4.6 Article

CXCL9 Associated with Sustained Virological Response in Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Receiving Peginterferon Alfa-2a Therapy: A Pilot Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076798

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Council [NSC 100-2314-B-010-024]
  2. Taipei Veterans General Hospitals, Taipei, Taiwan [VGH100C-104, VGH101C-147, VGH102C-136]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: There is lack of a practical biomarker to predict sustained virological response (SVR) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients undergoing peginterferon alfa-2a (PEG-IFN). The aim of this pilot study was to identify immunological features associated with SVR. Methods: Consecutive 74 CHB patients receiving 24 weeks (for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive) or 48 weeks (for HBeAg-negative) PEG-IFN, were prospectively enrolled. Serum HBV viral loads, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), CXCL9, IFN-.-inducible protein 10 (IP-10), interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) and transforming growth factor beta (TGF-beta) were measured at baseline and week 12. SVR was defined as HBeAg seroconversion combined with viral load <2000 IU/mL in HBeAg-positive (n=36), and viral load <2000 IU/mL in HBeAg-negative patients (n= 38) at 48 weeks after the end of treatment. Results: Nineteen patients (25.7%), 7 in HBeAg-positive and 12 in HBeAg-negative, achieved SVR. There were significant declines of HBV DNA, HBsAg, IP-10 and IFN-gamma levels at week 12. In multivariate analysis, pre-treatment CXCL9 >80 pg/mL, HBV DNA <2.5 x 10(7) IU/mL and on-treatment HBV viral load, HBsAg decline >10% at week 12 were predictors of SVR. The performance of CXCL9 in predicting SVR was good in patients with HBV DNA <2.5 x 107 IU/mL, particularly in HBeAg-negative CHB cases (positive predictive value, PPV=64.3%). Conclusions: Pre-treatment CXCL9 level has the potential to select CHB patients who can respond to PEG-IFN, especially in HBeAg-negative patients with low viral loads.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据