4.7 Article

High prevalence of dual or triple infection of hepatitis B, C, and delta viruses among patients with chronic liver disease in Mongolia

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 77, 期 4, 页码 491-499

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.20482

关键词

hepatitis viruses; genotype; dual infection; triple infection; Mongolia

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mongolia is known for its high endemicity for hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infections among apparently healthy individuals. However, there are little or no data on the prevalence and genotype distribution of HBV, HCV, and HDV among patients with chronic liver disease in Mongolia. Therefore, serum samples obtained in 2004 from 207 patients (age, mean +/- standard deviation, 51.0 +/- 11.9 years) including those with chronic hepatitis (n = 90), liver cirrhosis (n = 41), and hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 76) were tested for serological and molecular markers of HBV, HCV, and HDV infections. Of the 207 patients, 144 (69.6%), 106 (51.2%), and 117 (56.5%) tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and/or HBV DNA, HCV RNA, and HDV RNA, respectively. Collectively, 172 patients (83.1%) were viremic for one or more of these viruses, including dual viremia of HBV/HDV (26.6%) or HBV/HCV (7.7%) and triple HBV/HCV/HDV viremia (30.0%). Of note, triple ongoing infection was significantly more frequent among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma than among those with chronic hepatitis (63.2% vs. 14.4%, P < 0.0001). One hundred sixty patients (77.3%) had a history of blood transfusion and/or surgery. The distribution of HBV genotypes among the 116 HBV-viremic patients was: A (0.9%), B (0.9%), C (6.0%), D (88.8%), and C plus D (3.4%). All 117 HDV isolates were classified into genotype 1. The 106 HCV RNA-positive samples were typed as genotype lb (92.5%), 2a (0.9%), or 1b plus 2a (6.6%); mixed infection of two distinct HCV genotypes was found exclusively in the patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

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

4.7
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