RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acute hepatitis B infection is associated with severe liver disease and chronic sequelae in some cases. The purpose of this review was to determine the efficacy of nucleoside analogues (NA) (lamivudine versus entecavir) compared to placebo or no intervention for treating acute primary HBV infection. METHODS: A meta-analysis for drug intervention was performed, following a fixed-effect model. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies that evaluated the outcomes of NA in acute hepatitis B infection were included. The following outcomes were considered: virological cure (PCR negative), elimination of acute infection (seroconversion of HBsAg), mortality, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Five trials with 627 adult participants with severe acute hepatitis B defined by biochemical and serologic parameters were included. Virological cure did not favor any intervention: OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.7 (p = 0.90), I2 = 58%. Seroconversion of HBsAg to negative favored placebo/standard-of-care compared to lamivudine: OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.9 (p = 0.02), I2 = 31%. The only trial that compared entecavir and lamivudine favored entecavir over lamivudine (OR: 3.64, 95% CI 1.31-10.13; 90 participants). Adverse events were mild. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence that NA obtain superior efficacy compared with placebo/standard-of-care in patients with acute viral hepatitis, based on low quality evidence.
