| |
|
|
| Year : 2010 | Volume
: 21
| Issue : 5 | Page : 909-913 |
|
| Methods used to reduce the prevalence of hepatitis C in a dialysis unit |
|
|
Magdi M Hussein, Jaap M Mooij
Departments of Nephrology and Dialysis, Al Hada Armed Forces Hospital, Taif, Saudi Arabia
Click here for correspondence address and email
| Date of Web Publication | 31-Aug-2010 |
|
|
 |
|
 Abstract | | |
In the present study, we report on the follow-up of the epidemiology of hepatitis C viremia in our dialysis unit after our previous report, over the period from July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005. The methods to reduce the prevalence of hepatitis C viremia in our center included: strict adherence to universal infection control precautions, separation of hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive patients from the negative patients and using specially designated machines for them, and from July 2003, periodic testing of all patients for HCV-RNA. Following the application of the above mentioned methods, we have not had, since 31 December 2005, any case of sero-conversion from HCVnegative to HCV-positive in our dialysis unit and the only HCV-positive patients present were those who were already positive at entry. The overall prevalence of HCV-RNA positive patients in our unit has presently come down to 6.5%. Although isolation and use of designated machines for HCV-RNA positive patients is not recommended following the latest guidelines of "Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO, 2008), the present study supports previous reports that these measures might be beneficial, when there is a high prevalence of HCV-RNA positive patients, and in units where due to understaffing or other causes, break in infection control procedures is likely to occur.
How to cite this article:
Hussein MM, Mooij JM. Methods used to reduce the prevalence of hepatitis C in a dialysis unit. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2010;21:909-13 |
How to cite this URL:
Hussein MM, Mooij JM. Methods used to reduce the prevalence of hepatitis C in a dialysis unit. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl [serial online] 2010 [cited 2022 Dec 7];21:909-13. Available from: https://www.sjkdt.org/text.asp?2010/21/5/909/68890 |
| Introduction | |  |
Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a serious, potentially lethal infection that can affect patients on dialysis and after transplantation, frequently acquired while on dialysis, and can itself cause kidney disease. Prevention of infection is therefore of great importance.
Previously, we reported on the introduction of routine HCV-RNA screening of all patients in our dialysis unit in an attempt to reduce the number of HCV-positive patients, in addition to other measures such as isolation of HCV-positive patients and assignment of dedicated dialysis machines to them, combined with strict adherence to universal infectious control precautions. [1]
The rationale for performing routine HCVRNA screening in all patients, in addition to testing for HCV-antibody (HCV-Ab), is based on the presence of a certain percentage of false HCV-Ab negative results. These HCV-Ab negative, but hepatitis C-RNA-positive patients are, as all hepatitis C-RNA-positive patients, a potential source of infection in the dialysis units. When the overall prevalence and incidence of HCV is high, the absolute number of HCV-Abnegative, but HCV-RNA-positive patients will also be high, and consequently, the number of potential infectious sources. [2]
Contrary to the guidelines of the Centre for Diseases Control (CDC) of 2001, [3] the guidelines of the "Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO) in 2008 state that in hemodialysis units with a high prevalence of hepatitis C viremia, initial testing with NAT (nuclear acid testing) should be considered. [2] However, isolation of HCV-RNA-positive patients is not recommended in these guidelines. [2]
In the present study, we report on the epidemiology of HCV-RNA-positive patients in our dialysis unit, and analyze some factors which might be responsible for the decrease of its prevalence, which is currently about 6.5%.
| Patients and Methods | | |
Since the early nineties, when testing for HCVAb became available, patients who tested positive were separated from the HCV-Ab-negative patients in our unit and, dialyzed using special designated machines. This was in addition to strict adherence to universal infection control precautions, which were implemented since the start of the center in 1980.
Since July 2003, all patients were also tested for HCV-RNA using a qualitative hepatitisRNA assay (COBAS Amplicor; PCR), version 2 (Roche Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ, USA). The patients who tested positive with the HCV qualitative assay underwent further quantitative testing with the COBAS Amplicor HCV Monitor™ test, version 2 (Roche Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ, USA). All HCV-PCR tests were carried out at the Molecular Pathology Laboratory of our hospital and the methods have been published previously. [1] The frequency of testing was initially every six months, and was later increased to every three months.
