Transplantation · 2007
Role of lamivudine in the posttransplant prophylaxis of chronic hepatitis B virus and hepatitis delta virus coinfection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Caccamo Lucio, Agnelli Francesca, Reggiani Paolo, Maggi Umberto, Donato M Francesca, Gatti Stefano, Paone Giovanni, Melada Ernesto, Rossi Giorgio
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Posttransplant combined lamivudine (LAM) and immunoglobulin (HBIg) prophylaxis is the gold standard in the case of single hepatitis B virus (HBV), but is still not recommended in the case of patients coinfected with hepatitis delta virus (HDV).
METHODS: We compared two consecutive groups of chronic HDV carriers who survived >6 months after liver transplantation of the risk of recurrence, survival and HBIg requirements: 21 received passive prophylaxis (HBIg group) and 25 were treated with combined prophylaxis (LAM+HBIg group). The immunoprophylaxis schedule was the same in both groups: intramuscular HBIg targeted to maintain anti-HBs levels of >500 IU/L during the first 6 posttransplant months and >200 IU/L thereafter.
RESULTS: The mean length of follow-up in the two groups was significantly different (133 vs. 40 months; P<0.001). None of the patients in either group developed recurrent hepatitis, and the 3-year actuarial survival rate was 100% in both groups. During the first 6 months, HBIg requirement was 38% lower in the LAM+HBIg group although similar anti-HBs target levels were maintained, leading to significantly lower costs (5,000 Euros in the first year and 500 Euros in the second).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of large and homogeneous cohort of long-term HDV coinfected liver transplant survivors showing the absence of HBV recurrence under combined prophylaxis. Although retrospective, our results suggest that combined anti-HBV prophylaxis should also be preferred to single immunoprophylaxis in patients with HDV coinfection because it allows significant cost savings in the first two posttransplant years.
METHODS: We compared two consecutive groups of chronic HDV carriers who survived >6 months after liver transplantation of the risk of recurrence, survival and HBIg requirements: 21 received passive prophylaxis (HBIg group) and 25 were treated with combined prophylaxis (LAM+HBIg group). The immunoprophylaxis schedule was the same in both groups: intramuscular HBIg targeted to maintain anti-HBs levels of >500 IU/L during the first 6 posttransplant months and >200 IU/L thereafter.
RESULTS: The mean length of follow-up in the two groups was significantly different (133 vs. 40 months; P<0.001). None of the patients in either group developed recurrent hepatitis, and the 3-year actuarial survival rate was 100% in both groups. During the first 6 months, HBIg requirement was 38% lower in the LAM+HBIg group although similar anti-HBs target levels were maintained, leading to significantly lower costs (5,000 Euros in the first year and 500 Euros in the second).
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of large and homogeneous cohort of long-term HDV coinfected liver transplant survivors showing the absence of HBV recurrence under combined prophylaxis. Although retrospective, our results suggest that combined anti-HBV prophylaxis should also be preferred to single immunoprophylaxis in patients with HDV coinfection because it allows significant cost savings in the first two posttransplant years.