Performance of Roche qualitative HEV assay on the cobas 6800 platform for quantitative measurement of HEV RNA.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection is an increasingly recognized cause of acute and chronic hepatitis in high-income countries and is the most frequent cause of acute viral hepatitis in many European countries. Appropriate tools to detect and quantify HEV RNA are needed. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the Roche cobas® HEV assay and compare it with the Fast Track Diagnostics (FTD) Hepatitis E RNA assay. METHODS: HEV viral load determination and lower limit of detection (LOD, defined as the lowest amount of viral copies that could be detected in 95 % of repeats) were assessed using a WHO standard dilution panel, testing 240 samples of various concentrations. Reproducibility was tested at three different concentration levels, for different genotypes, and with different sample types (serum, plasma) in 30 samples. Sample stability was analyzed after three freeze/thaw cycles in 25 samples. RESULTS: Cobas HEV assay showed a strong linear relationship between log of HEV WHO dilution series and Ct values over the reportable range from 200-5000 IU/mL HEV RNA copies. The amplification efficiency was higher than 92 %. LOD was 22 IU/mL (95 % CI: 17.4-31.8) and reproducibility tests showed a 100 % nucleic acid test (NAT) reactivity of cobas HEV for WHO dilution series (range 200-5000 IU/mL, n = 90). Cobas HEV assay detected all different HEV genotypes from biobank samples irrespective of the sample type. NAT reactivity of cobas HEV was not affected by three freeze/thaw cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Roche cobas HEV assay is a powerful NAT tool in terms of robustness, reproducibility and linearity. It is a feasible alternative for high-volume testing.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Hepatitis E Serology and Molecular Testing in a Large Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Reliable and cost-effective diagnostics for hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection are necessary. The aim of our study was to investigate which diagnostic test is most accurate to detect HEV infection in immunocompetent and immunosuppressed patients in a real world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 1165 patients tested for HEV antibodies and HEV PCR at the same time point. Clinical, laboratory and virological data were taken from patient charts. HEV IgA was measured in a subgroup of 185 patients. RESULTS: HEV RNA was detectable in 61 patients (5.2%); most of them (n = 49, 80.3%/n = 43, 70.5%) were HEV IgM+ and IgG+; however, 12 patients (19.6%) were HEV RNA positive/HEV IgM negative and 17 patients (27.8%) were HEV RNA positive/HEV IgG negative. Ten HEV RNA positive patients (16.4%) had neither HEV IgG nor IgM antibodies. Importantly, all of them were immunosuppressed. HEV IgA testing was less sensitive than HEV IgM for HEV diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: HEV infection can be overlooked in patients without HEV specific antibodies. Performing PCR is necessary to diagnose or exclude HEV infection in immunocompromised hosts. In immunocompetent patients, a screening based on HEV antibodies (IgG/IgM) is sufficient.

Liver maximum capacity (LiMAx) test as a helpful prognostic tool in acute liver failure with sepsis: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Acute liver failure (ALF) is a life-threatening entity particularly when infectious complications worsen the clinical course. Urgent liver transplantation (LT) is frequently the only curative treatment. However, in some cases, recovery is observed under conservative treatment. Therefore, prognostic tools for estimating course of the disease are of great clinical interest. Since laboratory parameters sometimes lack sensitivity and specificity, enzymatic liver function measured by liver maximum capacity (LiMAx) test may offer novel and valuable additional information in this setting. CASE PRESENTATION: We here report the case of a formerly healthy 20-year old male caucasian patient who was admitted to our clinic for ALF of unknown origin in December 2017. Laboratory parameters confirmed the diagnosis with an initial MELD score of 28 points. Likewise, enzymatic liver function was significantly impaired with a value of 147 [> 315] µg/h/kg. Clinical and biochemical analyses for viral-, autoimmune-, or drug-induced hepatitis were negative. Liver synthesis parameters further deteriorated reaching a MELD score of 40 points whilst clinical course was complicated by septic pneumonia leading to severe hepatic encephalopathy grade III-IV, finally resulting in mechanical ventilation of the patient. Interestingly, although clinical course and laboratory data suggested poor outcome, serial LiMAx test revealed improvement of the enzymatic liver function at this time point increasing to 169 µg/h/kg. Clinical condition and laboratory data slowly improved likewise, however with significant time delay of 11 days. Finally, the patient could be dismissed from our clinic after 37 days. CONCLUSION: Estimating prognosis in patients with ALF is challenging by use of the established scores. In our case, improvement of enzymatic liver function measured by the LiMAx test was the first parameter predicting beneficial outcome in a patient with ALF complicated by sepsis.

Hepatitis E Virus Infection as a Possible Cause of Acute Liver Failure in Europe.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In Western countries, infection with the hepatitis E virus (HEV) is considered to be rare and imported from endemic regions. However, the prevalence of HEV infection has increased among adults in central Europe. HEV infection can cause acute liver failure (ALF), but there have been only a few confirmed cases of HEV-associated ALF in Europe. We investigated the number of cases of indeterminate ALF associated with HEV infection. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 80 patients diagnosed with ALF or acute hepatitis at the University Hospital Essen in Germany from November 2006 through December 2013. Clinical data were collected from the hospital databases; archived sera were tested for IgG and IgM against HEV, as well as HEV RNA. RESULTS: Sera from 12 patients (15%) tested positive for IgG against HEV IgG; 7 of these samples did not test positive for HEV IgM or HEV RNA. Sera from 64 patients (80%) did not test positive for IgG or IgM against HEV or HEV RNA. Sera from 8 patients (10%) tested positive for HEV RNA (only 4 of these were positive for HEV IgG) and had clinical findings to support acute HEV infection. CONCLUSIONS: In a hospital in Germany, approximately 10% to 15% of patients with ALF had evidence for HEV infection. Serologic tests for IgG against HEV are insufficient to identify or exclude HEV infection; tests for HEV RNA also should be performed on patients with ALF of ambiguous etiology.