Frequency and genotypic distribution of GB virus C (GBV-C) among Colombian population with Hepatitis B (HBV) or Hepatitis C (HCV) infection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>GB virus C (GBV-C) is an enveloped positive-sense ssRNA virus belonging to the <it>Flaviviridae </it>family. Studies on the genetic variability of the GBV-C reveals the existence of six genotypes: genotype 1 predominates in West Africa, genotype 2 in Europe and America, genotype 3 in Asia, genotype 4 in Southwest Asia, genotype 5 in South Africa and genotype 6 in Indonesia. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and genotypic distribution of GBV-C in the Colombian population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two groups were analyzed: i) 408 Colombian blood donors infected with HCV (n = 250) and HBV (n = 158) from Bogotá and ii) 99 indigenous people with HBV infection from Leticia, Amazonas. A fragment of 344 bp from the 5' untranslated region (5' UTR) was amplified by nested RT PCR. Viral sequences were genotyped by phylogenetic analysis using reference sequences from each genotype obtained from GenBank (n = 160). Bayesian phylogenetic analyses were conducted using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach to obtain the MCC tree using BEAST v.1.5.3.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Among blood donors, from 158 HBsAg positive samples, eight 5.06% (n = 8) were positive for GBV-C and from 250 anti-HCV positive samples, 3.2%(n = 8) were positive for GBV-C. Also, 7.7% (n = 7) GBV-C positive samples were found among indigenous people from Leticia. A phylogenetic analysis revealed the presence of the following GBV-C genotypes among blood donors: 2a (41.6%), 1 (33.3%), 3 (16.6%) and 2b (8.3%). All genotype 1 sequences were found in co-infection with HBV and 4/5 sequences genotype 2a were found in co-infection with HCV. All sequences from indigenous people from Leticia were classified as genotype 3. The presence of GBV-C infection was not correlated with the sex (p = 0.43), age (p = 0.38) or origin (p = 0.17).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>It was found a high frequency of GBV-C genotype 1 and 2 in blood donors. The presence of genotype 3 in indigenous population was previously reported from Santa Marta region in Colombia and in native people from Venezuela and Bolivia. This fact may be correlated to the ancient movements of Asian people to South America a long time ago.</p

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Infectious complications of blood transfusion

Some bacterial, parasitic, fungal and viral agents can be transferred by blood transfusion. A number of bacterial infections have been shown to be transmissible by transfusion and some others have the potential for transmission. A serious problem is the occurrence of septic reactions due to the presence of contaminating bacteria in a blood component. Such reactions are often, but not always, dramatic, and among recognized cases, mortality is 25% or greater. The frequency of transfusion-induced sepsis is relatively low among red cell recipients, with a rate that is usually less than one in a million products. The majority of cases of bacterial sepsis is seen among recipients of platelet concentrates. This is generally attributed to the relatively fast growth of bacteria in these components during storage at 20°C. Some studies suggest that one septic event may occur in about every 10,000 transfusions, but other observations show rates that may be substantially higher or lower. Viral agents potentially require cause initially an asymptomatic, viremic phase where the virus can survive in blood during storage. Donor Study and other studies indicate that the risk of receiving a unit of infectious blood is less than 1:500,000 for HIV, 1:100,000 for hepatitis C and 1:70,000 for hepatitis B. In industrialized countries several precautions of safety are employed to ensure the purity of the blood supply. The donor history provides the first major level. Several types of viral testing for the various transfusion transmitted diseases, including HIV 1/2, human T cell lymphoma-leukemia viruses (HTLV I/II), hepatitis C and hepatitis B, provide the second major level of protection. A third major tier of safety currently being developed is pathogen inactivation technology. This technology calls for addition of various additives to blood products to inactivate viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and other transfusion transmitted pathogens. None of the currently available systems is able to inactivate prions such as those that are believed to cause new variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease (nvCJD). Clinicians must remain alert for infections after transfusion. Avoiding unnecessary and unnecessary transfusions is key to reducing transfusion related infectious complications. In this article, infectious complications of blood and blood components have been reviewed

Operating room disinfection with ultraviolet: Sarikamiş Military Hospital experience

