Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management logoLink to Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
. 2017 Sep 26;13:1273–1285. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S143286

Renal safety of tenofovir and/or entecavir in patients with chronic HBV monoinfection

Young-Mo Yang 1, Eun Joo Choi 1,✉
PMCID: PMC5628694  PMID: 29033575

Abstract

Background

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are recommended as the first-line therapy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB) due to their genetic barrier to resistance and effectiveness of virological suppression. TDF and ETV may cause renal toxicity through various mechanisms such as renal tubular injury, apoptosis, and mitochondrial toxicity. The aims of the current review were to assess the potential renal toxicity associated with the use of TDF and ETV in patients infected with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and to provide clinical perspectives on these two agents in the treatment of CHB.

Methods

A literature search of clinical studies published in PubMed and posted on ClinicalTrials.gov website was implemented to find studies evaluating the potential renal toxicity of TDF and ETV.

Results

Twenty-one studies were examined in this review. The TDF dose used in the studies was 245 or 300 mg/day and that of ETV was 0.5 or 1 mg/day. Based on the markers of renal function, patients treated with TDF were not more likely to show changes in renal function than those treated with ETV; however, the estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) of patients receiving TDF tended to be more clearly reduced than those of patients receiving ETV. The eGFRs of patients treated with TDF decreased in a time-dependent manner, whereas those of patients treated with ETV increased or decreased across various time points.

Conclusion

The data shown in this study suggest that use of TDF and ETV could be at least associated with reductions in renal function in patients with chronic HBV infection. However, various risk factors, such as pre-existing renal failure and comorbidities, are also associated with decreased renal function during the treatment of TDF and ETV. Thus, studies of management strategies for HBV-infected patients with these risk factors are necessary in the near future.

Keywords: hepatitis B, tenofovir, entecavir, renal safety

Introduction

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is considered as one of the most important global public health concerns; this potentially life-threatening infection damages the liver and can contribute to acute and chronic diseases. An estimated 240 million individuals are chronically infected with HBV worldwide, and over 686,000 individuals die annually because of end-stage chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and CHB-associated complications such as decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.1

Currently, two therapeutic options (ie, interferons [IFNs] and oral nucleos(t)ide analogs [NUCs]) are used to treat CHB; however, oral NUCs have been preferred for the treatment of CHB owing to their convenient regimen.2 In particular, the second-generation NUCs, such as entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), are recommended as the first-line therapy for CHB because of their high genetic barrier to resistance and effectiveness of virological suppression.3,4 The efficacy and safety of both these drugs were demonstrated through previous clinical trials.3 Safety should be particularly considered, since long-term treatment for CHB is usually required with ETV or TDF, although its ideal duration of treatment is not well determined.5

ETV and TDF may cause renal toxicity via various mechanisms such as renal tubular injury, apoptosis, and mitochondrial toxicity.5,6 Previous studies also reported an association between CHB and chronic kidney disease (CKD).7–11 Specifically, it was reported that glomerular diseases, such as membranous nephropathy and mesangiocapillary glomerulonephritis, might be the underlying causes of renal dysfunction in patients with CHB.12,13 Moreover, drug history except for NUCs, disease status of diabetes and/or hypertension (HTN), and baseline (BL) kidney function before starting NUCs may affect the potential nephrotoxicity caused by ETV and/or TDF. Consequently, renal safety is an important factor in choosing appropriate NUCs for the treatment of CHB because they are renally eliminated in an unchanged form, and this is particularly important in patients who have already had renal impairment or are at risk for it.7,14

The current review aimed to assess the potential renal toxicity associated with the use of ETV and TDF in patients infected with chronic HBV and to provide clinical perspectives on these two agents in the treatment of CHB.

Methods

A literature search was conducted to identify clinical studies in patients with HBV monoinfection, which assessed the safety of ETV and/or TDF. PubMed was searched from the inception of the database to March 2017, using “hepatitis B,” “entecavir,” and “tenofovir” as the search terms to find clinical trials written only in English. The reference lists of the selected articles and related reviews were utilized to find additional relevant articles. The data posted on ClinicalTrials.gov website were also used to identify the unpublished clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently scanned the article titles and abstracts and identified relevant studies that met the following criteria: 1) retrospective or prospective clinical studies, 2) studies involving patients only with HBV infection, 3) studies in which ETV and/or TDF had to be administered for the treatment of HBV infection, and 4) studies whose results contained renal parameters, such as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), serum creatinine, and serum phosphorus, in order to evaluate the changes in renal function.

Results

Study characteristics

The literature search (Figure 1) identified 21 eligible studies that met the predetermined inclusion criteria. The main characteristics of the selected studies are presented in Table 1. The final eligible studies included in this review were conducted in the United States, Europe, Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, and China.3,15–34 In particular, 13 studies were conducted on Asian individuals.19–23,25–31,34 Most of the studies (61.9%), excluding five randomized clinical studies19,27,29,32,34 and three studies that did not accurately report study designs,24,25,28 were observational studies. Most studies were published in the last 2 years, although the articles dated back to 2011. Overall, 95.2% (20/21) of the studies were conducted on patients with mixed hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) status whereas only one study33 did not report HBeAg status. The TDF dose used in the studies was 245 or 300 mg/day and that of ETV was 0.5 or 1 mg/day.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of the study selection process.

Abbreviations: ETV, entecavir; HBV, hepatitis B virus; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Table 1.

Main characteristics of included studies

Study Sites Study design Sample size, n Gender, n (M/F) Age, mean (SD) or median (range), years Duration of follow-up, mean (SD) or median (range), months HBV DNA at baseline, mean (SD or IQR) or median (range) HBeAg-positive, n (%) Status Treatment regimens
Riveiro-Barciela et al, 201715 Spain Observational study 611 Total: 444/167; TDF-containing: 305/119; ETV: 139/48 Total: 50 (13); TDF-containing: 50 (13); ETV: 50 (13) TDF-containing: 49 (29); ETV: 55 (22) Total: 4.0 (2.4) log10 IU/mL; TDF-containing: 3.8 (2.3) log10 IU/mL; ETV: 4.9 (2.4) log10 IU/mL Total: 101 (16.5); TDF-containing: 67 (15.8); ETV: 34 (18.2) TN, TE, cirrhosis TDF: 245 mg/day; ETV: 0.5 or 1 mg/day
Koksal et al, 201616 Turkey Prospective cohort study 120 TDF: 19/25; ETV: 17/15; control: 21/23 TDF: 36 (29–43.7); ETV: 40 (27.2–46.5); control: 37.5 (29–42.2) 48 TDF: 6.8 (1.0) log10 IU/mL; ETV: 7.0 (1.2) log10 IU/mL; control: NR TDF: 7 (15.9); ETV: 8 (25); control: NR TN NR
López Centeno et al, 201617 Spain Retrospective cohort study 64 TDF-containing: 25/7; ETV: 23/9 TDF-containing: 50.15 (16.17); ETV: 49.22 (15.26) 12 TDF-containing: 1,127.4 (19–2,463,121.4) copies/mL; ETV: 29,311.4 (376.2–4,660,135.2) copies/mL TDF-containing: 13 (40.6); ETV: 5 (15.6) TN, TE NR
Rodríguez-Nóvoa et al, 20163 Spain Cross-sectional study 280 TDF: 38/31; ETV: 70/19; control: 58/64 TDF: 48 (12); ETV: 49 (12); control: 47 (10) TDF: 35 (9); ETV: 43 (13) NR TDF: 6 (8.8); ETV: 11 (12.5); control: 2 (1.7) TN NR
Zoulim et al, 201618 Poland, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania Prospective clinical trial 92 TDF/ETV: 69/23 TDF/ETV: 43.6 (1.55)a 24 TDF/ETV: 4.4 (0.23)a log10 IU/mL TDF/ETV: 56 (62.2) TE NR
Sriprayoon et al, 201719 Thailand Randomized controlled trial 400 TDF: 113/87; ETV: 121/79 TDF: 41.2 (11.6); ETV: 41.6 (11.5) 36 TDF
– HBeAg (+): 7.0 (1.4) log10 IU/mL
– HBeAg (−): 5.0 (1.3) log10 IU/mL
ETV
– HBeAg (+): 7.1 (1.5) log10 IU/mL
– HBeAg (−): 4.9 (1.3) log10 IU/mL		 TDF: 92 (46.0); ETV: 95 (47.5) TN TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 0.5 mg/day
Tsai et al, 201620 Taiwan Retrospective–prospective cohort study 141 Total: 108/33; TDF: 32/5; ETV: 46/16; LdT: 30/12 Total: 55.2 (12.2); TDF: 53.6 (12.6); ETV: 55.2 (11.5); LdT: 56.6 (12.9) NR Total: 6.3 (1.3) log10 copies/mL; TDF: 6.3 (1.3) log10 copies/mL; ETV: 6.4 (1.2) log10 copies/mL; LdT: 6.0 (1.4) log10 copies/mL Total: 37 (26); TDF: 10 (27); ETV: 18 (29); LdT: 9 (21) Cirrhosis NR
Park et al, 201621 Korea Prospective clinical trial 64 TDF/ETV: 52/12 TDF/ETV: 47 (9.8) 12 TDF/ETV: 4.29 (1.23) log10 IU/mL TDF/ETV: 57 (89.1) TE, MDR CHB TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 1.0 mg/day
Wang et al, 201622 Taiwan Retrospective clinical trial 236 TDF
– TN: 100/31
– TE: 83/22		 TDF
– TN: 48.9 (12.9)
– TE: 48.9 (13.4)		 38.5 (13–49) TDF
– TN: 6.9 (1.5) log10 copies/mL
– TE: 6.2 (1.9) log10 copies/mL		 TDF
– TN: 42 (32.1)
– TE: 51 (48.6)		 TN, TE, cirrhosis NR
Tsai et al, 201623 Taiwan Retrospective cohort study 587 TDF: 121/49; ETV: 168/65; LdT: 132/52 TDF: 51.8 (11.9); ETV: 52.8 (12.4); LdT: 54.2 (14.6) TDF: 12 (12–24); ETV: 36 (12–84); LdT: 36 (12–60) TDF: 6.4 (1.9) log10 copies/mL; ETV: 6.2 (1.5) log10 copies/mL; LdT: 5.7 (1.8) log10 copies/mL TDF: 39 (22.9); ETV: 61 (26.2); LdT: 33 (17.9) TN, cirrhosis NR
Koklu et al, 201524 Turkey NR 857 TDF: 183/90; ETV: 197/85; LAM: 185/117 TDF: 47.74 (12.45); ETV: 49.86 (13.35); LAM: 49.21 (13.17) 24 TDF: 6.69 (1.79) log10 copies/mL; ETV: 6.54 (1.74) log10 copies/mL; LAM: 5.27 (1.63) log10 copies/mL TDF: 68 (27.8); ETV: 68 (27.1); LAM: 33 (11.5) TN, cirrhosis NR
