| Literature DB >> 23024806 |
Morten Ruhwald1, Ellen Sloth Andersen, Peer Brehm Christensen, Belinda Klemmensen Moessner, Nina Weis.
Abstract
The chemokine IP-10 (CXCL10) is a candidate marker for hepatitis C virus (HCV) fibrosis monitoring. The aim of this proof-of-concept study is to assess if IP-10 measurements from dried plasma spots (DPS) are accurate in HCV-infected patients with either minimal or significant fibrosis. We measured IP-10 levels in plasma and DPS of 21 HCV-infected patients with cirrhosis and 19 patients with no/little fibrosis (determined with FibroScan). Cirrhotic patients had significantly higher levels of IP-10 compared to patients with minimal fibrosis. DPS and plasma measurements of IP-10 are comparable and the correlation was excellent (r(2) = 0.97, p<0.0001). The DPS based method for IP-10 detection performs well in HCV-infected patients with either minimal or significant fibrosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23024806 PMCID: PMC3443225 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045181
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1IP-10 measurements.
IP-10 measured in plasma (left) and dried plasma spots (right) from 19 patients with chronic hepatitis C infection and no/mild liver fibrosis and 21 patients with liver cirrhosis. Line denote median. There was a significant difference between the groups in both plasma and dried plasma spots, p<0.0004.
Figure 2Correlation between IP-10 detected in plasma and dried plasma spots.
Samples from 19 patients with chronic hepatitis C infection and no/mild liver fibrosis and 21 patients with liver cirrhosis were compared. There was a highly significant correlation between IP-10 detected with the two methods (r2 = 0.97, p<0.0001).
Figure 3A comparison of Receiver Operation Characteristic Curves of IP-10 determined in dried plasma spots and plasma.
Analysis included samples from 21 patients with cirrhosis (regarded as cases) and 19 patients with no/mild fibrosis (regarded controls in the analysis). The Area Under the Curve reflects the markers’ ability to differentiate between the two groups of patients. There was no significant difference between the two methods.