Little is known about hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection in patients with cirrhosis. The aim of the present study was to describe the frequency of HEV infection and associated risk factors in patients with cirrhosis from Argentina. We evaluated HEV seroprevalence (IgG anti-HEV) and acute infections (IgM and RNA) in patients with cirrhosis (n = 140) vs. healthy controls (n = 300). Additionally, we compared the same outcomes in individuals with alcohol-related cirrhosis (n = 43) vs. patients with alcohol use disorder (without cirrhosis, n = 72). The overall HEV seroprevalence in the cohort of subjects with cirrhosis was 25% (35/140), compared to 4% in the healthy control group [12/300; OR = 8; (95% CI = 4–15.99); p<0.05]. HEV seropositivity was significantly higher in alcohol-related cirrhosis compared to other causes of cirrhosis [39.5% vs. 12.4%; OR = 4.71; (95% CI = 1.9–11.6); p<0.05] and to healthy controls [OR = 15.7; (95% CI = 6.8–36.4); p = 0.0001]. The HEV seroprevalence in alcoholic-related cirrhosis vs. with alcohol use disorder was 39.5% vs. 12.5% [OR = 4.58; (95% CI = 1.81–11.58); p<0.001]. We found a high seroprevalence of HEV in patients with cirrhosis and in individuals with alcohol use disorder. The simultaneous presence of both factors (cirrhosis + alcohol) showed more association to HEV infection. Larger studies with prospective follow up are needed to further clarify this interaction.

Background: The hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection has been described as a causing factor for acute-on-chronic-liver-failure (ACLF) in patients with underlying chronic liver disease (CLD), such as chronic hepatitis or cirrhosis, which could end in the failure of one or more organs and high short-term mortality. There are scarce data about the association of HEV in patients with chronic liver disorders in South America.Case presentation: A 56-year-old hypertensive male with a history of type 2 diabetes was diagnosed with alcohol-related-liver cirrhosis in February 2019. A year later, the patient was admitted to hospital due to fatigue, jaundice and acholia. No evidence of hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, Epstein–Barr virus, herpes zoster virus and cytomegalovirus infections were found. Nevertheless, in February and March, 2020 the patient was positive for HEV-IgM and HEV-IgG, and HEV genotype 3 RNA was detected in sera. Afterwards, he presented grade I hepatic encephalopathy and, therefore, was diagnosed with acute hepatitis E-on-chronic liver disease. The patient reported a recent travel to the Argentine coast, where he consumed seafood. Besides, he reveled to have consumed pork meat and had no history of blood transfusion.Conclusion: This report describes a unique case of hepatitis E virus infection in a patient with alcohol-related cirrhosis. This is the first report of a patient with HEV-related ACLF in Argentina and it invokes the importance of HEV surveillance and treatment among patients with CLD, such as alcohol-related cirrhosis.

Although the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the Nasal Mid-Turbinate swab (NMTS) is often used due to its higher tolerance among patients. We compared the diagnostic performance of the NPS and the NMTS for the Panbio™ COVID-19 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT). Two hundred and forty-three individuals were swabbed three times by healthcare professionals: a NMTS and a NPS specimen for the Ag-RDT and an oropharyngeal swab for real time RT-PCR. Forty-nine participants were RNA-SARS-CoV-2 positive by real time RT-PCR: 45 and 40 were positive by the Ag-RDT with NPS and NMTS, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 91.8% (95% CI: 83.2–100.0) and 99.5% (95% CI: 98.2–100.0) for Ag-RDT with NPS, and 81.6% (95% CI: 69.8–93.5) and 100.0% (95% CI: 99.7–100.0) for the Ag-RDT with NMTS. The Cohen’s kappa index was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–0.98). Among asymptomatic individuals, the Ag-RDT with both sampling techniques showed a high sensitivity [100.0% (95% CI: 95.5–100.0) with NPS; 90.9% (95% CI: 69.4–100.0) with NMTS], while the performance of the test decreased in samples with Ct≥ 30 and in patients tested after the first 7 days from symptom onset. Although the NMTS yielded a lower sensitivity compared to NPS, it might be considered a reliable alternative, as it presents greater adherence among patients, enabling scaling of antigen testing strategies, particularly in countries with under-resourced health systems.