Table 3.
Summary of multivariate analyses of factors associated with hepatocellular carcinoma using propensity score matching or inverse probability of treatment weighting in patients who received TDF versus entecavir treatment in all patients and different subgroups
| Variables | Propensity Score Matching | Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | |
| All patients | ||||
| Age (year) | 1.040 (1.025-1.055) | < 0.001 | 1.038 (1.027-1.049) | < 0.001 |
| Sex, male vs. female | 1.479 (0.965-2.266) | 0.073 | 1.715 (1.250-2.354) | < 0.001 |
| Decompensation, yes vs. no | 1.983 (1.223-3.214) | 0.006 | 1.585 (1.082-2.320) | 0.018 |
| Diabetes mellitus, yes vs. no | 1.630 (1.089-2.438) | 0.018 | 1.416 (1.068-1.877) | 0.016 |
| Albumin, per g/L | NS | NS | 0.710 (0.556-0.907) | 0.006 |
| Platelet, per 103/μL | 0.996 (0.992-0.999) | 0.018 | 0.997 (0.994-1.000) | 0.020 |
| TDF vs. entecavir | 0.660 (0.461-0.945) | 0.023 | 0.729 (0.541-0.983) | 0.038 |
| Patients with compensated cirrhosis | ||||
| Age (year) | 1.027 (1.011-1.044) | < 0.001 | 1.030 (1.017-1.043) | < 0.001 |
| Sex, male vs. female | 1.628 (1.013-2.617) | 0.044 | 1.450 (1.010-2.082) | 0.044 |
| Diabetes mellitus, yes vs. no | 1.573 (1.013-2.442) | 0.044 | 1.362 (0.975-1.903) | 0.070 |
| Albumin, per g/L | 0.602 (0.410-0.884) | 0.009 | 0.660 (0.494-0.883) | 0.005 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 0.992 (0.985-1.000) | 0.040 | 0.994 (0.989-0.999) | 0.028 |
| TDF vs. entecavir | NS | 0.720 (0.507-1.022) | 0.066 | |
| Patients enrolled after 2011 | ||||
| Age (year) | 1.032 (1.014-1.050) | < 0.001 | 1.030 (1.013-1.048) | < 0.001 |
| Sex, male vs. female | 1.698 (1.017-2.836) | 0.043 | 1.736 (1.055-2.856) | 0.030 |
| Diabetes mellitus, yes vs. no | 1.583 (0.998-2.512) | 0.051 | 1.737 (1.124-2.686) | 0.013 |
| Albumin, per g/L | 0.588 (0.377-0.918) | 0.020 | 0.600 (0.411-0.877) | 0.008 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 0.992 (0.985-1.000) | 0.045 | 0.991 (0.983-0.998) | 0.011 |
| TDF vs. entecavir | NS | NS | ||
CI, confidence interval; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; NS, no significant difference in univariate analysis; TDF, Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.