The results of the HCV-RNA screening in our center over the period July 2003 to December 2005 have been reported. [1] In the present study, we follow-up on the epidemiology of positive HCV-RNA viremia in our center, using flow diagrams to assess factors which might have contributed to decrease of its prevalence.
[Figure 1] presents the follow-up of patients from the period July 2003 to December 2005 until March 2009. It includes the outcome parameters such as conversion from HCV-RNA-positive to negative, transplantation, still on dialysis, death and lost to follow-up. During the follow-up period of the outcome parameters, analysis of conversion from HCV-RNA-negative to positive started on January 1, 2006, since patients who converted to HCV-RNA-positive before this date (n = 3), were included in the total group of 29 HCV-RNA-positive patients in the period July 1, 2003 until December 31, 2005. [Figure 2] shows the HCV status of the patient-group presently on dialysis numbering 124 (March 2009). | Figure 1 :Outcome of 180 patients on dialysis between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005, followed-up
until March 1, 2009.
Click here to view |
 | Figure 2 :HCV status of patients on dialysis at our center as on March 1, 2009.
Click here to view |
| Results | | |
[Figure 1] shows the follow-up data of the 180 patients who were reported in our previous study over the period July 1, 2003 to December 31, 2005. [1] Out of the group of 180 patients reported earlier, 50 were still on dialysis in March 2009. The remaining 130 patients have been transplanted, died, or lost to follow-up (transferred to other centers).
Of the 180 patients, 29 were HCV-RNA-positive (16.1%). Of these 29 HCV-RNA-positive patients, three became HCV-RNA-negative (one after interferon treatment and 2 spontaneously); one of whom underwent a successful renal transplantation. Four of the remaining 26 HCVRNA-positive patients are still on dialysis, and 22 were lost to follow-up or expired.
[Figure 2] presents the patients on dialysis in our unit in March 2009. There are eight HCVRNA-positive patients (6.5%). As mentioned above, four of them were already on dialysis in the period from July 2003 to December 2005. The remaining four (new) patients were HCVpositive at entry to the dialysis program. None of the 46 HCV-RNA-negative patients who continued on dialysis in our center from January 1, 2005 until March 2009, had converted to hepatitis C-RNA-positive.
| Discussion | | |
The results of our study suggest that the procedures being presently followed in our unit to limit the transmission of HCV have been effective. Isolation of HCV-positive patients and dedication of special machines to them is not recommended following the latest guidelines of KDIGO, [2] and is supported by some observational studies. [4],[5]
However, there are also reports indicating that these measures may be considered beneficial in situations when there is a high prevalence of HCV-positive patients, and in cases of a break, in infection control procedures, due to understaffing of dialysis units or other causes. [6],[7],[8],[9],[10]
In our unit, from an early phase, soon after HCV-Ab testing became available, HCV-Abpositive patients were isolated, and dedicated dialysis machines were used for them. Isolation will result in clustering of infectious foci, therefore possibly reducing the risk of transmission to HCV-negative patients. In addition, it might increase the awareness of the nursing staff about the presence of HCV activity in the center. [2] Although a causal relationship cannot be proven, these factors might have played a role in the observation that during the period from July 2003 until December 2005, when the screening for HCV-RNA had just started, the number of HCV-Ab positive patients (18.9%) was already well below that of the 47.8% reported for dialysis patients in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a whole in 2002. [11]
Isolation based on screening for HCV-Ab only, and not for HCV-RNA, is, as expected, far from effective and is one of the reasons behind questioning the usefulness of isolation. [2] In our previous study, we found that 3.24% of patients who were negative for HCV-Ab, tested positive for HCV-RNA. [1] These patients form a hidden source of potential infectious foci, and in fact, three out of the group of 180 patients previously reported by us, [1] had converted from HCV-RNA negative to positive during the period from July 2003 to December 2005.
The observation that since January 2006, no patients converted from HCV-RNA negative to positive, might be because, in our center, since July 1, 2003 all HCV-RNA positive patients were identified and isolated from the other patients, in addition to strict implementation of universal infection control procedures. The only "new" HCV-RNA patients were discovered at entry to the dialysis program; this together with discontinuation of dialysis treatment of several prevalent HCV-RNA positive patients in our unit due to transplantation, loss of follow-up or death [Figure 1], resulted in a large decrease of the number of HCV-RNA positive patients.
