| Literature DB >> 36158230 |
Alexandre Kanga Djasrabe1,2, Borris Rosnay Tietcheu Galani1, Moussa Mahamat Ali2, Fissou Henry Yandai3, Bessimbaye Nadlaou4, Mayann Habkreo2, Nicolas Yanou Njintang1.
Abstract
Objective: Viral hepatitis is an endemic disease in Chad. However, few studies have documented coinfection cases and their impact on cardiovascular risk. This study is aimed at analyzing hepatitis B, E and dengue coinfection in a Chadian cohort and gauge its effect on lipidemia. Patients and Methods. From February to May 2021, 179 subjects were recruited from the Department of Gastroenterology and Internal Medicine of the National Reference University Hospital of N'Djamena and tested for viral hepatitis markers, including HBsAg and IgM/IgG anti-HEV and dengue infection, using the NS1/IgM/IgG kit. Serum transaminases and biomarkers of lipid profiles were assayed by colorimetry, and atherogenic indexes (AI) and coronary risk (CRI) were calculated.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36158230 PMCID: PMC9507763 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8373061
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Hepatol
Distribution of participants according to the sociodemographic factors.
| Number | Percentage (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Sex | ||
| Male | 111 | 63 |
| Female | 68 | 37 |
| Total | 179 | 100 |
| Age (years) | ||
| 18–25 | 46 | 26 |
| 26–32 | 47 | 26 |
| 33–39 | 31 | 17 |
| 40-46 | 20 | 11 |
| 47-53 | 16 | 9 |
| 54-60 | 12 | 7 |
| 61-70 | 07 | 4 |
| Total | 179 | 100 |
| Professional situation | ||
| Students | 49 | 27 |
| Housewife | 41 | 23 |
| Traders | 26 | 15 |
| Civil servants | 27 | 15 |
| Independents | 31 | 17 |
| Farmers | 10 | 6 |
| Total | 179 | 100 |
| Marital status | ||
| Married | 111 | 63 |
| Single | 68 | 37 |
| Total | 179 | 100 |
| Educational level | ||
| University | 73 | 41 |
| Secondary | 37 | 21 |
| Primary | 47 | 26 |
| Unschooled | 22 | 12 |
| Total | 179 | 100 |
| Knowledge of the HBV status | ||
| Yes | 26 | 15 |
| No | 153 | 85 |
| Total | 179 | 100 |
| District of origin | ||
| 1st | 14 | 8 |
| 2nd | 06 | 3 |
| 3rd | 12 | 7 |
| 4th | 05 | 3 |
| 5th | 08 | 4 |
| 6th | 21 | 12 |
| 7th | 39 | 22 |
| 8th | 27 | 15 |
| 9th | 18 | 10 |
| 10th | 29 | 16 |
| Total | 179 | 100 |
Figure 1Seroprevalence data in the study population. (a) HEV seroprevalence and (b) anti-HEV IgG titers (IU/mL) compared between mono- and coinfected groups using the student unpaired t-test. ∗Significant at p < 0.05. (c) Seroprevalence of HBsAg. (d) DENV seroprevalence. (e) Venn diagram showing frequencies of monoinfection and coinfection hepatitis B and E and dengue in the study population.
Effect of the sociodemographic factors on HBV seroprevalence.
| Positive | Negative | Relative risk | Confidence interval |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||||
| Male | 30 | 81 | 2.297 | 1.159-4.717 |
|
| Female | 8 | 60 | 1 | ||
| Age (years) | |||||
| 18–25 | 3 | 43 | 1 | ||
| 26–32 | 9 | 38 | 2.936 | 0.9269-9.621 | 0.1196 |
| 33–39 | 11 | 20 | 5.441 | 1.797-17.11 |
|
| 40-46 | 4 | 16 | 3.067 | 0.8192-11.28 | 0.1862 |
| 47-53 | 5 | 11 | 4.792 | 1.376-16.43 |
|
| 54-60 | 6 | 6 | 7.667 | 2.357-24.64 |
|
| 61-68 | 0 | 7 | 0.000 | 0.000-6.761 | >0.9999 |
| Professional situation | |||||
| Students | 6 | 43 | 1 | ||
| Housewife | 7 | 33 | 1.429 | 0.5410-3.775 | 0.5544 |
| Traders | 7 | 19 | 2.199 | 0.8442-5.648 | 0.1233 |
| Civil servants | 8 | 20 | 2.333 | 0.9252-5.858 | 0.1223 |
| Independents | 6 | 20 | 1.885 | 0.6924-5.021 | 0.3211 |
| Farmers | 4 | 6 | 3.267 | 1.096-8.701 | 0.0551 |
| Marital status | |||||
| Married | 28 | 83 | 1.715 | 0.9154–3.315 | 0.1313 |
| Single | 10 | 58 | 1 | ||
| Educational level | |||||
| University | 13 | 60 | 1 | ||
| Secondary | 9 | 28 | 1. 366 | 0.6431-2.814 | 0.4552 |
| Primary | 12 | 35 | 1.434 | 0.7197-2.822 | 0.3602 |
| Unschooled | 4 | 18 | 1.021 | 0.3699-2.567 | >0.9999 |
| Knowledge of the HBV status | |||||
| Yes | 3 | 23 | 1 | ||
| No | 35 | 118 | 0.5044 | 0.7488–5.901 | 0.2983 |
| District of origin | |||||
| 1st | 2 | 12 | 1.929 | 0.3614–9.987 | 0.5956 |
| 2nd | 2 | 4 | 4.500 | 0.8642-21.14 | 0.1422 |
| 3rd | 2 | 10 | 2.250 | 0.4228-11.50 | 0.5733 |
| 4th | 2 | 3 | 5.400 | 1.047-324.59 | 0.1053 |
| 5th | 3 | 5 | 5.063 | 1.123-21.90 | 0.0665 |
| 6th | 7 | 14 | 4.500 | 1.199-17.87 |
|
| 7th | 9 | 30 | 3.115 | 0.8511-12.28 | 0.1772 |
| 8th | 2 | 25 | 1 | ||
| 9th | 3 | 14 | 2.382 | 0.5141-11.04 | 0.3590 |
| 10th | 4 | 25 | 1.862 | 0.4325-8.27 | 0.6708 |
Note: italic value indicates ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01 statistically significant.
