Prospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Hepatol. Dec 27, 2020; 12(12): 1326-1340
Published online Dec 27, 2020. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v12.i12.1326
Table 1 Characteristics of the patients with no subclinical proximal tubulopathy at on day 0
VariablesGlobal (n = 138); n (%) ou; median (Q1; Q3); (n) (min-max)ETV (n = 28); n (%) ou; median (Q1; Q3) (n) (min-max)Naive (n = 84); n (%) ou; median (Q1; Q3) (n) (min-max)TDF (n = 26); n (%) ou; median (Q1; Q3) (n) (min-max)P value; ETV vs naiveP value; TDF vs naive
Male72 (52.2%)19 (67.9%)39 (46.4%)14 (53.8%)0.0510.511
Age in yr37.5 (29; 47); (n = 138); (18-74)45.5 (31; 57.5); (n = 28); (18-66)36.5 (29; 45); (n = 84); (18-74)35.5 (24; 42) (n = 26); (21-56)0.0820.222
BMI in kg/m224.5 (21.3; 27.8); (n = 115); (16.6-38.8)25 (22.2; 29); (n = 24); (16.6-36.3)24.8 (21.7; 28.7); (n = 71); (17.8-38.8)21.8 (19; 26.5); (n = 20); (18-35.2)0.9120.022
Ethnicity
-African65 (47.1%)7 (25.0%)44 (52.4%)14 (53.8%)0.00330.053
-Asian16 (11.6%)7 (25.0%)4 (4.8%)5 (19.2%)
-White57 (41.3%)14 (50.0%)36 (42.9%)7 (26.9%)
Phases of infection
-HbeAg + chronic infection6 (4.3%)3 (10.7%)3 (3.6%)0 (0.0%)< 0.00013< 0.00013
-HbeAg + chronic hepatitis15 (10.9%)6 (21.4%)3 (3.6%)6 (23.1%)
-HbeAg-chronic infection60 (43.5%)1 (3.6%)57 (67.9%)2 (7.7%)
-HbeAg-chronic hepatitis57 (41.3%)18 (64.3%)21 (25.0%)18 (69.2%)
Diabetes9 (6.5%)5 (17.9%)4 (4.8%)0 (0.0%)0.0430.573
High blood pressure25 (18.1%)9 (32.1%)12 (14.3%)4 (15.4%)0.0411.003
Renal insufficiency1 (0.7%)0 (0%)1 (1.2%)0 (0%)1.0031.003
Viral load
-PCR < 2000 UI/mL69 (61.6%)3 (15.8%)60 (77.9%)6 (37.5%)< 0.00013< 0.00013
-PCR ≥ 2000 et < 20000 UI/mL22 (19.6%)6 (31.6%)16 (20.8%)0 (0%)
-PCR ≥ 20000 UI/mL and < 7 (log)13 (11.6%)6 (31.6%)1 (1.3%)6 (37.5%)
PCR > 7 (log)8 (7.1%)4 (21.1%)0 (0%)4 (2.5%)< 0.00012< 0.00013
ALAT UI/L25 (17; 36); (n = 133); (7-214)40 (25; 57); (n = 27); (17-148)19 (15; 26); (n = 83); (7-89)46 (28; 70); (n = 23); (10-214)
Fibrosis4
-F0/F15103 (84.4%)13 (56.5%)73 (94.8%)17 (77.3%)< 0.000130.00673
-F25 (4.1%)2 (8.7%)2 (2.6%)1 (4.5%)
-F2/F38 (6.6%)6 (26.1%)2 (2.6%)0 (0%)
-F31 (0.8%)0 (0.0%)0 (0%)1 (4.5%)
-F3/F4
-F45 (4.1%)2 (8.7%)0 (0%)3 (13.6%)
Fibrosis F0/F1 vs F2
-F0/F1103 (84.4%)13 (56.5%)73 (94.8%)17 (77.3%)< 0.000130.023
-≥ F219 (15.6%)10 (43.5%)4 (5.2%)5 (22.7%)
Previous HBV therapy14 (10.1%)5 (17.9%)0 (0.0%)9 (34.6%)0.00073< 0.00013
Nephrotoxic drugs12 (6.1%)4 (10.5%)6 (5.2%)2 (4.8%)0.2231.003
Table 2 Clinical characteristics of the patients with no subclinical proximal tubulopathy at on day 0
Global population (n = 138); median (Q1; Q3); (n) (min-max)ETV group; (n = 28); median (Q1; Q3); (n) (min-max)Naive group; (n = 84); median (Q1; Q3); (n) (min-max)TDF group; (n = 26); median (Q1; Q3); (n) (min-max)P value; ETV vs naiveP value; TDF vs naive
Phosphatemia, mmoL/L1.1 (1.0; 1.2); (n = 135); (0.6-1.4)1.1 (1.0; 1.1); (n = 26); (0.9-1.3)1.0 (1.0; 1.2); (n = 83); (0.7-1.4)1.0 (0.9; 1.2); (n = 26); (0.6-1.2)0.4010.981
