Open AccessA comparative network meta-analysis of standard of care treatments in treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients
Author(s) -
U. Sbarigia,
Talitha Vincken,
P. Wigfield,
Mahmoud Hashim,
Bart Heeg,
Maarten Postma
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of comparative effectiveness research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.567
H-Index - 23
eISSN - 2042-6313
pISSN - 2042-6305
DOI - 10.2217/cer-2020-0068
Subject(s) - medicine , hbeag , hbsag , seroconversion , pegylated interferon , hepatitis b , hepatitis b virus , randomized controlled trial , meta analysis , gastroenterology , immunology , chronic hepatitis , virus , ribavirin
Objective: Published network meta-analyses of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) treatments are either out-of-date or excluded key treatments. Therefore, we aimed to comprehensively update the efficacy evidence for the following end points: Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) loss, hepatitis B early antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion and hepatitis B virus DNA (HBV DNA) suppression. Materials & methods: Approved treatments in CHB and their combinations were evaluated. A systematic literature review was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials in treatment-naïve CHB patients. Included studies reported at least one of the end points of interest. A frequentist probability network meta-analysis was performed for each end point. The choice of fixed effect or random-effect model was based on the I-square statistic, a measure of variation in study outcomes between studies. The analyses were performed separately for HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. For the primary analyses, end points measured 48 ± 4 weeks after treatment initiation were considered. Results: A total of 47 randomized controlled trials (13,826 patients), covering 23 unique treatment regimens, were included: a total of 29 reported HBsAg loss, 36 reported HBeAg seroconversion and 37 reported HBV DNA suppression. For both HBsAg loss and HBeAg seroconversion, pegylated interferon-based regimens were the most effective strategy in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. On the other hand, for HBV DNA suppression, nucleosides-based regimens were the most effective strategy in both HBeAg-positive and HBeAg-negative patients. Conclusion: Our findings confirm available evidence around the comparative efficacy of available CHB treatments. Therefore, they can be used to update relevant cost–effectiveness analyses and clinical guidelines.