4.6 Article

Early fibrosis regression by shear wave elastography after successful direct-acting anti-HCV therapy

期刊

CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 143-148

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10238-019-00597-0

关键词

Liver fibrosis; Shear wave elastography; Direct-acting antiviral drugs; Hepatitis C

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Shear wave elastography (SWE) is a noninvasive ultrasound-based marker of hepatic fibrosis not requiring a special device. Successful direct-acting anti-HCV therapy was associated with hepatic fibrosis regression assessed by transient elastography (FibroScan). Data on the utility of SWE in these patients and how early fibrosis can regress after treatment are still lacking. To assess liver fibrosis by SWE before and after direct-acting antiviral treatment of chronic hepatitis C (CHC), we enrolled 165 CHC genotype 4 Egyptian patients treated with different Sofosbuvir-based regimens. Patients' laboratory characteristics, fibrosis biomarkers, namely Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index and AST/platelet ratio index (APRI) and liver stiffness measurements (LSM) by SWE were evaluated at baseline, end of treatment (EOT at week 12), week 24 and week 36. Serum aspartate aminotransferase (AST) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels as well as FIB-4 and APRI indices decreased significantly at EOT, week 24 and week 36 in comparison to baseline (P value < 0.001). Although platelet counts did not significantly differ between baseline and EOT, they increased significantly from EOT to week 24 and week 36 with a P value < 0.001. The mean LSM showed improvement at EOT (7.01 +/- 3.59 kpa), week 24 (6.18 +/- 3.39 kpa) and week 36 (5.74 +/- 3.21 kpa) in comparison to baseline (8.49 +/- 0.83 kpa) (P value < 0.001). There is early liver fibrosis regression at EOT and throughout the time after successful treatment with direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs). SWE is a feasible, easily applicable noninvasive relatively inexpensive assessment method of liver fibrosis.

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