Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Efficacy of TDF, TAF, TMF, and TDF-to-TAF switch in chronic hepatitis B: a network meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Efficacy of TDF, TAF, TMF, and TDF-to-TAF switch in chronic hepatitis B: a network meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Efficacy of TDF, TAF, TMF, and TDF-to-TAF switch in chronic hepatitis B: a network meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Efficacy of TDF, TAF, TMF, and TDF-to-TAF switch in chronic hepatitis B: a network meta-analysis
2025
Overview
Objective
We compared the efficacy of four treatment strategies for chronic hepatitis B (CHB): tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), tenofovir amibufenamide (TMF), and TDF-to-TAF switch strategies strategy. We conducted a network meta-analysis to provide evidence-based clinical guidance.
Methods
We systematically retrieved PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases up to April 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. We assessed literature quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Stata 17 was employed for network meta-analysis, focusing on virological response rate, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) clearance rate, hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) clearance rate, and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization rate.
Results
Virological response did not differ between TMF monotherapy and TDF-to-TAF switch (OR = -0.03; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.36). HBsAg clearance was similar between TAF and TMF (95% CI: -1.17-1.14). For the rate of HBeAg loss, both TAF and TMF exhibited favorable therapeutic effects. For ALT normalization rate, TMF monotherapy was the most effective, with an average effect size of 0.11 (95% CI: -0.14-0.37), while TDF monotherapy was generally inferior to the other three treatment strategies.
Conclusion
Our findings may help guide the selection of individualized CHB treatment strategies. However, given the limited evidence and potential bias, these results are preliminary and must be interpreted with caution. For regimens such as TMF that lack robust data, well-established alternatives should be preferred. Long-term, multi-endpoint studies are required to confirm both efficacy and safety before routine clinical adoption.
Publisher
BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
Subject
Adenine - analogs & derivatives
/ Alanine
/ Alanine Transaminase - blood
/ Antiviral Agents - therapeutic use
/ Bias
/ Hepatitis B e Antigens - blood
/ Hepatitis B Surface Antigens - blood
/ Hepatitis B, Chronic - drug therapy
/ Humans
/ Keywords: chronic hepatitis b
/ Medicine
/ Reverse transcriptase inhibitors
/ TAF
/ TDF
/ Tenofovir - analogs & derivatives
/ TMF
/ Toxicity