In operating rooms or intensive care units, air quality is an important factor in preventing hospital infections and protecting patients and hospital staff from various chemical and microbiological agents that contaminate the air. Likewise, disinfecting operating rooms also helps prevent surgical site infection. High air quality in hospitals can be ensured by providing more positive pressure in operating rooms when compared to corridors or other neighboring areas, installing two separate filter systems in operating room ventilation systems, moving the air through a High Efficiency Particulate Air filter (HEPA), and supplying laminar air flow. In Sarikamiş, Military Hospital operating rooms, where there is no positive pressure treatment or a filtered ventilation system, air disinfection is provided by UV lamps and other disinfection methods. This study investigated the effects of UV lights on the micro-organisms in the operating room air in Sarikamiş Military Hospital by using three different methods. The results showed that UV lights in the operating room did indeed disinfect the air and that there was no difference between the efficiency levels measured by three different methods. Additionally, the efficiency levels obtained in this study were similar to those found in earlier studies, but it was also concluded that efficiency was highly restricted due to low penetration. The study thus suggests that the efficiency of UV lights in operating rooms should be measured periodically through similar methods. At the same time, it should be remembered that laminar flow and HEPA filtered climatization tools are also necessary for operating room disinfection, and that positive pressure is needed in operating rooms. The use of weak penetration UV lights alone, as is the case in many operating rooms in Turkey, is not enough to ensure efficient air disinfection and may not prevent post-operative surgical site infections which are a major cause of patient injury, mortality, and health care cost

INVESTIGATION OF HEPATITIS G VIRUS PREVALENCE IN HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS

This study focuses on the prevalence of hepatitis G virus (GBV-C/HGV) in hemodialysis patients and blood donors in Denizli (located at Aegean region of Turkey). A total of 100 patients (mean age: 56.8 +/- 13.3 years; 46 female) receiving hemodialysis and 100 blood donors (mean age: 31.3 +/- 8.1 years; 8 female) were included in the study. The presence of GBV-C/HGV RNA was determined in all patients by reverse transcriptase-PCR and the presence of GBV-C/HGV anti-E2 antibodies was determined by a commercial enzyme immunoassay (Diagnostic Automation, INC (R)). Viral RNA positivity was determined in 14 (14%) of the hemodialysis patients and 2 (2%) of the blood donors, the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.05). GBV-C/HGV anti-E2 antibodies were detected in 1 (1%) of the hemodialysis patients and 3 (3%) of the blood donors. Anti-E2 positive patient also revealed positive result for viral RNA. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of anti-E2 positivity. The prevalence of GBV-C/HGV was 14% in hemodialysis patients and 5% in blood donors (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of duration of hemodialysis, serum ALT levels, age or gender between GBV-C/HGV positive and negative hemodialysis patients. In conclusion, since hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of parenteral transmission, they have significantly higher GBV-C/HGV viremia rates and prevalence when compared to blood donors. However, the prevalence of GBV-C/HGV and coexistence between GBV-C/HGV and hepatitis C virus have been decreasing in our region owing to increased hygienic precautions in hemodialysis units, avoidance of unnecessary blood transfusions and more widespread use of erythropoietin

INVESTIGATION OF HEPATITIS G VIRUS PREVALENCE IN HEMODIALYSIS PATIENTS

This study focuses on the prevalence of hepatitis G virus (GBV-C/HGV) in hemodialysis patients and blood donors in Denizli (located at Aegean region of Turkey). A total of 100 patients (mean age: 56.8 +/- 13.3 years; 46 female) receiving hemodialysis and 100 blood donors (mean age: 31.3 +/- 8.1 years; 8 female) were included in the study. The presence of GBV-C/HGV RNA was determined in all patients by reverse transcriptase-PCR and the presence of GBV-C/HGV anti-E2 antibodies was determined by a commercial enzyme immunoassay (Diagnostic Automation, INC (R)). Viral RNA positivity was determined in 14 (14%) of the hemodialysis patients and 2 (2%) of the blood donors, the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.05). GBV-C/HGV anti-E2 antibodies were detected in 1 (1%) of the hemodialysis patients and 3 (3%) of the blood donors. Anti-E2 positive patient also revealed positive result for viral RNA. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of anti-E2 positivity. The prevalence of GBV-C/HGV was 14% in hemodialysis patients and 5% in blood donors (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of duration of hemodialysis, serum ALT levels, age or gender between GBV-C/HGV positive and negative hemodialysis patients. In conclusion, since hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of parenteral transmission, they have significantly higher GBV-C/HGV viremia rates and prevalence when compared to blood donors. However, the prevalence of GBV-C/HGV and coexistence between GBV-C/HGV and hepatitis C virus have been decreasing in our region owing to increased hygienic precautions in hemodialysis units, avoidance of unnecessary blood transfusions and more widespread use of erythropoietin

