4.7 Review

Hepatitis C treatment in patients with kidney disease

期刊

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
卷 84, 期 5, 页码 874-879

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2013.264

关键词

dialysis; hepatitis C; interferon; ribavirin; survival

资金

  1. Project Glomerulonephritis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains the most common cause of liver damage in patients with kidney disease, including those on long-term dialysis. The natural history of HCV in patients on regular dialysis is not fully elucidated, but an adverse effect of HCV on survival has been noted; a novel meta-analysis of observational studies (14 studies including 145,608 unique patients) showed that the summary estimate for adjusted relative risk (all-cause mortality) was 1.35 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.25-1.47. The adjusted RR for liver disease-related death and cardiovascular mortality among maintenance dialysis patients was 3.82 (95% CI, 1.92-7.61) and 1.26 (95% CI, 1.10-1.45), respectively. It has been recommended that the decision to treat HCV in patients with chronic kidney disease be based on the potential benefits and risks of therapy, including life expectancy, candidacy for kidney transplant, and comorbidities. A pooled analysis including 494 dialysis patients on monotherapy with conventional interferon reported a summary estimate for sustained viral response and dropout rate of 39% (95% CI, 32-46) and 19% (95% CI, 13-26), respectively. All renal transplant candidates (dialysis dependent or not) with HCV should be assessed for antiviral treatment given the increased risk of progressive liver disease with immunosuppressive therapy, the increased life expectancy compared to other HCV-positive patients on dialysis, and the inability to receive interferon after transplant. Current guidelines support monotherapy with standard interferon in these patients, but modern antiviral approaches (that is, dual therapy with peg-IFN plus ribavirin) in a well-controlled setting may be an appropriate alternative.

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

4.7
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