Based on our study results, we suggest that in areas with a high prevalence of HCV, especially in units with understaffing, regular testing of all patients for HCV-RNA, isolation of positive patients and using designated machines for their dialysis, in addition to strict adherence to infection control policies, might be helpful measures in reduction of the spread of HCV within dialysis units.
| References | | |
| 1. | Hussein M, Mooij J, Hegazy M, Bamaga M. The impact of polymerase chain reaction assays for the detection of hepatitis C Virus infection in a hemodialysis unit. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2007;18(1):107-13.  |
| 2. | Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hepatitis C in chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int Suppl 2008;109:S1-99. [PUBMED] |
| 3. | Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Recommendations for preventing transmission of infections among chronic hemodialysis patients. MMWR Recomm Rep 2001;50(RR-5):1-43 |
| 4. | Jadoul M, Cornu C, van Ypersele de Strihou C. Universal precautions prevent hepatitis C virus transmission: a 54 month follow-up of the Belgian Multicenter Study. The Universitaires Cliniques St-Luc (UCL) Collaborative Group. Kidney Int 1998;53(4):1022-5. |
| 5. | Valtuille R, Moretto H, Lef L, Rendo P, Fernandez JL. Decline of high hepatitis C virus prevalence in a hemodialysis unit with no isolation measures during a 6-year follow-up. Clin Nephrol 2002;57:371-5. |
| 6. | Blumberg A, Zehnder C, Burckhardt JJ. Prevention of hepatitis C infection in haemodialysis units. A prospective study. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1995;10:230-3. |
| 7. | Djordjevic V, Stojanovic K, Stojanovic M, et al. Prevention of nosocomial transmission of hepatitis C infection in a hemodialysis unit. A prospective study. Int J Artif Organs 2000;23:181-8 |
| 8. | Petrosillo N, Gilli P, Serraino D, et al. Prevalence of infected patients and understaffing have a role in hepatitis C virus transmission in dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;37:1004-10. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 9. | Harmankaya O, Cetin B, Obek A, Seber E. Low prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection in hemodialysis units: effect of isolation. Ren Fail 2002;24(5):639-44. |
| 10. | Fissell RB, Bragg-Gresham JL, Woods JD, et al. Patterns of hepatitis C prevalence and seroconversion in hemodialysis units from three continents: the DOPPS. Kidney Int 2004;65: 2335-42. [PUBMED] [FULLTEXT] |
| 11. | Shobokshi OA, Serebour FE, Al-Drees AZ, Mitwalli AH, Qahtani A, Skakni LI. Hepatitis C virus seroprevalence rate among Saudis. Saudi Med J 2003;24(Suppl2):S81-6. |
Correspondence Address:
Magdi M Hussein
Department of Nephrology and Dialysis, Al Hada Armed Forces Hospital, P.O. Box 1347, Taif
Saudi Arabia
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
PMID: 20814130 
[Figure 1], [Figure 2] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Epidemiology of viral hepatitis in Saudi Arabia: Are we off the hook |
|
| Abdo, A.A. and Sanai, F.M. and Al-Faleh, F.Z. | | Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012; 18(6): 349-357 | | [Pubmed] | | | 2 |
SASLT practice guidelines: Management of hepatitis C virus infection |
|
| Alfaleh, F.Z. and Alghamdi, A.S. and Alghamdi, H. and Alqutub, A. and Alswat, K. and Altraif, I. and Sanai, F. and Ismail, M. and Shah, H. | | Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology. 2012; 18(SUPPL. 1): S1-S32 | | [Pubmed] | | | 3 |
Quality control measures for lowering the seroconversion rate of hemodialysis patients with hepatitis B or C virus |
|
| Yuan, J. and Yang, Y. and Han, F. and Zhang, P. and Du, X.-Y. and Jiang, H. and Chen, J.-H. | | Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases International. 2012; 11(3): 302-306 | | [Pubmed] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 3487 | | | Printed | 140 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 607 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 3 | | |
|
|
