替诺福韦联合聚乙二醇干扰素α-2b注射液对慢性乙型肝炎患者HBe Ag血清学转换率和阴转率的影响

摘要 目的：探讨替诺福韦联合聚乙二醇干扰素α-2b注射液对慢性乙型肝炎患者HBe Ag血清学转换率和阴转率的影响。方法：2018年2月到2020年8月选择在我院联合汀州医院诊治的慢性乙型肝炎患者104例,根据随机数字表法把患者分为联合组与对照组各52例。对照组给予聚乙二醇干扰素α-2b注射液治疗,联合组给予替诺福韦联合聚乙二醇干扰素α-2b注射液治疗,两组都治疗观察48 w。对比两组治疗前后患者的HBeAg血清学转换情况及HBV-DNA的转阴情况,血清谷丙转氨酶(Alanine transaminase,ALT)、谷草转氨酶(Aspartate transaminase,AST)含量。结果：治疗后联合组的HBe Ag血清学转换率为11.54 %,高于对照组的3.85 %(P>0.05)。治疗后联合组的HBV DNA 转阴率为100 %,高于对照组的71.17 %(P<0.05)。两组治疗后的血清ALT与AST值低于治疗前(P<0.05),联合组低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论：替诺福韦联合聚乙二醇干扰素α-2b注射液对慢性乙型肝炎患者能提高HBe Ag血清学转换率和阴转率,改善患者的肝功能。     

富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯片联合双环醇在治疗慢性乙型病毒性肝炎方面的研究

目的:研究探讨富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯片(tenofovir dipivoxil fumarate tablets,TDF)联合双环醇在治疗慢性乙型病毒性肝炎方面的临床效果。方法:选取2017年1月-2020年1月中国人民解放军陆军第七十三集团军医院疾病预防控制科感染病区收治的80例慢性乙型病毒性肝炎患者,随机将其分为两组,对照组40例,给予TDF治疗,研究组40例,给予TDF联合双环醇治疗,观察两组治疗后的疗效及不良反应率,检测两组治疗前后血清乙型肝炎病毒DNA(Deoxyribonucleic acid)的水平及血清丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)的水平。结果:治疗后,研究组总有效率95.0%,显著高于对照组总有效率75.0%(P<0.05);研究组血清乙型肝炎病毒DNA的水平<500 cps/mL的有32例,占80.0%,对照组<500 cps/mL的有14例,占35.0%,对比有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组血清ALT的水平明显降低,且研究组低于对照组(P<0.05)。研究组不良反应总发生率2.5%明显低于对照组25.0%(P<0.05)。结论:富马酸替诺福韦二吡呋酯片(TDF)联合双环醇治疗慢性乙型病毒性肝炎疗效显著,能使患者体内血清乙型肝炎病毒DNA的水平显著的降低,且安全可靠,值得临床推广和应用。     

慢性乙型肝炎治疗的适应症和治疗方案的最新进展

目前,对于治疗一些慢性乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)感染边缘病例的最佳方法尚存在争议.血清HBV DNA和转氨酶水平、炎性坏死的程度和肝硬变程度决定着治疗的方案.所有转氨酶升高(＞正常上限值2倍)和血清HBVDNA＞20000 IU/mL的患者都需进行治疗.肝脏活检对于制定转氨酶轻度升高和血清HBV DNA＜20000 IU/mL的病例的治疗决策非常重要.慢性HBV患者如未接受治疗则需长期随访.现有7种药物获批用于治疗慢性乙型肝炎:普通和聚乙二醇IFNα、拉米夫定、阿德福韦、恩替卡韦、替比夫定和替诺福韦.应用聚乙二醇IFNα 1年疗程后持续治疗后效应使HbeAg阳性慢性乙型肝炎患者缓解率为30%-32%.口服抗病毒药物适用于大部分患者,并被用于长期治疗.然而,病毒耐药是长期口服抗病毒药物的主要缺点.     

