中文English
ISSN 1001-5256 (Print)
ISSN 2097-3497 (Online)
CN 22-1108/R

留言板

尊敬的读者、作者、审稿人, 关于本刊的投稿、审稿、编辑和出版的任何问题, 您可以本页添加留言。我们将尽快给您答复。谢谢您的支持!

姓名
邮箱
手机号码
标题
留言内容
验证码

通过定量检测血清抗HBcIgM和HBV DNA水平 区分两种乙型肝炎病毒相关急性肝衰竭

作者: 李海 发布日期: 2012-03-30 阅读次数:
  • 分享到:

用微信扫码二维码

分享至好友和朋友圈

 摘要:乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)相关肝衰竭(HBV-ALF)可发生在急性HBV感染(AHBV-ALF)之后或慢性HBV感染急性发作(CHBV-ALF)期间。如果没有明确的HBV感染病史,临床区分两者常常是很困难的。定量检测血清抗-HBc IgMHBV DNA水平可区分这两种疾病。在1602名急性肝衰竭患者中,60名符合AHBV-ALF临床诊断,27名符合CHBV-ALF临床诊断,两组中分别有47名和23名患者留取了血清样本,应用定量免疫试剂检测其抗-HBc IgM水平,实时定量PCR方法检测HBV DNA水平了解其病毒水平。AHBV-ALFs患者抗-HBc IgM水平明显高于CHBV-ALFs患者(信噪比[S/N]:中位数88.5 vs 1.3;范围0~1120 vs 0~750P < 0.001),如果将S/N5.0作为界值能够准确诊断44(44/4696%)AHBV-ALFs患者和16(16/2370%)CHBV-ALFs患者,ROC曲线下面积为0.86P < 0.001)。AHBV-ALF患者病毒载量中位数为3.9 (0~8.1) log10 IU/ml,而CHBV-ALF患者为5.2 (2.0~8.7) log10 IU/ml(P < 0.025)。本研究中20%12/60AHBV-ALF患者检测不到乙肝表面抗原(HBsAg),而CHBV-ALF患者没有HBsAg消失的。所有患者均未行肝移植,AHBV-ALF患者存活率为33% (20/60),而CHBV-ALF患者为11% (3/27)P=0.03)。结论:AHBV-ALFCHBV-ALF患者在抗-HBc IgMHBV DNA水平以及预后方面有明显不同,这些提示一种疾病两种表现形式确实不同,可能有其不同的发病机制。

 

武警后勤学院附属医院肝胆胰脾科  李海 摘译

本文首次发表于[Hepatology, 2012, 55(3):676-684]

 

 

Two Distinct Subtypes of Hepatitis B Virus–Related Acute Liver Failure Are Separable by Quantitative Serum Immunoglobulin M anti-Hepatitis B Core Antibody and Hepatitis B Virus DNA Levels

 

Hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related acute liver failure (HBV-ALF) may occur after acute HBV infection (AHBV-ALF) or during an exacerbation of chronic HBV infection (CHBV-ALF). Clinical differentiation of the two is often difficult if a previous history of HBV is not available. Quantitative measurements of immunoglobulin M (IgM) anti–hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) titers and of HBV viral loads (VLs) might allow the separation of AHBV-ALF from CHBV-ALF. Of 1,602 patients with ALF, 60 met clinical criteria for AHBV-ALF and 27 for CHBV-ALF. Sera were available on 47 and 23 patients, respectively. A quantitative immunoassay was used to determine IgM anti-HBc levels, and real-time polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR) was used to determine HBV VLs. AHBV-ALFs had much higher IgM anti-HBc titers than CHBV-ALFs (signal-to-noise [S/N] ratio median: 88.5; range, 0-1,120 versus 1.3, 0-750; P < 0.001); a cut point for a S/N ratio of 5.0 correctly identified 44 of 46 (96%) AHBV-ALFs and 16 of 23 (70%) CHBV-ALFs; the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.86 (P < 0.001). AHBV-ALF median admission VL was 3.9 (0-8.1) log10 IU/mL versus 5.2 (2.0-8.7) log10 IU/mL for CHBV-ALF (P < 0.025). Twenty percent (12 of 60) of the AHBV-ALF group had no hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) detectable on admission to study, wheras no CHBV-ALF patients experienced HBsAg clearance. Rates of transplant-free survival were 33% (20 of 60) for AHBV-ALF versus 11% (3 of 27) for CHBV-ALF (P 5 0.030).Conclusions: AHBV-ALF and CHBV-ALF differ markedly in IgM anti-HBc titers, in HBV VLs, and in prognosis, suggesting that the two forms are, indeed, different entities that might each have a unique pathogenesis.

 

  • 分享到:

用微信扫码二维码

分享至好友和朋友圈

作者: 李海 发布日期: 2012-03-30 阅读次数: