4.5 Article

Development rate of chronic kidney disease in hepatitis C virus patients with advanced fibrosis after interferon therapy

期刊

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 946-954

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2011.00845.x

关键词

chronic kidney disease; hepatitis C virus; liver cirrhosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to assess the development incidence and predictive factors for chronic kidney disease (CKD) after the termination of interferon therapy in hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive Japanese patients with liver cirrhosis. Methods: A total of 650 HCV positive, liver cirrhotic patients who were treated with interferon and showed an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of >= 60 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) after the termination of interferon therapy were enrolled. CKD was defined as an eGFR of <60 mL/min per 1.73 m(2). End-stage-CKD was defined as an eGFR of <15 mL/min/1.73 m(2). The primary goal is the new development of CKD and end-stage-CKD. Results: Eighty-five patients developed CKD, and six patients progressed to end-stage-CKD. The development rate of CKD was 5.2% at the 5th year, 14.5% at the 10th year and 30.6% at the 15th year. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis showed that CKD occurred when patients had age increments of 10 years (hazard ratio: 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.61-3.35; P < 0.001), eGFR decrements of 10 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (hazard ratio: 1.66; 95% CI 1.27-2.16; P < 0.001), hypertension (hazard ratio: 2.00; 95% CI 1.13-3.53; P = 0.017), diabetes (hazard ratio: 1.79; 95% CI 1.02-3.14; P = 0.042), and non-clearance of HCV (hazard ratio: 2.67; 95% CI 1.34-5.32; P = 0.005). The development rate of end-stage-CKD was 0.4% at the 5th year, 1.6% at the 10th year and 2.8% at the 15th year. Conclusions: The annual incidence for CKD among cirrhotic patients with HCV was determined to be about 1.0-1.5%. In addition, the annual incidence for end-stage-CKD is one order of magnitude lower than that of CKD.

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

4.5
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