4.6 Article

Significance of hepatitis B virus core-related antigen and covalently closed circular DNA levels as markers of hepatitis B virus re-infection after liver transplantation

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 28, 期 7, 页码 1217-1222

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12182

关键词

cccDNA; HBcrAg; HBV; liver transplantation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aim Currently, hepatitis B virus (HBV) re-infection after liver transplantation (LT) can be almost completely suppressed by the administration of HBV reverse transcriptase inhibitors and hepatitis B immunoglobulins. However, after transplantation, there is no indicator of HBV replication because tests for the serum hepatitis B surface antigen and HBV-DNA are both negative. Therefore, the criteria for reducing and discontinuing these precautions are unclear. In this study, we examined the serum HBV core-related antigen (HBcrAg) and intrahepatic covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) in order to determine if these could be useful markers for HBV re-infection. Methods Thirty-one patients underwent LT for HBV-related liver disease at Nagasaki University Hospital from 2001 to 2010. Of these, 20 cases were followed up for more than 1 year (median follow-up period, 903 days). We measured serum HBcrAg and intrahepatic cccDNA levels in liver tissue. In addition, in nine cases, we assessed the serial changes of HBcrAg and intrahepatic cccDNA levels from preoperative periods to stable periods. Results We examined serum HBcrAg and intrahepatic cccDNA levels in 20 patients (35 samples). HBcrAg and cccDNA levels were significantly correlated with each other (r=0.616, P<0.001). From a clinical aspect, the fibrosis stage was significantly lower in both HBcrAg- and cccDNA-negative patients than in HBcrAg- or cccDNA-positive patients. Conclusions HBcrAg and cccDNA were useful as HBV re-infection markers after LT. Keeping patients' HBcrAg and cccDNA negative after LT might contribute to long-term graft survival.

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