Abstract
BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no consensus on the efficacy and safety of the entecavir (ETV) monotherapy versus the ETV-based combination therapy for chronic hepatitis B. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed on the comparison of ETV-based combination therapy and monotherapy for chronical hepatitis B (CHB) patients in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Libraries, and the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database. Both dichotomous and continuous variables were extracted, and pooled outcomes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD). RESULTS: We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohorts involving Group A: nucleos(t)ide-naive patients (four RCTs, n = 719 patients), Group B: nucleos(t)ide-resistant patients (four cohorts, n = 196 patients), and Group C: entecavir-treated patients with undetectable hepatitis B virus DNA (two RCTs and two cohorts, n = 297). Group A. ETV monotherapy was better for rates of undetectable HBV DNA, while the rates of the HBV DNA levels at the end of treatment, HBeAg Loss, ALT normalization were similar between the two groups [MD, -0.85 (95% CI, -0.173-0.03); OR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.24-3.56); OR, 1.31 (95% CI, 0.17-9.82)]; Group B. ETV monotherapy was better for rates of undetectable HBV DNA, while the rates of the HBV DNA levels at the end of treatment, HBeAg Loss, ALT normalization were similar; Group C. The ETV-based combination therapy was better for the rate of HBV DNA relapse. CONCLUSION: Based on the current data, ETV-based combination therapy seemed to be no better than ETV monotherapy. Further studies are needed to verify this conclusion.