Prevalence of antibodies to hepatitis E virus in veterinarians working with swine and in normal blood donors in the United States and other countries.

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is endemic in many developing and some industrialized countries. It has been hypothesized that animals may be the source of infection. The recent identification of swine HEV in U.S. pigs and the demonstration of its ability to infect across species have lent credence to this hypothesis. To assess the potential risk of zoonotic HEV infection, we tested a total of 468 veterinarians working with swine (including 389 U.S. swine veterinarians) and 400 normal U.S. blood donors for immunoglobulin G anti-HEV. Recombinant capsid antigens from a U.S. strain of swine HEV and from a human HEV strain (Sar-55) were each used in an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The anti-HEV prevalence assayed with the swine HEV antigen showed 97% concordance with that obtained with the human HEV antigen (kappa = 92%). Among the 295 swine veterinarians tested from the eight U.S. states (Minnesota, Indiana, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Alabama) from which normal blood donor samples were available, 26% were positive with Sar-55 antigen and 23% were positive with swine HEV antigen. In contrast, 18% of the blood donors from the same eight U.S. states were positive with Sar-55 antigen and 17% were positive with swine HEV antigen. Swine veterinarians in the eight states were 1.51 times more likely when tested with swine HEV antigen (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.20) and 1.46 times more likely when tested with Sar-55 antigen (95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 2.17) to be anti-HEV positive than normal blood donors. We did not find a difference in anti-HEV prevalence between veterinarians who reported having had a needle stick or cut and those who had not or between those who spent more time (> or = 80% of the time) and those who spent less time (< or = 20% of the time) working with pigs. Similarly, we did not find a difference in anti-HEV prevalence according to four job categories (academic, practicing, student, and industry veterinarians). There was a difference in anti-HEV prevalence in both swine veterinarians and blood donors among the eight selected states, with subjects from Minnesota six times more likely to be anti-HEV positive than those from Alabama. Age was not a factor in the observed differences from state to state. Anti-HEV prevalence in swine veterinarians and normal blood donors was age specific and paralleled increasing age. The results suggest that swine veterinarians may be at somewhat higher risk of HEV infection than are normal blood donors.