Skip to main content
. 2020 Sep 24;55(11):1023–1036. doi: 10.1007/s00535-020-01726-3

Table 1.

Summary of baseline characteristics and outcomes of studies comparing entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) treatment on risk of HCC development (Modified from Choi et al. [57] and Dave et al. [56]

Study (Year) Data source, country
(study period)
Study type No. of patients
(% Male)
Age, yearsa No. (%) of HBeAg positivity No. (%) of NA treatment-naïve (%) No. (%) of liver cirrhosis Follow-up time, months No. (%) of HCC and HR of TDF vs. ETV on HCC with 95% CI PSM variablesd
Liaw YF et al. (2011) [71] 39 sites in Europe (17 sites), Canada (4), Singapore (4), Taiwan (5) and the USA (9) (Apr 2006–Dec 2008) Phase 2, double‐blind, RCT TDF: 45 (82.2) 52 (48–57) 14 (31.1) 17 (37.8) 45 (100)b 48 weeks

TDF = 3 (6.7%) vs

ETV = 1 (4.5%);

HR, N.A

N.A
ETV: 22 (77.3) 54 (47–58) 7 (31.8) 9 (40.9) 22 (100)b 48 weeks
Koklu S et al. (2013) [72] 18 centers, Turkey Observational TDF: 72 (75.0) 54.2 ± 10.5 9 (12.5) N.A 72 (100) 21.4 ± 9.7

TDF = 2 (2.8%) vs

ETV = 4 (5.2%);

HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.11–3.28

N.A
ETV: 77 (77.9) 52.4 ± 11.2 17 (22.1) N.A 77 (100) 24.0 ± 13.3

Batirel et al

(2014) [73]

4 centers (two universities, one tertiary education and research center, and one state hospital), Turkey

(January 2008–October 2013)

Observational TDF: 90 (65.6) 43.3 ± 12.9 29 (32.2) 90 (100) 0 (0) 27.2 ± 15.4 TDF = 0 vs. ETV = 0 N.A
ETV: 105 (78.1) 42.0 ± 11.2 36 (34.3) 105 (100) 0 (0) 33.0 ± 15.4 HR, N.A

Goyal SK et al

(2015) [74]

Banaras Hindu

University

Hospital, India

(January 2007–January 2014)

Observational TDF: 220 47.3 (24–65) 85 (38.6) 173 (78.6) 220 (100) 45 (12–68)

TDF = 6 (2.7%) vs

ETV = 4 (2.2%);

HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.14–1.72

N.A
ETV: 180 48.1 (26–65) 70 (38.8) 137 (76.1) 180 (100) 36 (11–60)
Wu et al. (2007) [75]

Chang Gung Memorial Hospital,

Taiwan

(TDF: October 2011 to January 2014)

(ETV: January 2007 to January 2012)

Observational

(Entire)

TDF: 106 (69.8)

(Entire)

47.1 ± 12.1

(Entire)

50 (47.2)

(Entire)

106 (100)

(Entire)

29 (27.4)

(Entire)

37.9 ± 7.2

(Entire)

TDF = 7.7% at 48 months vs

ETV = 6.7% at 48 months

HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.26–2.05

Cirrhosis subgroup,

TDF = 17.1% at 48 months vs

ETV = 16.2% at 48 months

HR, N.A

1, 3–5
ETV: 313(73.5) 47.0 ± 12.3 172 (55.0) 313 (100) 94 (30.0) 49 ± 19.1

(PSM)

TDF: 106 (69.8)

(PSM)

47.1 ± 12.1

(PSM)

50 (47.1)

(PSM)

106 (100)

(PSM)

29 (27.4)

(PSM)

37.9 ± 7.2

(PSM)