Investigation of hepatitis G virus prevalence in hemodialysis patients and blood donors in Denizli, Turkey

This study focuses on the prevalence of hepatitis G virus (GBV-C/HGV) in hemodialysis patients and blood donors in Denizli (located at Aegean region of Turkey). A total of 100 patients (mean age: 56.8 ± 13.3 years; 46 female) receiving hemodialysis and 100 blood donors (mean age: 31.3 ± 8.1 years; 8 female) were included in the study. The presence of GBV-C/HGV RNA was determined in all patients by reverse transcriptase-PCR and the presence of GBV-C/HGV anti-E2 antibodies was determined by a commercial enzyme immunoassay (Diagnostic Automation, INC®). Viral RNA positivity was determined in 14 (14%) of the hemodialysis patients and 2 (2%) of the blood donors, the difference being statistically significant (p< 0.05). GBV-C/HGV anti-E2 antibodies were detected in 1 (1%) of the hemodialysis patients and 3 (3%) of the blood donors. Anti-E2 positive patient also revealed positive result for viral RNA. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of anti-E2 positivity. The prevalence of GBV-C/HGV was 14% in hemodialysis patients and 5% in blood donors (p< 0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of duration of hemodialysis, serum ALT levels, age or gender between GBV-C /HGV positive and negative hemodialysis patients. In conclusion, since hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of parenteral transmission, they have significantly higher GBV-C/HGV viremia rates and prevalence when compared to blood donors. However, the prevalence of GBV-C/HGV and coexistence between GBV-C/HGV and hepatitis C virus have been decreasing in our region owing to increased hygienic precautions in hemodialysis units, avoidance of unnecessary blood transfusions and more widespread use of erythropoietin

Investigation of hepatitis G virus prevalence in hemodialysis patients and blood donors in Denizli, Turkey [Denizli'de hemodiyaliz hastalar?nda ve kan donörlerinde hepatit G virus prevalans?n?n araşt?r?lmas?]

This study focuses on the prevalence of hepatitis G virus (GBV-C/HGV) in hemodialysis patients and blood donors in Denizli (located at Aegean region of Turkey). A total of 100 patients (mean age: 56.8 ± 13.3 years; 46 female) receiving hemodialysis and 100 blood donors (mean age: 31.3 ± 8.1 years; 8 female) were included in the study. The presence of GBV-C/HGV RNA was determined in all patients by reverse transcriptase-PCR and the presence of GBV-C/HGV anti-E2 antibodies was determined by a commercial enzyme immunoassay (Diagnostic Automation, INC®). Viral RNA positivity was determined in 14 (14%) of the hemodialysis patients and 2 (2%) of the blood donors, the difference being statistically significant (p< 0.05). GBV-C/HGV anti-E2 antibodies were detected in 1 (1%) of the hemodialysis patients and 3 (3%) of the blood donors. Anti-E2 positive patient also revealed positive result for viral RNA. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of anti-E2 positivity. The prevalence of GBV-C/HGV was 14% in hemodialysis patients and 5% in blood donors (p< 0.05). There was no significant difference in terms of duration of hemodialysis, serum ALT levels, age or gender between GBV-C /HGV positive and negative hemodialysis patients. In conclusion, since hemodialysis patients are at an increased risk of parenteral transmission, they have significantly higher GBV-C/HGV viremia rates and prevalence when compared to blood donors. However, the prevalence of GBV-C/HGV and coexistence between GBV-C/HGV and hepatitis C virus have been decreasing in our region owing to increased hygienic precautions in hemodialysis units, avoidance of unnecessary blood transfusions and more widespread use of erythropoietin