| Literature DB >> 36117965 |
Philomena Ehi Airiohuodion1,2, Anh Wartel3, Andrew B Yako4, Peter Asaga Mac1,5.
Abstract
Introduction: HEV infection may be life threatening in pregnant women and has been linked with 20-30% mortality, especially in the third trimester of pregnancy. HEV infection leads to elevated levels of preterm labour and other immunological parameters. It is vertically transmitted and could lead to poor feto-maternal outcomes. especially in fulminating viral hepatitis where both the mother and foetus could be lost. There is currently no known treatment or vaccine for HEV. There is therefore a need to study HEV seroprevalence and burden among vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women and their newborns in Nigeria, where maternal mortality is highly significant.Entities:
Keywords: HEV; IgG; Nigeria; fetomaternal outcome; fulminant hepatitis
Year: 2022 PMID: 36117965 PMCID: PMC9478474 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.888218
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
FIGURE 1Showing the HEV study site in Central Nigeria.
FIGURE 2Bar chart showing the age-specific seropositivity of HEV in pregnant women.
FIGURE 3Boxplot showing the age-specific seropositivity of HEV in pregnant women.
Sociodemographic characteristics of study participants and HEV seroprevalence.
| Marital status | Positive | Negative | Total ( | 95% CI | Odd ratio | |
|
| ||||||
| Married | 50 (31.1%) | 111 (68.9%) | 161 (100%) | 30–32 | 0.9 | 0.42 |
| Single | 11 (39.3%) | 17 (60.7%) | 28 (100%) | 37–41 | 1.5 | |
| Divorced | 2 (18.2%) | 9 (81.8%) | 11 (100%) | 15–21 | 0.5 | |
| Total ( | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | 30–33 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Stream | 33 (34.0%) | 64 (66.0%) | 97 (100%) | 33–35 | 1.2 | 0.68 |
| Borehole | 23 (28.0%) | 59 (72.0%) | 82 (100%) | 27–29 | 0.8 | |
| Tap | 7 (33.3%) | 14 (66.7%) | 21 (100%) | 31–35 | 1.1 | |
| Total ( | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | |||
|
| ||||||
| Urban | 22 (25.9%) | 63 (74.1%) | 85 (100%) | 25–27 | 1.6 | 0.14 |
| Rural | 41 (35.7%) | 74 (64.3%) | 115 (100%) | 35–37 | ||
| Total ( | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | 30–33 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Primary | 20 (33.9%) | 39 (66.1%) | 59 (100%) | 33–35 | 1.2 | 0.56 |
| Secondary | 32 (32.9%) | 65 (67.1%) | 97 (100%) | 32–34 | 1.1 | |
| Tertiary | 11 (25.0%) | 33 (75.0%) | 44 (100%) | 24–26 | 0.7 | |
| Total | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | 30–33 | ||
| Information on HEV | ||||||
| Yes | 45 (29.8%) | 106 (70.2%) | 151 (100%) | 23–35 | 1.2 | 0.40 |
| No | 18 (36.7%) | 31 (63.3%) | 49 (100%) | 30–42 | ||
| Total | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | 30–33 | ||
| Occupation | ||||||
| Housewife | 32 (32.3%) | 67 (67.7%) | 99 (100%) | 31–33 | 1.1 | 0.33 |
| Trader | 12 (44.4%) | 15 (55.6%) | 27 (100%) | 42–46 | 2.0 | |
| Civil servant | 16 (25.0%) | 48 (75.0%) | 64 (100%) | 24–26 | 0.6 | |
| Student | 3 (30.0%) | 7 (70.0%) | 10 (100%) | 27–33 | 0.9 | |
| Total | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | 30–33 | ||
|
| ||||||
| Yes | 9 (25.7%) | 26 (74.3%) | 35 (100%) | 24–27 | 1.2 | 0.41 |
| No | 54 (32.7%) | 111 (67.3%) | 165 (100%) | 32–33 | ||
| Total ( | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | 30–33 | ||
|
| ||||||
| First trimester | 8 (17.0%) | 39 (83.0%) | 47 (100%) | 14–20 | 0.4 | 0.03 |
| Second trimester | 6 (27.3%) | 16 (72.7%) | 22 (100%) | 12–31 | 0.8 | |
| Third trimester | 49 (37.4%) | 82 (62.6%) | 131 (100%) | 36–39 | 2.3 | |
| Total | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | 30–33 | ||
| HIV Status | ||||||
| HIV-positive pregnant women | 14 (31.8%) | 30 (68.2%) | 44 (100%) | 30–33 | 1.0 | 0.00 |
| HIV-negative pregnant women | 49 (31.4%) | 107 (68.6%) | 156 (100%) | 30–32 | ||
| Total ( | 63 (31.5%) | 137 (68.5%) | 200 (100%) | 30–33 | ||
*Significant.
FIGURE 4Box-plot showing gestation age of HEV IgG seropositivity distribution.
FIGURE 5Fetomaternal outcome of HEV-seropositive pregnant women in the study population.