4.6 Article

Racial Differences in Fibrosis Progression After HCV-Related Liver Transplantation

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 94, 期 2, 页码 178-184

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0b013e318253f7fa

关键词

Hepatitis C virus (HCV); Liver transplantation; Race; Survival

资金

  1. University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Clinical and Translational Science from the National Center for Research Resources [KL2RR029878]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Black recipients undergoing liver transplantation (LT) for hepatitis C virus (HCV) have decreased patient and graft survival compared with white recipients, a finding that is primarily limited to black recipients of livers from white donors. The cause(s) for these discrepant outcomes are unclear but may be related to HCV disease recurrence. The rates of HCV-related disease recurrence and liver fibrosis progression among black and white liver transplant recipients have not been investigated. Methods. In this study, we compared liver fibrosis progression between 105 black and 364 white recipients after HCV-related LT in a multisite cohort study and assessed the impact of donor race. Results. At 6, 12, and 24 months after LT, there was a significantly higher percentage in the black recipient/white donor (B/W) group with severe fibrosis, defined as stage 3 or 4 (F3/F4), compared with all other recipient/donor race combinations. The adjusted odds ratio of developing F3/F4 for the B/W group was 2.54 (1.49-4.69; reference group, white recipient/white donor). Black recipients with black donors demonstrated a similar rate of progression to F3/F4 as white recipients. Patient survival was also decreased in the B/W group compared with other recipient/donor race combinations. Conclusion. African American recipients with white donors have more severe fibrosis progression after HCV-related LT. The mechanisms responsible for accelerating fibrosis progression in this high-risk race-mismatched group need to be investigated.

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