Effects of mode of delivery and infant feeding on the risk of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis C virus

Objective To investigate the effects of mode of delivery and infant feeding on the risk of mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis C virus. Design Pooled retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Sample Data on hepatitis C virus seropositive mothers and their children identified around delivery were sent from 24 centres of the European Paediatric Hepatitis C Virus Network. Main outcome measures Hepatitis C virus infection status of children born to hepatitis C virus infected women. Results A total of 1,474 hepatitis C virus infected women were identified, of whom 503 (35%) were co-infected with HIV. Co-infected women were more than twice as likely to transmit hepatitis C virus to their children than women with hepatitis C virus infection alone. Overall 9.2% (136/1474) of children were hepatitis C virus infected. Among the women with hepatitis C virus infection-only, multivariate analyses did not show a significant effect of mode of delivery and breastfeeding: caesarean section vs vaginal delivery OR=1.17, P=0.66; breastfed versus non-breastfed OR=1.07, P=0.83. However, HIV co-infected women delivered by caesarean section were 60% less likely to have an infected child than those delivered vaginally (OR=0.36, P=0.01) and those who breastfed were about four times more likely to infect their children than those who did not (OR=6.41, P=0.03). HIV infected children were three to four times more likely also to be hepatitis C virus infected than children without HIV infection (crude OR=3.76, 95% CI 1.89\u20137.41). Conclusions These results do not support a recommendation of elective caesarean section or avoidance of breastfeeding for women with hepatitis C virus infection only, but the case for HIV infected women undergoing caesarean section delivery and avoiding breastfeeding is strengthened if they are also hepatitis C virus infected

Inter-laboratory comparison of HCV-RNA assay results: Implications for multi-centre research

To investigate whether it is appropriate to assume comparability of hepatitis virus C (HCV)-RNA results across laboratories in multi-centre studies, nine laboratories of the European Paediatric HCV Network participated in an international proficiency study of HCV-RNA assays. A panel of 12 samples of different dilutions and genotypes was sent to each laboratory and tested with qualitative and/or quantitative HCV-RNA assays according to local procedures. Commercial assays were used in seven laboratories and in-house assays in two. All six laboratories in which a commercial qualitative assay was used were proficient, as were four of six runs (in five laboratories) in which a commercial quantitative assay was used. The proficiency of the laboratories where in-house assays were used could not be assessed according to the VQC definition because of differences in the methods used. Overall, there were several false-negative results, but only one false-positive result with a quantitative assay and none with a qualitative assay. The false-negative results may have implications for the diagnosis of infection, and highlight the need for an antibody test to be performed at 18 months to confirm the absence of infection. The results of qualitative assays were generally consistent across laboratories but it was difficult to evaluate and compare the results of quantitative assays. Multivariate analysis of data collected in multi-centre studies should therefore allow for centre and/or assay used. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc

Inter-laboratory comparison of HCV-RNA assay results: Implications for multi-centre research

To investigate whether it is appropriate to assume comparability of hepatitis virus C (HCV)-RNA results across laboratories in multi-centre studies, nine laboratories of the European Paediatric HCV Network participated in an international proficiency study of HCV-RNA assays. A panel of 12 samples of different dilutions and genotypes was sent to each laboratory and tested with qualitative and/or quantitative HCV-RNA assays according to local procedures. Commercial assays were used in seven laboratories and in-house assays in two. All six laboratories in which a commercial qualitative assay was used were proficient, as were four of six runs (in five laboratories) in which a commercial quantitative assay was used. The proficiency of the laboratories where in-house assays were used could not be assessed according to the VQC definition because of differences in the methods used. Overall, there were several false-negative results, but only one false-positive result with a quantitative assay and none with a qualitative assay. The false-negative results may have implications for the diagnosis of infection, and highlight the need for an antibody test to be performed at 18 months to confirm the absence of infection. The results of qualitative assays were generally consistent across laboratories but it was difficult to evaluate and compare the results of quantitative assays. Multivariate analysis of data collected in multi-centre studies should therefore allow for centre and/or assay used