BackgroundA novel pattern in the indirect immunofluorescence antinuclear antibody assay on HEp-2 cells (IIF-HEp-2) characterized by cytoplasmic rods and rings (RR) was reported in HCV patients, but stringent disease specificity studies and longitudinal analysis are lacking. We investigated the clinical significance of anti-RR in an HCV cohort with up to a 12-month treatment follow up.Methodology/Results597 patients (342 HCV, 55 HCV/HIV, 200 non-HCV) were screened and titered for anti-RR. Serial samples were available from 78 of 176 treated and 27 of 166 untreated patients. Anti-RR was detected in 14.1% of 342 HCV patients, 9.1% of 55 HCV/HIV, 3.4% of 29 Hepatitis B, and none of 171 non-HCV (p<0.0001; HCV versus non-HCV). Anti-RR was present in 38% of 108 patients receiving interferon-α/ribavirin, but none in 26 receiving either interferon-α or ribavirin, or 166 untreated patients (p<0.0001). Other IIF-HEp-2 patterns were more frequently associated with interferon-α treatment alone (52.2%) as compared to interferon-α/ribavirin (25%), ribavirin alone (33.3%), and no therapy (26.5%). Anti-RR frequency was not associated with sex, age, ethnicity, HCV genotype or viral load. Anti-RR occurred only after initiation of treatment, beginning as early as 1 month (6%), but by the sixth month >47% tested positive for anti-RR. The anti-RR titer generally increased with sustained treatment and remained high in 53% of patients. After treatment, anti-RR titer was negative in 41%. Non-responders to HCV therapy were 77% in anti-RR-positive versus 64% in anti-RR-negative patients. Response to treatment was not associated with anti-RR titer or the dynamics of anti-RR reactivity during and after treatment.ConclusionsThe exquisite association of anti-RR reactivity with combined interferon-α/ribavirin therapy in HCV patients represents a unique model for drug-induced autoantibody generation in humans as demonstrated by the fact that a significant fraction of patients who have anti-RR during therapy becomes anti-RR-negative after completion of therapy.
Background
The prevalence and clinical epidemiological profile of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have changed over time.
Aim
This study aimed to evaluate these changes in renal transplant recipients (RTx) comparing two different decades.
Materials and methods
RTx with HCV referred to RTx from 1993 to 2003 (A) and from 2004 to 2014 (B) were studied retrospectively. The demographic and clinical characteristics and different outcomes were compared between groups A and B. Variables that were statistically different were tested for inclusion in a multivariate Cox proportional hazard model predicting patient survival within the group.
Results
Among 11 715 RTx, the prevalence of HCV was 7% in A and 4.9% in B. In the more recent period (B), the mean age was older (46.2 vs. 39.5 years), with more males (72 vs. 60.7%), larger number of deceased donors (74 vs. 55%), higher percentage of previous RTx (27 vs. 13.7%), less frequent history of blood transfusion (81 vs. 89.4%), lower prevalence of hepatitis B virus coinfection (4.7 vs. 21.4%), and higher percentage of cirrhotic patients (13 vs. 5%). Patients of group B more frequently underwent treatment of HCV (29 vs. 9%), less frequently used azathioprine (38.6 vs. 60.7%) and cyclosporine (11.8 vs. 74.7%), and more frequently used tacrolimus (91 vs. 27.3%). In the outcomes, graft loss showed no difference between periods; however, decompensation was more frequent (P = 0.007) and patients’ survival was lower in the more recent period (P = 0.032) compared with the earlier one.
Conclusion
The profile of RTx with HCV has changed over the last 20 years. Despite a decrease in the prevalence of HCV, new clinical challenges have emerged, such as more advanced age and a higher prevalence of cirrhosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.