Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,188

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Entecavir versus Lamivudine for Patients with HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B

Open access
Lai, Ching-Lung, Shouval, Daniel, Lok, Anna S., Chang, Ting-Tsung, Cheinquer, Hugo, Goodman, Zachary, DeHertogh, Deborah, Wilber, Richard, Zink, Richard C., Cross, Anne, Colonno, Richard, Fernandes, Lori·2006·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Entecavir is a potent and selective antiviral agent that has demonstrated efficacy in phase 2 studies in patients with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative chronic hepatitis B. METHODS: In this phase 3, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 648 patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B who had not previously been treated with a nucleoside analogue to receive 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). RESULTS: Histologic improvement after 48 weeks of treatment occurred in 208 of 296 patients in the entecavir group who had adequate baseline liver-biopsy specimens that could be evaluated (70 percent), as compared with 174 of 287 such patients in the lamivudine group (61 percent, P=0.01). More patients in the entecavir group than in the lamivudine group had undetectable serum hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels according to a polymerase-chain-reaction assay (90 percent vs. 72 percent, P<0.001) and normalization of alanine aminotransferase levels (78 percent vs. 71 percent, P=0.045). The mean reduction in serum HBV DNA levels from baseline to week 48 was greater with entecavir than with lamivudine (5.0 vs. 4.5 log [on a base-10 scale] copies per milliliter, P<0.001). There was no evidence of resistance to entecavir. Safety and adverse-event profiles were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B who had not previously been treated with a nucleoside analogue, the rates of histologic improvement, virologic response, and normalization of alanine aminotransferase levels were significantly higher at 48 weeks with entecavir than with lamivudine. The safety profile of the two agents was similar, and there was no evidence of viral resistance to entecavir. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00035789.).

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/nejmoa051287

Cites

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 1,188

Metadata

Authors
Lai, C.-L., Shouval, D., Lok, A. S., Chang, T.-T., Cheinquer, H., Goodman, Z., DeHertogh, D., Wilber, R., Zink, R. C., Cross, A., Colonno, R., & Fernandes, L.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2006-03-09
Volume
354
Issue
10
Pages
1011-1020
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2108147025
Cited by
1,188
References
0
FWCI
91.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Entecavir versus Lamivudine for Patients with HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa051287
The paper
Lai, C.-L., Shouval, D., Lok, A. S., Chang, T.-T., Cheinquer, H., Goodman, Z., DeHertogh, D., Wilber, R., Zink, R. C., Cross, A., Colonno, R., & Fernandes, L. (2006). Entecavir versus Lamivudine for Patients with HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa051287

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.