-
The Lancet. Infectious Diseases Jan 2021To eliminate mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of hepatitis B virus (HBV), peripartum antiviral prophylaxis might be required for pregnant women infected with HBV who... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To eliminate mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of hepatitis B virus (HBV), peripartum antiviral prophylaxis might be required for pregnant women infected with HBV who have a high risk of MTCT despite infant immunoprophylaxis. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis to inform the 2020 WHO guidelines.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CENTRAL, CNKI, and Wanfang for randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis versus placebo or no prophylaxis, with no language restriction, published from database inception until March 28, 2019. We used search terms covering HBV, antiviral therapy, and pregnancy. We included studies that enrolled pregnant women with chronic infection with HBV who received antiviral prophylaxis anytime during pregnancy; that included any of the following antivirals: adefovir, emtricitabine, entecavir, lamivudine, telbivudine, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; and that reported the following outcomes: MTCT, indicated by infant HBsAg positivity or HBV DNA positivity, or both, at age 6-12 months, and any infant or maternal adverse events. Two reviewers independently extracted data. Our primary endpoint was MTCT based on infant HBsAg positivity. We assessed pooled odds ratios (ORs) of the efficacy of peripartum antiviral prophylaxis to reduce the risk of MTCT. We assessed safety of prophylaxis by pooling risk differences. The protocol for the systematic review was pre-registered in PROSPERO, CRD42019134614.
FINDINGS
Of 7463 articles identified, 595 articles were eligible for full-text review and 129 studies (in 157 articles) were included. The following antivirals were assessed in the meta-analysis: tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg (19 studies, with 1092 mothers and 1072 infants), lamivudine 100-150 mg (40 studies, with 2080 mothers and 2007 infants), and telbivudine 600 mg (83 studies, with 6036 mothers and 5971 infants). The pooled ORs for randomised controlled trials were similar, at 0·10 (95% CI 0·03-0·35) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 0·16 (0·10-0·26) for lamivudine, and 0·14 (0·09-0·21) for telbivudine. The pooled ORs in non-randomised studies were 0·17 (0·10-0·29) for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, 0·17 (0·12-0·24) for lamivudine, and 0·09 (0·06-0·12) for telbivudine. We found no increased risk of any infant or maternal safety outcomes after peripartum antiviral prophylaxis.
INTERPRETATION
Peripartum antiviral prophylaxis is highly effective at reducing the risk of HBV MTCT. Our findings support the 2020 WHO recommendation of administering antivirals during pregnancy, specifically tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, for the prevention of HBV MTCT.
FUNDING
World Health Organization.
Topics: Adult; Antiviral Agents; Female; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Humans; Infectious Disease Transmission, Vertical; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications, Infectious; Prenatal Care; Tenofovir
PubMed: 32805200
DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30586-7 -
Annals of Translational Medicine Sep 2022Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) affects a vast population globally. A variety of drugs are available for the treatment of CHB, including tenofovir (TDF) and adefovir (ADV)....
Comparing the efficacy and safety of tenofovir and adefovir or combined drug treatment for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) affects a vast population globally. A variety of drugs are available for the treatment of CHB, including tenofovir (TDF) and adefovir (ADV). However, the efficacy of monotherapy drug treatment is inconclusive, the safety and efficacy of TDF remain unclear, more data are needed to be included and combined drug treatment is considered to exhibit higher efficacy. To explore this issue, we performed a current literature review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ADV TDF, TDF ADV + lamivudine (LAM); TDF ADV + entecavir (ETV).
METHODS
We systematically searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Chinese VIP, and Wanfang Data, for relevant clinical trials since July 2015, all included studies were based on PICOS principles and evaluated independently by the reviewers in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook (Rob2.0). A meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.4.
RESULTS
We included a total of 32 studies, including 31 randomized controlled trials and one retrospective study involving 2,473 patients. The results revealed a low risk of bias in included studies, that the virologic response of TDF was superior to ADV (P<0.05). And TDF was also superior to ADV in Serum creatinine levels, Immunologic function, and safety profile. However, when ADV was combined with other medications, it was superior to TDF in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level and Tbil level and adverse reactions, but on other indicators, TDF was superior to drug combination therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
Results showed that TDF was superior to ADV in the parameters of ALT, hepatitis B virus (HBV)-DNA reduction, HBeAg-negative conversion rate, safety, and total bilirubin levels in patients with CHB. However, when ADV was combined with LAM or ETV, they often showed the same therapeutic effect as TDF in parameters such as ALT level and Tbil level and combined therapy can effectively reduce the occurrence of adverse reactions. In this study, because the sample source countries were limited, a greater number of global studies are needed in the future to verify the current findings.
PubMed: 36267714
DOI: 10.21037/atm-22-3747 -
Infection and Drug Resistance 2022To investigate the efficacy and safety of antiviral drugs in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the efficacy and safety of antiviral drugs in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
METHODS
All clinical trials of antiviral drug treatment for COVID-19 from December 2019 to December 2021 in CNKI, PubMed, Embase, Wanfang and VIP databases were searched by computer, and the results were systematically reviewed.
RESULTS
A total of 21 studies were included, including 5 randomized controlled studies, 5 non-randomized controlled studies, 3 retrospective cohort studies, 6 retrospective case series studies, and 2 observational studies, with a total of 2118 patients. The evaluated drugs included Ridzevir, Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Jingluwa, Fapiravi, Abidor, Danorivir, and interferon α. The evaluated antiviral drugs did not show superior efficacy for COVID-19 in clinical trials. In terms of safety, particular attention needs to be paid to the gastrointestinal side effects of lopinavir/ritonavir and the serious side effects of redsivir.
CONCLUSION
There is no specific drug. Antiviral drugs have a greater therapeutic benefit for mild and usual patients, and in severe patients, lopinavir/ritonavir may not be effective. For critically ill patients, adefovir or more than two antiviral drugs can be used early. Antiviral drugs combined with traditional Chinese medicine treatment is effective. In view of the safety of the drug, it is necessary to consider the increase of serum uric acid caused by fapravi, the increase of bilirubin caused by abidol, and the gastrointestinal reactions of pitavir. In addition, other adverse reactions should also be noted.
PubMed: 35983302
DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S362946 -
Frontiers in Oncology 2022In this study, we aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of NAs in decreasing the reactivation of HBV, reducing chemotherapy disruption,...
OBJECTIVE
In this study, we aimed to perform a network meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of NAs in decreasing the reactivation of HBV, reducing chemotherapy disruption, and improving survival in oncology patients.
METHODS
Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the impact of NAs in HBV infected-related oncology patients were retrieved from electronic databases. The outcome indicators included reactivation rate, survival rate of 1 to 3 years after treatment, and chemotherapy disruption rate. The studies were evaluated for bias using the RCT risk of bias assessment tool recommended in the Cochrane Handbook. The risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the outcome indicators for the anti-viral treatment, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) was used to identify the optimal therapeutic regime.
RESULTS
A total of 67 trials containing 5722 patients were included in this study. Regarding the reduction of reactivation rate, entecavir, lamivudine, adefovir alone were less effective than the combination of lamivudine and entecavir (94.9%), with RR values ranging from 3.16 to 3.73. However, based on SUCRA, the efficacy of telbivudine (80.3%) and the combination of lamivudine and adefovir dipivoxil (58.8%) were also acceptable. Entecavir (RR values ranging from 1.25 to 1.50) and lamivudine (RR values ranging from 1.27 to 1.35) can prolong the survival rate of patients at 1-3 years, and were better than adefovir dipivoxil in the comparison of 1-year survival rate. The RR values were 1.18 and 1.19, respectively. And entecavir 's ranking in SUCRA was more stable. Entecavir, lamivudine, and tenofovir all reduced chemotherapy interruption rates compared with no antiviral therapy, especially for tenofovir.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence shows that lamivudine combined with entecavir, telbivudine, and lamivudine combined with adefovir dipivoxil were the most effective in preventing virus reactivation in HBV infected-related cancer patients treated with chemotherapy. Entecavir had the most stable effect on survival, while tenofovir had the best impact on reducing the chemotherapy disruption rate. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify the above conclusions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPEROI [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php], identifier CRD4202250685.
