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.

BackgroundAcute 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 presentationWe 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.ConclusionEstimating 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.

Rationale:A 62-year-old male patient was admitted to our clinic in February 2016 with persistently elevated liver enzymes.Patient concerns:Clinical history involved a long time of poly-autoimmunity with a rheumatoid arthritis (in remission under tocilizumab therapy), an autoimmune thyroiditis, an eosinophilia as well as a hyper-immunoglobulin (IgG) 4-syndrome.Diagnoses:Laboratory studies revealed a significant increase in liver enzymes with an alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level of 574 U/L and an aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level of 864 U/L (normal <50 U/L). Furthermore, the patient was positive for anti-nuclear autoantibodies (ANA) with a titer of 1:320 (normal upper limit: 1:80).Interventions:Liver histology, obtained via mini-laparoscopy, demonstrated lobular hepatitis with markedly increased hepatocyte apoptosis, lymphoplasmatic cell infiltration, and 20% microvascular fat without significant fibrosis, which strengthened the diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH). Pulse steroid treatment with 100 mg prednisolone for 3 days followed by a tapering down was initiated. Follow-up laboratory analysis demonstrated a decrease in liver enzymes and also of the ANA-titer.Outcomes:At that point, hepatitis E virus (HEV) infection was diagnosed with a positive anti-HEV immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibody and HEV-ribonucleotide acid (RNA) of 6280 copies/mL.Lessons:Despite the HEV infection and due to the strength of autoimmunity, we decided to continue immunosuppressive therapy and monitored HEV-PCR regularly. However, HEV-RNA became negative after 2 months and HEV-IgM turned negative after 13 months.

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.

No abstract