4.7 Article

Seroprevalence of human herpesvirus 8 in Ireland among blood donors, men who have sex with men, and heterosexual genitourinary medicine and infectious diseases clinic attendees

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 93, Issue 8, Pages 5058-5064

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.26813

Keywords

blood donors; HHV‐ 8; HIV; MSM; seroprevalence

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that the seroprevalence of Human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) in the Irish population is low, but higher among men who have sex with men (MSM), especially those who are HIV-positive.
Human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8) seroprevalence varies geographically and between subpopulations. High seroprevalence rates have been ascribed to men who have sex with men (MSM), African migrants, and HIV-infected individuals. The objective of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of HHV-8 in an Irish population, including specific risk groups. A cross-sectional study of 200 blood donors and 200 genitourinary medicine (GUM) and infectious diseases (ID) clinic patients was performed, with testing for Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to HHV-8 lytic antigens using a commercial indirect fluorescence assay (Scimedx Corp.). Verification was performed at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). All 200 blood donor samples were negative for HHV-8 IgG antibodies. 21% of GUM and ID patients were positive for HHV-8 IgG antibodies. One hundred of these patients were MSM, 35% of whom were HHV-8 seropositive (46% of HIV-positive MSM and 24% of HIV-negative MSM). Of 100 heterosexual patients, only 7% were HHV-8 seropositive. The absence of seropositivity in 200 Irish blood donors may suggest that Ireland has a low overall population HHV-8 seroprevalence. The proportion of HHV-8 seropositivity in the MSM population was significantly higher than in the heterosexual population and most marked in HIV-positive MSM.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available