Kim et al, 201525 Korea NR 52 Total: 38/14; TDF/ETV: 22/5; TDF/LAM: 16/9 Total: 53.5 (9.9); TDF/ETV: 52.6 (9.6); TDF/LAM: 54.4 (10.3) Total: 16 (8–22); TDF/ETV: 16 (10–22); TDF/LAM: 16 (8–17) Total: 3.69 (1.57) log10 IU/mL; TDF/ETV: 4.14 (1.64) log10 IU/mL; TDF/LAM: 3.22 (1.38) log10 IU/mL Total: 48 (92.3); TDF/ETV: 24 (88.9); TDF/LAM: 24 (96.0) TE, cirrhosis TDF: NR; ETV: 1 mg/day; LAM: 100 mg/day
Ha et al, 201526 USA (all Asians) Matched case–cohort study 206 TDF: 65/38; ETV: 65/38 TDF: 43.5 (10.4); ETV: 43.8 (10.7) TDF: 24 (6–66); ETV: 18 (6–54) TDF: 5.3 (1.5) log10 IU/mL; ETV: 6.15 (1.9) log10 IU/mL TDF: 34 (35.4); ETV: 46 (44.7) TN, cirrhosis TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 0.5 or 1.0 mg/day
Lim et al, 201627 Korea Randomized open-label trial 102 Total: 88/14; TDF→TDF: 42/8; TDF/ETV→TDF: 46/6 Total: 50 (26–70); TDF→TDF: 49 (28–68); TDF/ETV→TDF: 50 (26–70) 24 (TDF or TDF/ETV for 12, then TDF for 12) Total: 3.38 (1.78–9.00) log10 IU/mL; TDF→TDF: 3.27 (1.78–9.00) log10 IU/mL; TDF/ETV→TDF: 3.50 (2.04–8.79) log10 IU/mL Total: 90 (88.2); TDF→TDF: 44 (88); TDF/ETV→TDF: 46 (88.5) TE, cirrhosis, ADV-resistant TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 1 mg/day
Hung et al, 201528 Taiwan NR 189 TDF: 30/11; ETV: 106/42 TDF: 49.8 (13.1); ETV: 50.6 (14.7) 6 TDF: 7.0 (1.9) log10 copies/mL; ETV: 6.5 (1.9) log10 copies/mL TDF: 14 (34); ETV: 42 (28) TN, cirrhosis, severe acute exacerbation TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 0.5 mg/day
Lim et al, 201629 Korea Randomized open-label trial 90 Total: 68/22; TDF: 32/13; TDF/ETV: 36/9 Total: 51 (9); TDF: 51 (9); TDF/ETV: 52 (10) 12 Total: 4.02 (3.08–5.24)b log10 IU/mL; TDF: 4.09 (3.07–5.47)b log10 IU/mL; TDF/ETV: 3.74 (3.10–4.95)b log10 IU/mL Total: 80 (88.9); TDF: 40 (88.9); TDF/ETV: 40 (88.9) TE, cirrhosis, ETV-resistant TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 1 mg/day
Qi et al, 201530 China Prospective cohort study 275 Untreated: 27/9; LAM: 25/25; ADV: 49/11; LdT: 54/14; ETV: 46/15 Untreated: 31 (21–59); LAM: 53.5 (23–66); ADV: 49 (24–70); LdT: 33.5 (21–64); ETV: 42 (19–64) Untreated: 23 (12–46); LAM: 24 (11–36); ADV: 24 (8–47); LdT: 23 (12–45); ETV: 24 (11–47) Untreated: 5.5 (2.9–8.1) log10 copies/mL; LAM: 6.1 (4.2–8.9) log10 copies/mL; ADV: 6.4 (3.8–9.9) log10 copies/mL; LdT: 7.4 (3.2–9.8) log10 copies/mL; ETV: 6.7 (4.1–8.9) log10 copies/mL Untreated: 18 (50); LAM: 24 (48); ADV: 31 (52); LdT: 59 (87); ETV: 46 (75) TN, TE, cirrhosis LAM: 100 mg/day; ADV: 10 mg/day; LdT: 600 mg/day; ETV: 0.5 mg/day
Tien et al, 201531 USA (all Asians) Cross-sectional study 146 Total: 78/68; untreated: 24/36; TDF: 29/13; ETV: 25/19 Total: 48 (11); untreated: 46 (12); TDF: 49 (12); ETV: 51 (9) Total: 29 (19); untreated: NR; TDF: 26 (13); ETV: 32 (24) NR Total: 27 (18); untreated: 8 (13); TDF: 11 (26); ETV: 8 (18) TN, TE, cirrhosis NR
Lok et al, 201232 USA, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Italy, Mexico, Poland, Russian Federation, South Africa, Turkey Randomized open-label trial 379 TDF/ETV: 146/51; ETV: 116/66 TDF/ETV: 39 (1.0)a; ETV: 40 (1.1)a 25 TDF/ETV: 7.5 (0.10)a log10 IU/mL; 7.5 (0.11)a log10 IU/mL TDF/ETV: 138 (70.1); ETV: 126 (69.2) TN TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 0.5 mg/day
Gish et al, 201233 USA Retrospective cohort study 160 TDF: 52/28; ETV: 52/28 TDF: 54.5 (13); ETV: 55.1 (12) TDF: 19.8 (2.1–45.5); ETV: 29.3 (1.1–55.1) TDF: 6.99 log10 IU/mL; ETV: 7.36 log10 IU/mL NR NR TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 0.5 or 1 mg/day
Liaw et al, 201134 Taiwan Randomized double-blind trial 112 TDF: 37/8; TDF/FTC: 40/5; ETV: 17/5 TDF: 52 (48–57)b; TDF/FTC: 50 (42–58)b; ETV: 54 (47–58)b 12 TDF: 5.70 (4.9–6.6)b log10 copies/mL; TDF/FTC: 6.28 (4.5–7.3)b log10 copies/mL; ETV: 5.93 (4.2–7.4)b log10 copies/mL TDF: 14 (31.1); TDF/FTC: 18 (40.0); ETV: 7 (31.8) TN, TE (but, excluded for prior TDF or ETV and ADV ≥24 months) TDF: 300 mg/day; ETV: 0.5 or 1 mg/day; FTC: 200 mg/day
Open in a new tab

