Performance of a new rapid test for detecting anti-hepatitis E virus immunoglobulin M in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients

Laboratory Diagnosis of HEV Infection

Serological and nucleic acid tests for detecting hepatitis E virus (HEV) have been developed for both epidemiologic and diagnostic purposes. The laboratory diagnosis of HEV infection depends on the detection of HEV antigen or HEV RNA in the blood, stool, and other body fluids, and serum antibodies against HEV (immunoglobulin [Ig]A, IgM, and IgG). Anti-HEV IgM antibodies and low avidity IgG can be detected during the acute phase of the illness and can last approximately 12 months, representing primary infection, whereas anti-HEV IgG antibodies can last more than several years, representing remote exposure. Thus, the diagnosis of acute infection is based on the presence of anti-HEV IgM, low avidity IgG, HEV antigen, and HEV RNA, while epidemiological investigations are mainly based on anti-HEV IgG. Although significant progress has been made in developing and optimizing different formats of HEV assays, improving their sensitivity and specificity, there are many shortcomings and challenges in inter-assay concordance, validation, and standardization. This article reviews the current knowledge on the diagnosis of HEV infection, including the most common available laboratory diagnostic techniques.

Immunobiology and Host Response to HEV

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) usually causes acute self-limiting hepatitis but sometimes leads to chronic infection in immunocompromised persons. HEV is not directly cytopathic. Immunologically mediated events after HEV infection are believed to play important roles in the pathogenesis and clearance of infection. The anti-HEV antibody responses have been largely clarified since the determination of major antigenic determinant of HEV, which is located in the C-terminal portion of ORF2. This major antigenic determinant also forms the conformational neutralization epitopes. Robust anti-HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG responses usually develop 3-4 weeks after infection in experimentally infected nonhuman primates. In humans, potent specific IgM and IgG responses occur in the very early phase of the disease and are critical in eliminating the virus, in concert with the innate and adaptive T-cell immune responses. Testing anti-HEV IgM is valuable in the diagnosis of acute hepatitis E. The long-term persistence and protection of anti-HEV IgG provide the basis for estimating the prevalence of HEV infection and for the development of a hepatitis E vaccine. Although human HEV has four genotypes, all the viral strains are considered to belong to a single serotype. It is becoming increasingly clear that the innate and adaptive T-cell immune responses play critical roles in the clearance of the virus. Potent and multispecific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses to the ORF2 protein occur in patients with acute hepatitis E, and weaker HEV-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cell responses appear to be associated with chronic hepatitis E in immunocompromised individuals.

The prevalence of HEV among non-A-C hepatitis in Qatar and efficiency of serological markers for the diagnosis of hepatitis E

BACKGROUND

The rapid growth of Qatar in the last two decades has attracted a large influx of immigrant workers who mostly come from HEV-hyperendemic countries. Thus, we aim to investigate the prevalence of HEV among acute non-A-C hepatitis patients in Qatar; and to evaluate the performance of four dominant commercial serological assays for HEV diagnosis.

METHODS

259 patients with non-A-C hepatitis were tested using the Wantai HEV-IgM, HEV-IgG, HEV-Ag ELISA kits, and the MP Biomedical HEV-Total Ab ELISA kit. ALT levels were tested and HEV RNA (viral loads) was performed using Taqman AmpliCube HEV RT-PCR kit (Mikrogen, Neuried, Germany). The performance of each kit was assessed according to the RT-PCR results.

RESULTS

HEV-RNA was detected in 23.1% of the samples. Most of these HEV-RNA-positive cases belonged to non-Qatari residents from the Indian subcontinent; India, Pakistan, etc. HEV-Ag, HEV-IgM, HEV-IgG, HEV-Total Ab were detected in 5.56%, 8.65%, 32.1%, and 34.2% of all tested samples, respectively. Elevated ALT levels were highly correlated with the HEV-Ag, HEV-IgM, HEV-RNA but not with the HEV-IgG and HEV-Total Ab. Although HEV-Ag was very specific (100%), yet its sensitivity was poor (36.7%). HEV-IgM demonstrated the best second marker for diagnosis of acute HEV after RT-PCR as jugged by the overall performance parameters: specificity (96.2%), sensitivity (71.4%), PPV (83.3%), NPP (92.7%), agreement with RT-PCR (91.0%), and Kappa-value (0.71).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated a high prevalence of HEV virus in Qatar, mostly among immigrants from the Indian subcontinent. The HEV-IgM represents the best marker for detecting the acute HEV infection, where RT-PCR cannot be performed.

