Abstract
目的 探究恩替卡韦(ETV)转换至艾米替诺福韦(TMF)对慢性乙型肝炎患者乙型肝炎表面抗原(HBsAg)水平以及抗病毒疗效的影响。 方法 回顾性纳入慢性乙型肝炎患者,应用ETV治疗48周后分为两组:一组继续维持ETV治疗,另一组转换为应用TMF治疗。连续随访至96周后,比较两组患者HBsAg水平,并根据病毒学应答、血清学指标等评估两组疗效。计量资料组间数据比较采用独立样本t检验、重复测量方差分析、Mann-Whitney U检验,计数资料组间数据比较采用χ2检验。 结果 ETV持续治疗组和ETV转换TMF组分别有78例和74例完成了96周的随访。两组患者在基线及48周时的HBsAg、乙型肝炎e抗原(HBeAg)、乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)DNA水平比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。ETV持续治疗组HBsAg水平在96周内从(2.99±0.85) log10 IU/mL降至(2.82±0.88) log10 IU/mL(P=0.500)。ETV转换TMF组HBsAg水平在96周内从(3.12±0.74) log10 IU/mL降至(2.64±0.63)log10 IU/mL(P<0.001)。治疗96周后的ETV转换TMF组HBsAg水平降幅明显大于ETV持续治疗组[(0.48±0.07)log10 IU/mL比(0.17±0.05)log10 IU/mL,P<0.001)]。ETV持续治疗组HBeAg阳性患者在基线、48周和96周的比例分别为32.1%(25/78)、28.2%(22/78)和24.4%(19/78)。ETV转换TMF组HBeAg阳性患者在基线、48周和96周的比例分别为40.5%(30/74)、39.2%(29/74)和31.1%(23/74)。两组患者HBeAg血清学转化率差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.003,P=0.954)。在完成96周随访时,ETV持续治疗组74例(74/78,94.9%)、ETV转换TMF组71例(71/74,95.9%)实现HBV DNA转阴,两组患者HBV DNA转阴率差异无统计学意义(P=0.961)。与基线相比,ETV持续治疗组与ETV转换TMF组患者在治疗96周后,血肌酐均出现上升趋势,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者在治疗96周后,甘油三酯与总胆固醇水平差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。 结论 应用ETV治疗的慢性乙型肝炎患者在换用TMF后HBsAg水平明显降低。
Keywords: 慢性乙型肝炎, 治疗, 艾米替诺福韦, 病毒学应答
Abstract
Objective To investigate the effect of switching from entecavir (ETV) to tenofovir amibufenamide (TMF) on hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) levels in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Methods Patients with chronic hepatitis B were enrolled and assigned to two groups after 48 weeks of ETV therapy. One group continued ETV treatment, whereas the other group switched to TMF. HBsAg levels were compared between the two groups of patients after continuous follow-up through week 96. Treatment efficacy was evaluated based on virological response, serological markers, and others. Independent-samples t-tests, repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare continuous variables, while the χ2 test was used to compare categorical variables between the groups. Results Seventy-eight patients in the ETV-continuation group and seventy-four in the ETV-to-switch-TMF group completed the 96-week follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in hepatitis B surface antigen levels (HBsAg), hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status, or hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels between the two groups at baseline and 48 weeks (P>0.05). HBsAg levels decreased from (2.99±0.85) log10 IU/mL to (2.82±0.88) log10 IU/mL over 96 weeks in the ETV-continuation group (P=0.500). HBsAg levels dropped from (3.12±0.74) log10 IU/mL to (2.64±0.63) log10 IU/mL over 96 weeks in the ETV-to-switch-TMF group (P<0.001). The reduction in HBsAg levels was significantly higher in the ETV-to-switch-TMF group compared with the ETV-continuation group following 96 weeks [(0.48±0.07) log10 IU/mL vs. (0.17±0.05) log10 IU/mL, P<0.001]. The proportion of HBeAg-positive patients in the ETV-continuation group was 32.1% (25/78), 28.2% (22/78), and 24.4% (19/78) at baseline, 48 weeks, and 96 weeks, respectively. The proportion of HBeAg-positive patients in the ETV-to-switch-TMF group was 40.5% (30/74), 39.2% (29/74), and 31.1% (23/74) at baseline, 48 weeks, and 96 weeks, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the HBeAg seroconversion rate between the two groups of patients (χ2=0.003, P=0.954). Seventy-four patients in the ETV-continuation group (74/78, 94.9%) and seventy-one patients in the ETV-to-switch-TMF group (71/74, 95.9%) achieved undetectable HBV DNA levels at the completion of the 96-week follow-up, with no statistically significant difference in both groups of patients for achieving HBV DNA negativity (P=0.961). Compared with baseline, serum creatinine levels showed an upward trend in the ETV-continuation and ETV-to-switch-TMF groups after 96 weeks of treatment; however, the differences were not statistically significant (P>0.05). In addition, there were no statistically significant differences in triglyceride or total cholesterol levels between the two groups of patients following 96 weeks of treatment (P>0.05). Conclusion HBsAg levels in patients with chronic hepatitis B were significantly reduced after switching from ETV to TMF therapy.
