4.7 Article

Potential risk of HBV reactivation in patients with resolved HBV infection undergoing direct-acting antiviral treatment for HCV

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 76-83

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.13496

关键词

direct-acting antivirals; hepatitis B virus reactivation; hepatitis C virus; resolved HBV infection; sofosbuvir

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & AimsDespite a known risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV)-HBV coinfection, it remains unclear whether patients with past HBV infection are at risk for reactivation. This study evaluated the risk of HBV reactivation during treatment with sofosbuvir (SOF)-based regimens, focusing on patients with resolved HBV infection. MethodsThis study analyzes the data of 183 consecutive patients treated with SOF-based regimens. From these patients, 63 with resolved HBV infection (negative for hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg] and undetectable HBV DNA but positive for hepatitis B core antibody) were eligible for this study. HBV reactivation was defined as a quantifiable HBV DNA level >20IU/mL. ResultsAmong the patients antibody to HBsAg (anti-HBs) positive (10-500mIU/mL) (n=30), the titre of anti-HBs was significantly decreased with time, as shown by the results of repeated-measures analysis of variance (P=.0029). Overall, four patients (6.3%) with resolved HBV infection came to have detectable HBV DNA during treatment, including one who had HBV reactivation at week 4 (HBV DNA 80IU/mL). However, none developed hepatic failure. Among four patients who had detectable HBV DNA during treatment, all were negative or had very low-titre (<20mIU/mL) anti-HBs at baseline. ConclusionsThe titre of anti-HBs was significantly decreased from the early stage of DAA treatment. Chronic hepatitis C patients with resolved HBV infection and negative or very low-titre anti-HBs at baseline are at risk for having detectable HBV DNA transiently during treatment.

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