Hepatitis E Virus in Finland: Epidemiology and Risk in Blood Donors and in the General Population.

Autochthonous hepatitis E (HEV) cases have been increasingly recognized and reported in Europe, caused predominantly by the zoonotic HEV genotype 3. The clinical picture is highly variable, from asymptomatic to acute severe or prolonged hepatitis in immunocompromised patients. The main route of transmission to humans in Europe is the ingestion of undercooked pork meat. Transfusion-transmitted HEV infections have also been reported. The aim of the study was to determine the HEV epidemiology and risk in the Finnish blood donor population. A total of 23,137 samples from Finnish blood donors were screened for HEV RNA from individual samples and 1012 samples for HEV antibodies. Additionally, laboratory-confirmed hepatitis E cases in 2016-2022 were extracted from national surveillance data. The HEV RNA prevalence data was used to estimate the risk of transfusion transmission of HEV in the Finnish blood transfusion setting. Four HEV RNA-positive were found, resulting in 1:5784 (0.02%) RNA prevalence. All HEV RNA-positive samples were IgM-negative, and genotyped samples represented genotype HEV 3c. HEV IgG seroprevalence was 7.4%. From the HEV RNA rate found in this study and data on blood component usage in Finland in 2020, the risk estimate for a severe transfusion-transmitted HEV infection is 1:1,377,000 components or one in every 6-7 years. In conclusion, the results indicate that the risk of transfusion-transmitted HEV (HEV TTI) in Finland is low. However, continuous follow-up of the HEV epidemiology in relation to the transfusion risk landscape in Finland is necessary, as well as promoting awareness in the medical community of the small risk for HEV TTI, especially for immunocompromised patients.

Smoking, disease activity, permanent damage and dsDNA autoantibody production in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

The aim was to study the association of smoking with the activity and severity of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the production of antibodies to dsDNA. The study included 223 SLE patients attending the outpatient clinics at Helsinki University Central Hospital. The history of smoking was obtained by personal interview, and clinical data related to SLE by interview, clinical examination and chart review. The activity of SLE was assessed by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score and permanent damage by the SLICC/ACR score. Antibodies to dsDNA were determined by three ELISA assays, by the indirect immunofluorescence technique using Crithidia luciliae cells as substrates and by the Farr assay. There were no significant differences in the SLEDAI scores between current smokers (73 patients), ex-smokers (59) and never-smokers (91), though current smokers tended to have lower disease activity. The SLICC/ACR scores between the groups were practically equal. Current smokers had significantly lower levels of antibodies to dsDNA than ex- and never-smokers (p = 0.025). Our study suggests that cigarette smoke may have immunosuppressive effect on autoantibody production in patients with SLE. Permanent damage was not found to be associated with smoking.

Smoking and the risk of systemic lupus erythematosus.

This study aims to study the association of smoking with the development of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The study included 223 SLE patients (92 % women, mean age 47 years) and 1,538 population controls of similar age and socioeconomic status living in the metropolitan area of Finland. The history of smoking in patients and controls was obtained by personal interview. The prevalence of current and past smoking was more common in patients with SLE than in controls. In women with a history of daily smoking for more than 1 year, the odds ratio (OR) for SLE was 1.45 (95 % CI 1.07-1.97), in current daily smokers as compared to never smokers, the OR was 1.55 (1.00-2.40), and in ex-smokers versus never smokers 1.80 (1.15-2.83). The number of men with SLE, who had smoked more than 100 cigarettes during their lifetime was higher than in male controls (p = 0.026). A history of smoking is significantly though modestly associated with the development of SLE.

Nonrenal and renal activity of systemic lupus erythematosus: a comparison of two anti-C1q and five anti-dsDNA assays and complement C3 and C4.

Associations of different assays for antibodies to C1q (anti-C1q) and to dsDNA (anti-dsDNA) and of complements C3 and C4 with disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were studied. The clinical manifestations of 223 SLE patients were recorded, and the disease activity was assessed by the SLEDAI score. Anti-C1q were determined by two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and anti-dsDNA by a radioimmunoassay (RIA), a Crithidia immunofluorescence (IF) assay and three ELISA assays using human telomere DNA, plasmid DNA circles, or calf thymus DNA as antigens, respectively. Complement C3 and C4 were determined by nephelometry. Control sera were obtained from 98 blood donors. In patients with SLE, the prevalence of anti-C1q was 17-18% and that of anti-dsDNA was 36-69%. Anti-C1q, anti-dsDNA, and complement C3 and C4 correlated well with the overall activity of SLE (r = 0.323-0.351, 0.353-0.566, and -0.372-0.444, respectively; P < 0.001). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for active lupus nephritis among SLE patients were 40-44, 92, 29, and 91-92% for anti-C1q and 48-68, 29-66, 11-16, and 86-91% for anti-dsDNA, respectively. Patients with active nephritis had higher levels of anti-C1q and lower levels of C3 and C4 than patients with inactive nephritis (P = 0.003-0.018). The corresponding associations of anti-dsDNA were somewhat weaker (P = 0.023-0.198). Hematological parameters reflecting disease activity correlated clearly better with anti-dsDNA and complement C3 and C4 than with anti-C1q. Anti-C1q is inferior to anti-dsDNA as a diagnostic test in SLE and in the evaluation of overall clinical activity of the disease. Anti-C1q together with complement C3 and C4 may offer useful additional information to monitor lupus nephritis activity. There are no practical differences between different assays for anti-C1q and anti-dsDNA.