Notes:

a

This indicates standard error (SE).

b

This indicates median (IQR).

Abbreviations: ADV, adefovir dipivoxil; CHB, chronic hepatitis B; ETV, entecavir; FTC, emtricitabine; F, female; HBeAg, hepatitis B e antigen; HBV, hepatitis B virus; IQR, interquartile range; LAM, lamivudine; LdT, telbivudine; M, male; MDR, multidrug-resistant; NR, not reported; SD, standard deviation; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; TN, treatment-naïve; TE, treatment-experienced.

Evaluation of renal safety of TDF and ETV

Information bias that may result from broad heterogeneity in the methodology among different studies was the major issue hindering meta-analyses. As presented in Table 2, various parameters were utilized in order to measure renal functions after administering TDF and ETV. The most common parameter used was eGFR calculated using modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft–Gault (CG) formulae.

Table 2.

Summary of renal safety evaluation provided by included studies

Study Renal safety evaluation Summary
Riveiro-Barciela et al, 201715 Mean eGFR by MDRD, mL/min TDF-containing BL: 90.8, 12th MO: 90.3, 36th MO: 88.9, 60th MO: 85.1
ETV BL: 81.2, 12th MO: 79.0, 36th MO: 84.8, 60th MO: 90.7
Mean creatinine, mg/dL TDF-containing BL: 0.9, 12th MO: 0.9, 36th MO: 0.91, 60th MO: 0.95
ETV BL: 0.99, 12th MO: 1.0, 36th MO: 1.0, 60th MO: 0.9
Koksal et al, 201616 eGFR by CKD-EPI-CysC, mean (SD), mL/min/1.73 m2 TDF BL: 84.7 (29.6), 3rd MO: 82.8 (45.9), 12th MO: 79.7 (36.3), 24th MO: 76.9 (30.8); p=0.004
ETV BL: 90.0 (24.1), 3rd MO: 96.6 (81.6), 12th MO: 92.9 (43.3), 24th MO: 84.5 (29.5); p=0.46
eGFR by CKD-EPI-Cr-CysC, mean (SD), mL/min/1.73 m2 TDF BL: 90.6 (22.5), 3rd MO: 82.7 (31.2), 12th MO: 83.1 (32.2), 24th MO: 73.6 (34.7); p=0.05
ETV BL: 93.5 (19.6), 3rd MO: 95.6 (41.1), 12th MO: 88.7 (31.2), 24th MO: 82.3 (23.7); p=0.17
Creatinine, mean (SD), mg/dL TDF BL: 0.76 (0.16), 3rd MO: 0.86 (0.19), 12th MO: 0.81 (0.24), 24th MO: 0.85 (0.26); p=0.08
ETV BL: 0.83 (0.18), 3rd MO: 0.84 (0.14), 12th MO: 0.82 (0.13), 24th MO: 0.80 (0.16); p=0.16
López Centeno et al, 201617 eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2, n (%) TDF-containing BL: 4 (12.5), 12th MO: 6 (19.4)
ETV BL: 5 (15.6), 12th MO: 5 (15.6)
Creatinine ≥1.4 mg/dL, n (%) TDF-containing BL: 3 (9.4), 12th MO: 4 (12.9)
ETV BL: 2 (6.3), 12th MO: 2 (6.3)
Rodríguez-Nóvoa et al, 20163 Creatinine, median (SD), mg/dL TDF 0.95 (0.15)
ETV 1.02 (0.20)
Control 0.93 (0.16)
Phosphate, median (SD), mg/dL TDF 3.18 (0.55)
ETV 3.19 (0.54)
Control 3.28 (0.45)
eGFR by MDRD4, median (SD), mL/min TDF 83 (15)
ETV 81 (14)
Control 83 (14)
Ratio protein/creatinine, median (SD), mg/g TDF 80 (43)
ETV 66 (59)
Control 63 (28)
Ratio retinol-binding protein/creatinine, median (SD), μg/mL TDF 104 (112)
ETV 71 (62)
Control 72 (49)
Zoulim et al, 201618 Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.3 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 24th MO: 1 (1.1)
Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 24th MO: 1 (1.1)
Creatinine clearance <50 mL/min, n (%) TDF/ETV 24th MO: 1 (1.1)
Phosphate <2.0 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 24th MO: 2 (2.2)
Phosphate <2.3 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 24th MO: 8 (8.9)
Sriprayoon et al, 201719 eGFR at BL, mean (SD), mL/min/1.73 m2 TDF 106.7 (20.6)
ETV 105.3 (22.3)
eGFR decrease ≥20%, n (%) TDF 12th MO: 18 (9.4), 24th MO: 33 (17.3), 36th MO: 32 (16.8)
ETV 12th MO: 6 (3.1), 24th MO: 13 (6.7), 36th MO: 29 (14.9)
Phosphorus <2.0 mg/dL, n (%) TDF 12th MO: 0 (0.0), 24th MO: 0 (0.0), 36th MO: 0 (0.0)
ETV 12th MO: 0 (0.0), 24th MO: 0 (0.0), 36th MO: 0 (0.0)
Fractional excretion of phosphate, mean (SD) TDF 24th MO: 9.4 (3.7), 36th MO: 9.6 (3.8)
ETV 24th MO: 8.9 (3.6), 36th MO: 8.7 (3.5)
Tsai et al, 201620 eGFR by MDRD, mean (SD), mL/min/1.73 m2 TDF Prior 12th MO: 80.1 (13.3), BL: 78.3 (11.6), 24th MO: 73.0 (13.1)
ETV Prior 12th MO: 76.2 (11.3), BL: 75.6 (9.5), 24th MO: 79.3 (14.2)
Rise in CKD category with ≥25% increase in eGFR, n (%) TDF 0 (0.0)
ETV 0 (0.0)
Rise in CKD category with <25% rise in eGFR, n (%) TDF 1 (2.7)
ETV 1 (1.6)
No change in CKD category, n (%) TDF 34 (91.9)
ETV 57 (91.9)
Drop in CKD category with <25% decrease in eGFR, n (%) TDF 1 (2.7)
ETV 4 (6.5)
Drop in CKD category with ≥25% decrease in eGFR, n (%) TDF 1 (2.7)
ETV 0 (0.0)
Park et al, 201621 Creatinine, median (range), mg/dL TDF/ETV BL: 0.87 (0.38–1.30), 12th MO: 0.90 (0.57–1.28)
Creatinine increase from BL >0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 1 (1.56) (BL: 0.60 mg/dL, 9th MO: 1.36 mg/dL, 12th MO: 0.58 mg/dL)
Wang et al, 201622 eGFR, mean (SD), mL/min/1.73 m2 TDF (TN) BL: 98.9, 6th MO: 94.5, 12th MO: 90.5, 24th MO: 90.5, 36th MO: 90.9
TDF (TE) BL: 92.2, 6th MO: 87.3, 12th MO: 86.7, 24th MO: 85.3, 36th MO: 84.3
eGFR decrease >20%, n (%) TDF (TN, TE) 38 (16.89)
Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF (TN, TE) 8 (3.56)
Phosphate <2.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF (TN, TE) 14 (8.28)
Tsai et al, 201623 eGFR by MDRD, mean (SD), mL/min/1.73 m2 TDF BL: 92, 12th MO: 85.6, 24th MO: 86.3
ETV BL: 86.1, 12th MO: 92.6, 24th MO: 94.4, 36th MO: 97, 48th MO: 100.8, 60th MO: 100.4
LdT BL: 81.1, 12th MO: 81.8, 24th MO: 79.3, 36th MO: 81.1, 48th MO: 84.7, 60th MO: 87.6
Phosphate <2.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF 4 (8.2)
ETV 1 (1.8)
LdT 1 (5.3)
Koklu et al, 201524 eGFR by MDRD, mean (SD), mL/min/1.73 m2 TDF BL: 100.72 (25.19), 1st MO: 96.44 (24.27), 6th MO: 97.13 (23.95), 12th MO: 96.11 (24.42), 24th MO: 96.72 (25.67); p=0.001
ETV BL: 96.20 (22.53), 1st MO: 96.37 (21.01), 6th MO: 95.87 (21.84), 12th MO: 94.30 (23.80), 24th MO: 95.94 (23.85); p=0.535
LAM BL: 96.91 (25.17), 1st MO: 96.00 (25.28), 6th MO: 95.34 (26.78), 12th MO: 97.50 (25.39), 24th MO: 96.23 (24.07); p=0.490
Creatinine, mean (SD), mg/dL TDF BL: 0.85 (0.42), 1st MO: 0.90 (0.56), 6th MO: 0.89 (0.51), 12th MO: 0.89 (0.42), 24th MO: 0.90 (0.58); p=0.001
ETV BL: 0.86 (0.19), 1st MO: 0.85 (0.18), 6th MO: 0.86 (0.19), 12th MO: 0.88 (0.21), 24th MO: 0.87 (0.22); p=0.500
LAM BL: 0.84 (0.17), 1st MO: 0.85 (0.18), 6th MO: 0.88 (0.42), 12th MO: 0.84 (0.19), 24th MO: 0.85 (0.21); p=0.111
Phosphate, mean (SD), mg/dL TDF BL: 3.23 (0.45), 1st MO: 3.21 (0.49), 6th MO: 3.21 (0.46), 12th MO: 3.15 (0.53), 24th MO: 3.23 (0.62); p=0.810
ETV BL: 3.38 (0.36), 1st MO: 3.47 (0.36), 6th MO: 3.39 (0.38), 12th MO: 3.39 (0.36), 24th MO: 3.45 (0.43); p=0.358
LAM BL: 3.08 (0.81), 1st MO: 3.17 (0.89), 6th MO: 3.28 (1.04), 12th MO: 3.22 (0.98), 24th MO: 2.98 (0.70); p=0.121
Kim et al, 201525 Creatinine increase from BL >0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 0 (0.0)
TDF/LAM 0 (0.0)
Creatinine increase from BL >0.3 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 5 (18.52)
TDF/LAM 5 (20.00)
Creatinine clearance <50 mL/min, n (%) TDF/ETV 0 (0.0)
TDF/LAM 0 (0.0)
Phosphate <2.0 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 0 (0.0)
TDF/LAM 0 (0.0)
Phosphate <2.7 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 2 (7.41)
TDF/LAM 3 (12.00)
Change in creatinine, mean (IQR), mg/dL TDF/ETV 6th MO: −0.03 (−0.25 to 0.23), 12th MO: 0.11 (−0.11 to 0.38), 18th MO: 0.21 (−0.08 to 0.42)
TDF/LAM 6th MO: −0.04 (−0.21 to 0.24), 12th MO: 0.08 (−0.28 to 0.25), 18th MO: 0.19 (−0.02 to 0.43)
Change in creatinine clearance, mean (IQR), mL/min TDF/ETV 6th MO: 0.7 (−60.9 to 16.9), 12th MO: −12.5 (−63.2 to 7.3), 18th MO: −22.1 (−64.3 to 6.9)
TDF/LAM 6th MO: 2.4 (−26.5 to 16.4), 12th MO: −7.5 (−31.9 to 33.4), 18th MO: −21.3 (−37.0 to −8.9)
Ha et al, 201526 Patients reclassified to a higher category of renal impairment classification, n (%) TDF 16 (15.5)
ETV 18 (17.5)
% change in eGFR from BL in patients reclassified to a more severe renal classification on treatment, n (%) TDF <10%: 3 (19), 10%–19.99%: 4 (25), 20%–29.99%: 7 (44), 30%–39.99%: 2 (13), >40%: 0 (0)
ETV <10%: 2 (11), 10%–19.99%: 9 (50), 20%–29.99%: 6 (33), 30%–39.99%: 0 (0), >40%: 1 (6)
Lim et al, 201627 Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF→TDF 0 (0.0)
TDF/ETV→TDF 0 (0.0)
eGFR <50 mL/min/1.73 m2, n (%) TDF→TDF 0 (0.0)
TDF/ETV→TDF 0 (0.0)
Phosphate <2.0 mg/dL, n (%) TDF→TDF 0 (0.0)
TDF/ETV→TDF 0 (0.0)
Hung et al, 201528 Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.5 mg/dL at 6 MO, n (%) TDF 2 (6.67)
ETV 2 (2.02)
Mean eGFR by MDRD, mL/min/1.73 m2 TDF BL: 108, 6th MO: 87; p=0.001
ETV BL: 92, 6th MO: 84; p=0.001
Lim et al, 201629 Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF 0 (0.0)
TDF/ETV 0 (0.0)
eGFR <50 mL/min/1.73 m2, n (%) TDF 1 (2.22)
TDF/ETV 0 (0.0)
Phosphate <2.0 mg/dL, n (%) TDF 0 (0.0)
TDF/ETV 1 (2.22)
Qi et al, 201530 Change in creatinine, mg/dL Untreated 12th MO: 0.004, 24th MO: 0.012, 36th MO: 0.030
LAM 12th MO: 0.018, 24th MO: 0.047, 36th MO: 0.082
ADV 12th MO: 0.071, 24th MO: 0.128, 36th MO: 0.314
LdT 12th MO: −0.066, 24th MO: −0.100, 36th MO: −0.135
ETV 12th MO: 0.006, 24th MO: −0.023, 36th MO: 0.007
Change in eGFR by CG, mL/min Untreated 12th MO: −0.665, 24th MO: −0.892, 36th MO: −1.047
LAM 12th MO: −4.530, 24th MO: −8.817, 36th MO: −11.637
ADV 12th MO: −5.623, 24th MO: −11.260, 36th MO: −13.720
LdT 12th MO: 8.232, 24th MO: 14.998, 36th MO: 23.619
ETV 12th MO: −0.001, 24th MO: 1.806, 36th MO: −1.358
Change in eGFR by MDRD, mL/min Untreated 12th MO: −0.692, 24th MO: −1.071, 36th MO: −1.799
LAM 12th MO: −4.715, 24th MO: −10.166, 36th MO: −12.410
ADV 12th MO: −6.922, 24th MO: −11.637, 36th MO: −15.381
LdT 12th MO: 9.570, 24th MO: 15.428, 36th MO: 26.236
ETV 12th MO: −0.002, 24th MO: 1.988, 36th MO: −1.284
Tien et al, 201531 eGFR by CG, mean (SD), mL/min Untreated 118 (36)
TDF 108 (29)
ETV 103 (26)
eGFR by MDRD, mean (SD), mL/min Untreated 118 (28)
TDF 103 (26)
ETV 102 (22)
Phosphate, mean (SD), mg/dL Untreated 3.4 (0.5)
TDF 3.4 (0.5)
ETV 3.5 (0.5)
Phosphate <2.8 mg/dL, n (%) Untreated 5 (8)
TDF 6 (14)
ETV 2 (4)
Creatinine, mean (SD), mg/dL Untreated 0.65 (0.17)
TDF 0.79 (0.22)
ETV 0.76 (0.19)
Creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, n (%) Untreated 0 (0)
TDF 0 (0)
ETV 0 (0)
Lok et al, 201232 Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.3 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 4 (2.0)
ETV 6 (3.3)
Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF/ETV 0 (0.0)
ETV 3 (1.6)
Gish et al, 201233 Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.2 mg/dL, n (%) TDF 22 (27.5)
ETV 23 (28.8)
Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF 3 (3.8)
ETV 11 (13.8)
eGFR decrease ≥20% (CG), n (%) TDF 28 (35.0)
ETV 29 (36.3)
eGFR decrease ≥20% (MDRD), n (%) TDF 33 (41.3)
ETV 35 (43.8)
Liaw et al, 201134 Creatinine increase from BL ≥0.5 mg/dL, n (%) TDF 4 (8.9)
TDF/FTC 1 (2.2)
ETV 1 (4.5)
Phosphate <2.0 mg/dL, n (%) TDF 1 (2.2)
TDF/FTC 2 (4.4)
ETV 0 (0.0)
Open in a new tab