Hepatitis E in Sub Saharan Africa - A significant emerging disease

Hepatitis E is an emerging endemic disease found across the African continent, but there are clear differences in epidemiology between North Africa and countries south of the Sahara. In this systematic review, Google scholar and PubMed databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles on HEV epidemiology. Publications meeting our inclusion criteria were critically reviewed to extract consistent findings and identify knowledge gaps. Hepatitis E has been reported in 25 of the 49 countries in Sub Saharan Africa.

Mortality rates of 1–2% in the general population and ~ 20% in pregnant women. Outbreaks were closely linked to refugees and Internally Displaced Persons in camps which accounted for 50% of reported outbreaks. There was very little research and concrete evidence for sources of contamination and transmission routes. There are indications of zoonotic transmission of Hepatitis E Virus infection but further research in these fields is required.

•

No data from 50% of African countries

•

Outbreaks closely linked to refugee and IDP camps

•

Little data on sources of HEV contamination

•

Indications but little evidence of zoonotic transmission

•

Low awareness amongst health professionals and general public

A guide to the management of hepatitis E infection during pregnancy

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection has distinct features, depending upon the genotype and geographical area. HEV genotypes 1 and 2 are endemic to various developing countries causing epidemics of acute viral hepatitis with human to human transmission. On the other hand, HEV genotypes 3 and 4 prevalent in developed countries commonly lead to subclinical infection and are transmitted zoonotically. HEV infection typically causes acute self-limiting illness associated with low morbidity and mortality. Infection with HEV genotype 1 or 2 in pregnancy, especially in the third trimester may lead to severe illness and fulminant liver failure. Poor maternal and fetal outcomes have been reported. Areas covered: This review highlights the various aspects of HEV infection in pregnancy including diagnosis, management, and prevention. Expert commentary: Treatment is mainly supportive with diligent monitoring and intensive care. Therapeutic termination of pregnancy cannot be recommended based to the available literature. Early liver transplantation (LT) should be considered in these patients although the indications and timing of LT are still controversial. Prevention of HEV infection or illness by improved sanitation and active/passive immunization needs further research.

Transmission and Epidemiology of Hepatitis E Virus Genotype 3 and 4 Infections

Following the introduction of robust serological and molecular tools, our understanding of the epidemiology of zoonotic hepatitis E virus (HEV) has improved considerably in recent years. Current thinking suggests that consumption of pork meat products is the key route of infection in humans, but it is certainly not the only one. Other routes of infection include environmental spread, contaminated water, and via the human blood supply. The epidemiology of HEV genotype (gt)3 and gt4 is complex, as there are several sources and routes of infection, and it is likely that these vary between and within countries and over time.

Laboratory challenges in the diagnosis of hepatitis E virus

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) is an RNA virus that is an important cause of both acute and chronic hepatitis worldwide. To date, there are eight HEV genotypes that can infect mammals. HEV-1 and HEV-2 infect exclusively humans, while HEV-3 and HEV-4 infect humans and various animals, mainly pigs and deer. Additionally, two new genotypes (HEV-5 and HEV-6) infect mainly wild boar. Recently, newly discovered genotypes HEV-7 and HEV-8 were found to infect camels and possibly humans. Nevertheless, the epidemiological distribution of HEV-7 is not well established. HEV-8 is another newly discovered genotype that was identified in 2016 in Chinese Bactrian camels. Although faecal-oral transmission is the most common route of HEV transmission, HEV can be vertically transmitted from infected mothers to their fetuses. HEV may also spread by zoonotic transmission from infected animals to humans and through person-to-person contact. Nowadays, since the number of reported cases linked to blood donations is increasing annually, HEV is recognized as a transfusion-transmitted virus. Laboratory diagnostic techniques vary in their specificity and sensitivity for HEV detection. Direct techniques allow for detection of the viral proteins, antigens and viral nucleic acid, while HEV-specific IgG and IgM antibodies can help establish a diagnosis in acute and chronic infections. In this review, we will discuss recent technologies in the laboratory diagnosis of HEV, including serological and molecular methods to assess the specificity and sensitivity of currently available HEV commercial assays.

Immunobiology and Host Response to HEV

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) causes acute self-limiting hepatitis in most cases and chronic infection in rare circumstances. It is believed to be noncytopathic, so immunologically mediated events should play important roles in its pathogenesis and infection outcomes. The anti-HEV antibody response was clarified when the major antigenic determinants on the ORF2 polypeptide were determined, which are located in its C-terminal portion. This subregion also forms the conformational neutralization epitopes. Robust anti-HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG responses usually develop 3-4 weeks after infection in experimentally infected nonhuman primates. In humans, potent specific IgM and IgG responses occur in the very early phase of the disease and are critical in eliminating the virus, in concert with the innate and adaptive T-cell immune responses. They are also very valuable in the diagnosis of acute hepatitis E, when patients are tested for both anti-HEV IgM and IgG. The long-term persistence and protection of anti-HEV IgG provide the basis for estimating the prevalence of HEV infection and for the development of a hepatitis E vaccine. Although HEV has four genotypes, all the viral strains are considered to belong to a single serotype. It is becoming increasingly clear that the innate and adaptive T-cell immune responses play critical roles in the clearance of the virus. Potent and multispecific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cell responses to the ORF2 protein occur in patients with acute hepatitis E, and weaker HEV-specific CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cell responses appear to be associated with chronic hepatitis E in immunocompromised individuals.

The added value of hepatitis E diagnostics in determining causes of hepatitis in routine diagnostic settings in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Hepatitis E virus (HEV) genotype 3 is endemic in Europe and an underdiagnosed and emerging (public) health issue. In recent years commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) that detect antibodies to HEV more adequately, became available. We investigated the added value of this HEV serology in the diagnostic work flow to detect viral causes of recent hepatitis.

METHODS

During a 2-year period (May 2013 to May 2015), HEV serology was added to the hepatitis work flow, consisting of serological detection of hepatitis viruses A, B and C (HAV, HBV, HCV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV). Samples positive for HEV IgM were also analysed using PCR to detect HEV RNA. If positive, HEV sequencing was performed for genotyping purposes.

RESULTS

In 235 out of 2521 patients (9.3%), a viral cause for hepatitis was found. Recent HAV, HBV, HCV, EBV or CMV infections were serologically diagnosed in 3, 34, 10, 69 and 42 patients, respectively. Seventy-eight patients (3.1%) had a recent HEV infection. In 49 of them, sufficient HEV RNA was present for genotyping. All patients were infected with HEV genotype 3.

CONCLUSIONS

In our region, an HEV infection is the most frequently diagnosed viral cause for recent hepatitis. These results indicate that, in a country where HEV is endemic, serological HEV diagnostics should be added to the standard work-up for viral hepatitis.

Monitoring of Anti-Hepatitis E Virus Antibody Seroconversion in Asymptomatically Infected Blood Donors: Systematic Comparison of Nine Commercial Anti-HEV IgM and IgG Assays

Diagnosis of hepatitis E virus (HEV) is usually determined serologically by detection of the presence of immunoglobulin (Ig)M antibodies or rising anti-HEV IgG titers. However, serological assays have demonstrated a significant variation in their sensitivities and specificities. In this study, we present the systematic comparison of different immunological anti-HEV assays using complete seroconversion panels of 10 virologically confirmed HEV genotype 3 infected individuals. Assay sensitivities were further evaluated by testing serially diluted World Health Organization (WHO) reference reagent for hepatitis E virus antibody and one patient sample infected with HEV genotype 3. Anti-HEV IgM and IgG antibody presence was determined using the immunological assays Wantai HEV IgM/IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Sanbio, Uden, The Netherlands), recomWell HEV IgM/IgG (Mikrogen, Neuried, Germany), HEV IgM ELISA 3.0, HEV ELISA, HEV ELISA 4.0, Assure HEV IgM Rapid Test (all MP Biomedicals Europe, Illkirch Cedex, France) and Anti-HEV ELISA (IgM/IgG, Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). The assays showed differences regarding their analytical and diagnostic sensitivities, with anti-HEV IgM assays (n = 5) being more divergent compared to anti-HEV IgG (n = 4) assays in this study. Considerable variations were observed particularly for the detection period of IgM antibodies. This is the first study systematically characterizing serologic assays on the basis of seroconversion panels, providing sample conformity for a conclusive comparison. Future studies should include the assay comparison covering the four different genotypes.