Comparison of Tenofovir and Entecavir Treatment Results in  Chronic Hepatitis B Infection

Sezai Tunç; Muhsin Kaya

Makale detayları

Comparison of Tenofovir and Entecavir Treatment Results in Chronic Hepatitis B Infection

Yazarlar:

Sezai Tunç | Muhsin Kaya

Yayıncı:

Harran University

Ana Başlıklar:

Gastroenteroloji ve Hepatoloji

Dergi:

Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.22 Issue 3, pp.522-530

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352423

pISSN:

1304-9623

Anahtar kelimeler:

Özet:

 Background: The aim of this study is to comparatively evaluate the long-term effects of entecavir and tenofovir treatments on virologi-cal suppression, serological response, and biochemical parameters in patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B CHB infection or CHB-related compensated liver cirrhosis. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with chronic HBV infection and compensated cirrhosis who received tenofovir or entecavir therapy at the Department of Gastroenterology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine Hospital. Patients with a history of liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis, use of immunosuppressive therapy, pregnancy, or uncontrolled diabetes were excluded from the study. Clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively collected from patient records. HBV DNA, ALT, and AST levels were monitored at regular intervals. Serological markers HBsAg, anti-HBs, HBeAg, and anti-HBe were assessed quarterly during the first year and every six months thereafter. Liver biopsy specimens were evaluated using the modified Knodell Ishak scoring system, and both the hepatic activity index and fibrosis stage were recorded. Results: A total of 400 patients were included in the study, with 234 receiving tenofovir and 166 receiving entecavir. The two groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. Overall, virological suppression rates were comparable between the groups. However, among HBeAg-positive patients, a significant difference favoring entecavir was observed at the second year of treatment p0.02. Regarding ALT normalization in HBeAg-positive patients, entecavir was more effective than tenofovir at month 6 p0.02, whereas tenofovir showed greater efficacy at year 5 p0.04. In HBeAg-negative patients, the ALT normalization rate at year 5 was significantly higher in the entecavir group p0.007. In terms of biochemical response, ALT normalization was more prominent in the entecavir group at both month 6 p0.016 and month 60 p0.045. Serological response rates, including HBeAg seroconversion and HBsAg loss, did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. Conclusion: Tenofovir and entecavir demonstrate comparable virological and serological efficacy in the treatment of chronic HBV infection. However, entecavir may offer superior biochemical response in certain patient subgroups and at specific time points during therapy.

 Background: The aim of this study is to comparatively evaluate the long-term effects of entecavir and tenofovir treatments on virologi-cal suppression, serological response, and biochemical parameters in patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B CHB infection or CHB-related compensated liver cirrhosis. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with chronic HBV infection and compensated cirrhosis who received tenofovir or entecavir therapy at the Department of Gastroenterology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine Hospital. Patients with a history of liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis, use of immunosuppressive therapy, pregnancy, or uncontrolled diabetes were excluded from the study. Clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively collected from patient records. HBV DNA, ALT, and AST levels were monitored at regular intervals. Serological markers HBsAg, anti-HBs, HBeAg, and anti-HBe were assessed quarterly during the first year and every six months thereafter. Liver biopsy specimens were evaluated using the modified Knodell Ishak scoring system, and both the hepatic activity index and fibrosis stage were recorded. Results: A total of 400 patients were included in the study, with 234 receiving tenofovir and 166 receiving entecavir. The two groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. Overall, virological suppression rates were comparable between the groups. However, among HBeAg-positive patients, a significant difference favoring entecavir was observed at the second year of treatment p0.02. Regarding ALT normalization in HBeAg-positive patients, entecavir was more effective than tenofovir at month 6 p0.02, whereas tenofovir showed greater efficacy at year 5 p0.04. In HBeAg-negative patients, the ALT normalization rate at year 5 was significantly higher in the entecavir group p0.007. In terms of biochemical response, ALT normalization was more prominent in the entecavir group at both month 6 p0.016 and month 60 p0.045. Serological response rates, including HBeAg seroconversion and HBsAg loss, did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. Conclusion: Tenofovir and entecavir demonstrate comparable virological and serological efficacy in the treatment of chronic HBV infection. However, entecavir may offer superior biochemical response in certain patient subgroups and at specific time points during therapy.

 Background: The aim of this study is to comparatively evaluate the long-term effects of entecavir and tenofovir treatments on virologi-cal suppression, serological response, and biochemical parameters in patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B CHB infection or CHB-related compensated liver cirrhosis. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with chronic HBV infection and compensated cirrhosis who received tenofovir or entecavir therapy at the Department of Gastroenterology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine Hospital. Patients with a history of liver transplantation, decompensated cirrhosis, use of immunosuppressive therapy, pregnancy, or uncontrolled diabetes were excluded from the study. Clinical and laboratory data were retrospectively collected from patient records. HBV DNA, ALT, and AST levels were monitored at regular intervals. Serological markers HBsAg, anti-HBs, HBeAg, and anti-HBe were assessed quarterly during the first year and every six months thereafter. Liver biopsy specimens were evaluated using the modified Knodell Ishak scoring system, and both the hepatic activity index and fibrosis stage were recorded. Results: A total of 400 patients were included in the study, with 234 receiving tenofovir and 166 receiving entecavir. The two groups were similar in terms of baseline characteristics. Overall, virological suppression rates were comparable between the groups. However, among HBeAg-positive patients, a significant difference favoring entecavir was observed at the second year of treatment p0.02. Regarding ALT normalization in HBeAg-positive patients, entecavir was more effective than tenofovir at month 6 p0.02, whereas tenofovir showed greater efficacy at year 5 p0.04. In HBeAg-negative patients, the ALT normalization rate at year 5 was significantly higher in the entecavir group p0.007. In terms of biochemical response, ALT normalization was more prominent in the entecavir group at both month 6 p0.016 and month 60 p0.045. Serological response rates, including HBeAg seroconversion and HBsAg loss, did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups. Conclusion: Tenofovir and entecavir demonstrate comparable virological and serological efficacy in the treatment of chronic HBV infection. However, entecavir may offer superior biochemical response in certain patient subgroups and at specific time points during therapy.

