Prevalence of sen virus infection in hemodialysis and blood diseased patients in Assiut university hospitals

SENV is a blood- borne, circular ss DNA virus and possessing nine genotypes [A to I]. Among nine genotypes, SENV-D and SENV-H genotypes have the strong link with patients with non [A-E] hepatitis infections .Recently, the identification of SEN virus [SENV] as a possible etiologic agent of parenteral transmission hepatitis let to the study of the prevalence of such agent. This study compared SENV prevalence and its two important genotypes [D and H] which might be pathogenic in high risk subjects including blood diseased patients and hemodialysis patients and low risk subjects as healthy blood donors. This study included 75 multitransfused patients, 60 of them were hemodialysis and the remaining were blood diseased including hemophilics, anemics and leukemics. The study included also 25 healthy blood donors as a control They were received consecutively at Department of Internal Medicine, Assiut University Hospital. The sera were separated and SENV DNA was detected by polymerase chain reaction. The results showed a higher prevalence of SENV infection in patients group than blood donors [46.7% versus 20%].No significant relation was found between SENV infection and age, duration of hemodialysis or liver enzymes. However, there was significant difference between SENV positive and negative patients as regards gender and number of blood transfusions. SENV is commonly present in blood diseased and hemodialysis patients attended to Assiut University Hospitals as well as in blood donors at variable rates. SENV infection has been found in only 20% of blood donors but in 46.7% of patients. The results also indicated that other possible routes of SENV infection other than blood transfusion may be included. Its pathogenic role in causing hepatitis is not documented, so far it can be considered as simple guest till further studies have been done

Prevalence of transfusion transmitted virus [TTV] infection in patients with liver diseases attending to Assiut University Hospital

In 1997 Transfusion Transmitted Virus [TTV] was isolated from the serum of a patient with post transfusion hepatitis of unknown etiology, in Japan. It's considered as a causative agent of non A to G hepatitis. To assess the prevalence of TTV infection among patients with liver diseases compared with healthy controls and the significance of TTV infection in patients with liver disease. This investigation was conducted on 76 patients with liver diseases, classified into four groups: Acute hepatitis group [20 patients], chronic liver diseases [30 patients], Liver cirrhosis [18 patients] and hepatocellular carcinoma [8 patients]. In addition to the patient groups, the fifth group of 24 healthy blood donors as control group was included within the study. All patients and control groups were examined for the detection of TTV DNA by PCR. Thirty seven had history of blood transfusion and 23 patients were subjected to surgical manipulation. TTV DNA was detected in 57.9% [44/76] of patients with liver diseases and in 45.7% [11/24] of healthy blood donors. The prevalence of TTV in the studied groups were 60%, 46.7%, 66,7% and 75% in acute hepatitis, chronic liver diseases, liver cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma respectively. TTV is commonly present in patients with liver disease attended to Assiut University Hospitals as well as in blood donors. High prevalence of TTV in blood donors may indicate other routes of transfusion of this virus such as fecal-oral and sexual routes beside transfusion of blood and blood products. The blood transfusion and operative intervention are a major risk factor for transmission of TTV

Comparative study between two methods for detecting cytomegalovirus in chronic renal failure patients

This work was- designed to evaluate and compare Human Cytomegalovirus [HCMV] ELISA and Polymerase chain reaction PCR methods for the detection of HCMV in chronic renal failure patients. Also, it aims to correlate HCMV infection with positive clinical history, duration of dialysis, blood transfusion and renal transplantation. The present study was conducted on 66 patients with chronic renal failure, divided into two subgroups [50 non-transplanted on hemodialysis and 16 renal transplanted patients], and twenty apparently healthy volunteers as control group. Both the patients and the controls have been studied for detection of HCMV infection by CMV specific IgG and IgM ELISA assay, and qualitative leukocytes PCR assay. Regarding CMV IgG and IgM were detected in 66 [100%] and 10 [15.1%] patients respectively. The patients' group was found to be positive for CMV IgM and PCR assays in a percentage of 15.1% and 45.4% respectively with statistically significant difference compared to the control group. By PCR, HCMV positivity was significantly increased more frequent among non-transplanted patients with frequent blood transfusion. However, frequent blood transfusion had no influence on the positivity of HCMV in renal transplanted patients. Also, duration of dialysis In non-transplanted patients had insignificant role on the positivity of HCMV. Although the positivity for CMV IgM ELISA was [12%] and [25%] among non-transplanted and transplanted subgroups respectively, the difference was statistically insignificant. Comparing the positivity for PCR which was [42%] and [56.25%] among non-transplanted and transplanted subgroups respectively, the difference was also statistically insignificant. The relative sensitivity and specificity of CMV IgM ELISA assay compared to CMV PCR were 30% and 97.2% respectively. We concluded that leukocytes PCR is a reliable test in screening HCMV infection and it is more valuable than serology in diagnosis of HCMV infection. Also, the determination of IgM antibodies for HCMV is not helpful in identifying patients at risk or in following the course of HCMV disease because antibody response is too slow and it has low sensitivity