TDF = 7.7% at 48 months vs

ETV = 5.1% at 48 months

HR, N.A

ETV: 212 (76.4) 46.3 ± 13.2 100 (47.2) 212 (100) 57 (26.9) 47.8 ± 19.1
Kayaaslan et al. (2018) [76] 6 Different centers (3 university hospitals and 3 education and research hospitals), Turkey (June 2008–June 2014) Observational TDF: 86 (55.8) 42 (range 18–71) 41 (47.7) 86 (100) 0 (0) 18 (range 12–72) TDF = 0 vs. ETV = 0 N.A
ETV: 166 (71.0) 43 (range 18–81) 56 (33.7) 166 (100) 0 (0) 48 (range 12–72) HR, N.A
Kim YM et al. (2018) [77] Kyung Hee University Hospital, Korea (July 2007–January 2017) Observational TDF: 112 (62.5) 49.3 ± 10.9 62 (55.4) 70 (62.5) 30 (26.8) 38.5 ± 9.2

TDF = 3 (2.7%) vs

ETV = 13 (6.8%);

HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.19–2.35

N.A
ETV: 191 (60.7) 47.7 ± 12.3 116 (60.7) 165 (86.4) 53 (27.8) 66.6 ± 26.8

Yu JH et al

(2018) [78]

Inha University Hospital, Korea (January 2007–December 2015) Observational TDF: 176 (59.1)

49 (range

20–84)

104 (59.1) 176 (100.0) 77 (43.8)

33.6 (range

6.3–60.5)

TDF = 7 (4.0%) vs

ETV = 31 (7.6%);

HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.56–3.45

N.A
ETV: 406 (67.0)

53 (range

18–84)

212 (52.2) 406 (100.0) 148 (36.5)

69.9 (range

6–119.4)

Kim BG et al

(2018) [79]

Ulsan University Hospital, Korea (January 2007–April 2017) Observational

(Entire)

TDF: 604 (60.1)

(Entire)

50 ± 11

(Entire)

376 (62.3)

(Entire)

604 (100.0)

(Entire)

267 (44.2)

(Entire)

33 (21–46)

(Entire)

TDF = 14 (2.3%) vs. ETV = 40 (5.5%);

HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.39–1.39

aHR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.28–1.30

Cirrhosis subgroup,

TDF = 14 (5.2%) vs. ETV = 36 (10.4%);

aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.30–1.49

(PSM cohort)

TDF = 7 (2.0%) vs. ETV = 24 (6.8%);

HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.22–1.25

1–15
ETV: 721 (65.3) 52 ± 11 430 (59.7) 721 (100.0) 346 (48.0) 66 (36–88)

(PSM)

TDF: 354 (62.7)

(PSM)

51 ± 11

(PSM)

223 (63.0)

(PSM)

354 (100)

(PSM)

156 (44.1)

(PSM)

N.A

ETV: 354 (62.1) 51 ± 11 232 (65.5) 354 (100) 169 (47.7) N.A

Choi J et al

(2019) [15]

Asan Medical Center, Korea (January 2010–December 2016)

National registry of patients with CHB (NHIS), Korea (January 2010–December 2016)

Observational

(Entire)

TDF: 1141(60.6)

(Entire)

48.1 ± 10.5

(Entire)

641 (56.2)

(Entire)

1141 (100)

(Entire)

653 (57.2)

(Entire)

32.0 (23–40)

(Entire cohort)

TDF = 39 (3.4%) vs. ETV = 115 (7.4%);

HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45–0.93;

aHR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.46–0.96

Cirrhosis subgroup

TDF = 35 (5.4%) vs. ETV = 107(11.4%);

aHR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43–0.95

(PSM cohort)

TDF = 31 (3.6%) vs. ETV = 61 (7.0%);

HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.46–0.99

(Entire cohort)

TDF = 394 (3.1%) vs. ETV = 590 (5.1%);

aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.59–0.77

(PSM cohort)

TDF = 350 (3.2%) vs. ETV = 567 (5.2%);

HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60–0.78

Cirrhosis subgroup

TDF = 206 (7.1%) vs. ETV = 338 (11.6%);

HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56–0.80

1–6, 8–10, 12–21

1–2, 5, 14–15,

22–24

ETV: 1560(61.9) 49.2 ± 10.5 853 (54.7) 1560 (100) 935 (59.9) 48.0 (36–48)

(PSM)

TDF: 869 (62.1)

(PSM)

48.8 ± 10.4

(PSM)

481 (55.4)

(PSM)

869 (100)

(PSM)

505 (58.1)

(PSM)

32.0 (22–40)

ETV: 869 (59.7) 48.8 ± 10.4 479 (55.1) 869 (100) 511 (58.8) 48.0 (35–48)

(Entire)

TDF: 12,692(62.6)

(Entire)

48.6 ± 9.8

(Entire)

N.A

(Entire)

12,692 (100)

(Entire)

3488 (27.5)

(Entire)

37 (30.1–43.5)

ETV: 11,464(62.6) 49.3 ± 9.8 N.A 11,464 (100) 2991 (26.1) 51 (37.3–57.0)

(PSM)

TDF: 10,923 (62.6)

(PSM)

49.0 ± 9.8

(PSM)

N.A

(PSM)

10,923 (100)

(PSM)

2919 (26.7)

(PSM)

37 (30.0–43.4)

ETV: 10,923 (62.3) 49.1 ± 9.8 N.A 10,923 (100) 2891 (26.5) 51 (37.7–57.3)
Cai et al. (2019) [80] 14 Tertiary hospitals or university hospitals, China (January 2012–December 2015) Double‐blind for 48 weeks, then an open trial for 96 weeks, RCT TDF: 157 (75.8) 30.8 ± 8.8 157 (100) 157 (100) 0 (0) 36 TDF = 0 vs. ETV = 0
ETV: 158 (76.6) 31.0 ± 8.4 158 (100) 158 (100) 0 (0) 36 HR, N.A

Kim SU et al

(2019) [16]

Yonsei University Severance Hospital, Kyungpook National

University Hospital, Korea University

Anam Hospital, and CHABundang Medical Center, Korea (January 2012–December 2014)

Observational

(Entire)

TDF: 1413(64.6)

(Entire)

48.8 ± 12.0

(Entire)

694 (49.1)

(Entire)

1413 (100)

(Entire)

411 (29.1)

(Entire)

N.A

(Entire cohort)

TDF = 102 (7.2%) vs. ETV = 138(9.3%); aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.75–1.27

Cirrhosis subgroup

TDF = 66 (16.1%) vs. ETV = 108(21.6%); aHR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61–1.14

(PSM cohort)

HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.35

1–3, 5, 8–9, 13–15
ETV: 1484(59.9) 48.2 ± 11.5 758 (51.1) 1484 (100) 499 (33.6) N.A

(PSM)

TDF: 1278(62.1)

(PSM)

48.2 ± 12.0

(PSM)

640 (50.1)

(PSM)

1278 (100)

(PSM)

400 (31.3)

(PSM)

N.A

ETV: 1278(62.1) 48.6 ± 114 640 (50.1) 1278 (100) 394 (30.8) N.A
Gordon et al. 2019 [81]e Longitudinal Chronic Hepatitis Cohort Study (CHeCS), USA Observational TDF: 407 48 N.A 164 (20.0) of all 822 patients 151 (18.4) of all 822 patients 48

TDF = 13 (3.2%) vs. ETV = 18 (4.3%);

aHR for Asian, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.29–1.68

aHR for non-Asian, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.60–5.87

N.A
ETV: 415 51 N.A 66

Yip TC et al

(2019) [58]

Territory-wide registry of patients with

CHB (CDARS), Hong Kong, (January 2008–June 2018)

Observational

(Entire)

TDF: 1309

(45.1)

(Entire)

43.2 ± 13.1

(Entire)

721 (55.1)

(Entire)