 Amaç: Bu çalışmada, kronik hepatit B KHB enfeksiyonu veya KHB ilişkili kompanse karaciğer sirozu tanısı almış hastalarda, entekavir ve tenofovir tedavilerinin uzun süreli kullanımda virolojik baskılanma, serolojik dönüşüm ve biyokimyasal parametreler üzerindeki etkileri-nin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Materyal ve Metot: Bu retrospektif kohort çalışmaya, Dicle Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Hastanesi Gastroenteroloji Anabilim Dalında tenofovir veya entekavir tedavisi alan kronik HBV enfeksiyonlu, yalnızca kompanse sirozu olan hastalar da dahil edilmiştir. Karaciğer nakli öyküsü, dekompanse siroz, immünsupresif tedavi, gebelik ve kontrolsüz diyabet dışlama kriterleri olarak belirlenmiştir. Klinik ve labora-tuvar veriler hasta dosyalarından retrospektif olarak toplanmıştır. HBV DNA, ALT ve AST düzeyleri düzenli aralıklarla izlenmiş; serolojik belirteçler HBsAg, anti-HBs, HBeAg, anti-HBe ilk yıl üçer aylık aralıklarla ve devamında altı aylık periyotlarla değerlendirilmiştir. Karaciğer biyopsileri, modifiye Knodell İshak skorlama sistemi ile analiz edilmiş, hepatik aktivite indeksi ve fibrozis evresi kaydedilmiştir. Bulgular: Toplam 400 hasta 234 tenofovir, 166 entekavir çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Gruplar, başlangıç özellikleri açısından benzerdi. Virolojik baskılanma oranları genel olarak iki grupta benzer bulunmuştur. Ancak HBeAg pozitif hastalarda 2. yılda entekavir lehine anlamlı bir fark saptanmıştır p0.02. HBeAg pozitif hastalar arasında ALT normalleşmesi açısından entekavir tenofovire 6. ayda p0.02 ancak 5. yılda ise tenofovir entakavire göre p0.04 daha etkili bulunmuştur. HBeAg negatif hastalarda ise 5. yılda ALT normalleşme oranı entekavir grubunda anlamlı olarak daha yüksekti p0.007. Biyokimyasal yanıt açısından ise entekavir grubunda 6. Ayda p0.016 ve 60. ayda p0.045 ALT düzeylerinde daha belirgin normalleşme izlenmiştir. Serolojik yanıt oranları HBeAg serokonversiyonu ve HBsAg kaybı iki tedavi grubu arasında farklılık göstermemiştir. Sonuç: Tenofovir ve entekavir, KHB tedavisinde benzer virolojik ve serolojik etkinlik göstermektedir. Bununla birlikte, entekavir özellik-le bazı hasta alt gruplarında ve tedavinin belirli dönemlerinde biyokimyasal yanıt açısından üstünlük sağlayabilir.

Makale detayları

Comparison of Tenofovir and Entecavir Treatment Results in Chronic Hepatitis B Infection

Yazarlar:

Sezai Tunç | Muhsin Kaya

Yayıncı:

Harran University

Ana Başlıklar:

Gastroenteroloji ve Hepatoloji

Dergi:

Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.22 Issue 3, pp.522-530

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352423

pISSN:

1304-9623

Chronic Hepatitis B

Entecavir

TenofovirEntekavir

Kronik Hepatit B

Tenofovir

Sayı

Makale detayları

Comparison of Tenofovir and Entecavir Treatment Results in Chronic Hepatitis B Infection

Yazarlar: Sezai Tunç | Muhsin Kaya

Yayıncı: Harran University

Ana Başlıklar: Gastroenteroloji ve Hepatoloji

Dergi: Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.22 Issue 3, pp.522-530

Belge Tipi: Makale

Yayın Tarihi: 9/2025

Belge Dili: Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.): 2001352423

pISSN: 1304-9623

Chronic Hepatitis B

Entecavir

TenofovirEntekavir

Kronik Hepatit B

Tenofovir

Sayı

Yazarlar:

Sezai Tunç | Muhsin Kaya

Yayıncı:

Harran University

Ana Başlıklar:

Gastroenteroloji ve Hepatoloji

Dergi:

Harran Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi Vol.22 Issue 3, pp.522-530

Belge Tipi:

Makale

Yayın Tarihi:

9/2025

Belge Dili:

Türkçe

Document ID (Org No.):

2001352423

pISSN:

1304-9623