4.6 Article

Non-invasive assessment of changes in liver fibrosis via liver stiffness measurement in patients with chronic hepatitis B: impact of antiviral treatment on fibrosis regression

期刊

HEPATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 673-680

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12072-010-9201-7

关键词

Alanine aminotransferase; Chronic hepatitis B; Liver fibrosis; Liver stiffness measurement; Nucleos(t)ide analog; Transient elastography

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea [A050021]
  2. Brain Korea 21 Project for Medical Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) can assess liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We evaluated whether LSM can be used to assess changes in liver fibrosis during antiviral treatment using nucleos(t)ide analogs in patients with CHB. We recruited 41 patients with CHB who had significant liver fibrosis, normal or slightly elevated serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels (a parts per thousand currency sign2 x upper limit of normal), and detectable serum hepatitis B virus DNA before antiviral treatment. Patients in Group 1 (n = 23) and Group 2 (n = 18) underwent follow-up LSM after antiviral treatment for 1 and 2 years, respectively. The mean age, ALT and LSM value of all patients (34 men and 7 women) before antiviral treatment were 46.6 +/- A 9.5 years, 40.6 +/- A 17.2 IU/L and 12.9 +/- A 8.6 kPa, respectively. Hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) was detected in 31 patients (75.6%). Fibrosis stage was F2 in 12 (29.3%), F3 in 6 (14.6%) and F4 in 23 (56.1%) patients. After antiviral treatment, LSM values and DNA positivity decreased significantly as compared to baseline (P = 0.018 and P < 0.001 in Group 1; P = 0.017 and P < 0.001 in Group 2, respectively), whereas ALT levels were unchanged (P = 0.063 in Group 1; P = 0.082 in Group 2). Our preliminary data suggest that LSM can be used to assess liver fibrosis regression after antiviral treatment using nucleos(t)ide analogs in patients with CHB.

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