4.6 Article

Predictive Value of Liver Enzymes and Inflammatory Biomarkers for the Severity of Liver Fibrosis Stage in HIV/HCV Co-Infected Patients

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059205

关键词

-

资金

  1. French National Agency for Research on AIDS and viral hepatitis (Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA et les hepatites virales [ANRS])
  2. European Community [223131]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of our study was to assess a possible association between plasma inflammatory biomarkers (CRP, IL-6, soluble CD14) and the extent of fibrosis or cirrhosis using a FibroScan (R) in HIV/HCV co-infected patients. Methods: This cross-sectional study assessed 60 HIV/HCV co-infected patients who had paired plasma samples and FibroScan (R) values available. All included patients were controlled for HIV infection (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) and had detectable HCV RNA levels. Levels of three biomarkers were measured in all samples using commercial ELISA kits. Multivariate logistic regression models identified factors associated with the METAVIR stages of fibrosis (F0-F2 vs. F3-F4). Results: In univariate logistic regression analyses, in addition to sCD14 (odds ratio [OR] = 3.23, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 1.30-7.97, P= 0.01), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase, platelet counts, and CD4 cell counts were associated with the stage of liver fibrosis and, thus, were introduced into the model. However, only AST (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.02-1.10, P = 0.0009) was independently associated with F3-F4 stage liver fibrosis. Conclusions: In our study of HIV/HCV co-infected patients, sCD14 plasma level, a biomarker of monocyte activation, was not independently associated with the F3-F4 stage of liver fibrosis. We hypothesize that the higher levels of inflammation markers observed in HIV/HCV co-infected patients, compared to HCV mono-infected patients, prevent this association being observed within this population.

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