| Literature DB >> 27956810 |
Richie G Madden1, Sebastian Wallace1, Mark Sonderup1, Stephen Korsman1, Tawanda Chivese1, Bronwyn Gavine1, Aniefiok Edem1, Roxy Govender1, Nathan English1, Christy Kaiyamo1, Odelia Lutchman1, Annemiek A van der Eijk1, Suzan D Pas1, Glynn W Webb1, Joanne Palmer1, Elizabeth Goddard1, Sean Wasserman1, Harry R Dalton1, C Wendy Spearman1.
Abstract
AIM: To conduct a prospective assessment of anti-hepatitis E virus (HEV) IgG seroprevalence in the Western Cape Province of South Africa in conjunction with evaluating risk factors for exposure.Entities:
Keywords: Genotype; Hepatitis E; Pork consumption; Seroprevalence; South Africa
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27956810 PMCID: PMC5124991 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i44.9853
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
Data (%) for total population overall and age group seroprevalence and 95%CI in 3 racial groups in Western Cape, South Africa
| 0-4 | 6/72 | 8.3 (3.9-17.0) | 2/36 | 5.6 (1.5-18.1) | 4/31 | 12.9 (5.1-28.9) | 0/5 | 0 (0-43.4) |
| 5-9 | 6/78 | 7.7 (3.6-15.8) | 1/26 | 3.8 (0.7-18.9) | 5/45 | 11.1 (4.8-23.5) | 0/7 | 0 (0-35.4) |
| 10-14 | 7/72 | 9.7 (4.8-18.7) | 3/27 | 11.1 (3.9-28.1) | 4/42 | 9.5 (3.8-22.1) | 0/3 | 0 (0-56.2) |
| 15-19 | 8/95 | 8.4 (4.3-15.7) | 4/23 | 17.4 (7.0-37.1) | 4/42 | 9.5 (3.8-22.1) | 0/30 | 0 (0-11.4) |
| 20-29 | 17/179 | 9.5 (6.0-14.7) | 2/62 | 3.2 (0.9-11.0) | 9/54 | 16.7 (9.0-28.7) | 6/63 | 9.5 (4.4-19.3) |
| 30-39 | 42/142 | 29.6 (22.7-37.5) | 14/52 | 26.9 (16.8-40.3) | 17/45 | 37.8 (25.1-52.4) | 11/45 | 24.4 (14.2-38.7) |
| 40-49 | 67/153 | 43.8 (36.2-51.7) | 22/62 | 35.5 (24.7-47.9) | 22/49 | 44.9 (31.9-58.7) | 23/42 | 54.8 (39.9-68.8) |
| 50-59 | 62/126 | 49.2 (40.6-57.8) | 15/36 | 41.7 (27.1-57.8) | 26/47 | 55.3 (41.2-68.6) | 21/43 | 48.8 (34.6-63.2) |
| 60-69 | 67/152 | 44.1 (36.4-52.0) | 24/43 | 55.8 (41.1-69.6) | 19/58 | 32.8 (22.1-45.6) | 24/51 | 47.1 (34.1-60.5) |
| 70-79 | 34/68 | 50.0 (38.4-61.6) | 6/17 | 35.3 (17.3-58.7) | 16/29 | 55.2 (37.5-71.6) | 12/22 | 54.5 (34.7-73.1) |
| 80+ | 8/24 | 33.3 (18.0-53.3) | 1/5 | 20.0 (3.6-62.4) | 2/10 | 20.0 (5.7-51.0) | 5/9 | 55.6 (26.7-81.1) |
| Total | 324/1161 | 27.9 (25.3-30.5) | 94/389 | 24.2 (20.2-28.7) | 128/452 | 28.3 (24.4-32.6) | 102/320 | 31.9 (27.0-37.2) |
Overall seroprevalence was 27.9% and age adjusted seroprevalence was 21.9%.
Numbers too small to calculate a meaningful confidence interval. HEV: Hepatitis E virus.
Figure 1Overall seroprevalence curve and individual seroprevalence curves in 3 racial groups in Western Cape, South Africa. Anti-HEV IgG seroprevalence by age in Western Cape, South Africa.
