4.4 Article

Effect of Metabolic Syndrome on the Clinical Outcomes of Chronic Hepatitis B Patients with Nucleos(t)ide Analogues Treatment

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 63, Issue 10, Pages 2792-2799

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-018-5165-6

Keywords

Metabolic syndrome; Nucleos(t)ide analogue; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Disease progression; Survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundNo data are available about the effect of MS on oral nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUCs) treatment and clinical outcomes in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients.AimsWe aimed to elucidate whether coexistence of MS and CHB affects the long-term prognosis of CHB patients with oral NUCs treatment.MethodsWe performed a retrospective data analysis for a total of 587 CHB patients who started oral NUCs treatment for the first time in our institution from January 2006 to March 2016.ResultsAmong the 587 patients, 70 (11.9%) had MS, but 517 (88.1%) had no evidence of MS when oral NUCs treatment was initiated. Cumulative occurrence rates of viral breakthrough, genotypic resistance, HCC, disease progression (PD), and overall adverse outcomes (OAO) were significantly higher in CHB patients with MS than in those without MS, although HBV-DNA suppression and cumulative occurrence rates of HBeAg negative conversion and seroconversion were not significantly different between the two groups. The overall survival (OS) was also significantly shorter in CHB patients with MS than in those without MS. Multivariate analysis indicated that the MS was an independent, poor prognostic factor for occurrence of genotypic resistance (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 22.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 6.61-75.02; P<0.001), HCC (aHR, 3.98; 95% CI 2.07-7.66; P<0.001), PD (aHR, 6.18; 95% CI 3.43-11.14; P<0.001), OAO (aHR, 8.10; 95% CI 4.68-14.02; P<0.001), and OS (aHR, 12.29; 95% CI 2.25-67.24; P<0.001).ConclusionsMS is an independent determinant of poor prognosis in CHB patients receiving oral NUCs treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available