恩替卡韦治疗HBeAg 阳性乙型肝炎临床观察

目的:探讨恩替卡韦治疗HBeAg阳性乙型肝炎的疗效与安全性。方法:140例慢性乙肝患者随机分为2组:观察组予恩替卡韦0.5 mg/d,对照组予拉米夫定100 mg/d,疗程均为48周。观察两组HBV DNA阴转率、ALT复常率、HbeAg血清转换率以及不良反应发生情况。结果:在治疗12周后,观察组与对照组HBV DNA阴转率分别为47.1%、22.9%(P<0.01),ALT复常率分别为51.4%、31.4%(P<0.05),在治疗48周后,观察组与对照组HBV DNA阴转率分别为88.6%、48.6%(P<0.01),ALT复常率分别为90.0%、72.9%(P<0.01)。HbeAg血清转换率无统计学差异,两组患者未见严重不良反应。结论:恩替卡韦治疗HBeAg阳性乙肝患者,较拉米夫定起效快、作用强,且安全性好。     

恩替卡韦联合胸腺肽α1 治疗慢性乙型肝炎疗效研究

目的:观察和比较恩替卡韦联合胸腺肽α1治疗HBeAg阳性慢性乙型肝炎的疗效。方法:选取我院58例HBeAg阳性慢性乙型肝炎患者分成联合组和对照组。联合组28例,初始同时使用恩替卡韦及胸腺肽α124周,之后停胸腺肽α1继续用恩替卡韦至48周。对照组30例,单用恩替卡韦0.5mg/d,48周。定期检测ALT复常率,HBVDNA转阴率,HBeAg/抗HBe血清转换率,肝纤维化组合,Fibroscan评分两组在治疗结束时进行疗效评价。结果:24周时两组ALT复常率无差异显著性(P>0.05),联合组和对照组HBV DNA阴转率在24周、48周时均差异有显著性(P<0.05)。联合组与单用组HBeAg血清转换率在第24周、48周时,两组比较差异均有显著性(P<0.05)。肝纤维化组合各指标(HA,LN,PⅢP,Ⅳ型胶原),Fibroscan评分两组治疗48周后比较差异均有显著性(P<0.05),且两组治疗前后差异联合组更显著。治疗过程中,未发现明显副作用。结论:恩替卡韦联合胸腺肽α1治疗HBeAg阳性慢性乙型肝炎,安全性与耐受性良好,联合组在ALT复常率,HBeAg血清转换率和HBV DNA转阴率,抗肝纤维化的疗效上显著优于单用恩替卡韦组。     

恩替卡韦对慢性乙型病毒性肝炎患者TNF-α及CEA水平的影响

目的:探究恩替卡韦对慢性乙型病毒性肝炎患者TNT-α,CEA水平及临床疗效的影响研究。方法:选取我院慢性乙型病毒性肝炎患者39例,随机分为实验组(20例)和对照组(19例)。对照组予拉米夫定治疗,实验组予恩替卡韦治疗。观察并比较两组患者治疗前后血清TNF-α,CEA及肝功能水平变化以及HBV DNA转阴率。结果:实验组患者的总有效率(95.0%)高于对照组(73.7%),差异有统计学意义(P0.05);与治疗前相比,两组患者治疗后血清ALT,AST及TNF-α水平均下降,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);与对照组比较,实验组患者治疗后血清ALT,AST及TNF-α水平均下降,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);与对照组比较,实验组患者HBV DNA转阴率较高,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:恩替卡韦治疗慢性乙肝病毒性肝炎的临床效果较好,能够降低TNT-α水平,提高HBV DNA转阴率,改善患者肝功能,值得临床推广应用。     