Keywords: Chronic hepatitis B, Therapeutic, Tenofovir amibufenamide, Virological response
乙型肝炎病毒(hepatitis B virus,HBV)感染是导致病毒性肝炎的主要原因,全球约2.5亿人感染HBV[1-3]。慢性乙型肝炎(chronic hepatitis B, CHB)可以导致肝硬化,并增加肝癌的发生风险,是全球性的公共健康危害之一[4-5]。研究表明抗病毒治疗可以帮助降低CHB患者的肝脏相关并发症风险[6-8]。尽管核苷(酸)类似物的应用显著降低了肝硬化和肝癌发生率,现有治疗方案仍面临耐药性、不良反应等多重局限[9-11]。
恩替卡韦(entecavir,ETV)作为一线核苷(酸)类似物,其耐药风险在经治患者中不容忽视[12-13]。研究显示拉米夫定耐药患者换用ETV后,5年累积耐药率可达51%,且长期低病毒血症可增加肝癌风险[14]。富马酸替诺福韦酯(tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,TDF)的长期使用可能引发肾功能损害和骨质疏松[15-17]。艾米替诺福韦 (tenofovir amibufenamide,TMF)是一种新型替诺福韦前药,旨在优化其递送和安全性[18-19]。与传统药物如TDF相比,TMF在肝脏靶向递送、降低肾脏损害和骨质疏松风险方面具有优势[17,20-22]。当前,CHB治疗的重要目标是实现功能性治愈,其定义为:停止抗病毒治疗24周后,持续的乙型肝炎表面抗原(hepatitis B surface antigen, HBsAg)阴转,伴或不伴HBsAg/抗-HBs血清学转换,且HBV DNA持续低于检测下限[23-25]。如何优化治疗策略以提升HBsAg清除率成为研究重点,然而关于ETV维持治疗与转换为TMF治疗策略对HBsAg清除率及远期疗效的影响,现有证据仍存在空白。本研究旨在探讨ETV转换为TMF的临床价值,为优化CHB个体化治疗提供循证依据。
资料与方法
1. 研究对象:选取自2022年3月开始于青岛市公共卫生临床中心就诊的CHB患者,应用ETV治疗48周后分为两组:一组继续维持ETV治疗,另一组转换为应用TMF治疗,继续随访至96周。纳入标准:(1)符合《慢性乙型肝炎防治指南(2022年版)》[26]诊断标准的CHB患者;(2)年龄18~65周岁,性别不限;(3)定期随访且已完成96周治疗。排除标准:(1)有证据提示肝细胞癌或血清甲胎蛋白>100 μg/L;(2)合并感染丙型或丁型病毒性肝炎、自身免疫性肝炎或其他原因所致的活动性肝炎;(3)既往恶性肿瘤史、合并严重的心肺功能异常、中枢神经系统或其他系统严重疾病者;(4)妊娠及哺乳患者。本研究为回顾性研究,已通过青岛市公共卫生临床中心医学伦理委员会批准,伦理批号:快-20241220-01。
2. 研究方法:收集患者基本信息及实验室检查资料,包括患者的姓名、性别、年龄及住院号,基线及治疗过程中HBV DNA、HBsAg、乙型肝炎e抗原(hepatitis B virus e antigen, HBeAg)、甲胎蛋白、总胆红素、丙氨酸转氨酶、白蛋白、肌酐、甘油三酯(triglyceride, TG)、总胆固醇(total cholesterol, TC)等指标水平。主要观察指标包括96周时HBsAg水平变化、病毒应答情况及HBV DNA水平变化;次要观察指标包括随访过程中肾功能和血脂指标的变化情况。
3. 实验室检测方法:HBV DNA定量检测采用COBAS Taq-Man (购自美国Roche Molecular Systems Inc公司) ,通过实时聚合酶链反应测定,其定量下限为20 IU/mL;HBV DNA水平对数转换以进行分析。使用美国雅培公司生产的Architect i2000化学发光免疫分析仪及其配套试剂检测血清HBV标志物,血清HBsAg<0.05 IU/mL被定义为HBsAg阴性,血清抗-HBs≥10 mIU/mL被定义为抗-HBs阳性;HBeAg<1 S/SO被定义为HBeAg阴性,血清抗-HBe≥1 S/SO被定义为抗-HBe阳性。HBsAg水平对数转换以进行分析。
