# Hepatitis C virus infection and risk factors among patients and health-care workers of Ain Shams University hospitals, Cairo, Egypt

Wagida Anwar, Maha El Gaafary, Samia Girgis, Mona Rafik, Wafaa Hussein, Dalia Sos, Isis Mossad, Arnaud Fontanet, Laura Temime

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

► To cite this version:

Wagida Anwar, Maha El Gaafary, Samia Girgis, Mona Rafik, Wafaa Hussein, et al.. Hepatitis C virus infection and risk factors among patients and health-care workers of Ain Shams University hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. PLoS ONE, 2021, 16 (2), pp.e0246836. 10.1371/journal.pone.0246836. hal-03201357

HAL Id: hal-03201357

https://cnam.hal.science/hal-03201357

Submitted on 6 May 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Hepatitis C virus infection and risk factors among patients and health-care workers of Ain Shams University hospitals, Cairo, Egypt

Wagida A. Anwar¹, Maha El Gaafary¹, Samia A. Girgis², Mona Rafik², Wafaa M. Hussein¹, Dalia Sos¹, Isis M. Mossad¹, Arnaud Fontanet³,⁴, Laura Temime⁵

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

1 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Community, Environmental and Occupational Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, 2 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Pathology, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, 3 Emerging diseases epidemiology Unit, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France, 4 PACRI Unit, Institut Pasteur, Conservatoire national des arts et métiers, Paris, France, 5 Modélisation, Epidémiologie et Surveillance des Risques Sanitaires (MESuRS), Conservatoire national des arts et métiers, Paris, France

* laura.temime@lecnam.net

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Anwar WA, El Gaafary M, Girgis SA, Rafik M, Hussein WM, Sos D, et al. (2021) Hepatitis C virus infection and risk factors among patients and health-care workers of Ain Shams University hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. PLoS ONE 16(2): e0246836. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246836

**Editor:** Heidi E. Drummer, Macfarlane Burnet Institute for Medical Research and Public Health, Australia, AUSTRALIA

**Received:** July 27, 2020

**Accepted:** January 26, 2021

**Published:** February 8, 2021

**Copyright:** © 2021 Anwar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data analysed in this study is available upon request only. Indeed, de-identified data cannot be publicly shared, as our study involves sensitive data on human participants (including their HCV status and reasons for being hospitalized), and could be indirectly identifying based on age, gender, profession, education level, place of residence and the fact that participants were hospitalized over a specified time period. These restrictions have been

## Background

Hospitals are suspected of playing a key role in HCV epidemic dynamics in Egypt. This work aimed at assessing HCV prevalence and associated risk factors in patients and health-care workers (HCWs) of Ain Shams University (ASU) hospitals in Cairo.

## Methods

We included 500 patients admitted to the internal medicine or surgery hospital from Febru-
ary to July, 2017, as well as 50 HCWs working in these same hospitals. Participants were
screened for anti-HCV antibodies and HCV RNA. A questionnaire was administered to col-
lect data on demographic characteristics and medical/surgical history. For HCWs, questions
on occupational exposures and infection control practices were also included.

## Results

The overall prevalence of anti-HCV antibodies was 19.80% (95% CI: 16.54–23.52) among participating patients, and 8.00% (95% CI: 0.48–15.52) among participating HCWs. In HCWs, the only risk factors significantly associated with anti-HCV antibodies were age and profession, with higher prevalence in older HCWs and those working as cleaners or porters. In patients, in a multivariate logistic regression, age over 50 (aOR: 3.4 [1.9–5.8]), living out- side Cairo (aOR: 2.1 [1.2–3.4]), admission for liver or gastro-intestinal complaints (aOR: 4.2 [1.8–9.9]), and history of receiving parenteral anti-schistosomiasis treatment (aOR: 2.7 [1.2–5.9]) were found associated with anti-HCV antibodies.

