The efficacy and safety comparison between tenofovir and entecavir in treatment of chronic hepatitis B and HBV related cirrhosis: A systematic review and Meta-analysis

- There were significant difference of ALT norm level between TDF and ETV in the short-term period.
- There was significant difference of undetectable HBV-DNA only in 3 months follow up period.
- There were significant difference between TDF and ETV in eGFR level and hypophosphatemia incidence.

BackgroundThe 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. MethodsThe 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.ResultsThere was significant difference of ALT norm level in the short-term period of 3 months (RR = 1.43, 95%CI: 1.06-1.94, P < 0.017) and 6 months (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.81-0.97, P < 0.017), and significant difference of undetectable HBV-DNA only in 3 months 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).ConclusionTDF has a better efficacy than ETV in 3 months treatment duration, but intriguingly, TDF might not better than ETV during the 6 months 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.