Cristiane Tovo Both

Intrafamilial Transmission of Hepatitis C Virus in Patients With Hepatitis C and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Coinfection

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine whether hepatitis C virus (HCV)/HIV coinfection of index cases increases intrafamilial transmission (sexual and nonsexual contacts) of HCV.METHODS:We prospectively enrolled 347 subjects, including 87 family members of 53 HCV/HIV-coinfected index cases and 134 family members of 73 HCV-monoinfected index cases, which served as a control group. All index cases and family members were interviewed, and a screening for HCV and HIV using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays was performed. Positive samples were confirmed by polymerase chain reaction and tested for genotype and HCV RNA viral load. A meta-analysis designed to assess the pooled risk of sexual transmission of HCV among HCV/HIV-coinfected patients was performed.RESULTS:Anti-HCV was detected in 2.2% of family members of HCV-monoinfected index cases and 2.3% of family members of HCV/HIV-coinfected index cases. Viral load was higher in coinfected index cases (7.2 × 106 mEq/ml) compared with HCV alone (1.9 × 106 mEq/ml), p= 0.01. HCV genotype concordance was observed in three family members of HCV-monoinfected index cases and in two family members of HCV/HIV-coinfected index cases. The pooled OR of the meta-analysis evaluating HIV as a cofactor of sexual transmission of HCV was 1.54 (95% CI = 0.76–3.12).CONCLUSIONS:Our data demonstrate a low prevalence of intrafamilial transmission of HCV, independent of the presence of HCV/HIV coinfection. This finding is supported by meta-analysis, which failed to identify HIV as an important cofactor of sexual transmission in HCV/HIV-coinfected patients.

Flow cytometry in the diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis

OBJECTIVES:Peritoneal carcinomatosis is the second major cause of ascites. Because of its frequency and poor prognosis, it is important to establish an accurate diagnosis. The aim of this study was to analyze the use of a DNA index, detemined by flow cytometry in the differential diagnosis of ascites, and to compare it to the cytopathological examination.METHODS:A prospective analysis was carried out on 67 patients (39 female, 28 male; mean age, 53 ± 14 yr [range, 5–82]) with ascites of various etiologies. Peritoneal carcinomatosis was detected in 21 patients, whereas in 46 the ascites was of noncarcinomatosis origin.RESULTS:The sensitivity of the cytopathological examination for the diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis was 42.9%, and the specificity was 100%. The mean DNA index determined by flow cytometry was similar for peritoneal carcinomatosis and noncarcinomatosis patients, being 1.28 versus 1.01, respectively, in the preparations without control lymphocytes and 1.28 versus 1.04, respectively, when control lymphocytes were added. The sensitivity of DNA index cytometry was 57.1% and specificity, 93.5%. The combined use of the DNA index and cytopathological examination did not show an advantage over the use of any of the tests individually, although the DNA index was able to detect half of the cases of peritoneal carcinomatosis in which cytopathological examination was negative. Although the sensitivity was higher when the parameters were associated, the DNA index did not offer a statistically significant advantage over the use of cytopathological examination alone, which in turn had higher specificity.CONCLUSION:The DNA index presented lower sensitivity for the diagnosis of peritoneal carcinomatosis when used alone, showing no advantage over conventional cytopathological examination. However, the DNA index was able to detect 50.0% of peritoneal carcinomatosis cases whose conventional cytopathological examinations were negative, and could be valuable in these situations.