中华实验和临床感染病杂志（电子版）
中華實驗和臨床感染病雜誌（電子版）
중화실험화림상감염병잡지（전자판）
CHINESE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES(ELECTRONIC VERSION)
2013年
4期
516-518
,共3页
刘理冠%魏开鹏%赖小欢%杨环文%许正锯%杨红%潘兴南
劉理冠%魏開鵬%賴小歡%楊環文%許正鋸%楊紅%潘興南
류리관%위개붕%뢰소환%양배문%허정거%양홍%반흥남
树突细胞%恩替卡韦%肝炎,乙型,慢性
樹突細胞%恩替卡韋%肝炎,乙型,慢性
수돌세포%은체잡위%간염,을형,만성
Dendritic cell%Entecavir%Hepatitis B,chronic
目的：观察HBsAg致敏自体外周血单个核细胞（PBMC）来源的树突状细胞（抗HBV-DCs）联合恩替卡韦对慢性乙型肝炎（CHB）的治疗效果。方法104例CHB患者随机分成治疗组（抗HBV-DCs联合恩替卡韦治疗，51例）和对照组（恩替卡韦治疗，53例），比较患者肝功能、HBV DNA、HBeAg的变化。结果治疗组HBV DNA低于检测下限的比率与对照组差异无统计学意义（P ＞0.05），但治疗组HBeAg阴转率（35.3%）、HBeAg血清学转换率（31.4%）以及ALT复常率（84.3%）均显著高于对照组（分别为22.6%、17.0%及71.7%），治疗组治疗6个月时，其HBV DNA低于检测下限的比率（66.7%）、HBeAg转阴率（35.3%）、HBeAg血清学转换率（31.4%）以及ALT复常率（84.3%）均显著高于治疗3个月时（分别为35.3%、19.6%、11.8%及68.6%），差异均具有统计学意义（P ＜0.05）。结论抗HBV-DCs联合恩替卡韦治疗CHB较单用恩替卡韦疗效更佳。
目的：觀察HBsAg緻敏自體外週血單箇覈細胞（PBMC）來源的樹突狀細胞（抗HBV-DCs）聯閤恩替卡韋對慢性乙型肝炎（CHB）的治療效果。方法104例CHB患者隨機分成治療組（抗HBV-DCs聯閤恩替卡韋治療，51例）和對照組（恩替卡韋治療，53例），比較患者肝功能、HBV DNA、HBeAg的變化。結果治療組HBV DNA低于檢測下限的比率與對照組差異無統計學意義（P ＞0.05），但治療組HBeAg陰轉率（35.3%）、HBeAg血清學轉換率（31.4%）以及ALT複常率（84.3%）均顯著高于對照組（分彆為22.6%、17.0%及71.7%），治療組治療6箇月時，其HBV DNA低于檢測下限的比率（66.7%）、HBeAg轉陰率（35.3%）、HBeAg血清學轉換率（31.4%）以及ALT複常率（84.3%）均顯著高于治療3箇月時（分彆為35.3%、19.6%、11.8%及68.6%），差異均具有統計學意義（P ＜0.05）。結論抗HBV-DCs聯閤恩替卡韋治療CHB較單用恩替卡韋療效更佳。
목적：관찰HBsAg치민자체외주혈단개핵세포（PBMC）래원적수돌상세포（항HBV-DCs）연합은체잡위대만성을형간염（CHB）적치료효과。방법104례CHB환자수궤분성치료조（항HBV-DCs연합은체잡위치료，51례）화대조조（은체잡위치료，53례），비교환자간공능、HBV DNA、HBeAg적변화。결과치료조HBV DNA저우검측하한적비솔여대조조차이무통계학의의（P ＞0.05），단치료조HBeAg음전솔（35.3%）、HBeAg혈청학전환솔（31.4%）이급ALT복상솔（84.3%）균현저고우대조조（분별위22.6%、17.0%급71.7%），치료조치료6개월시，기HBV DNA저우검측하한적비솔（66.7%）、HBeAg전음솔（35.3%）、HBeAg혈청학전환솔（31.4%）이급ALT복상솔（84.3%）균현저고우치료3개월시（분별위35.3%、19.6%、11.8%급68.6%），차이균구유통계학의의（P ＜0.05）。결론항HBV-DCs연합은체잡위치료CHB교단용은체잡위료효경가。
Objective To investigate the therapeutic effects of the combination of dendritic cells (DCs) sensitized by HBsAg and entecavir (ETV) in the treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods Total of 104 CHB patients were randomly divided into treatment group (51 cases) and control group (53 cases). Patients in treatment group were treated with oral ETV administration and dendritic cells sensitized by HBsAg injection, while those in control group were treated only with ETV. During the treatment, liver function, HBV DNA level and HBV markers were compared between the two groups, respectively. Results The HBV DNA undetectable rate was not signifcantly different between the treatment group and control group (P > 0.05). But the rates of HBeAg negative (35.3%), HBeAg seroconversion (31.4%) and ALT normalization (84.3%) of patients in treatment group were signiifcantly higher than those in control group (22.6%, 17.0%and 71.7%, respectively) (P<0.05). The above indexes in treatment group at the end of 6th month were also signiifcantly higher than those at the end of 3rd month (66.7%vs 35.3%, 35.3% vs 19.6%, 31.4% vs 11.8%, 84.3% vs 68.6%, respectively) (P< 0.05). Conclusions Combined treatment of DCs sensitized by HBsAg and ETV had better curative effects on CHB patients compared with ETV monotherapy.
