Entecavir for children and adults with chronic hepatitis B
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a major worldwide public health concern. Entecavir, one nucleos(t)ide analogue antiviral therapy option, is recommended as the first-line drug for chronic hepatitis B in many clinical guidelines. However, none of the guideline recommendations are based on the findings of a systematic review with meta-analysis, where entecavir versus no treatment or placebo are compared directly. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo in children and adults with chronic hepatitis B, who are either hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAg)-positive or HBeAg-negative. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, three other databases, online trial registries, and reference lists, and contacted authors. The latest search was on 19 July 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials comparing entecavir versus no treatment or placebo in children or adults, or both, with chronic hepatitis B, and irrespective of treatment history with other antiviral drugs and other viral co-infections. We allowed co-interventions when administered equally to all intervention groups. OUTCOMES: The outcomes reported in this abstract and in the summary of findings table are all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, and proportion of people with serious adverse events at the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias in the included trials. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model to meta-analyse outcome results, where possible, and presented the results as a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Where there was considerable heterogeneity, we performed a narrative analysis. We used a fixed-effect model for sensitivity analysis. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of evidence. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 22 randomised clinical trials (published from 2005 to 2022) with 2940 participants diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B. All trials had a parallel-group design. The experimental intervention was oral entecavir, with a follow-up duration of 5 weeks to 228 weeks. The comparator in 12 trials was no treatment, and in 10 trials was placebo. Fourteen trials equally administered co-interventions to the trial participants in the entecavir and no treatment and placebo groups. One trial included participants between 14 years and 55 years of age, one trial included only children, 19 trials included only adults, and one trial did not provide the age of participants. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Twenty trials contributed data to the quantitative analysis. Ten trials (1379 participants) reported all-cause mortality with a mean follow-up duration of 48.9 weeks (range 5 to 100 weeks). The result was not estimable because no deaths occurred in any of the entecavir and no treatment or placebo groups. None of the trials provided data on health-related quality of life. We are very uncertain about the effect of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo on the proportion of people with serious adverse events (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32; absolute risk difference 22 fewer per 1000 (from 44 fewer to 21 more); 15 trials, 1676 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The mean follow-up duration was 58.4 weeks (range 5 weeks to 228 weeks). We downgraded the certainty of evidence for these outcomes to very low, mainly because the overall risk of bias in most trials was with some concerns or high, and serious imprecision (no events or few events). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the issues of risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, we could not determine the effect of entecavir versus no treatment or placebo on critical outcomes such as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. There is a lack of data on health-related quality of life. Given the first-line recommendation and wide usage of entecavir in people with chronic hepatitis B, further evidence on clinically important outcomes, analysed in this review, is needed. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Registration: Entecavir for children and adults with chronic hepatitis B, CD015536 via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015536.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".