目的: 通过对单中心大样本慢性乙型肝炎病毒(hepatitis B virus, HBV)感染队列的分析, 对我国慢性HBV感染自然病程的划分提出修订建议。方法: 回顾性地纳入2014年1月至2020年10月在中国人民解放军总医院第五医学中心接受过肝组织活检的慢性HBV感染者。参考《欧洲肝病学会乙型肝炎病毒感染管理临床实践指南(2017年版)》等国内外最新版慢性乙型肝炎(chronic hepatitis B, CHB)防治指南, 将患者按乙型肝炎e抗原(hepatitis B e antigen, HBeAg)状态及肝损伤程度分为HBeAg阳性感染(免疫耐受期)、HBeAg阳性CHB(免疫清除期)、HBeAg阴性感染(免疫控制期)和HBeAg阴性CHB(再活动期)四个自然病程分期, 并重点比较了不同分期患者的人口学和实验室检验结果。两组间年龄差异采用Mann-Whitney U检验。结果: 最终纳入符合纳排标准的患者760例, 包括197例未成年(年龄 < 18岁)和563例成年感染者, 男性456例、女性304例, 纳入患者的中位年龄为29岁, (四分位间距: 16, 39岁)。上述四个自然病程分期患者分别有173、329、95和163例, 进一步比较四期患者的年龄发现: HBeAg阴性CHB的中位年龄尽管大于HBeAg阳性CHB(37岁vs. 24岁, P < 0.001), 但却小于HBeAg阴性感染者(37岁vs. 39岁, P = 0.240)。结论: 根据本研究可以推测, HBeAg阴性CHB患者并非都是由HBeAg阴性感染者进入再活动期发展而来, 也可以由仍处于持续免疫活动状态的HBeAg阳性CHB患者发生HBeAg阴转或血清学转换而来。

Objective: To better understand and revise the natural history and disease progression of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection through analysis of a single-center large-scale cohort of indivi-duals with chronic HBV infection. Methods: Patients with chronic HBV infection who had undergone liver biopsy in the Fifth Medical Center of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital from January 2014 to October 2020 were retrospectively recruited. Based on patient's hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) states and pathologic diagnosis, they were categorized into four disease progression statuses (or phases according to the old-terminology in the updated guidelines of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), such as European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) 2017, Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Hepatitis B Virus Infection: HBeAg-positive chronic HBV infection (immune tolerance), HBeAg-positive CHB (immune active HBeAg positive), HBeAg-negative chronic HBV infection (inactive carrier), and HBeAg-negative CHB (immune reactive HBeAg negative). Then the demographic, laboratory tests and liver histological results of the patients in different disease progression stages were compared. Age differences between the two groups were evaluated using Mann-Whitney U test. Results: A total of 760 eligible patients with a median age of 29 (interquartile range: 16-39) years were enrolled. Among them, 197 were underage individuals (age < 18 years) and 563 were adults; and 456 were males and 304 females. According to the pathological diagnosis, the patients were classified, and in each of the above four natural disease phases there were 173, 329, 95, and 163 individuals, respectively. Further comparison of the ages of the patients of the four disease progression statuses revealed that patients of HBeAg-negative CHB had a median age at 37 years, which was reasonably higher than those with HBeAg-positive CHB in immune active phase (37 vs. 24 years, P < 0.001), but was relatively younger than those with HBeAg-negative chronic HBV infection (37 vs. 39 years, P= 0.240). Conclusion: According to this study, it could be speculated that HBeAg-negative CHB patients probably not all reactivate from individuals of HBeAg-negative chronic HBV infection. Instead, certain HBeAg-negative CHB patients may also come from HBeAg-positive CHB patients who have undergone HBeAg clearance or seroconversion and still remain in the immune active state.