Past and current hepatitis E virus infection in renal transplant patients. Issue 6 (12th March 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hering, Tiago; Passos, Ana Maria; Perez, Renata Mello; Bilar, Juliana; Fragano, Daniel; Granato, Celso; Medina‐Pestana, José Osmar; Ferraz, Maria Lucia Gomes
• Is Part Of: Journal of medical virology. Volume 86:Issue 6(2014:Jun.)
• Page Start: 948
• Page End: 953
• Publication Date: 2014-03-12
• Subjects: Virology -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1002/jmv.23915
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0146-6615

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec id="jmv23915-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <p>The chronic course of hepatitis E virus infection in immunosuppressed patients has been recently documented; however, clinical features and factors associated with this occurrence are not well known. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of previous or current HEV infection in renal transplant patients. One hundred ninety‐two kidney transplant patients were studied and classified in three groups: G1‐infected with hepatitis B and/or C virus; G2‐patients with elevated ALT; G3‐patients with normal ALT and no hepatotropic virus infection. Demographic, epidemiologic and clinical characteristics were compared between the groups. Patients with HEV infection (previous or current) were also compared to those who tested negative for HEV. HEV infection was detected using serologic (anti‐HEV IgG) and molecular (HEV RNA) methods. Anti‐HEV IgG was positive in 28 (15%) while HEV RNA was positive in 20 (10%). When both markers were considered, 44 (23%) patients showed evidence of previous or current HEV infection. However, both markers were concomitantly positive in only four cases (2%). In the comparative analysis, patients infected with HBV and/or HCV showed lower frequency of anti‐HEV IgG (<italic>P</italic> = 0.009). There was no difference regarding demographic, epidemiologic and laboratory variable between viremic and non‐viremic patients. In conclusion, past and current infection with HEV was a frequent finding among renal transplant recipients. Actively infected patients (HEV RNA positive) did not present distinct demographic and epidemiological characteristics or laboratory alterations suggestive of underlying liver damage. Therefore, infection with HEV can only be detected in immunosuppressed patients by systematic investigation of HEV RNA. <bold><italic>J. Med. Virol. 86:948–953, 2014</italic>.</bold> © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</p> </sec> </abstract>