4.3 Article

Characteristics of patients with hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus dual infection in a Western European country: Comparison with monoinfected patients

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER MASSON
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinre.2017.05.003

Keywords

Epidemiology; Screening; Viral hepatitis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The epidemiology of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections is continuously evolving. Updated data on dual HBV and HCV infection are still needed. Aims: To assess the main characteristics of patients with HBV and HCV dual infection, to compare these with those of patients infected with either HBV or HCV and, among patients with dual infection, to assess fibrosis according to HCV replication. Methods: Data of 23 patients with dual infection were compared to data from 92 age and sex-matched HBV or HCV monoinfected patients. Results: Patients with dual infection were more often immigrants from Africa or Asia than HCV or HBV patients (52% vs. 20% and 22%, respectively, P= 0.01). Intravenous drug use was the route of transmission in 22% of patients with dual infection, which was less frequent than in HCV patients (41%) but more frequent than in HBV patients (0%). Extensive fibrosis or cirrhosis was as frequent among dual-infected patients as among those with HCV or chronic hepatitis B infection (19% vs. 29% vs. 14%, respectively, P=0.4), even when fibrosis stage was reported considering the duration of infection. In dual-infected patients, the prevalence of extensive fibrosis or cirrhosis was similar in patients with and without detectable HCV RNA (18% vs. 20%). Conclusions: Patients with HBV and HCV dual infection were more often immigrants from Africa or Asia and had similar fibrosis stages than HCV or HBV monoinfected patients. In patients with dual infection, extensive fibrosis or cirrhosis was not associated with HCV replication. (C) 2017 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available