Chung-Feng Huang1, Ming-Lun Yeh2, Jee-Fu Huang3, Jeng-Fu Yang4, Ming-Yen Hsieh5, Zu-Yau Lin6, Shinn-Cherng Chen6, Liang-Yen Wang6, Edward Hsi7, Suh-Hang Hank Juo8, Chia-Yen Dai9, Wan-Long Chuang6, Ming-Lung Yu10. 1. Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Occupational Medicine, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2. Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 3. Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 4. Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Preventive Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 6. Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Faculty of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 7. Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Medical Research, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 8. Department of Medical Research, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Medical Genetics, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Neurology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 9. Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Faculty of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Electronic address: daichiayen@gmail.com. 10. Hepatobiliary Division, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Faculty of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Municipal Ta-Tung Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both interleukin-28B genetic variants and on-treatment virological responses are factors predictive of treatment outcome in hepatitis C virus genotype 1 (HCV-1) patients. We aimed to compare the clinical significance of the two factors. METHODS: Rs8099917 genotype and on-treatment responses were determined in 182 HCV-1 patients with 48-week peginterferon/ribavirin. RESULTS: Comparing to patients with rs8099917 TG/GG genotype, those with TT genotype had significantly higher rapid virological response (RVR, 46.2% vs. 19.2%, P=0.01) and sustained virological response (SVR, 85.3% vs. 42.3%, P<0.001) rates. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the strongest factor predictive of a RVR was the carriage of rs8099917 TT genotype (odds ratio/95% confidence intervals [OR/CI]: 4.25/1.39-13.01). The most important factor predictive of an SVR was the attainment of a RVR (OR/CI: 57.22/6.23-525.37), followed by the carriage of rs8099917 TT genotype (OR/CI: 10.06/3.12-32.44). However, while on-treatment factors were taken into account, the cEVR was the most important determinant to an SVR (OR/CI:54.98/9.07-333.38), whereas the influence of rs8099917 genotype became non-significant in non-RVR patients. CONCLUSIONS: Rs8099917 TT genotype is significantly independently predictive of on-treatment virological responses, which were the major determinants of an SVR, in Asian HCV-1 patients.
BACKGROUND: Both interleukin-28B genetic variants and on-treatment virological responses are factors predictive of treatment outcome in hepatitis C virus genotype 1 (HCV-1) patients. We aimed to compare the clinical significance of the two factors. METHODS:Rs8099917 genotype and on-treatment responses were determined in 182 HCV-1patients with 48-week peginterferon/ribavirin. RESULTS: Comparing to patients with rs8099917 TG/GG genotype, those with TT genotype had significantly higher rapid virological response (RVR, 46.2% vs. 19.2%, P=0.01) and sustained virological response (SVR, 85.3% vs. 42.3%, P<0.001) rates. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the strongest factor predictive of a RVR was the carriage of rs8099917 TT genotype (odds ratio/95% confidence intervals [OR/CI]: 4.25/1.39-13.01). The most important factor predictive of an SVR was the attainment of a RVR (OR/CI: 57.22/6.23-525.37), followed by the carriage of rs8099917 TT genotype (OR/CI: 10.06/3.12-32.44). However, while on-treatment factors were taken into account, the cEVR was the most important determinant to an SVR (OR/CI:54.98/9.07-333.38), whereas the influence of rs8099917 genotype became non-significant in non-RVR patients. CONCLUSIONS:Rs8099917 TT genotype is significantly independently predictive of on-treatment virological responses, which were the major determinants of an SVR, in Asian HCV-1patients.