内江地区慢性乙型肝炎患者的基因型及拉米夫定联合阿德福韦酯抗病毒治疗效果

目的探讨内江地区慢性乙型肝炎患者的基因型及拉米夫定联合阿德福韦酯抗病毒的治疗效果。方法将201例慢性乙型肝炎患者进行HBV基因型的测定,其中120例HBeAg(+)慢性乙型肝炎患者随机分为三组:A组、B组和C组,每组40例。A组给予拉米夫定(LAM)治疗;B组给予恩替卡韦(ETV)治疗;C组给予LAM联合阿德福韦酯(ADV)治疗,比较治疗情况。结果 201例慢性乙型肝炎患者中B型119例(59.2%),C型68例(33.8%),B/C混合型10例(5.0%),未知型4例(2.0%),各分型之间的性别、年龄差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。C型感染者HBeAg阳性率为86.8%,显著高于B型的51.3%(P0.05)。HBeAg(+)的3组患者治疗12、24和48周时,B组和C组患者的ALT复常率、HBV DNA阴转率及48周时的HBeAg血清转换率均显著高于A组(P0.05);C组患者与B组比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。治疗期间均未见不良反应发生。C组患者(包括B型19例、C型21例)中B型的HBV DNA阴转率及HBeAg血清转换率显著高于C型(P0.05)。结论地处西南方的内江地区慢性乙型肝炎患者主要以B型为主,C型次之,B型和C型共占93.0%,其他型别仅占较少部分。ETV方案或LAM联合ADV方案治疗HBeAg(+)慢性乙肝疗效优于LAM治疗。初始LAM联合ADV治疗基因B型HBeAg(+)慢性乙型肝炎疗效优于C型。     

护肝片联合拉米夫定治疗慢性乙型肝炎的临床疗效观察

目的 验证护肝片联合拉米夫定治疗慢性乙型肝炎的临床疗效。方法 治疗组,拉米夫定片100mg,日服1次,连服3个月后,加服护肝片,每次4片,日服3次,连服9个月。对照组,单服拉米夫定片,每目100mg,日服1次,连服3个月。结果 治疗组口服拉米夫定片3个月并加服护肝片9个月后,45例患者ALT、AST,HBV—DNA均转阴性,病情稳定。对照组口服拉米夫定3个月后,患者肝功能亦正常,HBV—DNA亦有不同程度下降。肝功能、HBV—DNA正常者22例。1年后,有10例患者HBV—DNA病毒变异,同时HBV—DNA病毒有5例异常升高,加服护肝片,病情处于稳定。结论 护肝片联合拉米夫定治疗慢性乙型肝炎,提高机体免疫功能的同时又增强抗病毒作用,值得在临床中推广应用。     

长效干扰素联合乙肝舒康胶囊治疗慢性乙型肝炎的临床研究

目的：探讨长效干扰素（IFN）α-2a联合乙肝舒康胶囊治疗病毒性慢性乙型肝炎（CHB）抗病毒治疗的临床疗效。方法：94例CHB患者随机分为3组,分别接受单纯护肝药物治疗、长效干扰素,及长效干扰素联合珍珠草乙肝舒康胶囊治疗,疗程24周。观察血清HBV—DNA及HBsAg、HBeAg的阴转情况。结果：长效干扰素组及联合治疗组的抗病毒疗效与对照组相比,疗效均优于对照组（P〈0．05）,且联合治疗组的HBV—DNA的复制水平下降率及HBsAg阴转率均高于长效干扰素组。结论：长效干扰素与乙肝舒康胶囊有协同抗病毒作用,且疗效优于单用长效干扰素治疗。     

白介素-32在HBV感染者的变化及其临床意义

目的:探讨乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)感染者血清中白介素-32(IL-32)水平的变化及其临床意义。方法:对100例HBV感染者和30例健康者检测外周血清白细胞介素-32(IL-32)的含量,比较IL-32水平变化的规律,并分析其与临床疾病谱和HBV复制水平的关系。结果:(1)急性乙型肝炎、中度慢性乙型肝炎、重度慢性乙型肝炎患者血清IL-32水平与对照组有显著性差异(P<0.001);轻度慢性乙型肝炎患者血清IL-32水平高于健康对照组,但无统计学意义(P>0.05);急性乙型肝炎、中、重度慢性乙型肝炎患者血清IL-32水平均显著高于轻度慢性乙型肝炎组,且有统计学意义(P<0.001);急性乙型肝炎、重度慢性乙型肝炎患者血清IL-32水平均高于中度慢性乙型肝炎组,有统计学意义(P<0.001);急性乙型肝炎、重度慢性乙型肝炎组之间无明显差异(P>0.05)。(2)HBV感染者HBV-DNA阳性组IL-32水平较阴性组为高,但无差异;高、中、低病毒载量组之间血清IL-32水平也无差异(P>0.05)。(3)慢性乙型肝炎患者不同ALT水平组血清IL-32水平均高于对照组(P<0.05);且低、中、高ALT水平组之间与I...     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor