To compare the effects of entecavir (ETV) and lamivudine (LAM) for the treatment of hepatitis B decompensated cirrhosis using a meta-analysis.
We conducted a literature search for all eligible studies published prior to May 30, 2013 using PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the VIP database, the Wanfang database and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ETV with LAM for the treatment of hepatitis B decompensated cirrhosis were included. The data were analyzed with Review Manager Software 5.0.2. We used RR as an effect measure, and reported its 95%CI. The meta-analysis was performed using either a fixed-effect or random-effect model, based on the absence or presence of significant heterogeneity. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. The analysis was executed using the main outcome parameters including hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA undetectability, HBV DNA level, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level, albumin level, total bilirubin (TBIL) level, prothrombin time activity (PTA) level, Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) score, mortality, drug-resistance, and adverse reactions. Meta-analysis of the included trials and subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre-specified characteristics and the therapeutic effects of the two agents.
Thirteen eligible trials (873 patients in total) were included and evaluated for methodological quality and heterogeneity. Of these studies, all had baseline comparability, 12 of them reported baseline values of the two treatment groups in detail. Following various treatment durations (12, 24, 36, 48 and > 48 wk), both ETV and LAM significantly reduced HBV DNA level, however, reductions were greater in the ETV group (MD = -0.66, 95%CI: -0.83-0.50, P < 0.00001), (MD = -0.93, 95%CI: -1.36-0.51, P < 0.0001), (MD = -1.4, 95%CI: -1.78-1.01, P < 0.00001), (MD = -1.18, 95%CI: -1.90-0.46, P = 0.001), (MD = -0.14, 95%CI: -0.17-0.11, P < 0.00001, respectively). At 12, 24 and 48 wk of treatment, ETV had a significant effect on the rate of HBV DNA undetectability (RR = 1.55, 95%CI: 1.22-1.99, P = 0.0004), (RR = 1.25, 95%CI: 1.13-1.38, P < 0.0001), (RR = 1.2, 95%CI: 1.10-1.32, P < 0.0001, respectively). Although HBeAg seroconversion in the ETV group was more pronounced than that in the LAM group at 24 wk (27.90% vs 26.19%) and 48 wk (31.52% vs 25.00%) of treatment, there was no statistically significant difference between them (RR = 1.49, 95%CI: 0.98-2.28, P = 0.07), (RR = 1.27, 95%CI: 0.98-1.65, P = 0.07, respectively). Following various treatment durations, both the ETV group and the LAM group showed significantly improved liver function (ALT, AIB, TBIL, PTA and CTP levels) and reduced mortality (ETV 6.37%, LAM 7.89%). The effects in the ETV group (0.33%) were statistically lower than those in the LAM group (14.33%) regarding the rate of drug-resistance (RR = 0.1, 95%CI: 0.04-0.24, P ≤ 0.00001). In addition, no severe adverse reactions were observed in the two treatment groups.
ETV and LAM significantly improved liver function and reduced mortality. Both drugs produced similar serological responses, and were safe and well tolerated. However, ETV resulted in a better virological response and lower drug-resistance, but is more expensive.
"As expected, at week 24 of treatment, suppression of viral load was more effective in ETV as compared to LAM recipients. However, after adjusting for baseline factors, i.e., MELD score, ascites, and hepatic encephalopathy, overall and liver related mortality were similar for both groups as also reported in the recent meta-analysis from China . The choice between ETV and LAM was not an independent factor for Journal of Hepatology 2014 vol. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: New nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) with high genetic barrier to hepatitis B virus (HBV) resistance (such as entecavir, tenofovir) have improved the prognosis of patients with HBV decompensated cirrhosis and have prevented HBV recurrence after liver transplantation (LT). NAs are considered the most proper approach for HBV infection in patients under renal replacement therapy but their doses should be adjusted according to the patient's creatinine clearance. In addition, physicians should be aware of the potential nephrotoxicity. However, patients with chronic hepatitis C and decompensated cirrhosis can receive only one therapeutic option before LT, as well as for Hepatitis C virus (HCV) recurrence after LT, which is the combination of subcutaneous Peg-IFN and ribavirin. Generally, therapy for HCV after renal transplantation should be avoided. Although the optimal antiviral therapy for HCV infection has not been established, attention has turned to a new, oral direct acting antiviral treatment which marks a promising strategy in prognosis and in amelioration of these diseases.
World Journal of Hepatology 05/2014; 6(5):315-325. DOI:10.4254/wjh.v6.i5.315
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A systematic review (SR) is a research methodology that involves a comprehensive search for and analysis of relevant studies on a specific topic. A strict and objective research process is conducted that comprises a systematic and comprehensive literature search in accordance with predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and an assessment of the risk of bias of the selected literature. SRs require a multidisciplinary approach that necessitates cooperation with clinical experts, methodologists, other experts, and statisticians. A meta-analysis (MA) is a statistical method of quantitatively synthesizing data, where possible, from the primary literature selected for the SR. Review articles differ from SRs in that they lack a systematic methodology such as a literature search, selection of studies according to strict criteria, assessment of risk bias, and synthesis of the study results. The importance of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in the decision-making for public policy has recently been increasing thanks to the realization that it should be based on scientific research data. SRs and MAs are essential for EBM strategy and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. This review addresses the current trends in SRs and MAs in the field of hepatology via a search of recently published articles in the Cochrane Library and Ovid-MEDLINE.
Clinical and molecular hepatology 06/2014; 20(2):137-150. DOI:10.3350/cmh.2014.20.2.137
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.