A meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection.

Abstract

The efficacy of entecavir and tenofovir in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) is inconsistent. To address this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis based on a current review of the literature addressing the efficacy and safety of entecavir and tenofovir. Electronic databases were searched through June 2014 for relevant clinical trials. We included 2 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 7 case-control studies that included 1,656 patients. In the entecavir group, 842 of 992 were nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic HBV patients, and in the tenofovir group 481 of 664 were nucleos(t)ide-naïve. The virological response to tenofovir was superior to entecavir (RR: 0.82; 95%CI: 0.72-0.93), especially in nucleos(t)ide-naïve chronic HBV patients at 48 weeks (RR: 0.78; 95%CI: 0.65-0.92). Additionally, there was no difference between entecavir and tenofovir for virological response at 24 weeks (RR: 0.87, 95%CI: 0.71-1.05). The alanine aminotransferase normalization rate, serological response, and adverse event rate were also not significantly different between entecavir and tenofovir at 24 or 48 weeks after treatment. These results suggest that tenofovir is a better choice to treat chronic HBV patients than entecavir as it is better able to suppress HBV viral load and has a similar safety profile.