4.7 Article

Circulating matrix metalloproteinases 1, 2, 9 and their inhibitors TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 as serum markers of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C: Comparison with PIIINP and hyaluronic acid

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 99, 期 2, 页码 271-279

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2004.04055.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Histological examination of liver biopsy is currently required in the management of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic utility of a panel of circulating markers in detecting the stage of fibrosis. METHODS: One hundred and ninety four-patients who had undergone a percutaneous liver biopsy before antiviral treatment, and 194 age- and sex-matched healthy subjects were studied. Serum levels of hyaluronate, procollagen type III N-terminal peptide (PIIINP), matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)-1, MMP-2, MMP-9 and their tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMP)-1 and TIMP-2 were determined by RIA and ELISA. Histological lesions were staged according to the METAVIR score. RESULTS: Hyaluronate, PIIINP, TIMP-1, and TIMP-2 serum levels were significantly higher in patients than in controls. Six markers were significantly correlated with fibrosis: MMP-2 (r = 0.28; p < 0.01), TIMP-1 (r = 0.42; p < 0.001), HA (r = 0.50; p < 0.001), PIIINP (r = 0.62; p < 0.0001), MMP-1 (r = -0.32; p < 0.01), and MMP-9 (r = -0.22; p < 0.05). By multivariate analysis, only PIIINP and MMP-1 were independently associated with fibrosis, and were combined using the equation of the logistic regression model. Using receiver-operating characteristics analysis, the area under the curve of the score to discriminate mild (F0/F1) from significant fibrosis (F2/F3/F4) was 0.82, with a sensitivity of 60% for a specificity of 92%. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that combining two serum markers reflecting fibrogenesis (PIIINP) and fibrolysis (MMP-1) may provide a useful tool for evaluating 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

4.7
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