Notes: The change in eGFR was calculated by (2nd year eGFR – baseline eGFR)/baseline eGFR ×100%. Categories of CKD were defined based on eGFR: ≥90, 60–89, 59–30, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Classification of eGFR is as follows: unimpaired (eGFR >80 mL/min), mildly impaired (50 mL/min ≤ eGFR ≤80 mL/min), moderately impaired (30 mL/min ≤ eGFR <50 mL/min), and severely impaired (eGFR <30 mL/min).

Abbreviations: BL, baseline; CKD-EPI-CysC, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration and cystatin C; CKD-EPI-Cr-CysC, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration and creatinine plus cystatin C; CG, Cockcroft–Gault; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; ETV, entecavir; FTC, emtricitabine; IQR, interquartile range; LAM, lamivudine; LdT, telbivudine; MDRD, modification of diet in renal disease; MDRD4, modification of diet in renal disease 4-variable version; MO, month; SD, standard deviation; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; TN, treatment-naïve; TE, treatment-experienced.

An observational study comparing long-term renal functions reported eGFR in 424 patients with TDF-containing regimens and 187 patients with ETV according to the MDRD method.15 In the patients with TDF-containing regimens, the mean eGFR decreased from 90.8 mL/min at BL to 85.1 mL/min at 60 months. However, in the patients with ETV, the mean eGFR increased from 81.2 mL/min at BL to 90.7 mL/min at 60 months. A retrospective–prospective cohort study conducted in Taiwan determined a change in eGFR in 37 patients with TDF and 62 patients with ETV based on the MDRD method.20 In the patients with TDF, the mean eGFR changed from 78.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 73.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months, whereas in the patients with ETV, the mean eGFR increased from 75.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 79.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months. A similar change in eGFR calculated using the MDRD method was also observed in a retrospective cohort study conducted in Taiwan.23 The mean eGFR in 170 patients with TDF changed from 92 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 86.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months; however, in 233 patients with ETV, the mean eGFR changed from 86.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 94.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months.

A prospective cohort study conducted in Turkey reported a change in eGFR in 44 patients with TDF and 32 patients with ETV according to the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration and cystatin C (CKD-EPI-CysC) method.16 The mean eGFR in the patients with TDF decreased from 84.7 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 76.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months (p=0.004) and that in the patients with ETV decreased from 90.0 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 84.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months (p=0.46). However, the mean values of eGFR in both groups were different when the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration and creatinine plus cystatin C (CKD-EPI-Cr-CysC) method was used. The mean eGFR in the patients with TDF changed from 90.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 73.6 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months (p=0.05), and the mean eGFR in the patients with ETV changed from 93.5 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 82.3 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months (p=0.17). A study conducted by Koklu et al24 in Turkey reported eGFR calculated using the MDRD method. The mean eGFR in 273 patients with TDF changed from 100.72 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 96.72 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months (p=0.001), whereas the mean eGFR in 282 patients with ETV changed from 96.20 mL/min/1.73 m2 at BL to 95.94 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 24 months (p=0.535). In a study conducted by Hung et al28 in Taiwan, TDF and ETV showed decreased mean eGFR calculated using the MDRD method. The mean eGFR in 41 patients with TDF changed from 108 to 87 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 6 months (p=0.001), and the mean eGFR in 148 patients with ETV changed from 92 to 84 mL/min/1.73 m2 at 6 months (p=0.001).

Discussion

Close attention should be paid to the safety and efficacy of TDV and ETV for the long-term treatment of chronic HBV infection, because they are currently the most potent antiviral agents for treating HBV infection.3,5 TDF and ETV are likely to cause renal toxicity through various mechanisms including renal tubular injury, apoptosis, and mitochondrial toxicity.5,6 The present study reviewed the literature and provided a comprehensive summary of the renal safety of TDF and ETV for the treatment of patients with chronic HBV infection. The results based on the studies reviewed in this article indicated that TDF and ETV could be responsible at least for reduced kidney function in patients with chronic HBV infection.

In this study, the effects of TDF and ETV on renal function were assessed. Based on the markers of renal function, compared to patients treated with ETV, those treated with TDF were not more likely to show changes in renal function, although the eGFR of patients treated with TDF tended to be more clearly reduced than that of patients receiving ETV. The eGFRs of patients treated with TDF decreased in a time-dependent manner, whereas those of patients treated with ETV increased or decreased across various time points.15,16,20,23,24,28 Similar percentage of patients in both the treatment groups showed ≥20% decrease in eGFR during the treatment (based on CG, TDF 35.0% vs ETV 36.3%; based on MDRD, TDF 41.3% vs ETV 43.8%).33 A similar tendency was also observed in a recent clinical trial conducted in Thailand.19 After 36 months, 16.8% and 14.9% of patients receiving TDF and ETV, respectively, experienced ≥20% decrease in eGFR; however, the decrease was observed in more patients receiving TDF than in those receiving ETV at 12 and 24 months.19 Around 30% of patients in both TDF and ETV groups experienced a ≥0.2 mg/dL increase in creatinine from BL; however, creatinine increase of ≥0.5 mg/dL from BL occurred in more patients receiving ETV than in those receiving TDF (13.8% vs 3.8%; p=0.025).33 The frequencies of creatinine elevation by ≥0.3 mg/dL were similar in both groups (TDF/ETV 2.0% vs ETV 3.3%); however, creatinine elevation by ≥0.5 mg/dL was more frequent in patients treated with ETV alone (TDF/ETV 0.0% vs ETV 1.6%).32 These heterogeneous results may be partially attributed to different characteristics, such as comorbidities and co-administered drugs, of the study subjects.

According to multivariate analyses, various risk factors, such as advanced age, preexisting renal failure, comorbidities, history of transplant, concomitant nephrotoxic drugs, advanced HIV coinfection, and male gender, were associated with eGFR reductions by TDF or ETV.23,26,33,35,36 Especially, preexisting renal insufficiency was a major independent risk factor for deterioration of renal function during the treatment of chronic HBV infection.23,26,33 Moreover, previous studies have reported an association of CHB with CKD, and ∼15%–30% of patients with CHB showed BL renal insufficiency or comorbidities that were likely to cause CKD, such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and HTN.7–11 However, TDF therapy was not significantly associated with changes in renal function when compared with ETV therapy.26,33 Large proportions of TDF and ETV are also renally excreted in their unchanged forms.37,38 Thus, NUCs other than TDF and ETV may be considered to prevent the progression of renal decline in patients with CHB and decreased renal functions.

Compared with TDF, tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), a novel prodrug of tenofovir, led to approximately four times higher intracellular concentrations of tenofovir diphosphate, an active metabolite, which may result in much lower doses of TAF than those of TDF.39,40 Consequently, ∼90% lower systemic exposure of tenofovir was expected in patients treated with TAF than in those treated with TDF.40 This is likely to reduce the risk for tenofovir-associated renal toxicity. According to a clinical trial conducted in patients infected with HIV-1, decreases or slight increases from BL to Week 48 in total urinary protein, albumin, retinol-binding protein, and β2-microglobulin to urine creatinine ratios were observed in the TAF group; however, increases from BL to Week 48 in the protein to urine creatinine ratios were reported in the TDF group.40 Two recent randomized clinical trials conducted in patients with HBeAg-negative or -positive chronic HBV infection reported that TAF not only was non-inferior to TDF but also improved the negative effect of tenofovir on renal function.41,42 In patients with HBeAg-negative chronic HBV infection, a small mean increase in creatinine from BL to Week 48 was reported in both TAF and TDF groups, and at Week 48, a median decrease in eGFR by CG was lower in patients treated with TAF than in those treated with TDF.41 Significantly smaller increases from BL to Week 48 in the markers of proximal tubular dysfunction, retinol-binding protein, and β2-microglobulin to urine creatinine ratios were noted in the TAF group than in the TDF group.41 Similar tendencies were observed in patients with HBeAg-positive chronic HBV infection.42 A network meta-analysis conducted by Chan et al7 reported that telbivudine (LdT) consistently improved renal functions measured by eGFR independent of measuring methods. In particular, tenofovir monotherapy caused decreases in eGFR, but combinational therapy of tenofovir with LdT improved renal functions.7

According to the WHO guidelines for the treatment of CHB in 2015, measuring BL renal function and assessing BL risks for renal dysfunction are recommended before commencing antiviral therapy.43 In cases where BL patients have eGFR <50 mL/min or risk factors for renal insufficiency, such as long-term DM, uncontrolled HTN, and severe bone-related diseases, tenofovir should be avoided, its dose should be adjusted, or ETV should be used.43 Thus, as shown in previous randomized clinical studies,40,41 TAF could be considered as the first drug of choice for the treatment of CHB in patients with reduced renal function or in those with risk factors for renal dysfunction. In addition, LdT monotherapy or combinational therapy with TAF could be another option for these patients; however, well-organized, randomized clinical trials are necessary to prove renal safety when TAF + LdT or LdT alone is administered to these patients.

This study had some limitations that should be addressed. Two electronic databases (ie, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov website) were utilized to search relevant clinical trials, although various databases are available. This limited data-base utilization also likely limited our opportunities to search additional valuable and relevant clinical trials. Almost all of the selected clinical trials mentioned that TDF and ETV were not likely to have significantly negative effects on renal functions. However, consistent results were not shown partially owing to the different characteristics of study subjects and various markers used to measure renal functions, which made the conducting of further meta-analysis difficult.

Conclusion

The data reported in this study suggest that use of TDF and ETV could be associated with reductions in kidney function in patients with chronic HBV infection. The eGFRs of patients treated with TDF were reduced in a time-dependent manner, whereas the eGFRs of patients treated with ETV increased or decreased across various time points. TAF as the first drug of choice for the treatment of chronic HBV infection could be used in patients with decreased renal function or in those with risk factors for renal dysfunction, and TAF + LdT or LdT alone could also be considered for these patients. However, well-organized, prospective, large-scale, randomized clinical trials are necessary to determine the renal safety of TAF + LdT or LdT alone for the treatment of such patients. In addition, studies on management strategies for HBV-infected patients with various risk factors (eg, advanced age, pre-existing renal failure, comorbidities, history of transplant, and concomitant nephrotoxic drugs) associated with reduction in eGFR are warranted in the near future.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (No 2016R1C1B1015938).

