Prevalence of Hepatitis B Reactivation Among Chinese Individuals With Chronic Hepatitis C Treated With Pan-Oral Direct-Acting Antivirals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clearance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) has been reported to induce the reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV). The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of HBV reactivation in HCV-infected Chinese patients who received treatment with pan-oral direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). Methods: Data from HCV subjects receiving oral DAA therapy were retrospectively collected from October 2015 to May 2017. Patients who were seropositive for HBsAg or anti-HBc were enrolled. The efficacy of DAAs, including end-of-treatment virologic response (ETVR) and sustained virologic response (SVR) 12, was recorded. HBV virologic reactivation was defined as a reappearance of HBsAg, or increased HBV DNA by at least one log 10 IU/mL. HBV clinical reactivation was defined as virologic reactivation and serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) over two-fold of the upper limit of normal. Results: There were 11 (7.2%) cases and 53 (34.6%) cases in the HBsAg group and the anti-HBc group among all 153 subjects. All individuals achieved ETVR and SVR12. There were no cases with reappearance of HBsAg during DAAs therapy. Among seven cases in the HBsAg group whose HBV DNA level was determined, HBV virological reactivation was detected in two subjects (28.6%). Among all 11 subjects in the HBsAg group, there was one (9.1%) case with HBV clinical reactivation, which was resolved following treatment with Entaclavir. The case with HBV clinical reactivation had a higher baseline HBV DNA viral load (1,380 IU/mL) compared with that of the other patients (20 - 296 IU/mL). Conclusion: HBV virological and clinical reactivation occurred in 28.5% and 9.1% of subjects with HBsAg seropositivity. No HBV reactivation was observed in the cases with past HBV infection. Gastroenterol Res. 2018;11(2):124-129 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr971w
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".