4. 统计学方法:相关数据分析应用SPSS 27.0软件。应用正态性检验对连续变量进行检测,用均数±标准差(
±s)对通过正态性检验的数据进行统计学描述,两组间数据比较采用独立样本t检验,3个及以上时间点的数据比较采用重复测量方差分析;用中位数和四分位数[M(Q1,Q3)]对未通过正态性检验的数据进行描述,组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验。分类变量以例数和百分比表示,采用χ2检验。以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
结果
1. 一般资料:ETV持续治疗组和ETV转换TMF组分别有78例和74例完成了96周的随访。两组患者在基线时HBsAg、HBeAg、HBV DNA水平的差异均无统计学意义(P值均>0.05),见表1。
表1.
恩替卡韦持续治疗组与恩替卡韦转换至艾米替诺福韦组患者的基线特征比较
| 指标 | 恩替卡韦持续治疗组(n=78) | 恩替卡韦转换艾米替诺福韦组(n=74) | 统计量χ2/U/t值 | P值 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 性别[例(%)] | 0.096 | 0.757 | ||
| 男 | 53(67.9) | 52(70.3) | ||
| 女 | 25(32.1) | 22(29.7) | ||
| 年龄[岁,M(Q1,Q3)] | 51.00(43.00,59.75) | 48.50(50.00,57.00) | -1.396 | 0.163 |
| HBeAg阳性[例(%)] | 1.185 | 0.313 | ||
| 是 | 25(32.1) | 30(40.5) | ||
| 否 | 53(67.9) | 44(59.5) | ||
| ALT[IU/L,M(Q1,Q3)] | 19.00(16.00,25.75) | 21.50(15.00,31.00) | -0.760 | 0.447 |
| HBV DNAa(log10 IU/mL) | 2.84±0.67 | 2.92±0.81 | 0.622 | 0.209 |
| HBsAg 定量a(log10 IU/mL) | 2.99±0.85 | 3.12±0.74 | -0.844 | 0.399 |
注:HBeAg为乙型肝炎e抗原;ALT为丙氨酸转氨酶;HBV为乙型肝炎病毒;HBsAg为乙型肝炎表面抗原;a数据表现形式为
±s
2. 随访96周后病毒学应答情况:ETV持续治疗组HBsAg水平呈缓慢下降趋势,从基线的(2.99±0.85)log10 IU/mL降至48周的(2.95±0.92)log10 IU/mL,并维持至96周的(2.82±0.88)log10 IU/mL,组内整体差异无统计学意义(P=0.500),如图1所示。ETV转换TMF组HBsAg水平呈持续下降趋势,从基线的(3.12±0.74)log10 IU/mL降至48周的(3.10±0.70)log10 IU/mL,并进一步降至96周的(2.64±0.63)log10 IU/mL,组内整体差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001),如图2所示。进一步分析了两组在治疗96周后的HBsAg水平与基线的差值,结果显示,治疗了96周后ETV转换TMF组HBsAg水平改变明显大于ETV持续治疗组[(0.48±0.07)log10 IU/mL比(0.17±0.05) log10 IU/mL,P<0.001)]。
图1. ETV持续治疗组HBsAg水平变化情况.

注:ETV为恩替卡韦;HBsAg为乙型肝炎表面抗原
图2. ETV转换TMF组的HBsAg水平变化情况.

注:ETV为恩替卡韦;TMF为艾米替诺福韦;HBsAg为乙型肝炎表面抗原;aP<0.05
ETV持续治疗组HBeAg阳性患者在基线、48周和96周的比例分别为32.1%(25/78)、28.2%(22/78)和24.4%(19/78)。ETV转换TMF组HBeAg阳性患者在基线、48周和96周的比例分别为40.5%(30/74)、39.2%(29/74)和31.1%(23/74)。ETV持续治疗组HBeAg血清转化率与ETV转换TMF组的差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.003,P=0.954)。
在完成96周随访时,ETV持续治疗组74例(74/78,94.9%)、ETV转换TMF组71例(71/74, 95.9%)实现HBV DNA转阴,两组患者HBV DNA转阴率差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.002,P=0.961)。
3. 随访96周后肾功能及血脂指标的变化:表2展示了两组患者在随访96周后的肾功能及血脂指标水平变化情况。与基线相比,ETV持续治疗组与ETV转换TMF组患者在治疗96周后,血肌酐水平均出现上升趋势,但差异无统计学意义。两组患者在治疗96周后,血TG与血TC水平差异无明显变化。
表2.
两组患者治疗96周内肾功能及血脂指标的变化情况(
±s)
| 指标及组别 | 基线 | 48周 | 96周 | 基线与96周相比的P值 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cr (μmol/L) | ETV持续治疗组 | 62.36±12.14 | 64.39±13.57 | 67.55±12.28 | 0.062 |
| ETV转换TMF组 | 60.98±13.95 | 62.46±14.74 | 66.65±13.02 | 0.063 | |
| TG (mmol/L) | ETV持续治疗组 | 1.28±0.72 | 1.35±0.99 | 1.15±1.05 | 0.072 |
| ETV转换TMF组 | 1.33±0.90 | 1.49±1.60 | 1.21±0.67 | 1.000 | |
| TC (mmol/L) | ETV持续治疗组 | 5.03±1.04 | 4.98±1.17 | 5.06±0.99 | 1.000 |
| ETV转换TMF组 | 4.66±1.03 | 4.92±1.01 | 5.08±0.98 | 0.074 |
注:Cr为肌酐;TG为甘油三酯;TC为总胆固醇;ETV为恩替卡韦;TMF为艾米替诺福韦
讨论
CHB是全球公共卫生的重要挑战,不经治疗将面临肝硬化及肝细胞癌风险[27-29]。大量临床研究显示,长期有效的抗病毒治疗不仅可以抑制HBV DNA复制、减轻肝脏炎症坏死,而且可以延缓、改善甚至逆转肝纤维化及早期肝硬化,从而减少肝硬化相关并发症,降低肝细胞癌发生率和肝病相关病死率[30-33]。ETV作为核苷类似物,虽能快速降低HBV DNA水平[34],但其对HBsAg的下降作用有限,有研究表明,长期单药治疗CHB患者HBsAg清除率不足3%[35-36]。相比之下,TMF作为一种新型的核苷酸类似物,其在疗效上不劣于TDF,且具有更好的安全性,是治疗CHB的良好选择[20,37]。因此,本研究探讨CHB患者经ETV治疗后转换为TMF的长期疗效与安全性证据,初步结果显示ETV转换为TMF可显著降低HBsAg水平,而病毒学抑制效果与ETV持续治疗组相当,这为临床医生在制定个体化治疗策略时提供了重要依据,尤其是针对以HBsAg清除为目标的患者群体,早期转换为TMF可能更具优势。
本研究通过系统评估ETV维持治疗与转换为TMF治疗对HBsAg水平的差异化影响,揭示不同抗病毒治疗方案对病毒抗原调控的作用差异,为功能性治愈策略提供新视角。已有研究表明替诺福韦可诱导肠黏膜细胞产生干扰素-λ3,并增加外周血单核细胞中白细胞介素-12p70和肿瘤坏死因子-α,这些机制可能促进HBsAg降低[38-40]。本研究结果显示,治疗96周时,HBsAg水平降幅在ETV转换TMF组大于ETV持续治疗组(P<0.001),提示从ETV转换为TMF治疗可进一步加速HBsAg水平的下降。