| Literature DB >> 32100261 |
Min Zhang1, Guangdi Li2, Jia Shang3, Chen Pan4, Minxiang Zhang5, Zhibiao Yin6, Qing Xie7, Yanzhong Peng8, Qing Mao9, Xinqiang Xiao1, Yongfang Jiang1, Kaizhong Luo1, Yun Xu1, Hai Ding10, Wenzhou Fan10, Vidaurre Diego11, Mahmoud Reza Pourkarim12,13, Erik De Clercq14, Guiqiang Wang15, Guozhong Gong16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As an important anti-HBV drug, pegylated interferon α (PegIFNα) offers promising clinical efficacy, but biomarkers that accurately forecast treatment responses are yet to be elucidated. Here, we evaluated whether HBV RNA could act as an early monitor of pegylated interferon responses.Entities:
Keywords: Antiviral treatment; HBV RNA; HBeAg seroconversion; Hepatitis B; Pegylated interferon alfa
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32100261 PMCID: PMC7136184 DOI: 10.1007/s12072-020-10015-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hepatol Int ISSN: 1936-0533 Impact factor: 6.047
Fig. 1Study profile (a) and distributions of HBV biomarkers throughout 72 weeks (b). Scatter plots of HBV RNA, HBV DNA, HBsAg, and HBeAg were shown in five groups: (1) all patients; (2) SR patients who achieved HBeAg seroconversion; (3) Non-SR patients who failed to achieve HBeAg seroconversion; (4) HBsAg loss patients who achieved HBsAg loss; and (5) non-HBsAg loss patients who failed to achieve HBsAg loss. Mean values were linked by red lines
Baseline characteristics of host and HBV biomarkers in our study
| All patients | SR | Non-SR | HBsAg loss | HBsAg positive ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 28.2 ± 0.3 | 26.7 ± 0.4 | 28.8 ± 0.3 | 5.8 × 10−4 | 27.6 ± 1.3 | 28.2 ± 0.3 | 0.98 |
| Male gender | 523 (71.9%) | 150 (69.1%) | 373 (73.1%) | 0.27 | 11 (52.4%) | 512 (72.5%) | 0.04 |
| Body weight | 63.6 ± 0.4 | 61.7 ± 0.7 | 64.4 ± 0.5 | 0.03 | 57.9 ± 2.6 | 63.7 ± 0.4 | 0.11 |
| ALT (IU/mL) | 193.0 ± 5.5 | 211.8 ± 10.1 | 184.9 ± 6.5 | 0.003 | 196.4 ± 25.8 | 192.9 ± 5.6 | 0.9 |
| HBV genotypes | 3 × 10−4 | 0.4 | |||||
| B | 292 | 113 | 179 | 12 | 280 | ||
| C | 427 | 103 | 324 | 9 | 418 | ||
| D | 7 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 7 | ||
| B + C | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| HBV RNA# | 6.2 ± 0.05 | 5.8 ± 0.10 | 6.4 ± 0.06 | 2 × 10−5 | 5.5 ± 0.5 | 6.2 ± 0.05 | 0.11 |
| HBV DNA# | 7.9 ± 0.03 | 7.8 ± 0.05 | 8.0 ± 0.03 | 2 × 10−4 | 7.7 ± 0.2 | 7.9 ± 0.03 | 0.16 |
| HBsAg# | 4.3 ± 0.02 | 4.2 ± 0.03 | 4.3 ± 0.02 | 6 × 10−5 | 4.1 ± 0.1 | 4.3 ± 0.02 | 0.19 |
| HBeAg# | 3.0 ± 0.02 | 2.9 ± 0.04 | 3.1 ± 0.02 | 3 × 10−9 | 3.1 ± 0.09 | 3.0 ± 0.02 | 0.49 |
| PegIFNα-2a/PegIFNα-2b | 249/478 | 66/151 | 183/327 | 0.16 | 5/16 | 244/462 | 0.32 |
#The log10 transformation was performed prior to analyses. Biomarker units are measured by log10 copies/mL for HBV RNA, log10 IU/mL for HBV DNA, log10 IU/mL for HBsAg, and log10 COI for HBeAg
Fig. 2Fold changes and predictor importance estimates of HBV RNA, HBV DNA, HBsAg, and HBeAg. a Fold changes of HBV biomarkers in the SR (red lines) and non-SR patients (blue lines). b Fold changes of HBV biomarkers in HL and non-HL patients. c Comparisons of 12-week fold changes in five patient groups. Radar charts revealed predictor importance estimates of HBV biomarkers in the prediction of HBeAg seroconversion (d) or HBsAg loss (e). High values of predictor importance estimates indicate the significance of predictors
Logistic regression analyses of HBeAg seroconversion using the host and HBV biomarkers
