4.1 Article

Detection of Hepatitis B Virus Covalently Closed Circular DNA in the Plasma of Iranian HBeAg-Negative Patients With Chronic Hepatitis B

期刊

HEPATITIS MONTHLY
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

KOWSAR PUBL
DOI: 10.5812/hepatmon.30790

关键词

HBV; cccDNA; Hepatitis B; Chronic; Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction

资金

  1. Iran University of Medical Sciences [24080]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Covalently closed circular DNA (cccDNA) of hepatitis B virus (HBV) is a marker of HBV replication in the liver of patients infected with HBV. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the association between the presence of cccDNA in the plasma samples of Iranian treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B infection and HBV viral load and HBsAg levels. Patients and Methods: From April 2012 to May 2015, 106 treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B infection were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. The HBsAg titer was measured by the Roche HBsAg II assay on the Cobas e411 system, and HBV DNA quantitation was performed using the COBAS TaqMan 48 kit. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed for the detection of HBV cccDNA. Results: The mean (SD) age of the patients was 41.1 +/- 12.4 years (range, 20 - 62 years). From a total of 106 study participants, 67 (63.2%) were males. The HBV cccDNA was detected in plasma specimens in 19 (17.9%) out of the total 106 patients, and a significant relationship was found between the presence of cccDNA in plasma sample of males (23.9%) and females (7.7%) (P = 0.039). Also, a significant correlation was found between the presence of cccDNA in plasma sample of the patients and HBV viral load level (P < 0.0001) and HBsAg titer (P = 0.0043). Conclusions: This study showed that cccDNA can be detected in the plasma specimen of 17.9% of Iranian treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis B infection. Therefore, designing prospective studies focusing on the detection of cccDNA in these patients would provide more information.

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

4.1
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