Effect of sociodemographic factors on HEV seroprevalence.
| Positive | Negative | Relative risk | Confidence interval |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 24 | 62 | 4.558 | 1.591-13.84 |
|
| Female | 3 | 46 | 1 | ||
| Age (years) | |||||
| 18–25 | 6 | 22 | 1.286 | 0.4787–3.422 | 0.7502 |
| 26–32 | 6 | 30 | 1 | ||
| 33–39 | 6 | 20 | 1.385 | 0.5169-3.664 | 0.5364 |
| 40-46 | 3 | 14 | 1.059 | 0.3107-3.347 | >0.9999 |
| 47-53 | 3 | 10 | 1.385 | 0.4099-4.227 | 0.6831 |
| 54-60 | 2 | 8 | 1.200 | 0.2945-4.175 | >0.9999 |
| 61-68 | 1 | 4 | 1.200 | 0.1981-5.165 | >0.9999 |
| Professional situation | |||||
| Students | 10 | 28 | 8.421 | 1.533–49.92 |
|
| Housewife | 1 | 31 | 1 | ||
| Traders | 4 | 12 | 8.000 | 1.301-50.68 |
|
| Civil servants | 4 | 19 | 5.565 | 0.8982-35.79 | 0.1490 |
| Independents | 5 | 14 | 8.421 | 1.420-52.22 |
|
| Farmers | 3 | 4 | 13.71 | 2.151-86.62 |
|
| Marital status | |||||
| Married | 15 | 71 | 1 | ||
| Single | 12 | 37 | 1.404 | 0.7168-2.701 | 0.3736 |
| Educational level | |||||
| University | 15 | 43 | 1.940 | 0.7665–5.281 | 0.2742 |
| Secondary | 8 | 23 | 1.935 | 0.6945-5.595 | 0.3354 |
| Primary | 4 | 26 | 1 | ||
| Unschooled | 0 | 16 | 0.000 | 0.000–1.598 | 0.2820 |
| District of origin | |||||
| 1st | 2 | 11 | 1.436 | 0.3051–6.343 | 0.6448 |
| 2nd | 2 | 2 | 4.667 | 1.045-16.78 | 0.1053 |
| 3rd | 1 | 3 | 2.333 | 0.3525-11.62 | 0.4306 |
| 4th | 0 | 3 | 0.000 | 0.000-7.578 | >0.9999 |
| 5th | 0 | 6 | 0.000 | 0.000–4.637 | >0.9999 |
| 6th | 6 | 10 | 3.500 | 1.089-11.49 | 0.0534 |
| 7th | 3 | 25 | 1 | ||
| 8th | 3 | 19 | 1.273 | 0.3155-5.084 | >0.9999 |
| 9th | 4 | 10 | 2.667 | 0.7395-9.465 | 0.1967 |
| 10th | 5 | 18 | 2.029 | 0.5911-7.097 | 0.4419 |
Note: italic value indicates ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p < 0.01 statistically significant.
Figure 2Mean cholesterol, triglycerides, and transaminase levels between HBV/HEV-coinfected and monoinfected subjects. (a) Total cholesterol levels. (b) Triglycerides levels. (c) HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C). (d) LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C). (e) Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels. (f) Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels. Comparison was carried out using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison post hoc test. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01, and ∗∗∗p < 0.001. Bars with different letters are significant.
Statistical association between coronary risk index frequencies, liver alteration (expressed as high transaminase values), and the mono- and coinfection status.
| Parameters | Variables | HBV group ( | HBV/HEV group ( | HEV+ group ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRI (TC/HDL-C) | High (>4.85) | 24 (82.76%) | 8 (88.89%) | 6 (35.3%) |
| Low (<4.85) | 5 (17.24%) | 1 (11.11%) | 11 (64.70%) | |
| Relative risk | 2.34 | 2.55 | 1 | |
| 95% CI | 1.206-4.559 | 1.297-5.014 | ||
|
| 0.003∗∗ | 0.014∗ | ||
|
| ||||
| ALT | High (>41 IU/L) | 4 (13.33%) | — | 5 (29.4%) |
| Normal (<41 IU/L) | 25 (86.67%) | 9 (100%) | 12 (70.6%) | |
| 95% CI | — | — | ||
| Relative risk | 1 | |||
|
| 0.55 | 0.128 | ||
|
| ||||
| AST | High (>40 IU/L) | 1 (3.45%) | — | 1 (5.88%) |
| Normal (<40 IU/L) | 28 (96.55%) | 9 (100%) | 16 (94.12%) | |
| Relative risk | 1 | — | ||
| 95% CI | — | — | ||
|
| 1 | 1 | ||
Statistical association was analyzed using the Fisher's exact test. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01.
Figure 3Mean coronary and atherogenic risk indexes of HBV/HEV-coinfected and monoinfected groups. The comparison was performed using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison post hoc test. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01.