ArticleDrug design, development and therapy2026
Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Entecavir versus Tenofovir Amibufenamide in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B.
Article in Drug design, development and therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of entecavir (ETV) versus tenofovir amibufenamide (TMF) in patients with chronic hepatitis B. Patients and methods: In this retrospective study, patients diagnosed with chronic hepatitis B between January 2022 and June 2024 were screened. Those receiving ETV as first-line therapy were 1:1 propensity score-matched to TMF recipients. The primary endpoint was HBV-DNA negativity conversion at week 48. Results: Of 50,645 screened patients, 182 met eligibility criteria (TMF, n=91 [48 HBeAg-positive, 43 HBeAg-negative]; ETV, n=91 [36 HBeAg-positive, 55 HBeAg-negative]). HBeAg status was balanced between groups (P = 0.074). At week 48, HBV-DNA negativity was 54.95% for TMF and 76.92% for ETV (P = 0.002; OR 95% CI, 0.193-0.693). Among HBeAg-negative patients, ETV achieved significantly higher negativity at week 24 (P = 0.028) and week 48 (P = 0.041); subgroup findings are exploratory. Treatment costs over 48 weeks were $14060.62 for TMF and $13334.70 for ETV, largely due to national health insurance coverage of ETV. The ICER of TMF versus ETV was -36.28, indicating ETV is more cost-effective. The substantial cost difference is primarily attributable to ETV being covered by national health insurance. Adverse event rates were comparable between the two drugs, indicating similar safety profiles. Conclusion: ETV showed better virologic response and lower drug-related costs than TMF in this single-center retrospective study, especially in HBeAg-negative patients. Further validation in multicenter prospective studies is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.