{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.050205241553520685, 'fraction_numerical': 0.03441742974423745, 'mean_word_length': 4.812844036697248, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of tenofovir alafenamide and entecavir for hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure.

OBJECTIVES
Hepatitis B virus related acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF) is the most common type of liver failure in China, with a high mortality. Early rapid reduction of HBV-DNA load can improve the survival rate of HBV-ACLF patients. At present, the commonly used drugs are nucleoside (acid) analogues, such as entecavir (ETV), tenofovir, and so on. The newly listed tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) has attracted great attention of clinicians because of its stronger antiviral effect, higher transaminase normalization rate, better bone and kidney safety, and zero drug resistance. However, there are few clinical research data on the efficacy and safety of TAF in the treatment of Chinese HBV-ACLF patients, and there is a lack of pharmacoeconomic evaluation. This study aims to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness between TAF and ETV in patients with HBV-ACLF.


METHODS
The data were collected from 196 HBV-ACLF patients (80 patients in the TAF group and 116 patients in the ETV group) who were hospitalized in Xiangya Hospital, Central South University from May 2020 to March 2021. Biochemistry and virology were detected before and after treatment (at baseline, Week 2, 4, and 12). Clinical features, disease prognosis, and cost-effectiveness were compared between the 2 groups. According to the baseline, HBV-ACLF patients were divided into 4 stages including pre-liver failure stage, early stage, medium stage, and end stage. And the liver transplantation rate and mortality was also compared. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation was taken using cost-effectiveness analysis and cost minimization analysis．.


RESULTS
After 4 weeks of treatment, there were no significant differences in the efficacy (liver function, viral load) between the 2 groups (all P>0.05). The TAF group showed lower creatinine [(80.35±18.77) μmol/L vs (105.59±82.32) μmol/L, P<0.05] and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) levels [(95.65±23.21) mL/(min·1.73 m2) vs (82.68±26.32) mL/(min·1.73 m2), P<0.05] than the ETV group. After 12 weeks of treatment, the analysis of overall the liver transplantation rate and mortality between the 2 groups showed similar conclusion. However, the TAF group had a lower the liver transplantation rate and mortality than the ETV group in patients with pre-liver failure (0vs13.89%, P<0.05). No evident distinction was found in the liver transplantation rate and mortality during the early, medium, or end stages of liver failure (13.04% vs 17.65%, 37.50% vs 37.04%, and 54.55% vs 68.42%, respectively). Ratio of cost to effectiveness in the ETV group was higher than that in the TAF group.


CONCLUSIONS
TAF is not more efficient than ETV group in improving liver function and reducing viral load for HBV-ACLF patients and they also show similar safety. However, TAF has a greater advantage over ETV not only in preserving renal function, but also in reducing the liver transplantation rate and mortality in patients with pre-liver failure. TAF can provide economic benefit to patients with HBV-ACLF.