Risk factor analysis
| Race ( | Black African ( | 94 (24.2%) | 0.073 | - |
| MA/Coloured ( | 128 (28.3%) | 1.24 (0.91-1.69) | ||
| White ( | 102 (31.9%) | 1.47 (1.06-2.04) | ||
| Gender ( | Male ( | 161 (29.8%) | 0.189 | - |
| Female ( | 163 (26.3%) | 0.842 (0.65-1.09) | ||
| Pork ( | Yes ( | 228 (33.0%) | < 0.001 | 1.93 (1.45-2.55) |
| No ( | 90 (20.4%) | - | ||
| Sausage ( | Yes ( | 248 (29.1%) | 0.210 | 1.22 (0.90-1.66) |
| No ( | 70 (25.2%) | - | ||
| Bacon/Ham ( | Yes ( | 220 (31.1%) | 0.004 | 1.50 (1.14-1.98) |
| No ( | 98 (23.1%) | - | ||
| Fish ( | Yes ( | 299 (28.3%) | 0.532 | 1.19 (0.69-2.03) |
| No ( | 19 (25.0%) | |||
| Shellfish ( | Yes ( | 163 (29.7%) | 0.238 | 1.17 (0.90-1.52) |
| No ( | 155 (26.6%) | - | ||
| Type of dwelling ( | Formal Dwelling ( | 296 (28.2%) | 0.642 | - |
| Shack in Yard ( | 21 (24.0%) | 0.80 (0.48-1.40) | ||
| Shack not in Yard ( | 5 (26.3%) | 0.91 (0.33-2.55) | ||
| Other ( | 2 (50.0%) | 2.55 (0.36-18.17) | ||
| Water access ( | Piped dwelling ( | 292 (28.0%) | 0.516 | - |
| Piped yard ( | 17 (25.0%) | 0.855 (0.49-1.51) | ||
| Community tap ( | 11 (25.0%) | 0.855 (0.43-1.71) | ||
| No water access ( | 4 (50.0%) | 2.565 (0.64-10.32) | ||
| Proximity to coast ( | Coastal ( | 32 (28.0%) | 0.935 | - |
| Under 5 km ( | 62 (29.7%) | 1.081 (0.65-1.79) | ||
| 5-10 km ( | 85 (27.2%) | 0.955 (0.59-1.54) | ||
| Over 10 km ( | 145 (27.7%) | 0.980 (0.62-1.54) | ||
| Refuse disposal ( | Local authority ( | 315 (28.0%) | 0.725 | - |
| Communal dump ( | 5 (25.0%) | 0.856 (0.31-2.40) | ||
| Own dump ( | 3 (37.5%) | 1.541 (0.37-6.50) | ||
| No rubbish disposal ( | 1 (12.5%) | 0.367 (0.05-3.00) | ||
| HIV status ( | Positive ( | 14 (23.3%) | 0.340 | 1.35 (0.73-2.50) |
| Negative ( | 242 (29.1%) | - | ||
| Age group ( | < 30 yr ( | 44 (8.9%) | < 0.001 | - |
| ≥ 30 yr ( | 280 (42.4%) | 7.569 (5.36-10.70) | ||
| Multivariate analysis ( | ||||
| Pork | Yes ( | 228 (33.2%) | < 0.001 | 7.679 (5.38-10.96) |
| Age group | ≥ 30 yr ( | 276 (42.3%) | < 0.001 | 2.021 (1.50-2.73) |
Figure 2A maximum likelihood tree constructed in MEGA6 from an alignment of a 301nt fragment of ORF2. Bootstrap support above 60% is shown. Our patient’s viral sequence, GenBank accession KT833800, is highlighted in red. The tree is rooted on the HEV reference sequence (genotype 1). Sequences for comparison have names starting with genotype, followed by Genbank accession number, followed by country ISO 3166-1 abbreviation (CA: Canada; ES: Spain; GB: United Kingdom; JP: Japan; NL: The Netherlands; TW: Taiwan; US: United States of America; ZA: South Africa), and ending in source (D: Deer; H: Human; P: Pig). The patient’s viral sequence clusters within genotype 3 (with subgenotype 3e), in keeping with other viruses recently described in South Africa[11,12,24].