Hepatitis D virus dual-infection among Chinese hepatitis B patient related to hepatitis B surface antigen, hepatitis B virus DNA and age.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
Child, Preschool
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Young Adult
DNA
East Asian People
Hepatitis B
/ diagnosis
Hepatitis B Surface Antigens
Hepatitis B virus
/ genetics
Hepatitis D
/ diagnosis
Hepatitis delta Antigens
Hepatitis Delta Virus
/ genetics
RNA
Coinfection
/ diagnosis
Anti-hepatitis D antigen
Epidemiology
Hepatitis B virus
Hepatitis D virus
Hepatitis D virus RNA
Journal
World journal of gastroenterology
ISSN: 2219-2840
Titre abrégé: World J Gastroenterol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100883448
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Oct 2023
14 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
06
06
2023
revised:
21
08
2023
accepted:
26
09
2023
medline:
31
10
2023
pubmed:
30
10
2023
entrez:
30
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The screening practices for hepatitis D virus (HDV) are diverse and non-standardized worldwide, and the exact prevalence of HDV is uncertain. To estimate HDV prevalence and investigate viral marker quantity trends in patients with hepatitis D. We collected 5594 serum samples from patients with hepatitis B in Jilin Province, China (3293 males and 2301 females, age range of 2 to 89 years). We then conducted tests for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B Virus (HBV) DNA, anti-hepatitis D antigen (HDAg), and HDV RNA. We found that the prevalence of anti-HDAg and HDV RNA among hepatitis B patient were 3.6% (3.2-4.2%) and 1.2% (0.9-1.5%), respectively, 87.69% of hepatitis D patients were 51-70 years old. HDV infection screening positive rate of patients with HBV DNA levels below 2000 IU/mL (2.0%) was higher than those above 2000 IU/mL (0.2%). Among anti-HDAg positive patients, the HDV RNA positive rate was positively correlated with the HBsAg level and anti-HDAg level. There was a weak correlation between HBsAg and anti-HDAg levels among hepatitis D patients. Our study highlights the importance of considering multiple factors when assessing the severity of HDV infection, comprehensive evaluation of patients' clinical and laboratory parameters is necessary for proper diagnosis and treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The screening practices for hepatitis D virus (HDV) are diverse and non-standardized worldwide, and the exact prevalence of HDV is uncertain.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To estimate HDV prevalence and investigate viral marker quantity trends in patients with hepatitis D.
METHODS
METHODS
We collected 5594 serum samples from patients with hepatitis B in Jilin Province, China (3293 males and 2301 females, age range of 2 to 89 years). We then conducted tests for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B Virus (HBV) DNA, anti-hepatitis D antigen (HDAg), and HDV RNA.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found that the prevalence of anti-HDAg and HDV RNA among hepatitis B patient were 3.6% (3.2-4.2%) and 1.2% (0.9-1.5%), respectively, 87.69% of hepatitis D patients were 51-70 years old. HDV infection screening positive rate of patients with HBV DNA levels below 2000 IU/mL (2.0%) was higher than those above 2000 IU/mL (0.2%). Among anti-HDAg positive patients, the HDV RNA positive rate was positively correlated with the HBsAg level and anti-HDAg level. There was a weak correlation between HBsAg and anti-HDAg levels among hepatitis D patients.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study highlights the importance of considering multiple factors when assessing the severity of HDV infection, comprehensive evaluation of patients' clinical and laboratory parameters is necessary for proper diagnosis and treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37900584
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i38.5395
pmc: PMC10600800
doi:
Substances chimiques
DNA
9007-49-2
Hepatitis B Surface Antigens
0
Hepatitis delta Antigens
0
RNA
63231-63-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5395-5405Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Références
Emerg Infect Dis. 2017 May;23(5):765-772
pubmed: 28418296
J Virol. 2011 Jan;85(1):432-9
pubmed: 20962099
Hepatology. 2014 Dec;60(6):2099-108
pubmed: 25164003
Viruses. 2021 Sep 23;13(10):
pubmed: 34696341
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun;3(6):383-403
pubmed: 29599078
Viruses. 2021 Sep 10;13(9):
pubmed: 34578380
North Clin Istanb. 2018 May 21;5(2):132-138
pubmed: 30374479
J Hepatol. 2020 Sep;73(3):523-532
pubmed: 32335166
J Infect Dis. 2020 Apr 27;221(10):1677-1687
pubmed: 31778167
BMC Infect Dis. 2018 Apr 2;18(1):145
pubmed: 29606088
Hepatology. 2018 Apr;67(4):1560-1599
pubmed: 29405329
Antiviral Res. 2016 Dec;136:19-31
pubmed: 27771387
Gut. 2020 Oct;69(10):1893
pubmed: 31719130
World J Gastroenterol. 2021 Oct 28;27(40):6927-6938
pubmed: 34790015
J Hepatol. 2010 May;52(5):658-64
pubmed: 20346531
J Hepatol. 2021 Aug;75(2):311-323
pubmed: 33845061
Viruses. 2023 Jan 12;15(1):
pubmed: 36680254
Chin Med J (Engl). 2022 Apr 5;135(7):767-773
pubmed: 35234694
Gut. 2019 Mar;68(3):512-521
pubmed: 30228220
Toxins (Basel). 2017 Aug 18;9(8):
pubmed: 28820481
J Adv Res. 2019 Mar 29;17:3-15
pubmed: 31193285
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Aug 3;20(1):565
pubmed: 32746807
Am J Gastroenterol. 2021 Jan 1;116(1):206-209
pubmed: 33027083
World J Gastroenterol. 2021 Aug 14;27(30):5088-5099
pubmed: 34497437
J Virol. 1991 Mar;65(3):1099-104
pubmed: 1847439
Hepatology. 2012 Mar;55(3):685-94
pubmed: 22031488
Gastroenterology. 2019 Jan;156(2):461-476.e1
pubmed: 30342879
J Clin Microbiol. 2011 Mar;49(3):1083-9
pubmed: 21191061
Front Microbiol. 2022 Apr 06;13:838382
pubmed: 35464929
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Feb;32(2):515-520
pubmed: 27248508
Virol J. 2017 Sep 13;14(1):177
pubmed: 28903779
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Oct;13(10):580-9
pubmed: 27534692