| Literature DB >> 26126021 |
Jinfeng Liu1, Yuling Feng, Jing Wang, Xuelan Li, Chunmei Lei, Dongfang Jin, Weihong Feng, Yuan Yang, Yingli He, Yuanyuan Li, Dan Du, Xuebin Zhang, Li Jin, Taotao Yan, Tianyan Chen, Yingren Zhao.
Abstract
The effect of hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIG) on hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA load and its protective mechanism are not well understood. Twenty-eight hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive pregnant women and their newborns were assigned to an experimental (n = 12) or control group (n = 16) according to whether they received HBIG during pregnancy. HBV DNA load and markers titer of the mothers and newborns were tested. These markers and HBV DNA load in mothers of the experimental group did not fluctuate significantly and were comparable to the control. In the experimental group, there was a positive correlation between mothers and their newborns with regard to hepatitis B surface antibody titer. Immunohistochemical staining of placenta sections showed that HBsAg-positive areas mainly included trophoblastic cells and villous mesenchymal cells without HBIG colocalization, whereas HBIG-positive areas principally included villous capillary endothelial cells and villous mesenchymal cells. Additionally, compared with the control group, the positive rate and mean density of HBIG in the experimental group were remarkably higher. HBIG deposition was seen in Hofbauer cells. Thus, rather than influencing virus replication, HBIG forms an immune barrier between the mother and fetus to prevent HBV transmission.Entities:
Keywords: HBV; hepatitis B immunoglobulin; immune barrier; intrauterine infection; placenta; virus replication
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26126021 PMCID: PMC4635728 DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2015.1010890
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother ISSN: 2164-5515 Impact factor: 3.452
Comparison of the characteristics of the mothers in the experimental and control groups at baseline
| Experimental group (n = 12) | Control group (n = 16) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years, mean ±SD | 26.58 ± 2.43 | 25.21 ± 2.49 | 0.135 | 0.17 |
| Weeks of pregnancy, mean ±SD | 38.53 ± 0.99 | 38.81 ± 0.68 | 1.851 | 0.39 |
| Cesarean section, n (%) | 7 (58.3%) | 7 (43.8%) | 0.583 | 0.445 |
| Primiparas, n (%) | 11 (91.7%) | 16 (100%) | 1.383 | 0.429 |
| ALT, mean ±SD, U/L | 24.43 ± 11.16 | 25.85 ± 12.66 | −0.033 | 0.974 |
| AST, mean ±SD, U/L | 27.33 ± 9.23 | 30.78 ± 8.68 | −0.892 | 0.373 |
| HBsAg titer, mean ±SD, log10IU/mL | 4.18 ± 0.64 | 4.46 ± 0.50 | −0.772 | 0.470 |
| HBeAg titer, mean ±SD, s/co | 678.03 ± 522.20 | 706.13 ± 480.79 | −0.144 | 0.885 |
| HBV DNA load, mean ±SD, log10IU/mL | 7.44 ± 1.54 | 7.04 ± 1.25 | −0.674 | 0.500 |
ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HBeAg, hepatitis B e antigen.
Characteristics of infants from HBV-infected mothers with or without HBIG injection
| Experimental group (n = 12) | Control group (n = 16) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male/Female | 4/8 | 6/10 | 0.052 | 0.820 |
| [Length OR Height] at birth, cm, mean ±SD | 49.21 ± 1.08 | 49.36 ± 1.03 | 0.148 | 0.720 |
| Weight at birth, kg, mean ±SD | 3.46 ± 0.36 | 3.59 ± 0.39 | 0.263 | 0.410 |
| Apgar score of 10, n (%) | 12 (100%) | 16 (100%) | — | — |
| HBV infection | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | — | — |
| Development disorder | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | — | — |
Figure 1.The dynamic variation in ALT and AST in mothers during pregnancy and follow-up.
Figure 2.Effect of HBIG on HBV marker titers and HBV DNA load.
Figure 3.Histopathological changes in the placenta (hematoxylin-eosin; magnification, ×200, A–C) and immunohistochemical staining (magnification, ×200, D–F: DAB staining, G: DAB and AP-Red staining). (A) Section of placenta from late pregnancy of a healthy woman. (B) Section of placenta from a woman in the control group (HBV-infected women without HBIG injections). (C) Section of placenta from a woman in the experimental group (HBV-infected women receiving HBIG injections). Black arrows: syncytial knotting; white arrows: fibrinoid necrosis. (D) HBsAg staining. (E) HBIG staining. White arrow: villous capillary endothelial cells. (F) CD68 staining. Black arrows: Hofbauer cells. (G) CD68- and HBIG-double-positive immunohistochemical staining. Black arrow: HBIG in Hofbauer cells. (H) Comparison of HBIG intensity between the groups.