| Literature DB >> 22893870 |
Won Gil Chung1, Hong Joo Kim, Young Gil Choe, Hyo Sun Seok, Chang Wook Chon, Yong Kyun Cho, Byung Ik Kim, Young Yool Koh.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical impacts of obesity and hazardous alcohol use on the outcome of entecavir (ETV) therapy in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. <br> METHODS: The medical records of 88 treatment-naïve patients who were diagnosed with CHB and received ETV between March 2007 and September 2009 were analyzed retrospectively. Body mass index (BMI) values and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores were obtained at 6 months after the initiation of ETV (0.5 mg daily) treatment. <br> RESULTS: A BMI of 25 kg/m(2) or more was recognized as an indicator of obesity, and a total AUDIT score of 8 or more was recognized as an indicator of hazardous alcohol use. Of the cohort, 24 patients (27.3%) were obese and 17 (19.3%) were hazardous alcohol users. The rate of seroconversion, alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)-DNA negativity (<300 copies/mL) at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment did not differ significantly between the normal-BMI and high-BMI groups. Moreover, the rate of seroconversion and HBV-DNA negativity at 3, 6, and 12 months of treatment did not differ significantly between the nonhazardous and hazardous alcohol users. However, the frequency of ALT normalization at 12 months was significantly lower among hazardous alcohol users (91.5% vs. 70.6%; P=0.033). <br> CONCLUSIONS: Obesity and hazardous alcohol drinking have no significant impact on the outcome of ETV treatment. However, the ALT normalization rate at 12 months after initiation of ETV treatment was significantly lower among the hazardous alcohol users.Entities:
Keywords: Alcohol; Entecavir; Hepatitis B; Obesity; Treatment efficacy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22893870 PMCID: PMC3415882 DOI: 10.3350/cmh.2012.18.2.195
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Mol Hepatol ISSN: 2287-2728
Results of univariate and multivariate analysis of the predictive factors for CVR at 12 months to ETV therapy in treatment naïve CHB patients
Volues are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.
*Logistic regression; †Adjusted for age, sex, HBeAg negativity, HBV DNA, Liver cirrhosis, BMI, AUDIT score; ‡Adjusted for age, sex, HBeAg negativity, ALT level, Liver cirrhosis, BMI, AUDIT score.
SD, standard deviation; IQR, interqartile range; HBeAg, hepatitis B e antigen; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ETV, entecavir; HBV, hepatitis B virus; BMI, body mass index; AUDIT, alcohol use disorder identification test; OR, odd ratio; CI, confidence interval.
Baseline and follow up characteristics of enrolled patients
Volues are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.
SD, standard deviation; IQR, interqartile range; HBeAg, hepatitis B e antigen; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ETV, entecavir; HBV, hepatitis B virus; BMI, body mass index; AUDIT, alcohol use disorder identification test.
Comparision of baseline characteristics between two groups according to alcohol use and BMI
Volues are presented as n (%) unless otherwise indicated.
*Mann-Whitney U test, †Pearson Chi-Square, ‡Fisher's Exact Tes, §Student t-test.
SD, standard deviation; IQR, interqartile range; HBeAg, hepatitis B e antigen; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ETV, entecavir; HBV, hepatitis B virus; BMI, body mass index; AUDIT, alcohol use disorder identification test.
Figure 1Comparison of the treatment response rate between the normal-BMI and high-BMI patients. The rate of complete viral response (CVR) was 42.2% in the normal BMI group vs. 58.3% in high BMI group at 3 months (P=0.176), 64.1% vs. 83.3% at 6 months (P=0.081), and 81.3% vs. 87.5% at 12 months (P=0.751). The biochemical response (BR) rate was 76.6% in the normal BMI group vs. 58.3% in the high BMI group at 3 months (P=0.091), 90.6% vs. 75.0% at 6 months (P=0.081), and 92.2% vs. 75.0% at 12 months (P=0.063). The seroconversion rate was 22.2% in the normal BMI group vs. 12.5% in the high BMI group at 3 months (P=1.000). 25.0% vs. 25.0% at 6 months (P=1.000), and 36.1% vs. 25.0% at 12 months (P=0.695).
Figure 2Comparison of the treatment response rate between the nonhazardous alcohol use group and the hazardous alcohol use group. The CVR rate was 46.5% in the nonhazardous alcohol use group vs. 47.1% in the hazardous alcohol use group at 3 months (P=0.966), 69.0% vs. 70.6% at 6 months P=0.899), and 83.1% vs. 82.4% at 12 months (P=1.000). The BR rate was 71.8% in the nonhazardous alcohol use group vs. 70.6% in the hazardous alcohol use group at 3 months (P=1.000), 87.3% vs. 82.4% at 6 months (P=0.694), and 91.5% vs. 70.6% at 12 months (P=0.033). The seroconversion rate was 23.5% in the nonhazardous alcohol use group vs. 10.0% in the hazardous alcohol use group at 3months (P=0.659), 26.5% vs. 20.0% at 6 months (P=1.000), and 38.2% vs. 20.0% at 12 months (P=0.452).