Subclinical proximal tubulopathy in hepatitis B: The roles of nucleot(s)ide analogue treatment and the hepatitis B virus

Table 4 Potential confounding factors at baseline susceptible to influence the prevalence of subclinical proximal tubulopathy at month 24 between the different groups in univariate analysis

		HR (95%CI)	P value	Global P value
Fibrosis	≥ F2 vs F0/F1	1.09 (0.32-3.67)	0.89	0.89
Group	ETV vs naive	0.41 (0.09-1.83)	0.24	0.043
	TDF vs naive	2.28 (0.98-5.30)	0.05
Sex	Female vs male	0.85 (0.38-1.87)	0.68	0.68
Ethnicity	African vs White	0.91 (0.41-2.04)	0.83	0.63
	Asian vs White	0.36 (0.05-2.84)	0.33
Diabetes	Yes vs no	0.63 (0.08-4.67)	0.65	0.65
Previous hypertension	Yes vs no	1.26 (0.50-3.17)	0.63	0.63
Viral load	Low vs very low	0.94 (0.30-2.89)	0.91	0.46
	Elevated vs very low	2.38 (0.77-7.34)	0.13
	Very elevated vs very low	1.40 (0.40-4.93)	0.60
Previous HBV therapy	Yes vs no	1.11 (0.33-3.74)	0.86	0.86
Age at inclusion		1.02 (0.98-1.05)		0.35
BMI at inclusion		0.98 (0.89-1.08)		0.67
ALAT at inclusion		1.00 (0.99-1.01)		0.67

ALAT: Alanine aminotransferase; BMI: Body mass index; ETV: Entecavir; HBV: Hepatitis B virus; HR: Hazard ratio; TDF: Tenofovir disoproxil.