机构地区:[1]广州市第八人民医院感染科,510060 [2]广州市第八人民医院研究所,510060 [3]广西壮族自治区龙潭医院,柳州545005 [4]中南大学湘雅二医院,长沙410011 [5]云南省艾滋病关爱中心,昆明650301
出 处:《中华肝脏病杂志》2018年第4期282-287,共6页Chinese Journal of Hepatology
基 金:“十二”五国家科技支撑计划项目(2012ZX10001003)
摘 要:目的探讨聚乙二醇干扰素α(Peg—INFα)联合利巴韦林(RBV)治疗人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)合并丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)感染者的最佳时机。方法为前瞻性多中心研究,A组:158例,HIV合并HCV感染者;B组:对照组,60例,单一HCV感染者,均接受Peg—INFα联合RBV标准治疗。A组根据CD4^+T淋巴细胞计数分为3个亚组:A1组,79例,CD4^+T淋巴细胞〉350个/μl,先抗HCV治疗再进行联合抗病毒治疗(cART);A2组,45例,CD4^+T淋巴细胞200~350个/μl,先给予cART,耐受后开始抗HCV治疗;A3组,34例,CD4^+T淋巴细胞〈200个/μl,先给予cART,待CD4^+T淋巴细胞〉200个/μl开始抗HCV治疗。比较各组及亚组问抗HCV的疗效。对于服从正态分布、方差齐性资料两组之间采用t检验,计数资料采用χ^2检验(或Fisher确切概率法),非正态数据采用Mann-Whitney U检验。多组均数比较采用单向方差分析,随后进行SNK检验。多组疗效比较采用多个独立样本非参数检验。结果各组及亚组年龄、基线HCVRNA水平,差异无统计学意义(P值均〉0.05)。两组意向性分析:A组完全早期病毒学应答率(cEVR)率75.3%(119/158),治疗结束时病毒学应答(eTVR)率68.4%(108/158),持续病毒学应答(SVR)率48.7%(77/158);B组cEVR率93.3%(56/60),eTVR率90.0%(54/60),SVR率71.7%(43/60),A组各疗效指标明显低于B组,差异有统计学意义(P值均〈0.05)。经过符合方案分析,A组cEVR率仍低于B组(P〈0.05),但eTVR率及SVR率与B组比较,差异无统计学意义(P值均〉0.05)。A组各亚组间疗效比较,意向性分析:A1亚组cEVR率78.5%(62/79),eTVR率68.4%(54/79),SVR率41.8%(33/79);A2亚组cEVR率75.6%(34/45)。eTVR率80.0%(36/45),SVR率64.4%(29/45);A3亚组cEVR率67.6%(23/34Objective To investigate the optimal duration ofpegylated-alpha interferon (Peg-INFα) combined with ribavirin (RBV) in treating chronic hepatitis C infection in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. Methods A multicenter prospective study was conducted. The study subjects were divided into two groups; HIV/HCV co-infections (Group A, n = 158) and control with HCV-monoinfections (Group B,n = 60). All recruited patients received standard Peg-INFer plus RBV therapy. Group A was divided into 3 subgroups according to CD4^+ cell counts: A1 subgroup, 79 cases, CD4^+ counts 〉 350 cells/μl, who received anti-HCV before combination antiretroviral therapy(cART); A2 subgroup, 45 cases, CD4^+ counts between 200 and 350 cells/μl, who did not start anti-HCV until they could tolerate cART well; A3 subgroup, 34 cases, CD4^+ counts 〈 200 cells/pl, cART was administered first, and anti-HCV therapy was started when CD4^+ counts 〉 200 cells/μl. The anti-HCV efficacy of two groups and 3 subgroups were compared. Statistical analysis for normal distribution and homogeneity of variance data was calculated by t-test and the counting data was analyzed by χ^2 test. The Mann-Whitney Utest was used for non-normal data. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the comparison of multiple groups, followed by SNK method. Multiple independent samples were used for non-parametric tests. Results There was no significant difference in age and baseline HCV RNA levels between groups and subgroups (P 〉 0.05). By an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, in Group A, the ratio of complete early virological response (cEVR) rate was 75.3% (119/158), the ratio of end of treatment virological response (eTVR) rate was 68.4% (108/158), and the ratio of sustained virological response (SVR) rate was 48.7% (77/158); in Group B, the ratio of cEVR rate was 93.3% (56/60), the ratio of eTVR rate was 90.0% (54/60), and the ratio of SVR rate was 71.7% (43/60
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...