Table 3.
Summary of studies discussing the influence of hepatic steatosis on HBeAg seroclearance/seroconversion under antiviral treatment
| Source | Country | Hepatic steatosis (surrogate/method) | HBeAg(+) No | Treatment | HBeAg seroconversion/seroclearance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Charatcharoenwitthaya [19] | Thailand | Biopsy | 38 | IFN, LAM, ETV, TDF, LdT | non-steatosis 35% vs steatosis 27%, p = 0.599 |
| Chung [20] | Korea | BMI ≥25 kg/m2 | 44 | ETV | Normal BMI 36% vs BMI ≥25 kg/m2, p = 0.695 |
| Hsiang [21] | Hong Kong | MetS | 251 (124a) | ETV, TDF | Normal 39.7% vs pre-MetS 49.6% vs MetS 50%; HR 0.69 in steatosis ≥34%, p = 0.36 |
| Jin [22] | China | Ultrasound | 133 | ETV | Steatosis 24.6% vs non-steatosis 28.4%, p = 0.13 |
| Kim [23] | Korea | CAP | 172 | ETV, TDF | CAP < 238 dB/m 28.3% vs CAP ≥238 dB/m 13.8%, HR 0.991 in increasing CAP, p = 0.026 |
| Present study | Taiwan | Biopsy | 196 | LAM, ADV, LdT, ETV, TDF | Non-hepatic steatosis 57.4% vs hepatic steatosis 54.9%, p = 0.830 |
BMI Body mass index; CAP Controlled attenuation parameter; IFN Interferon; LAM Lamivudine; ADV Adefovir dipivoxil; LdT Telbivudine; ETV Entecavir; TDF tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; HR Hazard ratio; MetS metabolic syndrome
a124 patients had received liver biopsy