恩替卡韦或替诺福韦治疗慢性乙型肝炎患者肝细胞癌风险的观察性研究和荟萃分析的方法学和统计策略概述

T. Yip, V. Wong, Mandy Sze-Man Lai, Vicki Wing-Ki Hui, Y. Tse, G. Wong
{"title":"恩替卡韦或替诺福韦治疗慢性乙型肝炎患者肝细胞癌风险的观察性研究和荟萃分析的方法学和统计策略概述","authors":"T. Yip, V. Wong, Mandy Sze-Man Lai, Vicki Wing-Ki Hui, Y. Tse, G. Wong","doi":"10.20517/2394-5079.2021.144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are first-line antiviral therapies for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and reduce the risk of disease progression and liver-related complications, as well as improve survival by effectively suppressing viral replication. Nevertheless, since the first publication in 2019 on a lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Korean patients receiving TDF than those receiving ETV, the topic has remained a hot and unsettled debate. Multiple studies and meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results. As HCC takes time to develop, studies are mainly observational to benefit from a larger sample size and longer follow-up that provides a higher statistical power to compare the two treatments. However, TDF was available to CHB patients a few years later than ETV in most countries, thus leading to a difference in follow-up duration. Moreover, despite studying the same topic, the difference in data sources and available parameters, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and use of statistical methods complicated the interpretation and comparison of the findings and contributed to between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses. This review describes some caveats in interpreting and comparing the results from these observational studies and meta-analyses. Future studies should explore better designed observational studies with high-quality data sources, and aggregation of patient data in meta-analysis to tackle between-study heterogeneity.","PeriodicalId":12959,"journal":{"name":"Hepatoma Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overview of methodologies and statistical strategies in observational studies and meta-analyses on the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B on entecavir or tenofovir therapy\",\"authors\":\"T. Yip, V. Wong, Mandy Sze-Man Lai, Vicki Wing-Ki Hui, Y. Tse, G. Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.20517/2394-5079.2021.144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are first-line antiviral therapies for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and reduce the risk of disease progression and liver-related complications, as well as improve survival by effectively suppressing viral replication. Nevertheless, since the first publication in 2019 on a lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Korean patients receiving TDF than those receiving ETV, the topic has remained a hot and unsettled debate. Multiple studies and meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results. As HCC takes time to develop, studies are mainly observational to benefit from a larger sample size and longer follow-up that provides a higher statistical power to compare the two treatments. However, TDF was available to CHB patients a few years later than ETV in most countries, thus leading to a difference in follow-up duration. Moreover, despite studying the same topic, the difference in data sources and available parameters, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and use of statistical methods complicated the interpretation and comparison of the findings and contributed to between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses. This review describes some caveats in interpreting and comparing the results from these observational studies and meta-analyses. Future studies should explore better designed observational studies with high-quality data sources, and aggregation of patient data in meta-analysis to tackle between-study heterogeneity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12959,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hepatoma Research\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hepatoma Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2021.144\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hepatoma Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2021.144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

恩替卡韦(ETV)和富马酸替诺福韦(TDF)是慢性乙型肝炎(CHB)患者的一线抗病毒治疗药物,可降低疾病进展和肝脏相关并发症的风险,并通过有效抑制病毒复制提高生存率。然而,自2019年首次发表关于接受TDF的韩国患者比接受ETV的患者患肝细胞癌(HCC)的风险更低的文章以来,这一话题一直是一个热点和悬而未决的争论。多项研究和荟萃分析得出了相互矛盾的结果。由于HCC的发展需要时间,研究主要是观察性的,因此样本量更大,随访时间更长,这为比较两种治疗提供了更高的统计能力。然而,在大多数国家,慢性乙型肝炎患者获得TDF的时间比ETV晚几年,因此导致随访时间的差异。此外,尽管研究的是同一主题,但数据来源和可用参数、纳入和排除标准以及统计方法的差异使研究结果的解释和比较变得复杂,并导致meta分析中的研究间异质性。这篇综述描述了解释和比较这些观察性研究和荟萃分析结果时的一些注意事项。未来的研究应探索设计更好的观察性研究,采用高质量的数据来源,并在荟萃分析中汇总患者数据,以解决研究间的异质性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Overview of methodologies and statistical strategies in observational studies and meta-analyses on the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic hepatitis B on entecavir or tenofovir therapy
Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are first-line antiviral therapies for patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) and reduce the risk of disease progression and liver-related complications, as well as improve survival by effectively suppressing viral replication. Nevertheless, since the first publication in 2019 on a lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Korean patients receiving TDF than those receiving ETV, the topic has remained a hot and unsettled debate. Multiple studies and meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results. As HCC takes time to develop, studies are mainly observational to benefit from a larger sample size and longer follow-up that provides a higher statistical power to compare the two treatments. However, TDF was available to CHB patients a few years later than ETV in most countries, thus leading to a difference in follow-up duration. Moreover, despite studying the same topic, the difference in data sources and available parameters, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and use of statistical methods complicated the interpretation and comparison of the findings and contributed to between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses. This review describes some caveats in interpreting and comparing the results from these observational studies and meta-analyses. Future studies should explore better designed observational studies with high-quality data sources, and aggregation of patient data in meta-analysis to tackle between-study heterogeneity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信