Table 3. Efficacy of Entecavir Prophylaxis in Allogenic HSCT Recipients.
| Study Author, Year Design, Place of study | Total (N) | Intervention, Dose, Duration | HPRP | High Risk Recipient(R) HBV Serology High Risk Donor(D) HBV Serology | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liao, 2015 Pros, China | High Risk=57 vs Low Risk=105 | ETV 0.5mg/day (12 mo) vs No Prophy | 57\57 | (R) Active HBV (25), Resolved HBV (32) | High Risk=1/57(1.75%) HBVr Low Risk=0/105(0%) HBVr |
| Aoki, 2014 Retro, Tokyo, Japan | High Risk=4 | ETV 0.5mg/day (12.5 mo) | 4\4 | (R) Active HBV (4) | High Risk=0/4(0%) HBVr |
| Shang, 2016 Retro, China |
LAM GROUP High Risk=88 Low Risk=31 ETV GROUP High Risk=75 Low Risk=22 |
LAM 100mg/day (119) vs. ETV 0.5mg/day (97) (24 mo for both) | LAM= 119\119 ETV= 97\97 |
LAM Group: (R) Active HBV (88) ETV Group: (R) Active HBV (75) |
LAM: High Risk = 28/88(31.81%) HBVr Low Risk = 0/31(0%) HBVr ETV: High Risk = 2/75(2.67%) HBVr Low Risk = 0/22(0%) HBVr |
| Tsuji, 2012 Retro, Tokyo, Japan | High Risk=158 vs High Risk=69 | LAM 100mg/day (12) ETV 0.5mg/day (146) vs No Prophy | 158\158 | (R) Resolved HBV (140), Active HBV (18) | High Risk(Prophy)=0/158(0%) HBVr High Risk (No Prophy) =4/69(5.79%) HBVr |
Abbreviations: N= Total number of participants, Prosp= Prospective, Retro= Retrospective study, LAM= lamivudine, ETV= entecavir, mo= months, yo= years, Prophy= prophylaxis, pts= Patients, (R)= recipient, (D)= donor, HBV= Hepatitis B virus, HBVr= Hepatitis B virus reactivation, HPRP: High risk patients received prophylaxis