In the present study, we investigated 50 patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis and 80 healthy controls to evaluate the prevalence of OBI in the two groups. We found a prevalence of 14% in patients with cryptogenic liver cirrhosis. All of our OBI cases were over 40 years of age. No patient in the control group was positive for HBV DNA. There have been several studies addressing the prevalence of OBI in Iran with different results. Honarkar et al. evaluated OBI in liver tissues of 35 cases with liver cirrhosis with different etiologies using tissue PCR and reported a prevalence of 22% (
25). Kaviani et al. reported a prevalence of 1.9% for OBI in 104 patients with cryptogenic chronic hepatitis using real-time PCR (
19). Ramezani et al. reported a prevalence of 3% among 926 high-risk patients, while the prevalence of OBI in the control group was zero (
26). Sofian et al. declared a prevalence of 2.1% for patients with OBI, positive for HBcIgG in 531 blood donors; however, they did not perform PCR for seronegative cases (
27).
In our study, 4 (57%) of seven cases with OBI were negative for HBcAb and HBsAb (seronegative); 1 (2%) of the patients with OBI was positive for anti-HbcIgM, which may be in the window period of acute HBV infection. In this study, we focused on cryptogenic cirrhosis and selected healthy individuals mainly for validation of our tests. Of the control group, 2 (2.5%) were positive for anti-HBcIgG, but both of them were negative for HBV DNA, which was compatible with other studies in Iran. The prevalence of OBI has been investigated in many countries. While Heringlake et al. (
28) did not detect any occult viral infection among 162 presumed cryptogenic liver cirrhosis patients in Germany, Fang et al. (
29) reported 28.8% OBI in 159 Chinese patients. Song et al. from Korea tested 1091 HBsAg-negative adults in the general population and found 7 (0.7%) OBI cases including five anti-HBcAb negative subjects. In agreement with our study, almost all the cases with OBI in that study were over 40 years old (
30). These findings suggest that the epidemiology of OBI is the same as overt HBV infection and national vaccination program may prevent OBI.
Evidences which show high prevalence of OBI among subjects with high-risk behavior support this hypothesis. The prevalence of OBI has been reported to be 41.1% among four drug abuser in Taiwan and 4.5% in female workers in Turkey (
31,
32). Since the viral load in patients with OBI is very low, the estimated prevalence can be affected by the method of HBV DNA testing. Nested PCR is a highly sensitive method for detection of low-level HBV-DNA; it can detect HBV DNA in serum containing more than 19 IU/mL or 0.1 to 0.01 pg/L of HBV-DNA (
7,
33), but may give false positive result due to contamination (
24). We considered a control group to address the possibility of contamination and false positive result. We did not detect any positive HBV DNA result is samples of the control group, so the estimated prevalence in our study was scientifically valid. There are several explanations for persistence of HBV infection without presence of HBsAg in serum samples, including mutation in the S gene causing different or no antigen production (
34-
36), antigen-antibody immune complex formation with secondary reduction in HBsAg titer to undetectable level (
37), HBV-DNA integration into the genome of hepatocytes, and insensitivity of laboratory tests to detect low level antigenemia.
Superimposed or concomitant infection with other viral agents such as HCV and HDV can decrease the HBsAg titer to undetectable levels, and finally in the setting of acute HBV infection, HBS antigen may be undetectable before the appearance of anti-HBsAb (serologic window period) (
38,
39). There are controversial evidences about the role of OBI in progression of liver dysfunction and development of hepatocellular carcinoma (
15). While Covolo et al. (
40) and Ikeda et al. (
41) in separate studies reported an eight-fold increase in the likelihood of chronic liver disease by OBI, Vakili et al. (
42) suggested that OBI may be an insignificant entity. In our study, patients with OBI had statistically non-significant more advanced diseases. For example, they had more frequency, ascites, encephalopathy, and Child C stage of liver cirrhosis (P > 0.05) (
Figure 1). The duration from the diagnosis of liver cirrhosis to the first sign of decompensation was significantly shorter in infected cases (1.47 ± 1.283 years vs. 4.327 ± 3.92 years, P = 0.002, 95% CI = -4.585 to -1.230) (
Table 3). However, the evaluation of these parameters needs greater numbers of positive cases.
In conclusion, our study showed that OBI is common in patients with cryptogenic liver cirrhosis, especially in older patients. It may contribute to rapid progression to liver decompensation; so, we suggest evaluation of cases with cryptogenic liver cirrhosis for OBI. Infected patient should follow closely for complication.
5.1. Study Limitations
Liver biopsy samples were not available for all the cases, so we performed nested-PCR only on serum samples, which may underestimate the prevalence of OBI. The number of positive cases was not sufficient for comparing the clinical implication of OBI on liver cirrhosis.