive and entecavir-naive patients (p 0.565). In renal function analysis, there were significantly more patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) category improvement in both the telbivudine and entecavir groups at year 1 (p 0.006 and p 0.047, respectively). The rate of virological improvement was significantly higher with entecavir than with telbivudine after 2 years of treatment, whether applying the concepts of roadmap or super-responders. The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma was similar between telbivudine and entecavir. Both telbivudine and entecavir were associated with eGFR improvement, especially in patients with renal insufficiency.