## Conclusions

While HCV prevalence among patients has decreased since the last survey performed within ASU hospitals in 2008, it is still significantly higher than in the general population.
underlined by the Committee for biomedical
research (CorC) at Institut Pasteur in Paris, France,
which reviewed our study protocol before the start
of the study; they were also stated in the
information sheets and consent forms distributed
to study participants. Individual data requests may
be sent to the CorC (secr-CORC@pasteur.fr).

**Funding:** This project was funded by INSERM-
ANRS (France Recherche Nord & Sud Sida-HIV
Hépatites) grant number ANRS-12377 awarded to
LT and WA. The funder had no role in study design,
data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.

These results may help better control further HCV spread within healthcare settings in Egypt
by identifying at-risk patient profiles upon admission.

Introduction

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a blood-borne virus and its major routes of transmission include blood transfusion, medical injections and procedures, and injection drug use [1].

Worldwide, according to the World Health Organization, 71 million people are estimated to be chronically infected with HCV and over 350,000 die annually from liver disease caused by HCV [2,3].

Egypt is the country with the highest HCV prevalence worldwide-antibody prevalence in Egypt was estimated at 11.9% in a 2018 meta-analysis [4], and the Egyptian Demographic and Health Surveys (EDHS) measured antibody prevalence among the adult population aged 15-59 years at 14.7% in 2009 [5] and at 10.0% in 2015 [6], substantially higher than the global levels estimated at 1.4% by WHO [2]. This results in 6 million chronically infected individuals in Egypt [7].

The origin of the Egyptian HCV epidemic has been attributed to campaigns for mass treat-
ment of schistosomiasis which took place between 1960 and 1984, when intravenous injections
with antimony salts were given to 3–5 million people older than 6 years of age. Insufficient
sterilization of needles and syringes was considered to be responsible for HCV transmission at
that time [8]. Since HCV-infected individuals may survive for more than 30 years, many per-
sons infected during that period are still alive today. They form an aging cohort from whom
HCV is still spreading to younger generations through a variety of healthcare procedures such
as injections, intravenous catheterization, surgery, etc. [9,10].

Hospitals are suspected of playing a key role in the continuing HCV transmission in Egypt, with previous hospitalization known as a major risk factor for HCV infection in this country [11]. An elevated risk of HCV acquisition among Egyptian hospitalized patients has indeed been documented, for instance in dialysis patients [12]. This is due to the combination of the high frequency of invasive procedures performed on patients, with documented evidence of imperfect compliance with standard precaution recommendations [13], and the over-representation of HCV-infected individuals among hospital patients. For instance, a study conducted in 2008–10 at Ain Shams University hospitals in Cairo found a 42% prevalence of HCV antibodies among the hospital’s patients, also resulting in a high risk of HCV exposure for the hospital staff [14].

In this context, the objectives of this work were to determine an updated estimate of the
prevalence of HCV infection among healthcare workers and adult hospitalized patients in Ain
Shams University hospitals, as well as the associated risk factors.

**Methods**

An observational cross-sectional study was conducted at Ain Shams University Hospitals, as part of the larger project entitled Investigative Mathematical Modeling of Hospital Transmission of Hepatitis C (ANRS 12320 IMMHoTHep). The study targeted health care workers (HCWs) and hospitalized patients at Ain Shams University Hospitals. Study participants were recruited from the surgical and internal medicine hospitals over a 22-week period from February to July, 2017.
## Patients

