4.6 Review

Global epidemiology of occult hepatitis B virus infections in blood donors, a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 17, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272920

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Union [TMA2019PF-2705]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to assess the global prevalence of occult hepatitis B in blood donors. The overall prevalence of occult hepatitis B (OBI) was found to be higher in HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive blood donors. Only sporadic cases of OBI were reported in HBsAg negative and anti-HBc negative blood donors. The prevalence of OBI was generally higher in countries with low-income economic status.
This study aimed to assess the global prevalence of occult hepatitis B in blood donors. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Global Index Medicus, and Excerpta Medica Database. Study selection and data extraction were performed by at least two independent investigators. Heterogeneity (I-2) was assessed using the chi(2) test on the Cochran Q statistic and H parameters. Sources of heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42021252787. We included 82 studies in this meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of OBI was 6.2% (95% CI: 5.4-7.1) in HBsAg negative and anti-HBc positive blood donors. Only sporadic cases of OBI were reported in HBsAg negative and anti-HBc negative blood donors. The overall prevalence of OBI was 0.2% (95% CI: 0.1-0.4) in HBsAg negative blood donors. The prevalence of OBI was generally higher in countries with low-income economic status. The results of this study show that despite routine screening of blood donors for hepatitis B, the transmission of HBV by blood remains possible via OBI and/or a seronegative window period; hence there is a need for active surveillance and foremost easier access to molecular tests for the screening of blood donors before transfusion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available