title: Efficacy and Safety of Telbivudine Compared to Entecavir Among HBeAg+ Chronic Hepatitis B Patients: a Meta-Analysis Study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a serious global health problem that is associated with huge social and economic costs. Early antiviral drugs, such as interferon-α2b, peginterferon-α2a, lamivudine, and adefovir, all have their limitations (such as low responses or safety concerns) in clinical application. Telbivudine and entecavir are two of the latest nucleotide drugs and both have been shown to have potent viral suppression. However, in patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B (CHB), inconsistent results have been generated for efficacy between telbivudine and entecavir. Therefore, evidence-based medical data are required to compare the efficacies, in terms of virological and biochemical responses, and safety between telbivudine and entecavir.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  We aimed to compare the early antiviral efficacy and safety of telbivudine and entecavir in the treatment of patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B (CHB).
  
  
  METHODS
  A search for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on HBeAg-positive CHB patients treated with telbivudine and entecavir for 24 or 52 weeks, published before December 2011, was performed. Primary efficacy endpoint was the cumulative rate of undetectable HBV DNA, and secondary efficacy endpoints included rates of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, HBeAg disappearance, HBeAg seroconversion and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager v5.1.4 software package. We assessed the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the fixed-or random-effects model.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 555 patients were included. Telbivudine was associated with significantly higher rates of HBeAg disappearance (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.11 - 1.91) and HBeAg seroconversion (RR = 1.76, 95%CI: 1.25-2.48) than entecavir, but had higher adverse events (RR = 2.11, 95%CI: 1.23 - 3.60), compared with entecavir. There was no difference between telbivudine and entecavir in the rate of cumulative undetectable HBV DNA (RR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.90 - 1.10) and ALT normalization (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.85 - 1.00).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Telbivudine is associated with significantly higher rates of HBeAg disappearance and HBeAg seroconversion than entecavir, whereas entecavir is superior to telbivudine in safety. Both drugs have similar efficacy on rates of cumulative undetectable HBV DNA and ALT normalization.
authors.affiliation: Department of Hepatology, Ruikang Hospital, Guangxi Traditional Chinese Medical University, Nanning, China.
authors.forename: Jian
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Liang
authors.forename: Man Jun
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Jiang
authors.forename: Xin
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Deng
authors.forename: Xiao
authors.initials: X
authors.lastname: Xiao Zhou
keywords: Hepatitis B; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Safety
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 9;354(10):1001-10
references.pmid: 16525137
references.citation: Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2010 Sep;11(13):2243-9
references.pmid: 20698726
references.citation: Hepatology. 2008 Feb;47(2):447-54
references.pmid: 18080339
references.citation: Hepatology. 2007 Feb;45(2):507-39
references.pmid: 17256718
references.citation: J Viral Hepat. 2011 Jul;18(7):e184-90
references.pmid: 21692931
references.citation: BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
references.pmid: 9310563
references.citation: Lancet. 1991 Apr 13;337(8746):867-72
references.pmid: 1672966
references.citation: J Viral Hepat. 2011 Oct;18(10):e468-74
references.pmid: 21914065
references.citation: Hepatol Int. 2011 Jun;5(2):654-63
references.pmid: 21484148
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
references.pmid: 3802833
references.citation: Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2009 Nov;7(9):1053-62
references.pmid: 19883325
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 1986 Oct;4(10):1529-41
references.pmid: 3760920
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959 Apr;22(4):719-48
references.pmid: 13655060
references.citation: Clin Ther. 2006 Feb;28(2):184-203
references.pmid: 16678641
references.citation: Liver Int. 2011 May;31(5):676-84
references.pmid: 21457439
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2003 Feb 27;348(9):808-16
references.pmid: 12606735
references.citation: Biometrics. 1994 Dec;50(4):1088-101
references.pmid: 7786990
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 21;341(17):1256-63
references.pmid: 10528035
references.citation: Hepatology. 2009 May;49(5 Suppl):S4-S12
references.pmid: 19399804
references.citation: J Viral Hepat. 2004 Mar;11(2):97-107
references.pmid: 14996343
references.citation: Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2008 Sep;16(9):641-5
references.pmid: 18822200
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19;(2):CD004790
references.pmid: 16625613
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2007 Dec 4;147(11):745-54
references.pmid: 17909201
references.citation: Infect Drug Resist. 2011;4:55-64
references.pmid: 21694909
references.citation: Clin Liver Dis. 2005 May;9(2):191-211, v
references.pmid: 15831268
references.citation: Hepatology. 2009 May;49(5):1503-14
references.pmid: 19280622
references.citation: J Hepatol. 2009 Feb;50(2):227-42
references.pmid: 19054588
references.citation: Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 2010 Jul-Aug;43(4):440-51
references.pmid: 20802947
references.citation: Clin Ther. 2010 Apr;32(4):649-58
references.pmid: 20435234
references.citation: AIDS Alert. 2005 Jul;20(7):83-4
references.pmid: 16114113
references.citation: Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2011 Mar;19(3):178-81
references.pmid: 21586234
references.citation: Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010 Mar;54(3):1242-7
references.pmid: 20028815
references.citation: Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007 Apr;6(4):267-8
references.pmid: 17458000
references.citation: World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Aug 28;16(32):4095-9
references.pmid: 20731026