The inclusion criteria for the participating patients included: age ≥ 21 years, hospital stay exceeding 24 hours, and being admitted to either the surgical or the internal medicine hospital. A sample of 500 hospitalized patients (274 from the surgical hospital and 226 from the internal medicine hospital, in proportion with annual admissions to these respective hospitals) were recruited over the 22-week period from either the outpatient clinic and or the emergency room. Total numbers of recruited patients from each place were distributed to reflect the relative importance of these modes of admission into the surgical and internal medicine hospitals. Each week, two days (from Sunday to Saturday) and times (between 8 AM and 5 PM) were randomly selected to recruit patients. At the first selected time and day, the list of patients admitted within the last 24 hours to the surgery hospital via the surgery outpatient clinic was retrieved, as well as the list of patients admitted to the internal medicine via the internal medicine outpatient clinic. Study participation was then proposed consecutively to the patients on these two lists, starting from the most recently admitted patient and going retrospectively in time until the recruitment target for the week was met for each hospital (4 to 6 patients/hospital/week). Similarly, at the second time and day, the list of patients admitted via the emergency room within the last 24 hours was retrieved. Study participation was then proposed consecutively to patients admitted to the surgery hospital on the one hand, and to patients admitted to the internal medicine hospital on the other hand, going backwards in time until the recruitment targets for the week were met for each hospital (6 to 7 patients/hospital/week).

## HCWs

The inclusion criteria for the participating HCWs included: age ≥ 21 years and working in either the surgical or the internal medicine hospital. A sample of 50 HCWs were recruited over the same 22-week period (27 from the surgical hospital and 23 from the internal medicine hospital, in proportion with annual patient admissions to these respective hospitals). Within each hospital, a pre-defined number of staff from each profession to recruit, along with their planned weeks of recruitment, was determined so that total recruited HCWs reproduced observed percentages of HCWs from each profession, based on administrative 2017 data. Randomly ordered lists of staff from each profession were generated from human resources databases. On each odd week, 2 to 3 HCWs were recruited by proposing study participation consecutively to HCWs of the professions selected for that week in each hospital, until the recruitment targets for the week were met.

## Data collection tools

A structured questionnaire was administered upon inclusion into the study including demographic characteristics of the respondent (whether patient or HCW), medical/surgical history stressing on invasive medical procedures, history of treatment with parenteral anti-schistosomiasis, and previous diagnosis of HCV infection. For HCWs, questions on occupational exposures and infection control practices were also included. These questionnaires were first tested in a pilot study that took place in January 2017 in the same hospitals as the main study.

A blood sample of 5 mL in two tubes was withdrawn from both patients and HCWs to assess the presence of anti-HCV antibodies (chemiluminescent assay) in all study participants at the time of study admission. Participants who tested positive for anti-HCV antibodies were further tested for HCV RNA (RT-PCR).

## Ethical considerations

Approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine of Ain Shams University (Ain Shams-IRB) was obtained. Questionnaires were anonymous and confidentiality of
data was ensured, with only persons involved in the study management having access to the
medical files of included participants. A written consent was obtained from all persons partici-
pating in the research after explanation of the objectives, nature, benefits and constraints of
the research. Study participants had the right to withdraw from the research at any time. Ethi-
cal approval from Sheffield University, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR) was
also obtained. All guidelines, including treating data as confidential and not making effort to
identify participants, were respected. Good clinical practice certification was provided to all
investigators after the conduction of a training session.

Sample size

As mentioned before, this work is actually a sub-study of the IMMHoTHep study that aims at better understanding patient care pathways within the hospital, with a focus on invasive procedures and moves between hospital wards and departments. Sample size was chosen in the context of this larger study, for which discussions with health practitioners from Ain Shams hospitals suggested that including 500 patients over a 6-month period would allow us to observe a wide array of different patient trajectories. Regarding HCWs, IMMHoTHep mostly aimed at deriving a qualitative picture of their working patterns and infection control practices, based on direct observations sessions; in this regard, only 50 HCWs were included.

Statistical analysis

Data analysis was performed using the R software (Version 4.0.0). Data analysis included descriptive statistics of the study sample reported as frequency and percentages for categorical variables; and as means and standard deviations for continuous variables. HCV antibody and HCV RNA prevalence with their 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Pearson Chi-square/Fisher exact tests were used to compare HCV status between groups.

