4.8 Article

Impact of pegylated interferon alfa-2b and ribavirin on liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 122, 期 5, 页码 1303-1313

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/gast.2002.33023

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Liver fibrosis is an important prognostic factor in patients with hepatitis C. The effect of pegylated (PEG) interferon alone or its combination with ribavirin on fibrosis has not been established. Methods: We pooled individual data from 3010 naive patients with pretreatment and posttreatment biopsies from 4 randomized trials. Ten different regimens combining standard interferon, PEG interferon, and ribavirin were compared. The impact of each regimen was estimated by the percentage of patients with at least I grade improvement in the necrosis and inflammation (METAVIR score), the percentage of patients with at least I stage worsening in fibrosis METAVIR score, and by the fibrosis progression rate per year. Results: Necrosis and inflammation improvement ranged from 39% (interferon 24 weeks) to 73% (optimized PEG 1.5 and ribavirin; P < 0.001). Fibrosis worsening ranges from 23% (interferon 24 weeks) to 8% (optimized PEG 1.5 and ribavirin; P < 0.001). All regimens significantly reduced the fibrosis progression rates in comparison to rates before treatment. The reversal of cirrhosis was observed in 75 patients (49%) of 153 patients with baseline cirrhosis. Six factors were independently associated with the absence of significant fibrosis after treatment: baseline fibrosis stage (odds ratio [OR] 0.12; P < 0.0001), sustained viral response (OR 0.36; P < 0.0001), age < 40 years (OR 0.51; P < 0.001), body mass index < 27 kg/m(2) (OR 0.65; P < 0.001), no or minimal baseline activity (OR 0.70; P = 0.02), and viral load < 3.5 millions copies per milliliter (OR = 0.79; P = 0.03). Conclusions; PEG-interferon and ribavirin combination significantly reduces the rate of fibrosis progression in patients with hepatitis C.

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

4.8
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