Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,444

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Entecavir and Lamivudine for HBeAg-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B

Open access
Chang, Ting-Tsung, Gish, Robert G., de Man, Robert, Gadano, Adrian, Sollano, José, Chao, You-Chen, Lok, Anna S., Han, Kwang-Hyub, Goodman, Zachary, Zhu, Jin, Cross, Anne, DeHertogh, Deborah, Wilber, Richard, Colonno, Richard, Apelian, David·2006·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Entecavir is a potent and selective guanosine analogue with significant activity against hepatitis B virus (HBV). METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 715 patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B who had not previously received a nucleoside analogue to receive either 0.5 mg of entecavir or 100 mg of lamivudine once daily for a minimum of 52 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was histologic improvement (a decrease by at least two points in the Knodell necroinflammatory score, without worsening of fibrosis) at week 48. Secondary end points included a reduction in the serum HBV DNA level, HBeAg loss and seroconversion, and normalization of the alanine aminotransferase level. RESULTS: Histologic improvement after 48 weeks occurred in 226 of 314 patients in the entecavir group (72 percent) and 195 of 314 patients in the lamivudine group (62 percent, P=0.009). More patients in the entecavir group than in the lamivudine group had undetectable serum HBV DNA levels according to a polymerase-chain-reaction assay (67 percent vs. 36 percent, P<0.001) and normalization of alanine aminotransferase levels (68 percent vs. 60 percent, P=0.02). The mean reduction in serum HBV DNA from baseline to week 48 was greater with entecavir than with lamivudine (6.9 vs. 5.4 log [on a base-10 scale] copies per milliliter, P<0.001). HBeAg seroconversion occurred in 21 percent of entecavir-treated patients and 18 percent of those treated with lamivudine (P=0.33). No viral resistance to entecavir was detected. Safety was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B, the rates of histologic, virologic, and biochemical improvement are significantly higher with entecavir than with lamivudine. The safety profile of the two agents is similar, and there is no evidence of viral resistance to entecavir. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00035633.).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa051285

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,444

Metadata

Authors
Chang, T.-T., Gish, R. G., de Man, R., Gadano, A., Sollano, J., Chao, Y.-C., Lok, A. S., Han, K.-H., Goodman, Z., Zhu, J., Cross, A., DeHertogh, D., Wilber, R., Colonno, R., & Apelian, D.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2006-03-09
Volume
354
Issue
10
Pages
1001-1010
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W1985860298
Cited by
1,444
References
1
FWCI
100.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Entecavir and Lamivudine for HBeAg-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa051285
The paper
Chang, T.-T., Gish, R. G., de Man, R., Gadano, A., Sollano, J., Chao, Y.-C., Lok, A. S., Han, K.-H., Goodman, Z., Zhu, J., Cross, A., DeHertogh, D., Wilber, R., Colonno, R., & Apelian, D. (2006). A Comparison of Entecavir and Lamivudine for HBeAg-Positive Chronic Hepatitis B. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa051285

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.