3.8 Article

Serum HBsAg quantification in treatment-naive Indian patients with chronic hepatitis B

Journal

INDIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 2, Pages 131-135

Publisher

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s12664-013-0395-1

Keywords

Chronic hepatitis B; E antigen negative; low replicative; Quantitative HBsAg

Funding

  1. Christian Medical College, Vellore

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims There is paucity of Indian data regarding serum HBsAg levels (qHBsAg) in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B (CHB). This study was done to determine correlation of qHBsAg with hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA levels and its ability to independently categorize subgroups of CHB. Methods We studied 131 treatment-naive CHB patients and initially classified them based on HBeAg status. The HBeA-gpositive group was further classified into immune tolerance (IT) and immune clearance (IC) phases based on serum alanine aminotransferase. HBeAg-negative patients were classified into low replicators (LR) and HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis (ENH) based on DNA levels. HBsAg quantification was performed using the Architect chemiluminescence system. Results HBeAg-positive patients had higher DNA (7.89 vs. 2.69 log(10)IU/mL) and higher qHBsAg (4.60 vs. 3.85 log(10) IU/mL) compared to the HBeAg-negative group. Good correlation between qHBsAg and DNA was seen in HBeAg-positive (rho= 0.6, p < 0.001) but not in HBeAg-negative CHB (rho = 0.2). A qHBsAg level greater than 4.39 log(10)IU/mL predicted HBeAg-positive state with 81 % sensitivity and 85 % specificity. However, among HBeAg-negative CHB, qHBsAg failed to discriminate between LR and ENH. Conclusions A single point estimation of qHBsAg in treatment-naive patients could predict replicative HBeAg- positive CHB, but was not helpful in defining replicative status in the HBeAg-negative CHB.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available