Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Virology Journal and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Review

Comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B: A Systematic Review

Shu-Shan Zhao123, Lan-Hua Tang124, Xia-Hong Dai1, Wei Wang5, Rong-Rong Zhou1, Li-Zhang Chen6* and Xue-Gong Fan1*

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Infectious Diseases, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, PR China

2 Eight-Year Program, Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, PR China

3 Department of Spine Surgery, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, PR China

4 Department of Neurology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, PR China

5 Department of Gastroenterology, Third Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, PR China

6 School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, PR China

For all author emails, please log on.

Virology Journal 2011, 8:111  doi:10.1186/1743-422X-8-111

Published: 9 March 2011

Abstract

Chronic viral hepatitis B remains a global public health concern. Currently, several drugs, such as tenofovir and adefovir, are recommended for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B. tenofovir is a nucleoside analog with selective activity against hepatitis b virus and has been shown to be more potent in vitro than adefovir. But the results of trials comparing tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B were inconsistent. However, there was no systematic review on the comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B. To evaluate the comparison of the efficacy of tenofovir and adefovir in the treatment of chronic hepatitis B we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. We searched PUBMED, Web of Science, EMBASE, CNKI, VIP database, WANFANG database, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Review. Finally six studies were left for analysis which involved 910 patients in total, of whom 576 were included in tenofovir groups and 334 were included in adefovir groups. At the end of 48-week treatment, tenofovir was superior to adefovir at the HBV-DNA suppression in patients[RR = 2.59; 95%CI(1.01-6.67), P = 0.05]. While there was no significant difference in the ALT normalization[RR = 1.15; 95%CI(0.96-1.37), P = 0.14], HBeAg seroconversion[RR = 1.32; 95%CI(1.00-1.75), P = 0.05] and HBsAg loss rate[RR = 1.19; 95%CI(0.74-1.91), P = 0.48]. More high-quality, well-designed, randomized controlled, multi-center trails are clearly needed to guide evolving standards of care for chronic hepatitis B.