Footnotes

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • 1.WHO [webpage on the Internet] WHO Fact Sheet on Hepatitis B. 2016. [Accessed March 14, 2017]. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/
  • 2.Shin JH, Kwon HJ, Jang HR, et al. Risk factors for renal functional decline in chronic hepatitis B patients receiving oral antiviral agents. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95(1):e2400. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000002400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rodríguez-Nóvoa S, García-Samaniego J, Prieto M, et al. Altered underlying renal tubular function in patients with chronic hepatitis B receiving nucleos(t)ide analogs in a real-world setting: the MENTE study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;50(9):779–789. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Pol S, Lampertico P. First-line treatment of chronic hepatitis B with entecavir or tenofovir in ‘real-life’ settings: from clinical trials to clinical practice. J Viral Hepat. 2012;19(6):377–386. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2893.2012.01602.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Wu X, Cai S, Li Z, et al. Potential effects of telbivudine and entecavir on renal function: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Virol J. 2016;13:64. doi: 10.1186/s12985-016-0522-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lampertico P, Chan HL, Janssen HL, Strasser SI, Schindler R, Berg T. Review article: long-term safety of nucleoside and nucleotide analogues in HBV-monoinfected patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2016;44(1):16–34. doi: 10.1111/apt.13659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chan HL, Shaikh J, Gupta S, Hamed K. Renal function in nucleos(t) ide analog-treated patients with chronic hepatitis B: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2016;33(5):862–875. doi: 10.1007/s12325-016-0337-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chacko EC, Surrun SK, Mubarack Sani TP, Pappachan JM. Chronic viral hepatitis and chronic kidney disease. Postgrad Med J. 2010;86(1018):486–492. doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2009.092775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bhimma R, Coovadia HM. Hepatitis B virus-associated nephropathy. Am J Nephrol. 2004;24(2):198–211. doi: 10.1159/000077065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yi Z, Jie YW, Nan Z. The efficacy of anti-viral therapy on hepatitis B virus-associated glomerulonephritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Hepatol. 2011;10(2):165–173. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Fabrizi F, Dixit V, Martin P. Meta-analysis: anti-viral therapy of hepatitis B virus-associated glomerulonephritis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;24(5):781–788. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03041.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lai KN, Li PK, Lui SF, et al. Membranous nephropathy related to hepatitis B virus in adults. N Engl J Med. 1991;324(21):1457–1463. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199105233242103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Appel G. Viral infections and the kidney: HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C. Cleve Clin J Med. 2007;74(5):353–360. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.74.5.353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Fontana RJ. Side effects of long-term oral antiviral therapy for hepatitis B. Hepatology. 2009;49(5 suppl):S185–S195. doi: 10.1002/hep.22885. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Riveiro-Barciela M, Tabernero D, Calleja JL, et al. Effectiveness and safety of entecavir or tenofovir in a Spanish cohort of chronic hepatitis B patients: validation of the page-G score to predict hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Dis Sci. 2017;62(3):784–793. doi: 10.1007/s10620-017-4448-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Koksal AR, Alkim H, Boga S, et al. Value of cystatin C-based e-GFR measurements to predict long-term tenofovir nephrotoxicity in patients with hepatitis B. Am J Ther. 2016 Oct 4; doi: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000000518. Epub. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.López Centeno B, Collado Borrell R, Pérez Encinas M, Gutiérrez García ML, Sanmartin Fenollera P. Comparison of the effectiveness and renal safety of tenofovir versus entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Farm Hosp. 2016;40(4):279–286. doi: 10.7399/fh.2016.40.4.10492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Zoulim F, Białkowska-Warzecha J, Diculescu MM, et al. Entecavir plus tenofovir combination therapy for chronic hepatitis B in patients with previous nucleos(t)ide treatment failure. Hepatol Int. 2016;10(5):779–788. doi: 10.1007/s12072-016-9737-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sriprayoon T, Mahidol C, Ungtrakul T, et al. Efficacy and safety of entecavir versus tenofovir treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients: a randomized controlled trial. Hepatol Res. 2017;47(3):E161–E168. doi: 10.1111/hepr.12743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tsai MC, Chen CH, Tseng PL, et al. Does nucleos(t)ide analogues treatment affect renal function in chronic hepatitis B patients who have already decreased eGFR? A longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2016;11(3):e0149761. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0149761. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Park JY, Kim CW, Bae SH, et al. Entecavir plus tenofovir combination therapy in patients with multidrug-resistant chronic hepatitis B: results of a multicentre, prospective study. Liver Int. 2016;36(8):1108–1115. doi: 10.1111/liv.13059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Wang HM, Hung CH, Lee CM, et al. Three-year efficacy and safety of tenofovir in nucleos(t)ide analog-naïve and nucleos(t)ide analog-experienced chronic hepatitis B patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31(7):1307–1314. doi: 10.1111/jgh.13294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tsai MC, Chen CH, Tseng PL, et al. Comparison of renal safety and efficacy of telbivudine, entecavir and tenofovir treatment in chronic hepatitis B patients: real world experience. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016;22(1):95.e1–e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.05.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Koklu S, Gulsen MT, Tuna Y, et al. Differences in nephrotoxicity risk and renal effects among anti-viral therapies against hepatitis B. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;41(3):310–319. doi: 10.1111/apt.13036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kim BG, Jung SW, Kim EH, et al. Tenofovir-based rescue therapy for chronic hepatitis B patients who had failed treatment with lamivudine, adefovir, and entecavir. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;30(10):1514–1521. doi: 10.1111/jgh.12993. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ha NB, Ku K, Ha NB, Chaung KT, Trinh HN, Nguyen MH. Renal function in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or entecavir monotherapy: a matched case-cohort study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49(10):873–877. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lim YS, Yoo BC, Byun KS, et al. Tenofovir monotherapy versus tenofovir and entecavir combination therapy in adefovir-resistant chronic hepatitis B patients with multiple drug failure: results of a randomised trial. Gut. 2016;65(6):1042–1051. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hung CH, Hu TH, Lu SN, et al. Tenofovir versus entecavir in treatment of chronic hepatitis B virus with severe acute exacerbation. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59(6):3168–3173. doi: 10.1128/AAC.00261-15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lim YS, Byun KS, Yoo BC, et al. Tenofovir monotherapy versus tenofovir and entecavir combination therapy in patients with entecavir-resistant chronic hepatitis B with multiple drug failure: results of a randomised trial. Gut. 2016;65(5):852–860. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Qi X, Wang JY, Mao RC, Zhang JM. Impact of nucleos(t)ide analogues on the estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic hepatitis B: a prospective cohort study in China. J Viral Hepat. 2015;22(1):46–54. doi: 10.1111/jvh.12229. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tien C, Xu JJ, Chan LS, et al. Long-term treatment with tenofovir in Asian-American chronic hepatitis B patients is associated with abnormal renal phosphate handling. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(2):566–572. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3363-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Lok AS, Trinh H, Carosi G, et al. Efficacy of entecavir with or without tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for nucleos(t)ide-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(3):619–628. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gish RG, Clark MD, Kane SD, Shaw RE, Mangahas MF, Baqai S. Similar risk of renal events among patients treated with tenofovir or entecavir for chronic hepatitis B. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10(8):941–946. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.04.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Liaw YF, Sheen IS, Lee CM, et al. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), emtricitabine/TDF, and entecavir in patients with decompensated chronic hepatitis B liver disease. Hepatology. 2011;53(1):62–72. doi: 10.1002/hep.23952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Fernandez-Fernandez B, Montoya-Ferrer A, Sanz AB, et al. Tenofovir nephrotoxicity: 2011 update. AIDS Res Treat. 2011;2011:354908. doi: 10.1155/2011/354908. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nelson MR, Katlama C, Montaner JS, et al. The safety of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HIV infection in adults: the first 4 years. AIDS. 2007;21:1273–1281. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3280b07b33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Product Information: VIREAD(R) oral tablets, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate oral tablets. Foster City, CA: Gilead Sciences, Inc.; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Product Information: BARACLUDE(R) oral tablets, solution, entecavir oral tablets, solution. Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ruane PJ, DeJesus E, Berger D, et al. Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of tenofovir alafenamide as 10-day monotherapy in HIV-1-positive adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(4):449–455. doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182965d45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sax PE, Wohl D, Yin MT, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, coformulated with elvitegravir, cobicistat, and emtricitabine, for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection: two randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trials. Lancet. 2015;385(9987):2606–2615. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60616-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Buti M, Gane E, Seto WK, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1(3):196–206. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30107-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Chan HL, Fung S, Seto WK, et al. Tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate for the treatment of HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a randomised, double-blind, phase 3, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;1(3):185–195. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30024-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.WHO [webpage on the Internet] WHO Guidelines for the Prevention, Care and Treatment of Persons with Chronic Hepatitis B Infection. 2015. [Accessed May 30, 2017]. Available from: http://www.who.int/hepatitis/publications/hepatitis-b-guidelines/en/ [PubMed]

Articles from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management are provided here courtesy of Dove Press

RESOURCES