Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety between tenofovir and entecavir in the treatment of CHB and HBV related cirrhosis through Meta-analysis. Methods The electronic databases of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Nature, CNKI and WanFang data were searched. The key words were: ("tenofovir", "entecavir") and ("Chronic Hepatitis B" or "CHB") and "Liver cirrhosis". Heterogeneity and report bias were analyzed.
Results: There was significant difference of ALT norm level in the short-term period of 3months (RR=1.43, 95%CI: 1.06-1.94, P<0.017) and 6months (RR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.81-0.97, P<0.017), and significant difference of undetectable HBV-DNA only in 3months follow-up period (RR=1.59, 95%CI: 1.04-2.42, P<0.017) between TDF and ETV, but no significant difference in the long-term period. There is significant difference between TDF and ETV in eGFR level (RR=1.601, 95%CI: 1.035-2.478, P=0.0034) and hypophosphatemia incidence (RR=4.008, 95%CI: 1.485-10.820, P=0.006).
Conclusion: TDF has a better efficacy than ETV in 3months treatment duration, but intriguingly, TDF might not better than ETV during the 6months treatment period in the viral suppression and liver function improvement. There's no significant difference between TDF and ETV in the long-term treatment duration and in the treatment of HBV related liver cirrhosis. Both TDF and ETV could influence renal function but patients under TDF therapy may have more risk to suffer from renal damage and hypophosphatemia.
Keywords: CHB; Chronic hepatitis B; Efficacy; Entecavir; HBV; Safety; Tenofovir.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.