4.5 Article

Slowly tapering off steroids protects the graft against hepatitis C recurrence after liver transplantation

期刊

LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
卷 8, 期 10, 页码 884-888

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1053/jlts.2002.34640

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic hepatitis C represents a major clinical problem after liver transplantation, but factors influencing the recurrent disease have not been well characterized. We analyzed the clinical records of all the patients transplanted for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related liver disease in our Center between 1991 and 1997. Eighty consecutive HCV-positive (+) patients (60 men, ages 28 to 64) survived more than I month after transplantation and were followed for a median of 45 months. Diagnosis of recurrent chronic hepatitis C was made in 38 patients (47.5%), of whom 22 had moderate/severe chronic hepatitis. Decompensated cirrhosis occurred in six patients (7.5%). No difference in patient survival was found between patients with and without hepatitis C recurrence. No association was found between recurrent hepatitis C and presumed risk factors. The method of tapering off corticosteroids was significantly associated with both hepatitis C recurrence and the severity of hepatitis. In patients receiving a higher daily prednisone dose, 12 months after transplantation, the proportion of recurrent hepatitis C was 35.7% versus 66.6% (P = .02; odds ratio [OR], 3.6; 95% confidence interval (Cl): 1.25 to 10.36), and among patients receiving a higher daily prednisone dose, 6 months after transplantation, the proportion of moderate/severe chronic hepatitis C was 40% versus 89% (P = .03; OR: 0.08, 95% Cl: 0.008 to 0.84). Finally, prednisone dose at month six was significantly associated with disease-free survival of the liver graft. In conclusion, our results seem to indicate that in HCV-infected liver transplant recipients, a long-term treatment with corticosteroids, slowly tapered off over time, may prevent the more aggressive forms of recurrent liver disease.

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

4.5
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