Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Tenofovir vs Entecavir Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis B Virus: A Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis.

Importance: Conventional meta-analyses with aggregated study-level data have yielded conflicting results for the comparative effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among patients with chronic hepatitis B virus. Within-study heterogeneity, between-study heterogeneity, and the inability of conventional meta-analyses to capture time-to-event data were associated with these results. Objective: To perform a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of high-quality propensity score-matched studies to provide robust estimates for comparative HCC risk between groups receiving tenofovir or entecavir. Data Sources: Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to October 6, 2021. Study Selection: The initial search yielded 3435 articles. Fourteen studies that used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics were included in the final analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Individual patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk of HCC was evaluated using random-effects hazard ratios (HRs) via a shared-frailty model and a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by study group. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis was conducted to account for varying estimated treatment effect across time. Main Outcomes and Measures: The comparative risk of HCC with tenofovir vs entecavir treatment. Results: From analysis of 14 studes with 24 269 patients (10 534 receiving tenofovir and 13 735 receiving entecavir; mean age, 49.86 [95% CI, 48.35-51.36] years; 65.05% [95% CI, 58.60%-71.00%] men), tenofovir was associated with decreased HCC incidence compared with entecavir (stratified Cox HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.94] at 5 years; P = .002). However, there was no significant difference in subanalysis of clinical cohort studies (stratified Cox HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.80-1.06] at 5 years; P = .24). Among administrative database studies, proportionality was violated, and HRs could not be obtained via Cox proporational hazards-based models. The mean time to HCC development in RMST analysis was 2.8 (95% CI, 1.8-3.7) weeks longer (P < .001) for tenofovir vs entecavir at 5 years. The RMST analyses for other subgroups revealed either insignificant or minimal differences (<3 weeks) in the mean time to HCC at 5 years. Conclusions and Relevance: In this meta-analysis, there was no clinically meaningful difference in the risk of HCC between patients who received entecavir and patients who received tenofovir. There was no difference between tenofovir and entecavir among clinical cohort studies, whereas the mean time to HCC development was less than 3 weeks longer for patients who received tenofovir vs those who received entecavir at year 5 among administrative database studies. The choice between tenofovir or entecavir should be decided based on patient convenience and tolerability.

Poor Outcomes of Cirrhosis due to Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis Compared With Hepatitis B After Decompensation With Ascites.

INTRODUCTION: Decompensation with ascites portends a poor prognosis in cirrhosis. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) with hepatitis B virus (HBV) cirrhosis after decompensation with ascites. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of patients with NASH and HBV cirrhosis who were admitted to hospital for first-onset ascites from January 1, 2004, to June 30, 2015. They were followed up until death, liver transplantation, or loss to follow up. RESULTS: Patients with NASH had lower median (interquartile range) Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (11 [9-14] vs 14 [11-17], P < 0.001). Over 60 months, patients with NASH cirrhosis had higher cumulative incidence of dilutional hyponatremia (P < 0.001) and refractory ascites (P = 0.028). They also had higher cumulative incidence of cirrhosis-related deaths and liver transplantation compared with HBV cirrhosis (65.7%; [95% confidence interval (CI) 53.6-75.4] vs 42.5% [95% CI 32.4-55.2], P = 0.008). Multivariable competing risk analysis showed that NASH (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR] 1.88 [95% CI 1.14-3.11], P = 0.014), non-Chinese ethnicity (sHR 1.63 [95% CI 1.06-2.50], P = 0.027), history of hepatocellular carcinoma (sHR 1.76 [95% CI 1.05-2.95], P = 0.033), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (sHR 1.70 [95% CI 1.09-2.65], P = 0.020), and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score ≥15 (sHR 3.26 [95% CI 2.11-5.05], P < 0.001) were independent predictors of poor transplant-free survival. DISCUSSION: Patients with decompensated cirrhosis due to NASH had much poorer prognosis compared with HBV with more complications and greater healthcare resource utilization. Greater awareness is necessary for early diagnosis of NASH before decompensation.

Epidemiology of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic, but its reported characteristics and outcomes vary greatly amongst studies. We determined pooled estimates for clinical characteristics and outcomes in COVID-19 patients including subgroups by disease severity (based on World Health Organization Interim Guidance Report or Infectious Disease Society of America/American Thoracic Society criteria) and by country/region. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Chinese Medical Journal, and preprint databases from 1 January 2020 to 6 April 2020. Studies of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients with relevant data were included. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction. From 6007 articles, 212 studies from 11 countries/regions involving 281 461 individuals were analyzed. Overall, mean age was 46.7 years, 51.8% were male, 22.9% had severe disease, and mortality was 5.6%. Underlying immunosuppression, diabetes, and malignancy were most strongly associated with severe COVID-19 (coefficient = 53.9, 23.4, 23.4, respectively, all P < .0007), while older age, male gender, diabetes, and hypertension were also associated with higher mortality (coefficient = 0.05 per year, 5.1, 8.2, 6.99, respectively; P = .006-.0002). Gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain) and respiratory symptoms (shortness of breath, chest pain) were associated with severe COVID-19, while pneumonia and end-organ failure were associated with mortality. COVID-19 is associated with a severe disease course in about 23% and mortality in about 6% of infected persons. Individuals with comorbidities and clinical features associated with severity should be monitored closely, and preventive efforts should especially target those with diabetes, malignancy, and immunosuppression.