4.5 Article

Prevalence of Hepatitis B and C and Risk Factors for Nonvaccination in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients in Northeast France

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 916-924

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ibd.21147

关键词

HCV; HBV; inflammatory bowel disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Data regarding the prevalence of hepatitis C (HCV) and hepatitis B (HBV) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients are conflicting. Methods: In all, 315 IBD (252 Crohn's disease [CD] and 63 ulcerative colitis [UC]) patients were consecutively recruited between June 2005 and May 2009. Results: The median age was 33 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 24-43) and median disease duration was 5 years (IQR: 2-11). Present and/or past HBV and HCV infection was found in 2.86% of 315 patients (CD: HBsAg 0.79%, anti-HBc 2.78%, anti-HCV 0.79%; UC: HBsAg 1.59%, anti-HBc 1.59%, anti-HCV 1.59%). Effective vaccination (anti-HBs without anti-HBc) was present in 48.9% of 315 patients. In multivariate analysis, age at diagnosis over 31 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.58; P = 0.005), disease duration over 7 years (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23-0.83; P = 0.005), age at inclusion over 33 years (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.20-0.94: P = 0.005), and CD (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.15-0.58; P = 0.005) were associated with the lack of effective vaccination. Two HBsAg-positive patients, including 1 under curative nucleoside/nucleotide analog treatment, had received 6 and 7 infliximab infusions, and 1 HCV RNA-positive subject had been receiving corticosteroid and azathioprine therapies for 12 and 33 months, respectively. No viral reactivation occurred in these patients. Conclusions: The prevalence of HBV and HCV infection in French IBD patients is similar to that of the general population. While the ECCO recommends an effective HBV vaccination in MD, half of the patients were not vaccinated. The nonvaccination risk factors identified in our study may allow targeted vaccination coverage.

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