| Biomarkers | Univariate analyses | Multivariate analyses | Univariate analyses | Multivariate analyses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |||||
| Age | 0.95 (0.93–0.98) | 1.9 × 10−4 | 0.94 (0.91–0.97) | 3.3 × 10−4 | 0.95 (0.93–0.98) | 1.9 × 10−4 | 0.93 (0.90–0.96) | 1.6 × 10−5 |
| Male gender | 0.82 (0.58–1.16) | 0.27 | 0.82 (0.58–1.16) | 0.27 | ||||
| Body weight | 0.98 (0.96–0.99) | 0.003 | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) | 0.005 | ||||
| PegIFNα-2a | 0.78 (0.56–1.09) | 0.15 | 0.78 (0.56–1.09) | 0.15 | ||||
| ALT | 1.001 (1.0–1.002) | 0.027 | 1.002 (1.0–1.003) | 0.014 | 0.998 (0.996–1.0) | 0.163 | ||
| Genotypes | 0.50 (0.37–0.69) | 1.7 × 10−5 | 0.49 (0.33–0.71) | 1.8 × 10−4 | 0.50 (0.37–0.69) | 1.7 × 10−5 | 0.63 (0.42–0.95) | 0.026 |
| HBV DNA | 0.79 (0.64–0.97) | 0.022 | 0.65 (0.60–0.72) | 1.9 × 10−19 | ||||
| HBsAg | 0.55 (0.41–0.75) | 1.3 × 10−4 | 0.42 (0.33–0.53) | 7.4 × 10−14 | ||||
| HBeAg | 0.45 (0.34–0.6) | 6.4 × 10−8 | 0.46 (0.31–0.67) | 5.6 × 10−5 | 0.41 (0.35–0.49) | 7.1 × 10−25 | 0.42 (0.31–0.58) | 1.1 × 10−7 |
| HBV RNA | 0.75 (0.67–0.85) | 3.16 × 10−6 | 0.79 (0.68–0.92) | 0.002 | 0.43 (0.37–0.51) | 1.2 × 10−20 | 0.52 (0.42–0.65) | 4.1 × 10−9 |
| Age | 0.95 (0.93–0.98) | 1.96 × 10−4 | 0.93 (0.89–0.96) | 7.15 × 10−5 | 0.95 (0.93–0.98) | 1.9 × 10−4 | 0.94 (0.91–0.97) | 3 × 10−4 |
| Male gender | 0.82 (0.58–1.16) | 0.27 | 0.82 (0.58–1.16) | 0.27 | ||||
| Body weight | 0.98 (0.97–0.99) | 0.015 | 0.98 (0.96–0.99) | 0.012 | ||||
| PegIFNα-2a | 0.78 (0.56–1.09) | 0.15 | 0.78 (0.56–1.09) | 0.15 | ||||
| ALT | .996 (.993–.999) | 2.7 × 10−3 | .995 (.992–.998) | 0.007 | ||||
| Genotypes | 0.50 (0.37–0.69) | 1.7 × 10−5 | 0.50 (0.37–0.69) | 1.7 × 10−5 | 0.41 (0.61–0.91) | 0.015 | ||
| HBV DNA | 0.63 (0.58–0.69) | 4.32 × 10−23 | 0.52 (0.47–0.59) | 0.001 | ||||
| HBsAg | 0.50 (0.42–0.60) | 2.70 × 10−13 | 0.63 (0.56–0.71) | 8.2 × 10−14 | 0.94 (0.91–0.97) | 0.043 | ||
| HBeAg | 0.33 (0.27–0.40) | 5.43 × 10−29 | 0.29 (0.19–0.43) | 8.34 × 10−10 | 0.16 (0.12–0.22) | 0.001 | 0.16 (0.11–0.23) | 4.5 × 10−24 |
| HBV RNA | 0.38 (0.30–0.47) | 4.23 × 10−14 | 0.64 (0.48–0.85) | 0.0002 | 0.21 (0.14v0.32) | 4.8 × 10−14 | 0.72 (0.61–0.88) | 0.001 |
CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio
Fig. 3AUC performance of HBV biomarkers. a AUC values of HBV RNA at weeks 0, 12, 24, and 48. b Averaged ROC curves of four biomarkers at baseline and week 12. All data were used in the HL prediction without cross-validation due to the limited number of HL patients
Fig. 4Predictive performance of biomarker cutoffs and their combined performance. a AUC performance of dual combinations containing HBV RNA plus single conventional biomarkers. AUC values of dual combinations were significantly higher compared to that of individual biomarkers (p values < 0.01, see increased percentages on top). b Proportions of SR patients incrementally stratified by four 12-week biomarkers. c AUC values of 12-week biomarker combinations in the SR prediction. The average ROC curve on right was indicated by the red line and gray area showed the 95% confidence interval. d Proportions of SR patients in combinations of four 12-week biomarkers (HBV RNA, genotype B, HBeAg, age). A solid branch indicates the inclusion of a biomarker, while a dotted branch indicates that a biomarker was not used in the calculation. For instance, 65.3% (130/199) at the bottom right was the SR proportion under the single condition of HBV RNA ≤ 3 log10 copies/mL, while 95.2% (20/21) at the top left was the SR proportion with four conditions fulfilled simultaneously