1309 (100)

(Entire)

38 (2.9)

(Entire)

33.6 (16.8–54)

(Entire cohort)

TDF = 13 (1.9%) vs. ETV = 285(5.9%); aHR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.80

(PSM cohort)

aHR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18–0.84

1–6, 8–10,

12–16,

25–27

ETV: 28,041(64.5) 53.4 ± 13.0 8317 (29.7) 28,041(100) 3822 (13.6) 44.4 (20.4–60)

(PSM)

TDF: 1200(48.9)

(PSM)

44.4 ± 13.1

(PSM)

625 (52.1)

(PSM)

1200 (100)

(PSM)

37 (3.1)

(PSM)

33.6 (18–54)

ETV: 4636(48.9) 42.9 ± 12.7 (53.5) 4636 (100) (3.6) 34.8 (18–55.2)

Hsu YC et al

(2019) [66]

19 Centers from 6 countries or Regions (USA, China, HK, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan) based on the REAL-B consortium database Observational

(Entire)

TDF: 700(65.1)

(Entire)c

45.7 ± 0.5

(Entire)

208 (33.7)

(Entire)

700 (100)

(Entire)

131 (18.7)

(Entire)

38.7 (23.8–56.2)

(Entire cohort)

TDF = 13 (1.9%) vs. ETV = 285(5.9%); aHR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42–1.56

Cirrhosis subgroup

aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.27–1.68

PSM cohort)

TDF = 11 (2.1%) vs. ETV = 19(3.7%); HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.37–1.60;

aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41–1.92

1–6, 13–14, 28–29
ETV: 4837(68.8) 50.2 ± 0.2 1537 (33.0) 4837 (100) 1344 (27.8) 60 (39.6–60)

(PSM)

TDF: 520(65.0)

(PSM)c

44.9 ± 0.6

(PSM)

338 (65.0)

(PSM)

520 (100)

(PSM)

105 (20.2)

(PSM)

38.9 (23.9–57.7)

ETV: 520(68.1) 44.1 ± 0.5 354 (68.1) 520 (100) 107 (20.6) 60 (36.5–60)

Lee SW et al

(2019) [62]

Catholic University, Korea (February 2007–January 2018) Observational

(Entire)

TDF: 1439(58.4)

(Entire)

47.3 ± 11.2

(Entire)

823 (57.2)

(Entire)

1439 (100)

(Entire)

483 (33.6)

(Entire)

36.4 (N.A.-N.A.)

(Entire cohort)

TDF = 50 (3.5%) vs. ETV = 84(5.3%); aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68–1.40

Cirrhosis subgroup

aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66–1.48

(PSM cohort)

TDF = 47 (3.4%) vs. ETV = 64(4.7%); HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.70–1.51;

aHR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.52–2.24

1–15, 17,

30–35

ETV: 1583(58.5) 46.7 ± 11.8 974 (61.5) 1583 (100) 567 (35.8) 60 (N.A.-N.A.)

(PSM)

TDF: 1370(58.2)

(PSM)

46.9 ± 11.1

(PSM)

807 (58.9)

(PSM)

1370 (100)

(PSM)

464 (33.9)

(PSM)

N.A

ETV: 1370(58.8) 47.0 ± 11.8 814 (59.4) 1370 (100) 465 (33.9) N.A

Kim WR et al

(2019) [65]e

IQVIA Pharmetrics PlusTM Claims dataset, USA (January 2006–September 2018) Observational TDF: 5903(56.0) N.A N.A 5903 (100) 463 (7.8) 17.9 (7.9–34.7)

TDF = 39 (0.7%) vs. ETV = 46(1.2%);

aHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39–0.94

N.A
ETV: 3819(63.1) N.A N.A 3819 (100) 370 (9.7) 17.0 (8.0–32.2)

Lee CJ et al

(2019) [61]e

Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taiwan (March 2007–April 2018) Observational TDF: 288(61.8) 54.1 (24.0–94.1) 75 (33.5) N.A 39 (13.5) 33.6 (8.4–124.8)

TDF = 8 (2.8%) vs. ETV = 31(6.9%); aHR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.39–1.91

Cirrhosis subgroup

TDF = 2 (5.1%) vs. ETV = 28(19.7%); aHR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.07–1.24

N.A
ETV: 452(65.7) 53.0 (23.4–89.7) 122 (33.7) N.A 142 (31.4) 37.2 (6–145.2)

Chang KC et al

(2019) [82]e

Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital & Linko Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan (January 2008—March 2018) Observational

(Entire)

TDF: 216(75.0)

(Entire)

56.1 ± 11.6

(Entire)

41 (19.0)

(Entire)

216 (100)

(Entire)

216 (100)

(Entire)

N.A

(Entire cohort)

TDF = 19 (8.8%) vs. ETV = 138(20.4%); aHR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36–0.95

(PSM cohort)

aHR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31–0.98

1,6,8,11
ETV: 678(72.4) 59.4 ± 11.1 125 (18.4) 678 (100) 678 (100) N.A

(PSM)

TDF: 159(74.2)

(PSM)

58.6 ± 11.2

(PSM)

28 (17.6)

(PSM)

159 (100)

(PSM)

159 (100)

(PSM)

N.A

ETV: 610(73.6) 58.7 ± 10.6 114 (18.7) 610 (100) 610 (100) N.A

Papatheodoridis

GV et al. (2020) [63]

10 Centers from 6 countries (Greece, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Spain, and the Netherlands) Observational TDF: 1163(71.1) 53 ± 13 233 (20.0) 521 (44.8) (31.6) 90 (N.A.-N.A.) TDF = 93 (8.0%) vs. ETV = 51(6.6%); aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.70–1.42 N.A
ETV: 772(69.7) 52 ± 14 110 (14.2) 607 (78.6) (22.0) 91.2 (N.A.-N.A.)
Pol S et al. (2019) [64]e

ANRS CO22

HEPATHER

cohort, France

Observational TDF: 1075(68.5) 46.7 ± 14.4 N.A 520 (48.4) N.A N.A aHR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.45–2.54 N.A
ETV: 885(73.2) 50.0 ± 13.7 N.A 567 (64.1) N.A N.A

aHR adjusted hazard ratio, CI confidence interval, ETV entecavir, HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, NA nucleos(t)ide analogues, N.A. not applicable, No. numbers, PSM propensity score matching, RCT randomized controlled trial, SEM standard error or the mean, TDF tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

aParentheses indicate interquartile ranges; otherwise, data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation

bAll patients had decompensated cirrhosis

cData are expressed as mean ± SEM

dPropensity score-matched variables; 1. age; 2. sex; 3. hepatitis B e-antigen; 4. hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA; 5. cirrhosis; 6. alanine aminotransferase; 7. aspartate aminotransferase (AST); 8. albumin; 9. bilirubin; 10. creatinine; 11. Alpha fetoprotein; 12. international normalized ratio or prothrombin time; 13. platelet count; 14. diabetes mellitus; 15. hypertension; 16. ascites; 17. Child–Pugh score; 18. Chinese University HCC score; 19. guide with age, gender, HBV DNA, core promoter mutations and cirrhosis-HCC score; 20. platelet age gender B score; 21. risk estimation for HCC in chronic hepatitis B score; 22. socioeconomic status; 23. level of health care; 24. smoking; 25. renal replacement therapy; 26. hepatic encephalopathy; 27. calendar year of treatment initiation; 28. country of study centers; 29. hepatic decompensation; 30. AST-to-platelet ratio index; 31. fibrosis-4 index; 32. body mass index; 33. alcohol; 34. esophageal varix; 35. gamma glutamyl transferase

eConference abstracts presented in the Liver Meeting 2019, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Boston, the USA