File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Conference Paper: Tenofovir versus entecavir for hepatocellular Carcinoma prevention in an international consortium of chronic hepatitis B

TitleTenofovir versus entecavir for hepatocellular Carcinoma prevention in an international consortium of chronic hepatitis B
Authors
Issue Date2019
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hepatology.org/
Citation
The 70th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD): The Liver Meeting 2019, Boston, MA, USA, 8-12 November 2019. In Hepatology, 2019, v. 70 n. S1, p. 290A-291A, abstract no. 459 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Both entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are among the recommended first‐line antiviral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Whether they differ in their effectiveness in the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development remains controversial. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study based on analysis of the international REAL‐B (Real‐World Evidence from the Asia‐Pacific Rim Liver Consortium for HBV) consortium that encompassed 19 centers from 6 countries or regions. In this analysis, we identified previously untreated CHB patients who were then continuously treated with either ETV or TDF monotherapy. Those who developed HCC before antiviral treatment or within one year of therapy were excluded. Eligible patients were observed for HCC occurrence until December 23, 2018. The association between antiviral regimen and HCC risk was evaluated using competing‐risk survival regression. We also applied 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to balance the two treatment cohorts by baseline features. Results: A total of 5,537 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (n= 4,837 received ETV and n=700 received TDF). Prior to PSM, the TDF cohort was significantly younger (mean age, 45.7 vs. 50.8 years; P<0.001) and had generally less severe liver diseases such as fewer patients with liver cirrhosis (18.7% vs. 27.8%; P<0.001) and higher platelet count (mean count, 196.8 vs. 178.8 103/μL; P<0.001). In the unadjusted analysis, TDF was associated with a lower risk of HCC (sub‐distribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26~0.79; P=0.005) among all eligible patients. The multivariable analysis, however, found that the association between TDF and HCC no longer existed (SHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42~1.56; P=0.52) after adjustment for age, sex, country, albumin, platelet, α‐fetoprotein, cirrhosis, and diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, the PSM analysis (n=1,040) found no differences in HCC incidences between the two matched cohorts (P=0.51) and no difference in the association between TDF or ETV, with HCC risk in the multivariable‐adjusted analysis (adjusted SHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41~1.92; P=0.77). Conclusion: TDF and ETV did not significantly differ in the prevention of HCC in CHB patients. These findings suggest that both regimens may be considered similarly effective in the prevention of HCC.
DescriptionPoster abstract - no. 459
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/289894
ISSN
2019 Impact Factor: 14.679
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 4.752

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHsu, YC-
dc.contributor.authorWong, GLH-
dc.contributor.authorChen, CH-
dc.contributor.authorPeng, CY-
dc.contributor.authorYeh, ML-
dc.contributor.authorCheung, KSM-
dc.contributor.authorToyoda, H-
dc.contributor.authorHuang, CF-
dc.contributor.authorTrinh, HN-
dc.contributor.authorXie, Q-
dc.contributor.authorEnomoto, M-
dc.contributor.authorLiu, L-
dc.contributor.authorYasuda, S-
dc.contributor.authorTanaka, Y-
dc.contributor.authorKozuka, R-
dc.contributor.authorTsai, PC-
dc.contributor.authorHuang, YT-
dc.contributor.authorHuang, R-
dc.contributor.authorJang, TY-
dc.contributor.authorHoang, J-
dc.contributor.authorYang, HI-
dc.contributor.authorLi, J-
dc.contributor.authorLee, DH-
dc.contributor.authorTakahashi, H-
dc.contributor.authorZhang, JQ-
dc.contributor.authorOgawa, E-
dc.contributor.authorZhao, CQ-
dc.contributor.authorLiu, CH-
dc.contributor.authorFurusyo, N-
dc.contributor.authorEguchi, Y-
dc.contributor.authorWong, C-
dc.contributor.authorWong, C-
dc.contributor.authorWu, C-
dc.contributor.authorKumada, T-
dc.contributor.authorYuen, RMF-
dc.contributor.authorYu, ML-
dc.contributor.authorNguyen, MH-
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-22T08:18:59Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-22T08:18:59Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationThe 70th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD): The Liver Meeting 2019, Boston, MA, USA, 8-12 November 2019. In Hepatology, 2019, v. 70 n. S1, p. 290A-291A, abstract no. 459-
dc.identifier.issn0270-9139-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/289894-
dc.descriptionPoster abstract - no. 459-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Both entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are among the recommended first‐line antiviral therapies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Whether they differ in their effectiveness in the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development remains controversial. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study based on analysis of the international REAL‐B (Real‐World Evidence from the Asia‐Pacific Rim Liver Consortium for HBV) consortium that encompassed 19 centers from 6 countries or regions. In this analysis, we identified previously untreated CHB patients who were then continuously treated with either ETV or TDF monotherapy. Those who developed HCC before antiviral treatment or within one year of therapy were excluded. Eligible patients were observed for HCC occurrence until December 23, 2018. The association between antiviral regimen and HCC risk was evaluated using competing‐risk survival regression. We also applied 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to balance the two treatment cohorts by baseline features. Results: A total of 5,537 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria (n= 4,837 received ETV and n=700 received TDF). Prior to PSM, the TDF cohort was significantly younger (mean age, 45.7 vs. 50.8 years; P<0.001) and had generally less severe liver diseases such as fewer patients with liver cirrhosis (18.7% vs. 27.8%; P<0.001) and higher platelet count (mean count, 196.8 vs. 178.8 103/μL; P<0.001). In the unadjusted analysis, TDF was associated with a lower risk of HCC (sub‐distribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26~0.79; P=0.005) among all eligible patients. The multivariable analysis, however, found that the association between TDF and HCC no longer existed (SHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42~1.56; P=0.52) after adjustment for age, sex, country, albumin, platelet, α‐fetoprotein, cirrhosis, and diabetes mellitus. Furthermore, the PSM analysis (n=1,040) found no differences in HCC incidences between the two matched cohorts (P=0.51) and no difference in the association between TDF or ETV, with HCC risk in the multivariable‐adjusted analysis (adjusted SHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41~1.92; P=0.77). Conclusion: TDF and ETV did not significantly differ in the prevention of HCC in CHB patients. These findings suggest that both regimens may be considered similarly effective in the prevention of HCC.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hepatology.org/-
dc.relation.ispartofHepatology-
dc.relation.ispartofThe 70th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD): The Liver Meeting 2019-
dc.titleTenofovir versus entecavir for hepatocellular Carcinoma prevention in an international consortium of chronic hepatitis B-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailCheung, KSM: cks634@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailYuen, RMF: mfyuen@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityCheung, KSM=rp02532-
dc.identifier.authorityYuen, RMF=rp00479-
dc.description.natureabstract-
dc.identifier.hkuros316882-
dc.identifier.volume70-
dc.identifier.issueS1-
dc.identifier.spage290A-
dc.identifier.epage291A-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-
dc.identifier.partofdoi10.1002/hep.30941-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats