Differential Diagnosis of Hepatotropic and Non-Hepatotropic Viruses in Patients at the Regional Virological Reference Laboratory. Maracaibo-Venezuela, 2007

  • Luciana Costa León School of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zulia
  • Francisca Monsalve Castillo School of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zulia
  • Diana Callejas Valero School of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zulia. Regional Laboratory of Virological Reference, School of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zulia.
  • Leticia Porto Espinoza Regional Laboratory of Virological Reference, School of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zulia.
  • Jesús Estévez Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zulia
  • María Elena Castellanos Regional Laboratory of Virological Reference, School of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zulia.
  • Raimy Mindiola Regional Laboratory of Virological Reference, School of Bioanalysis, Faculty of Medicine, University of Zulia.
Keywords: Cytomegalovirus, Epstein Barr Virus, hepatitis

Abstract

Viral hepatitis is a public health problem worldwide, caused by different etiologic agents, such as hepatitis A, B, C, D, E, F or G. However, cases have been reported related to liver disease caused by hepatotropic viruses, such as cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein Barr Virus (EBV). The aim of this study was to establish the differential diagnosis of hepatotropic and non-hepatotropic viruses in patients with symptoms and signs suggestive of liver infection in the city of Maracaibo, Venezuela, 2007. 268 blood samples were collected from patients at different health centers in the city of Maracaibo, who recurred to the Regional Viral Reference Laboratory. The presence of IgM antibodies to hepatitis A virus (HAV), B (HBV), C (HCV), CMV and EBV was detected by ELISA. The results indicate a high incidence of HAV 118/268 (44.03%), followed by HBV 5/268 (1.86%) and the absence of HCV. For non-hepatotropic viruses, 4.48% (12/268) were positive for EBV and 9.7% (26/268) for CMV. For the above-mentioned viruses, 39.92% (107/268) are considered negative. This study suggests that CMV and EBV viruses are often involved with liver damage and should be considered as possible etiologic agents for any case of hepatitis.

Published
2010-08-07
How to Cite
1.
Costa León L, Monsalve Castillo F, Callejas Valero D, Porto Espinoza L, Estévez J, Castellanos ME, Mindiola R. Differential Diagnosis of Hepatotropic and Non-Hepatotropic Viruses in Patients at the Regional Virological Reference Laboratory. Maracaibo-Venezuela, 2007. Kasmera [Internet]. 2010Aug.7 [cited 2025Jun.27];38(1):60-8. Available from: https://produccioncientificaluz.org/index.php/kasmera/article/view/4857
Section
Original Articles