PubMed: 36727050
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.1050714 -
Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases... Dec 2020Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who had exposed to lamivudine (LAM) and telbivudine (LdT) had high risk of developing entecavir (ETV)-resistance after long-term... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who had exposed to lamivudine (LAM) and telbivudine (LdT) had high risk of developing entecavir (ETV)-resistance after long-term treatment. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and a network meta-analysis on the efficacy and cost-effectiveness on antiviral regimens in CHB patients with ETV-resistance.
DATA SOURCES
We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies on nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) treatment [including tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based rescue therapies, adefovir (ADV)-based rescue therapies and double-dose ETV therapy] in CHB patients with ETV-resistance. The network meta-analysis was conducted for 1-year complete virological response (CVR) and biological response (BR) rates using GeMTC and ADDIS. A cost-effective analysis was conducted to select an economic and effective treatment regimen based on the 1-year CVR rate.
RESULTS
A total of 6 studies were finally included in this analysis. The antiviral efficacy was estimated. On network meta-analysis, the 1-year CVR rate in ETV-TDF [odds ratio (OR) = 22.30; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 2.78-241.93], LAM-TDF (OR = 70.67; 95 % CI: 5.16-1307.45) and TDF (OR = 16.90; 95 % CI: 2.28-186.30) groups were significantly higher than that in the ETV double-dose group; the 1-year CVR rate in the LAM-TDF group (OR = 14.82; 95 % CI: 1.03-220.31) was significantly higher than that in the LAM/LdT-ADV group. The 1-year BR rate of ETV-TDF (OR = 28.68; 95 % CI: 1.70-1505.08) and TDF (OR = 21.79; 95 % CI: 1.43-1070.09) therapies were significantly higher than that of ETV double-dose therapy. TDF-based therapies had the highest possibility to achieve the CVR and BR at 1 year, in which LAM-TDF combined therapy was the most effective regimen. The ratio of cost/effectiveness for 1-year treatment was 8 526, 17 649, 20 651 Yuan in the TDF group, TDF-ETV group, and ETV-ADV group, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
TDF-based combined therapies such as ETV-TDF and LAM-TDF therapies were the first-line treatment if financial condition is allowed.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Antiviral Agents; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Costs; Drug Resistance, Viral; Drug Therapy, Combination; Guanine; Hepatitis B virus; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33051132
DOI: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2020.09.007 -
Hepatology International Feb 2023It is a challenging issue regarding the optimal antiviral treatment of children with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The efficacy comparison of interferon (IFN) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
It is a challenging issue regarding the optimal antiviral treatment of children with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). The efficacy comparison of interferon (IFN) or nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs) monotherapy with their combination could better understand this issue.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and abstracts of major international hepatology meetings were searched from inception to Feb 8, 2022. Randomized control trials and observational studies reporting the efficacy of combination therapy with IFN and NAs in children with CHB were eligible.
RESULTS
A total of 17 studies were included. Compared with IFN monotherapy, combination therapy with IFN and NAs was significantly associated with increased rates of HBV DNA undetectable, HBeAg clearance, HBeAg seroconversion, alanine transaminase (ALT) normalization as well as the composite treatment response both at the end of treatment and during the follow-up period (RRs ranged from 1.23 to 1.75). A favorable trend for HBsAg seroconversion was found in IFN plus NAs-treated children, but not for the HBsAg clearance at the end of treatment. Although a similar trend towards the superiority of the combination therapy versus NAs monotherapy was observed (RRs ranged from 1.24 to 2.33) except for the HBV DNA undetectable rate at the end of treatment, the number of reported studies was limited.
