4.5 Article

Hepatitis E virus co-infection in HIV-infected patients in Foggia and Naples in southern Italy

期刊

INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 47, 期 10, 页码 707-713

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/23744235.2015.1049658

关键词

Hepatitis E; HIV infection; seroprevalence; epidemiology; co-infection HBV-HCV

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection represents an emerging infection in developed countries and is thought to be a zoonotic infection. It has recently been described as a new causative agent of acute and chronic hepatitis in immunosuppressed subjects, including HIV-infected patients. The aim of this study was to assess the sero-virological prevalence of HEV in HIV patients and in the general population as control group. Methods: A prospective and observational cohort study was carried out in two hospitals in southern Italy. The seroprevalence of HEV was determined in a cohort of 959 subjects, 509 (53%) of whom were HIV-positive patients and 450 were from the general population. Serum samples were tested for anti-HEV antibodies; repeatedly positive results were confirmed by a Western blot assay. In positive patients HEV RNA and genotypes were also determined. Results: A total of 46 (4.8%) of the 959 serum samples examined were reactive to anti-HEV Ig and confirmed by Western blotting. The prevalence of HEV antibodies (IgG and/or IgM) was 2.7% in the control group and 6.7% in HIV-infected patients. Anti-HEV IgM was found in 6/46 (13.0%) of the anti-HEV Ig-positive serum samples, in 5/34 HIV patients and in 1/12 of the general population. No HIV-infected patient presented chronic hepatitis with HEV infection alone. Conclusions: This study indicates a higher circulation of HEV in HIV-infected patients, whereas a low prevalence of HEV antibodies in the general Italian population was shown. Chronic hepatitis with HEV alone was absent, while it was present in subjects with HIV-HEV, co-infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and/or hepatitis C virus (HCV).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据