近年来,关于ETV与其他抗病毒药物的疗效比较研究较多,一项研究显示,从ETV转换为富马酸丙酚替诺福韦(tenofovir alafenamide,TAF)后,患者的HBsAg水平在144周内显著下降,且下降速度加快[41];TMF在TAF的酰胺酸酯基团上增加了一个甲基,通过结构优化提升了脂溶性和细胞膜穿透能力,同时增强了血浆稳定性[18,42-43],这可能是其在降低HBsAg水平方面表现更优的原因。然而,HBV感染的临床结局高度取决于病毒特异性宿主免疫应答的相互作用,包括:HBV特异性CD8+T细胞与自然杀伤/自然杀伤-T细胞应答、细胞因子介导的非细胞溶解性应答,以及B细胞介导的体液免疫[44]。也有研究证实要实现HBsAg清除的HBV感染痊愈,需要CD4辅助性T细胞参与,其能有效促进病毒特异性适应性CD8+T细胞应答及B细胞抗体生成[45]。未来需要进一步研究阐明TMF导致HBsAg水平下降的具体机制。
目前,中国推荐用于CHB一线治疗的获批核苷(酸)类似物主要包括ETV、TDF、TAF及TMF[46]。这些药物通过抑制HBV的逆转录酶活性,有效降低HBV DNA水平,降低肝病进展风险[47]。本研究结果显示,ETV持续治疗组和ETV转换TMF组在96周时的HBV DNA转阴率分别为94.9%和95.9%,两组之间差异无统计学意义(P=0.961)。这表明在CHB患者中,ETV和TMF在抑制HBV DNA方面具有相似的疗效,这种相似性可能与两种药物的作用机制有关,ETV和TMF均通过抑制HBV的逆转录酶活性有效阻断病毒复制[47-48]。有研究表明,长期使用ETV治疗的患者,其HBV DNA转阴率随时间延长逐渐提高[41]。本研究中ETV维持组96周的转阴率为94.8%,与长期ETV治疗的疗效趋势一致,表明ETV在持续治疗中仍能保持稳定的抗病毒效果。有研究显示,TMF治疗65岁以上CHB及肝硬化患者48周时的病毒学应答率为84.6%[49]。本研究中ETV转换TMF组在96周时的病毒学应答率为95.9%,略高于该研究,但考虑到研究对象的差异,两者结果仍具有可比性,这表明TMF在CHB患者中具有良好的抗病毒效果。Matsubara等[41]在ETV转换为TAF治疗144周后,94.9%的患者HBV DNA转为阴性,与本研究应用TMF抗病毒效果相似。未来需要更多大规模、长期的随机对照研究来进一步明确ETV与TMF在不同CHB患者群体中的疗效和安全性差异。
CHB患者抗病毒治疗过程中出现对肾脏、血脂的影响是临床医师关注重点,关于TDF的研究显示该药物存在肾功能损害、骨密度降低及骨折等安全性隐患[50-52]。TAF虽可替代用于合并肾脏/骨骼异常的CHB患者,但其血脂升高的问题仍需临床关注[17,53-54]。ETV不良反应较少,然而长期使用ETV可能会导致病毒耐药性增加[55]。既往研究表明,TMF对肾脏和骨骼的安全性较高,对血脂水平的影响较小[17,56]。我们进一步分析了ETV延长或转换至TMF治疗至96周的安全性情况,结果显示ETV维持组和TMF转换组在肾脏和血脂方面的安全性相似,总体安全性良好。
本研究仍存在局限性。首先,样本量较小,随访时间较短,可能不足以检测HBsAg清除、肝癌发生等终点差异,长期安全性及耐药风险需进一步验证。其次,未检测供价闭合环状DNA、HBV RNA等病毒学标志物,也未能对患者是否合并肝硬化等基础疾病进行分层分析,因此未能深入阐明TMF降低HBsAg的具体机制,其结果的外推性也可能受到人群异质性的影响。未来研究应致力于扩大样本量、延长随访时间,并纳入供价闭合环状DNA等精准生物标志物检测,同时进行基于基础疾病的亚组分析,以更全面地评估TMF的疗效与作用机制。
综上所述,对于经ETV治疗48周的CHB患者,转换为TMF治疗可在维持高病毒学抑制率的同时,进一步显著降低HBsAg水平,且对血肌酐、TG及TC水平无明显不良影响,安全性良好。未来仍需开展大样本、多中心的前瞻性研究,以进一步验证TMF在降低HBsAg水平及改善长期临床结局方面的优势。
利益冲突
所有作者声明不存在利益冲突
引用本文:
王亮亮, 陈静, 王啸宇, 等. 恩替卡韦转换至艾米替诺福韦对慢性乙型肝炎患者HBsAg水平的影响:一项96周的真实世界研究[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2026, 34(9):886-892. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20250726-00294.
Funding Statement
山东省医药卫生科技发展计划项目(202203080166)
Shandong Province Medical and Health Science and Technology Development Project (202203080166)
参考文献
- 1.Nguyen MH, Wong G, Gane E, et al. Hepatitis B virus: advances in prevention, diagnosis, and therapy[J]. Clinical Microbiol Rev, 2020, 33(2):e00046-19. DOI: 10.1128/cmr.00046-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hsu YC, Huang DQ, Nguyen MH. Global burden of hepatitis B virus: current status, missed opportunities and a call for action[J]. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2023, 20(8): 524-537. DOI: 10.1038/s41575-023-00760-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Yuen MF, Chen DS, Dusheiko GM, et al. Hepatitis B virus infection[J]. Nat Rev Dis Primers, 2018, 4:18035. DOI: 10.1038/nrdp.2018.35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.中华人民共和国国家卫生健康委员会医政司 . 原发性肝癌诊疗指南(2026年版)[J]. 中华消化外科杂志,2026,25(4):423-482.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20260409-00187. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Deng Y, Meng T, You H, et al. Epidemiology, achievements, and challenges in the elimination of hepatitis B in China[J]. J Clin Transl Hepatol, 2025, 13(7):599-604. DOI: 10.14218/jcth.2025.00039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Koffas A, Petersen J, Kennedy PT. Reasons to consider early treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients[J]. Antiviral Res, 2020, 177:104783. DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chung GE, Lee JH, Kim YJ. Does antiviral therapy reduce complications of cirrhosis?[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2014, 20(23):7306-7311. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i23.7306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Zhou J, Wang FD, Li LQ, et al. Antiviral therapy favors a lower risk of liver cirrhosis in HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B with normal alanine transaminase and HBV DNA positivity[J]. J Clin Transl Hepatol, 2023, 11(7):1465-1475. DOI: 10.14218/jcth.2023.00272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lok AS, McMahon BJ, Brown RS, et al. Antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis B viral infection in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md), 2016, 63(1):284-306. DOI: 10.1002/hep.28280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Isorce N, Lucifora J, Zoulim F, et al. Immune-modulators to combat hepatitis B virus infection: from IFN-α to novel investigational immunotherapeutic strategies[J]. Antiviral research, 2015, 122:69-81. DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2015.08.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.余滢滢, 李静, 王文鑫, et al. 慢性乙型肝炎病毒感染治疗新药物的研究进展[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2025, 33(5):493-499. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20240521-00258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Park JW, Kwak KM, Kim SE, et al. Comparison of the long-term efficacy between entecavir and tenofovir in treatment- naïve chronic hepatitis B patients[J]. BMC gastroenterology, 2017, 17(1):39. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-017-0596-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lim YS, Seto WK, Kurosaki M, et al. Review article: switching patients with chronic hepatitis B to tenofovir alafenamide-a review of current data[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2022, 55(8):921-943. DOI: 10.1111/apt.16788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Tenney DJ, Rose RE, Baldick CJ, et al. Long-term monitoring shows hepatitis B virus resistance to entecavir in nucleoside-naïve patients is rare through 5 years of therapy[J]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md), 2009, 49(5):1503-1514. DOI: 10.1002/hep.22841. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Corsa AC, Liu Y, Flaherty JF, et al. No resistance to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate through 96 weeks of treatment in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2014, 12(12):2106-2112, e2101. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.05.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Ahn HJ, Song MJ, Jang JW, et al. Treatment efficacy and safety of tenofovir-based therapy in chronic hepatitis B: a real life cohort study in Korea[J]. PloS One, 2017, 12(1): e0170362. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Li L, Zhou J, Li Y, et al. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir amibufenamide and its comparison with tenofovir alafenamide in patients with chronic hepatitis B: results from a retrospective real-world study[J]. Front Pharmacol, 2023, 14:1165990. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1165990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hong X, Cai Z, Zhou F, et al. Improved pharmacokinetics of tenofovir ester prodrugs strengthened the inhibition of HBV replication and the rebalance of hepatocellular metabolism in preclinical models[J]. Front Pharmacol, 2022, 13:932934. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.932934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ma HN, Cao KS, Liu YM, et al. Tenofovir amibufenamide: a potential alternative for chronic hepatitis B treatment[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2025, 31(10):102580. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i10.102580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Liu Z, Jin Q, Zhang Y, et al. Randomised clinical trial: 48 weeks of treatment with tenofovir amibufenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for patients with chronic hepatitis B[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2021, 54(9): 1134-1149. DOI: 10.1111/apt.16611. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Zeng ZH, Liu JQ, Zhang M, et al. Tenofovir amibufenamide in chronic hepatitis B: lipid changes and 144-week safety with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-to-tenofovir amibufenamide switch[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2025, 31(26):109285. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i26.109285. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Qiu X, Yin Y, Zhang S, et al. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir amibufenamide and tenofovir alafenamide in treating elderly patients diagnosed with decompensated hepatitis B cirrhosis: a retrospective cohort study[J]. Front Pharmacol, 2025, 16:1545108. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1545108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Revill PA, Chisari FV, Block JM, et al. A global scientific strategy to cure hepatitis B[J]. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2019, 4(7):545-558. DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30119-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Terrault NA, Lok ASF, McMahon BJ, et al. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance[J]. Clin Liver Dis (Hoboken), 2018, 12(1):33-34. DOI: 10.1002/cld.728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.刘智泓, 梁携儿. 乙型肝炎功能性治愈的概念在临床实践中与时俱进[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2025, 33(6):515-520. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20250526-00201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.中华医学会肝病学分会,中华医学会感染病学分会 . 慢性乙型肝炎防治指南(2022年版)[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志,2022, 30(12):1309-1331. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20221204-00607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Fattovich G, Bortolotti F, Donato F. Natural history of chronic hepatitis B: special emphasis on disease progression and prognostic factors[J]. J Hepatol, 2008, 48(2):335-352. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2007.11.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Wang J, Zhang Z, Zhu L, et al. Antiviral therapy reduces hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis risk in Chinese chronic hepatitis B patients with mildly elevated alanine aminotransferase [J/OL]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026(2026-02-17) [2026-08-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41713830/. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2026.02.008. [published online ahead of print] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Kwo PY, Telep LE, Hong LS, et al. Increased risk for liver disease in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection and low-level viraemia[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2026, 63(12):1626-1634. DOI: 10.1111/apt.70613. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Pan CQ, Duan Z, Dai E, et al. Tenofovir to prevent hepatitis B transmission in mothers with high viral load[J]. N Engl J Med, 2016, 374(24):2324-2334. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1508660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Huang ZH, Lu GY, Qiu LX, et al. Risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in antiviral treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients treated with entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: a network meta-analysis[J]. BMC Cancer, 2022, 22(1):287. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09413-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wang X, Liu X, Dang Z, et al. Nucleos(t)ide analogues for reducing hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Gut Liver, 2020, 14(2):232-247. DOI: 10.5009/gnl18546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Ye Y, Zhang Y, Tang Y, et al. Clinical features of HBV-related HCC in long-term NAs-treated versus untreated patients[J]. J Cell Mol Med, 2025, 29(13):e70717. DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.70717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Chang TT, Gish RG, de Man R, et al. A comparison of entecavir and lamivudine for HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B [J]. N Engl J Med, 2006, 354(10):1001-1010. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa051285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lai CL, Shouval D, Lok AS, et al. Entecavir versus lamivudine for patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B[J]. N Engl J Med,2006, 354(10):1011-1020. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa051287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Ji D, He MW, Wang WC, et al. Low-level viremia increases the risk of adverse long-term outcomes in entecavir-treated patients with chronic hepatitis B[J]. Antiviral Res, 2026, 246:106334. DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2025.106334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Liu Z, Jin Q, Zhang Y, et al. 96-Week treatment of tenofovir amibufenamide and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in chronic hepatitis B patients[J]. J Clin Transl Hepatol, 2023, 11(3):649-660. DOI: 10.14218/JCTH.2022.00058. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Murata K, Asano M, Matsumoto A, et al. Induction of IFN-λ3 as an additional effect of nucleotide, not nucleoside, analogues: a new potential target for HBV infection[J]. Gut, 2018, 67(2):362-371. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312653. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Murata K, Tsukuda S, Suizu F, et al. Immunomodulatory mechanism of acyclic nucleoside phosphates in treatment of hepatitis B virus infection[J]. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md), 2020, 71(5):1533-1545. DOI: 10.1002/hep.30956. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Murata K, Mizokami M. Possible biological mechanisms of entecavir versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on reducing the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2023, 38(5):683-691. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.16178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Matsubara T, Hagiwara S, Nishida N, et al. Observational pilot study of switching from entecavir to tenofovir alafenamide in patients with chronic hepatitis B[J]. Scientific reports, 2025, 15(1):869. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-85317-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Zhang H, Hu Y, Wu M, et al. Randomised clinical trial: safety, efficacy and pharmacokinetics of HS-10234 versus tenofovir for the treatment of chronic hepatitis B infection[J]. Aliment Pharmacol Ther, 2021, 53(2):243-252. DOI: 10.1111/apt.16196. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Zhang H, Gao L, Lou J, et al. First-in-human study on pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of single and multiple escalating doses of hepenofovir, a novel hepatic targeting prodrug of tenofovir in healthy Chinese subjects[J]. Front Pharmacol, 2022, 13:873588. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.873588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Lang J, Neumann-Haefelin C, Thimme R. Immunological cure of HBV infection[J]. Hepatol Int, 2019, 13(2):113-124. DOI: 10.1007/s12072-018-9912-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Lau GK, Suri D, Liang R, et al. Resolution of chronic hepatitis B and anti-HBs seroconversion in humans by adoptive transfer of immunity to hepatitis B core antigen[J]. Gastroenterology, 2002, 122(3):614-624. DOI: 10.1053/gast.2002.31887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.中华医学会肝病学分会肝癌学组 . HBV/HCV相关肝细胞癌抗病毒治疗专家共识(2021年更新版)[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2021, 29(10):948-966. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20210907-00456. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Wu X, Yan Q, Jiang C, et al. Real-world study on the efficacy and safety of different treatment regimens in treatment-naïve CHB patients with high viral load[J]. Sci Rep, 2024, 14(1): 21656. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-72986-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Langley DR, Walsh AW, Baldick CJ, et al. Inhibition of hepatitis B virus polymerase by entecavir[J]. J Virol, 2007, 81(8):3992-4001. DOI: 10.1128/jvi.02395-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.褚萨萨, 刘兴, 徐成, et al. 艾米替诺福韦治疗65岁以上慢性乙型肝炎及肝硬化患者的有效性及安全性[J]. 中华肝脏病杂志, 2024, 32(10):904-909. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn501113-20240829-00402. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Marcellin P, Wong DK, Sievert W, et al. Ten-year efficacy and safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate treatment for chronic hepatitis B virus infection[J]. Liver Int,2019, 39(10): 1868-1875. DOI: 10.1111/liv.14155 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Huynh Phuong Nguyen T, Thi Huong Bui Q, Duy Vo T. Clinical efficacy and safety of long-term treatment of tenofovir alafenamide vs tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for chronic hepatitis B in vietnam[J]. Clin Transl Gastroenterol, 2024, 15(10):e1. DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Hsu CC, Chen ZE, Chao FH, et al. Monitoring adherence and renal safety of nucleos(t)ide analogs for patients with chronic hepatitis B[J]. Clin Transl Gastroenterol, 2026, 17(2):e00962. DOI: 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000962. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Peng WT, Jiang C, Yang FL, et al. Tenofovir amibufenamide vs tenofovir alafenamide for treating chronic hepatitis B: a real-world study[J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2023, 29(44):5907-5918. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i44.5907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Lim J, Choi WM, Shim JH, et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B[J]. Liver Int, 2022, 42(7):1517-1527. DOI: 10.1111/liv.15261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Scott LJ, Keating GM. Entecavir: a review of its use in chronic hepatitis B[J]. Drugs, 2009, 69(8):1003-1033. DOI: 10.2165/00003495-200969080-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Fan R, Fan H, Tan L, et al. Efficacy and safety of tenofovir amibufenamide in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a real-world clinical study[J]. Front Med (Lausanne), 2026, 13:1774942. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2026.1774942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