CONCLUSIONS
Combination therapy with IFN and NAs is more effective than IFN monotherapy in viral suppression and serological response for children with CHB. More studies were still needed to reveal the efficacy of this combination therapy compared with NAs monotherapy.
Topics: Humans; Child; Interferons; Nucleosides; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Hepatitis B Surface Antigens; Hepatitis B e Antigens; DNA, Viral; Treatment Outcome; Antiviral Agents; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 36469299
DOI: 10.1007/s12072-022-10415-7 -
Evidence-based Complementary and... 2021Kushenin (KS) has become a traditional Chinese medicine preparation that plays an important role in treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Many clinical studies have...
Kushenin (KS) has become a traditional Chinese medicine preparation that plays an important role in treating chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Many clinical studies have discussed its curative effect and safety in combination with adefovir dipivoxil (ADV) or entecavir (ETV) for treating CHB, but there is still a lack of a systematic analysis. Therefore, this study evaluated the efficacy and safety of KS through a meta-analysis to better guide clinical treatment. Seven databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning KS combined with ADV or ETV for treating CHB. The primary outcomes included serum viral indices and adverse events, and the secondary outcomes were liver function indices. The risk of bias of the included RCTs was appraised by Cochrane software. STATA 15.1 and Review Manager 5.3 software were used for the meta-analysis. Thirty-two RCTs recruiting 3343 patients with CHB were collected for this meta-analysis. KS combined with ETV or ADV led to an amelioration of the CHB index to various degrees. In short, the meta-analysis indicated that the combination group, compared to the single group, showed great improvement in HBeAg seroconversion, frequency of undetectable HBV-DNA levels, loss of serum HBeAg, and loss of serum HBsAg. The combination treatment also decreased serum HBV-DNA levels when compared to the levels after the single treatment. However, KS combined with ADV or ETV displayed no remarkable difference in the incidence of adverse events or in serum ALT levels. Current evidence showed that, compared with the use of either drug alone, KS combined with ADV or ETV can improve the clinical efficacy of CHB treatment.
PubMed: 33708259
DOI: 10.1155/2021/8856319 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2019Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection poses a significant burden to public health worldwide. Most cases are clinically silent until late in the disease course. The main... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) infection poses a significant burden to public health worldwide. Most cases are clinically silent until late in the disease course. The main goal of current therapy is to improve survival and quality of life by preventing disease progression to cirrhosis and liver failure, and consequently hepatocellular carcinoma development. The objective of this review is to provide a contemporary and comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment options.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature for randomized controlled trials involving treatment-naïve CHB adult population who received antiviral therapy. The endpoints were virologic response (VR), normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT norm), HBeAg loss, HBeAg seroconversion, and HBsAg loss for the HBeAg-positive population; and VR and ALT norm for the HBeAg-negative population. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to synthesize evidence on the efficacy of treatment.
RESULTS
Forty-two publications were selected. Twenty-three evaluated HBeAg-positive population, 13 evaluated HBeAg-negative population, and six evaluated both. We applied NMA to the efficacy outcomes of the two populations separately. Treatment strategies were ranked by the probability of achieving outcomes, and pairwise comparisons calculated from NMA were reported in odds ratios (OR). For HBeAg-positive population, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) were the best for VR; OR vs adefovir = 14.29, 95% CI 7.69-25 and 12.5, 95% CI 4.35-33.33 respectively. TAF was the best for achieving ALT norm (OR vs placebo = 12.5, 95% CI 4.55-33.33), HBeAg loss, and seroconversion (OR vs entecavir/TDF combination = 3.03, 95% CI 1.04-8.84 and 3.33, 95% CI 1.16-10 respectively). In the HBeAg-negative population, TDF and TAF were the best for VR (OR vs adefovir = 9.79, 95% CI 2.38-42.7 and 11.71, 95% CI 1.03-150.48 respectively). Telbivudine and TAF were the best for ALT norm. Certain nucleos(t)ide combinations also had high probability of achieving positive outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results are consonant with current clinical guidelines and other evidence reviews. For both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative populations, TDF and TAF are the most effective agents for virologic suppression, and TAF is effective across all outcomes.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31426837
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1126-1 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Sep 2019Oral nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NAs) have been advocated for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treatment with good efficacy. However, less attention has been put on their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Oral nucleoside/nucleotide analogues (NAs) have been advocated for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treatment with good efficacy. However, less attention has been put on their adverse events. Therefore, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to evaluate the relative safety of five NAs (lamivudine, adefovir dipivoxil, entecavir, telbivudine, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) in CHB treatment among adults.
METHODS
Eligible randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies were systematically and thoroughly searched until May 1, 2019. Poisson-prior-based Bayesian NMA was performed to synthesize both direct and indirect evidence with reporting hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for serious adverse events (SAEs) and hepatic/renal impairments.
RESULTS
Thirty-three RCTs and 11 prospective cohort studies were identified. As to SAEs, no statistically significant difference was found of any comparison among five NAs. In terms of hepatotoxicity, lamivudine was safer than telbivudine (HR 0.45; 95% CrI 0.21, 0.85), and entecavir increased the risk by 102% (entecavir vs lamivudine: HR 2.02; 95% CrI 1.19, 3.27).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings from this large NMA could influence clinical practice, and the methodological framework of this study could provide evidence-based support to analyze sparse safety data in the field.
Topics: Adenine; Antiviral Agents; Bayes Theorem; Guanine; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Humans; Lamivudine; Network Meta-Analysis; Organophosphonates; Prospective Studies; Telbivudine; Tenofovir
PubMed: 31228017
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-019-00802-8 -
Medicine Aug 2020The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different nucleos(t)ide analogues in the prognosis of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of different nucleos(t)ide analogues in the prognosis of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients after curative treatment by network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Literature retrieval was conducted in globally recognized databases, namely, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases, and Science Citation Index Expanded, to address relative studies investigating nucleot(s)ide analogues for HBV-related HCC patients after curative resection. Relative parametric data, including 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rate and 1-, 3-, and 5-year recurrence-free survival rate were quantitatively pooled and estimated. The inconsistency factor, the cumulative ranking curve, and the publication bias were evaluated.
RESULTS
Fourteen observational studies of 2481 adults performed between 2000 and 2019 were eligible. In terms of overall survival, ADV (Adefovir dipivoxil) (Odds ratio (OR): 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-4.73), Lamivudine (OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.78-5.58), and Entecavir (OR: 2.14, 95% CI: 1.59-2.88) were found to be more beneficial than control group while ADV has the highest probability of having the most efficacious treatment (SCURA values 66.3) for 5-year overall survival. In late recurrence-free survival, ADV (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.77-4.60), Entecavir (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.36-2.55), and Lamivudine (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.06-2.82) all had better significant prognosis than patients without antiviral therapy postoperatively and patients with ADV as postoperative antiviral therapy has significantly recurrence-free survival benefit at 5-year follow-up compared to those undertaking Entecavir (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.52-7.38) and Lamivudine (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.09-3.01). Moreover, the application of ADV possessed the highest possibility of having the best clinical effects on 1- (surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities (SUCRA), 64.7), 3- (SUCRA, 64.7), and 5-year (SUCRA, 70.4) recurrence survival rate for HBV-related HCC patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with postoperative nucleos(t)ide analogues antiviral therapy had better survival benefit than those without antiviral therapy for HBV-related HCC patients after curative treatment. Additionally, nucleotide analogues like ADV and Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate has better impact on early and late recurrence-free survival of patients after curative treatment than those undertaking nucleoside analogues.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Hepatitis B; Hepatitis B virus; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 32871973
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020877