Quantitative HBsAg and HBeAg assays in the prediction of virologic response to e

StephenW

<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hep.24221/abstract>

Viral Hepatitis

Quantitative HBsAg and HBeAg assays in the prediction of virologic response to
entecavir in patients with chronic hepatitis B

Jung Min Lee1,2, Sang Hoon Ahn1,3,5, Hyon Suk Kim3,6, Hana Park1, Hye Young
Chang4, Do Young Kim1,3,4, Seong Gyu Hwang2, Kyu Sung Rim2, Chae Yoon Chon1,3,4,
Kwang-Hyub Han1,3,5, Jun Yong Park1,3,4,*,†DOI: 10.1002/hep.24221

Copyright © 2011 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
Issue

Hepatology
Accepted Article (Accepted, unedited articles published online for future
issues)

Abstract
Quantitative HBsAg (qHBsAg) and HBeAg (qHBeAg) titers are emerging as useful
tools for measuring viral load and in predicting virologic response (VR) and
serologic response (SR) to peg-interferon therapy. However, the clinical utility
of these assays in patients taking entecavir (ETV) is largely unknown.
Treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) taking ETV for 2 years
were enrolled. qHBsAg and qHBeAg were serially measured using ARCHITECT. From 95
patients (HBeAg-positive: 60.0%), 475 samples were analyzed. The median baseline
log HBV DNA, log qHBsAg, and log qHBeAg were 6.73 (4.04∼9.11) copies/mL, 3.58
(1.17∼5.10) IU/mL, and 1.71 (-0.64∼2.63) PE IU/mL, respectively. In
predicting VR (HBV DNA <60 copies/mL at 24 months) in HBeAg-positive patients,
baseline ALT (p=0.013), HBV DNA (p=0.040), and qHBsAg (p=0.033) were
significant. The AUC of baseline log qHBsAg for predicting VR was 0.823
(p<0.001), with cutoff level of 3.98 IU/mL (9,550 IU/mL, non-logarithmic scale)
yielding the highest predictive value, with a sensitivity 86.8% and specificity
78.9%. As for SR (HBeAg loss at 24 months), reduction of qHBeAg was
significantly greater in SR(+) than SR(–) group. The sensitivity and
specificity was 75.0% and 89.8%, respectively, with decline of 1.00 PE IU/mL at
6 months. With ETV therapy, correlation between HBV DNA and qHBsAg peaked at 6
months in HBeAg-positive patients.

Conclusions: Both qHBsAg and qHBeAg decreased significantly with ETV therapy.
Baseline qHBsAg and on-treatment decline of qHBeAg in HBeAg-positive patients
proved highly useful for predicting VR and SR, respectively. Determination of
qHBsAg and qHBeAg can help to select the appropriate strategy in management of
patients with CHB. However, the dynamic interplay between qHBsAg, qHBeAg, and
HBV DNA during antiviral therapy remains to be elucidated.

Am. J. Hematol., 2011.
© 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

病毒性肝炎

在预测中的病毒反应定量检测HBsAg和HBeAg
恩替卡韦的患者慢性乙型肝炎

政玟Lee1，二，桑勋Ahn1，3,5，玄淑Kim3，6，花Park1，惠杨
长4，不要杨Kim1，3,4，晟圭Hwang2，奎宋Rim2，蔡尹Chon1，3,4，
尹光雄Hyub Han1，3,5，君永Park1，3,4，*，†分类号：10.1002/hep.24221

版权所有© 2011年的美国肝病研究协会
发行

肝脏病
接受第（接受，为未来网上发表文章未经编辑
问题）

摘要
定量乙肝表面抗原（qHBsAg）和HBeAg（qHBeAg）滴度逐渐成为有用
病毒载量的测量工具和预测病毒学应答（VR）和
血清学反应（简），以聚乙二醇干扰素治疗。然而，临床应用
在这些患者服用恩替卡韦（教育电视）检测主要是未知之数。
慢性乙型肝炎治疗的初治患者（乙肝）以2年教育电视
入学。 qHBsAg和qHBeAg进行连续测量使用的建筑师。从95
患者（HBeAg阳性：60.0％），475样品进行了分析。中位数基准
乙肝病毒DNA的日志，日志qHBsAg和日志qHBeAg为6.73（4.04〜9.11）拷贝/毫升，3.58
（1.17〜5.10）国际单位/毫升，和1.71（-0.64〜2.63）体育国际单位/毫升，分别为。在
预测虚拟现实（乙肝病毒脱氧核糖核酸<60拷贝/毫升在24个月），e抗原阳性患者
基线ALT（p值= 0.013），乙肝病毒脱氧核糖核酸（p值= 0.040），和qHBsAg（p值= 0.033）是
显着。日志哥伦比亚联合自卫军的基线预测为0.823虚拟现实qHBsAg
性（P“0.001），与截止水平3.98国际单位/毫升（9550国际单位/毫升，非对数刻度）
收益最高的预测值，其灵敏度和特异性86.8％
78.9％。至于简（e抗原在24个月的亏损），减少的qHBeAg
显着提高，在SR（+）比简（ - ）组。的敏感性和
特异性分别为75.0％和89.8％，分别下降1.00体育国际单位/毫升时
6个月。随着教育电视治疗，乙肝病毒DNA的相关性之间达到高峰，并在6 qHBsAg
个月，e抗原阳性患者。

结论：两种qHBsAg和qHBeAg教育电视治疗明显下降。
基线qHBsAg和处理中的衰落e抗原阳性的患者qHBeAg
虚拟现实证明高度预测和SR，分别有用。测定
qHBsAg和qHBeAg可以帮助选择适当的战略管理
慢性乙肝患者。然而，对于qHBsAg，qHBeAg和动态的相互作用
乙肝病毒DNA的抗病毒治疗过程中仍有待澄清。

上午。 j的血液学杂志。，2011年。
© 2011威利-利斯Inc.e