Comparative pilot study reveals associations of IL-10 polymorphism and serum levels in Sudanese patients with ESRD and HBV, indicating potential genetic influences.
Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing maintenance hemodialysis are at increased risk for persistent hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Host immunogenetic variations, particularly in cytokines regulating pro- and anti-inflammatory responses, may influence viral chronicity. This study evaluated the association of IL-6 − 174G/C and IL-10 − 1082G/A polymorphisms and their corresponding serum levels in Sudanese patients with overt HBV and ESRD-HBV. A case-control study was conducted among 68 HBV-infected individuals (31 ESRD-HBV and 37 overt HBV). Genotyping was performed using sequence-specific primer PCR (SSP-PCR), and serum cytokine concentrations were measured by ELISA. Statistical analyses were conducted using R software, applying non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal–Wallis tests. No significant differences were observed between groups in IL-6 serum levels ( p = 0.29) or genotype frequencies ( p = 0.738), nor in IL-10 genotype distribution ( p = 0.194). In contrast, IL-10 serum levels were significantly higher in the ESRD-HBV group compared to the overt HBV group ( p = 0.00024). A significant genotype–phenotype association for IL-10 was identified within the ESRD-HBV cohort ( p = 0.018), where carriers of the GA genotype exhibited higher serum IL-10 levels compared to AA and GG genotypes. This association was not observed in the overt HBV group ( p = 0.33). No significant variation in IL-6 or IL-10 genotype frequencies was detected between the groups. Nevertheless, the IL-10 (− 1082G/A) polymorphism was related to differences in serum IL-10 concentrations among patients with concurrent HBV infection and ESRD. However, given the limited sample size and absence of key clinical confounders, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory and require validation in larger, well-characterized cohorts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: