Comparison of the effectiveness and renal safety of tenofovir versus entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis B

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and renal safety of treatment with tenofovir versus entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis-B. Methods: Retrospective study in hepatitis-B patients who initiated treatment with tenofovir or entecavir since January 1998 until 2013. The primary effectivenes...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Beatriz López Centeno (Author), Roberto Collado Borrell (Author), Montserrat Pérez Encinas (Author), Maria Luisa Gutiérrez García (Author), Patricia Sanmartin Fenollera (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Elsevier, 2016-07-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_aa8a7ec4cae44dcfac0aaa0bd0f8ca1f
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Beatriz López Centeno  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Roberto Collado Borrell  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Montserrat Pérez Encinas  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Maria Luisa Gutiérrez García  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Patricia Sanmartin Fenollera  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Comparison of the effectiveness and renal safety of tenofovir versus entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis B 
260 |b Elsevier,   |c 2016-07-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 10.7399/fh.2016.40.4.10492 
500 |a 1130-6343 
500 |a 2171-8695 
520 |a Objective: To compare the effectiveness and renal safety of treatment with tenofovir versus entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis-B. Methods: Retrospective study in hepatitis-B patients who initiated treatment with tenofovir or entecavir since January 1998 until 2013. The primary effectiveness variable was defined as viral DNA < 20 UI/ml (HBV-DNA) and the variable for renal safety was variations in glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after 48 weeks of treatment. Results: The analysis was conducted in 64 patients (1:1), with similar characteristics except for the prevalence of naive patients (p=0.036), comorbidities (p=0.077) and nephrotoxic drugs (p=0.088) in the entecavi arm, while the tenofovir arm presented a prevalence of patients with HBV-DNA < 20 UI/ml (p=0.032) and HBeAg-positive (p=0.050). Statistical univariate analysis and adjustment for confounding variables was conducted through the Propensity Score (PS). The outcomes for the primary effectiveness variable showed tenofovir superiority after PS adjustment, with an ORadj=6.7 (95% CI:1.2-35.3; p=0.028). Three patients on tenofovir experienced seroconversion (p=0.148). The outcomes for the primary safety variable (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2) showed no difference between both arms after adjustment, achieving an ORadj=0.6 (95% CI:0.1-2.8; p=0.521). The tenofovir arm registered two cases of treatment interruption due to renal toxicity, with subsequent recovery, including one Fanconi Syndrome. Conclusions: In our study, there are significant differences between both treatments regarding effectiveness, with tenofovir demonstrating superiority. In terms of renal safety, we have not found any significant differences, but two cases of treatment interruption due to renal toxicity with tenofovir lead us to the conclusion that treatment decision in patients with renal function alteration should include an individualized assessment of each case. 
546 |a EN 
546 |a ES 
690 |a Tenofovir 
690 |a ; Entecavir 
690 |a Chronic hepatitis 
690 |a Renal safety 
690 |a ; Effectiveness 
690 |a Pharmacy and materia medica 
690 |a RS1-441 
690 |a Therapeutics. Pharmacology 
690 |a RM1-950 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Farmacia Hospitalaria, Vol 40, Iss 4, Pp 279-286 (2016) 
787 0 |n http://www.aulamedica.es/fh/pdf/10492.pdf 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1130-6343 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2171-8695 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/aa8a7ec4cae44dcfac0aaa0bd0f8ca1f  |z Connect to this object online.