Scholarlink

Background <p>In treating Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) carries risks like renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density (BMD). TAF, the next-generation prodrug of TFV, is more stable in plasma than TDF, requires a significantly lower dose (25&#xa0;mg vs. 300&#xa0;mg), and results in approximately 90% lower plasma TFV levels, contributing to a more favorable renal and bone safety profile. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) compared to TDF in CHB.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a search on PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library. Only four RCTs that studied the comparison of efficacy and safety of TAF and TDF in treating CHB were included. The Primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients with Hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA below 15–29 IU/ml as all the RCT’s included in this study report the same HBV DNA levels. We used a random-effects model to calculate the Risk Ratio (RR) and Mean Difference (MD) with 95% CI.</p> Results <p>This meta-analysis includes four eligible RCTs including 1,960 total patients. The comparison between TAF and TDF groups regarding HBV DNA level revealed no significant difference (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.05; <i>P</i> = 0.82). Pooled data showed beneficial effects of TAF compared with TDF for ALT Normalization (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.16 TO 1.64; <i>p</i> = 0.0002), Hip BMD (MD = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.91; P ‹ 0.00001), Spine BMD (MD = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.42 to 2.44; P ‹ 0.00001), serum creatinine concentration (MD= -0.02, 95% CI=-0.03 to -0.01; P ‹ 0.00001) and eGFR (MD = 3.55, 95% CI = 2.97 to 4.14; P ‹ 0.00001). However, the TAF group showed a significantly greater proportion of patients (46/1080 vs. 5/662) with LDL levels &gt; 190 or 300&#xa0;mg/dl than the TDF group (RR = 4.95, 95% CI = 1.21 to 20.29; <i>P</i> = 0.03).</p> Conclusion <p>The TAF demonstrated improved BMD and renal function compared to TDF. There was no significant difference between TAF and TDF in achieving viral suppression.</p> Clinical trial number <p>This was a systematic review and meta-analysis not a clinical trial.</p> Study registration <p>This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023456006).</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide versus tenofovir disoproxil in chronic hepatitis b: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月6日

查看全文
  • Marrium Sultan Dar,
  • Haziq Ovais,
  • Aimen Waqar Khan,
  • Samra Ishaq,
  • Yusra Muhammad Saleem,
  • Syeda Dua Azhar,
  • Muhammad Affan,
  • Zuhaa Rehman,
  • Fabiha Athar,
  • Tooba Fatima,
  • Jawad Zahid,
  • Saqib Ali,
  • Noor ul Ain,
  • Salim Surani,
  • Muhammad Sohaib Asghar,
  • Khabab Abbasher Hussien Mohamed Ahmed

摘要

Background

In treating Chronic Hepatitis B (CHB), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) carries risks like renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density (BMD). TAF, the next-generation prodrug of TFV, is more stable in plasma than TDF, requires a significantly lower dose (25 mg vs. 300 mg), and results in approximately 90% lower plasma TFV levels, contributing to a more favorable renal and bone safety profile. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) compared to TDF in CHB.

Methods

We conducted a search on PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library. Only four RCTs that studied the comparison of efficacy and safety of TAF and TDF in treating CHB were included. The Primary outcome of interest was the proportion of patients with Hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA below 15–29 IU/ml as all the RCT’s included in this study report the same HBV DNA levels. We used a random-effects model to calculate the Risk Ratio (RR) and Mean Difference (MD) with 95% CI.

Results

This meta-analysis includes four eligible RCTs including 1,960 total patients. The comparison between TAF and TDF groups regarding HBV DNA level revealed no significant difference (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.05; P = 0.82). Pooled data showed beneficial effects of TAF compared with TDF for ALT Normalization (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.16 TO 1.64; p = 0.0002), Hip BMD (MD = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.91; P ‹ 0.00001), Spine BMD (MD = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.42 to 2.44; P ‹ 0.00001), serum creatinine concentration (MD= -0.02, 95% CI=-0.03 to -0.01; P ‹ 0.00001) and eGFR (MD = 3.55, 95% CI = 2.97 to 4.14; P ‹ 0.00001). However, the TAF group showed a significantly greater proportion of patients (46/1080 vs. 5/662) with LDL levels > 190 or 300 mg/dl than the TDF group (RR = 4.95, 95% CI = 1.21 to 20.29; P = 0.03).

Conclusion

The TAF demonstrated improved BMD and renal function compared to TDF. There was no significant difference between TAF and TDF in achieving viral suppression.

Clinical trial number

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis not a clinical trial.

Study registration

This systematic review and meta-analysis is registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023456006).