Outcomes of Long-term Treatment of Chronic HBV Infection With Entecavir or Other Agents From a Randomized Trial in 24 Countries

Kwon

et al. 2019

Gut

118

164

ObjectiveThe use of tenofovir (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) has led to a decrease in the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and liver-related events. However, whether there is a difference between the two agents in the extent of improving such outcomes has not been clarified thus far. Therefore, we aimed to compare TDF and ETV on the risk of HCC and mortality.DesignA total of 7015 consecutive patients with CHB who were treated with TDF or ETV between February 2007 and January 2018 at the liver units of the Catholic University of Korea were screened for study eligibility and 3022 patients were finally analysed. Study end points were HCC and all-cause mortality or liver transplantation (LT) within 5 years after the initiation of antiviral therapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting methods were used.ResultsNo difference was observed between TDF and ETV in the incidence rates of HCC in the entire cohort (HR 1.030; 95% CI 0.703 to 1.509, PSM model, p=0.880) and subgroups of patients with chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis. Also, no difference was observed between TDF and ETV in the incidence rates of all-cause mortality or LT in the entire cohort (HR 1.090; 95% CI 0.622 to 1.911, PSM model, p=0.763), and patients with chronic hepatitis and cirrhosis.ConclusionThis study has demonstrated the clinical outcomes in patients with CHB who received TDF or ETV treatment. There was no difference in the intermediate-term risk of HCC and mortality or LT between the two drugs.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of tenofovir and entecavir on the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and mortality in treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B in Korea: a large-scale, propensity score analysis

Kwon

et al. 2019

Gut

118

164

“…All eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either entecavir or an investigator-selected non-entecavir HBV nucleos(t)ide analogue and followed for up to 10 years. 14 The analysis included the data from patients treated with entecavir from 50 centres in 16 provinces in China.…”

Section: Realm Trial: a Global Randomized Controlled Trial (Rct)mentioning

confidence: 99%

aMAP risk score predicts hepatocellular carcinoma development in patients with chronic hepatitis

Fan

Papatheodoridis

Sun

et al. 2020

Journal of Hepatology

Self Cite

204

210

Background & Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the leading cause of death in patients with chronic hepatitis. In this international collaboration, we sought to develop a global universal HCC risk score to predict the HCC development for patients with chronic hepatitis. Methods: A total of 17,374 patients, comprising 10,578 treated Asian patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB), 2,510 treated Caucasian patients with CHB, 3,566 treated patients with hepatitis C virus (including 2,489 patients with cirrhosis achieving a sustained virological response) and 720 patients with non-viral hepatitis (NVH) from 11 international prospective observational cohorts or randomised controlled trials, were divided into a training cohort (3,688 Asian patients with CHB) and 9 validation cohorts with different aetiologies and ethnicities (n = 13,686). Results: We developed an HCC risk score, called the aMAP score (ranging from 0 to 100), that involves only age, male, albuminbilirubin and platelets. This metric performed excellently in assessing HCC risk not only in patients with hepatitis of different aetiologies, but also in those with different ethnicities (C-index: 0.82-0.87). Cutoff values of 50 and 60 were best for discriminating HCC risk. The 3-or 5-year cumulative incidences of HCC were 0-0.8%, 1.5-4.8%, and 8.1-19.9% in the low-(n = 7,413,

Journal of Clinical and Translational Hepatology

“…The results of the REALM study have been published elsewhere, and revealed no significant differences in clinical endpoints between ETV and non-ETV nucleos (t)ide analogue treatment, and virologic response independent of treatment group was associated with a reduced risk of liver-related HBV disease progression (hazard ratio (HR): 0.09, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.038-0.221) and HCC (HR: 0.03, 95% CI: 0.009-0.113). 24…”

Section: Patient Dispositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Outcome Event Adjudication in a 10-Year Prospective Study of Nucleos(t)ide Analogue Therapy for Chronic Hepatitis B

Lim

Chang

Zaman

et al. 2020

Background and Aims: In the REALM (Randomized, Observational Study of Entecavir to Assess Long-Term Outcomes Associated with Nucleoside/Nucleotide Monotherapy for Patients with Chronic HBV Infection) study, 12,378 patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection received up to 10 years of randomized therapy with entecavir or another HBV nucleos(t)ide analogue. Monitored clinical outcome events (COEs) included malignant neoplasms, HBV disease progression events, and deaths. An external event adjudication committee (EAC) was convened to provide real-time review of reported COEs to optimize data quality, and minimize potential adverse effects of the large cohort, interdisciplinary outcome assessments, geographic scope, and long duration. Methods: The EAC comprised an international group of hepatologists and oncologists with expertise in diagnosis of targeted COEs. The EAC reviewed and adjudicated COEs according to prospectively defined diagnostic criteria captured in the EAC charter. Operational processes, including data collection and query procedures, were implemented to optimize efficiency of data recovery to maximize capture of adjudicated COEs, the primary study outcome measure. Results: A total of 1724 COEs were reported and 1465 of these events were adjudicated by the EAC as reported by the investigators (85.0% overall concordance). Concordance by COE type varied: deaths, 99.6%; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), 83.3%; non-HCC malignancies, 88.0%; non-HCC HBV disease progression, 68.2%. Reasons for lack of concordance were most commonly lack of adequate supporting data to support an adjudicated diagnosis or evidence that the event pre-dated the study. Conclusions: The REALM EAC performed a critical role in ensuring data quality and consistency; EAC performance was facilitated by well-defined diagnostic criteria, effective data capture, and efficient operational processes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00388674.