Plasma creatinine, μmoL/L73 (58; 85); (n = 137); (37.5-114.9)78.4 (66; 84); (n = 28); (51-114.9)71 (58; 87); (n = 83); (37.5-113)76.9 (57.5; 87); (n = 26); (38-98)0.2320.772
eGFR (MDRD), mL/min/1.73 m²94.5 (82.6; 107.6); (n = 137); (58.6-169.1)91 (84.2; 101); (n = 28); (62.7-141.3)94.8 (80.7; 108.1); (n = 83); (58.6-151.1)95.4 (84.3; 108.4); (n = 26); (70.2-169.1)0.3720.652
25(OH)D3, ng/mL15.9 (9.9; 22.2); (n = 130); (3.1-55.2)16.8 (12.6; 24.8); (n = 26) (5-55.2)14.8 (9.4; 21); (n = 81); (4-42.1)15.3 (9.8; 22.7); (n = 23); (3.1-36.9)0.2720.952
TmPi/eGFR, mmoL/L1 (0.9; 1.1); (n = 181); (0.4-1.9)1 (0.9; 1.2); (n = 34); (0.7-1.8)1 (0.9; 1.1); (n = 111); (0.4-1.9)1 (0.8; 1.2); (n = 36); (0.6-1.5)0.2420.862
FEUA, %5.8 (4.5; 7.1); (n = 112); (2.2-9.7)5.9 (4.7; 7.5); (n = 23); (2.7-9.1)5.8 (4.4; 7); (n = 69); (2.2-9.3)5.5 (4.5; 6.7); (n = 20); (3.8-9.7)0.6410.951
Table 3 Subclinical proximal tubulopathy prevalence at month 24 in the entecavir, naive and tenofovir disoproxil groups
Global (n = 138); n (%); (95%CI)ETV (n = 28); n (%); (95%CI)Naive (n = 84); n (%); (95%CI)TDF (n = 26); n (%); (95%CI)P value; ETV vs naiveP value; TDF vs naive
Missing values4592214
SPT prevalence at M24; (n = 93)29 (31.2%); (22.0-41.6)4 (21.1%); (6.1-45.6)19 (30.7%); (19.6-43.7)6 (50.00%); (21.1-78.9)0.4210.322
Table 4 Potential confounding factors at baseline susceptible to influence the prevalence of subclinical proximal tubulopathy at month 24 between the different groups in univariate analysis
HR (95%CI)P valueGlobal P value
Fibrosis≥ F2 vs F0/F11.09 (0.32-3.67)0.890.89
GroupETV vs naive0.41 (0.09-1.83)0.240.043
TDF vs naive2.28 (0.98-5.30)0.05
SexFemale vs male0.85 (0.38-1.87)0.680.68
EthnicityAfrican vs White0.91 (0.41-2.04)0.830.63
Asian vs White0.36 (0.05-2.84)0.33
DiabetesYes vs no0.63 (0.08-4.67)0.650.65
Previous hypertensionYes vs no1.26 (0.50-3.17)0.630.63
Viral loadLow vs very low0.94 (0.30-2.89)0.910.46
Elevated vs very low2.38 (0.77-7.34)0.13
Very elevated vs very low1.40 (0.40-4.93)0.60
Previous HBV therapyYes vs no1.11 (0.33-3.74)0.860.86
Age at inclusion1.02 (0.98-1.05)0.35
BMI at inclusion0.98 (0.89-1.08)0.67
ALAT at inclusion1.00 (0.99-1.01)0.67

  • Citation: Brayette A, Essig M, Carrier P, Debette-Gratien M, Labrunie A, Alain S, Maynard M, Ganne-Carrié N, Nguyen-Khac E, Pinet P, De Ledinghen V, Renou C, Mathurin P, Vanlemmens C, Di Martino V, Gervais A, Foucher J, Isabelle FH, Vergniol J, Hourmand-Ollivier I, Cohen D, Duval X, Poynard T, Bardou M, Abergel A, Dao MT, Thévenot T, Hiriart JB, Canva V, Lassailly G, Aurières C, Boyer N, Thabut D, Bernard PH, Schnee M, Larrey D, Hanslik B, Hommel S, Jacques J, Loustaud-Ratti V. Subclinical proximal tubulopathy in hepatitis B: The roles of nucleot(s)ide analogue treatment and the hepatitis B virus. World J Hepatol 2020; 12(12): 1326-1340
  • URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v12/i12/1326.htm
  • DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v12.i12.1326