M Nübling1, F Hofmann, F W Tiller. 1. Dept of Applied Physiology, Occupational Medicine and Infectiology, University of Wuppertal, Germany. ffas.freiburg@t-online.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since transmission routes of hepatitis E virus (HEV) and hepatitis A virus (HAV) are believed to be similar, comparable risk factors and a correlation between the two seroprevalence rates may be assumed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anti-HAV and anti-HEV serology was assessed in 511 German subjects from nursing, pediatric nursing and administration groups, none of whom had been vaccinated against HAV. At the same time a standardized questionnaire on occupational and individual parameters was completed. RESULTS: Overall seroprevalence for anti-HEV was 3.9%, for anti-HAV 28%. Multivariate analysis revealed that anti-HEV seroprevalence was significantLy higher in persons working in emergency admission or in surgery, while persons working in children's psychiatry were more likely to be anti-HAV positive. Comparing the two serological resulLts, no contingency difference was found (chi2 = 0.42 (df = 1), p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Specific departments of health care show higher prevalence of anti-HAV or anti-HEV. In the case of HEV further studies in the exposed working field are needed. Since no connection between the two serological results was found, transmission mechanisms might be (partly) different.
BACKGROUND: Since transmission routes of hepatitis E virus (HEV) and hepatitis A virus (HAV) are believed to be similar, comparable risk factors and a correlation between the two seroprevalence rates may be assumed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Anti-HAV and anti-HEV serology was assessed in 511 German subjects from nursing, pediatric nursing and administration groups, none of whom had been vaccinated against HAV. At the same time a standardized questionnaire on occupational and individual parameters was completed. RESULTS: Overall seroprevalence for anti-HEV was 3.9%, for anti-HAV 28%. Multivariate analysis revealed that anti-HEV seroprevalence was significantLy higher in persons working in emergency admission or in surgery, while persons working in children's psychiatry were more likely to be anti-HAV positive. Comparing the two serological resulLts, no contingency difference was found (chi2 = 0.42 (df = 1), p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Specific departments of health care show higher prevalence of anti-HAV or anti-HEV. In the case of HEV further studies in the exposed working field are needed. Since no connection between the two serological results was found, transmission mechanisms might be (partly) different.