Explanatory variables included: age as categorical variable, gender, marital status, place of living, education level, history of parenteral anti-schistosomiasis treatment (PAT), history of surgical intervention; history of invasive medical procedures (intravenous catheterization, sutures, blood transfusion, blood sampling, injection, endoscopy, gastric lavage, cardiac catheterization, dialysis and wound dressing) in participants with history of hospitalization; and history of occupational exposure (sharp cuts, syringe injuries, blood exposure incidents) and infection control practices (gloves, gowns, face masks, goggles) in HCWs.

A logistic regression analysis was carried out to assess the risk factors significantly associated with HCV antibody status in patients. Variables with p-values ≤ 0.05 were introduced simultaneously in a multivariate logistic regression model. The final model was obtained by removing variables with the highest p-values one by one and using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) to assess which model fit the data best. The model with the lowest AIC value was selected as the best model. The goodness of fit of this model was then assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and its discriminating power was assessed from the area under the receiver-operating curve (AUC).

Considering the low number of included HCWs, for the HCW data no multivariate analysis
was attempted and Firth's bias reduction method was applied when estimating unadjusted
odds-ratios and their confidence intervals from penalized logistic regression [15].

Results

Characteristics of participants

Tables 1 and 2 show the characteristics of the 500 patient participants and 50 HCW partici-
pants to the study. Overall, 55% of the participants were recruited from the surgery hospital
<table><caption>Table 1. Socio-demographic factors associated with HCV antibody status among participating patients.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Total N = 500</th><th>Positive N = 99<br>N (Row %)</th><th>Negative N = 401<br>N (Row %)</th><th>Crude OR (95%CI)</th><th>p-value<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Hospital</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Surgery hospital</td><td>274</td><td>34 (12.41)</td><td>240 (87.59)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Internal medicine hospital</td><td>226</td><td>65 (28.76)</td><td>161 (71.24)</td><td>2.85 (1.80-4.52)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Admission type</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.172</td></tr><tr><td>Outpatient clinic</td><td>227</td><td>51 (22.47)</td><td>176 (77.53)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Emergency department</td><td>273</td><td>48 (17.58)</td><td>225 (82.42)</td><td>0.74 (0.47-1.14)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Age</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 50</td><td>285</td><td>26 (9.12)</td><td>259 (90.88)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 50</td><td>215</td><td>73 (33.95)</td><td>142 (66.05)</td><td>5.12 (3.13-8.38)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.023</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>212</td><td>32 (15.09)</td><td>180 (84.91)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>288</td><td>67 (23.26)</td><td>221 (76.74)</td><td>1.71 (1.07-2.71)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Marital status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.281</td></tr><tr><td>Single</td><td>71</td><td>10 (14.08)</td><td>61 (85.92)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Married</td><td>374</td><td>75 (20.05)</td><td>299 (79.95)</td><td>1.53 (0.75-3.13)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Widow</td><td>41</td><td>9 (21.95)</td><td>32 (78.05)</td><td>1.72 (0.63-4.65)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Divorced</td><td>14</td><td>5 (35.71)</td><td>9 (64.29)</td><td>3.39 (0.94-12.21)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Place of living</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Cairo</td><td>333</td><td>48 (14.41)</td><td>285 (85.59)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>167</td><td>51 (30.54)</td><td>116 (69.46)</td><td>2.61 (1.67-4.09)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Education level</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Secondary/ University</td><td>200</td><td>28 (14)</td><td>172 (86)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Preparatory at most</td><td>156</td><td>29 (18.59)</td><td>127 (81.41)</td><td>1.4 (0.8-2.47)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Illiterate</td><td>144</td><td>42 (29.17)</td><td>102 (70.83)</td><td>2.53 (1.48-4.33)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Working status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.868</td></tr><tr><td>Unemployed/ Retired</td><td>269</td><td>54 (20.07)</td><td>215 (79.93)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Employed</td><td>231</td><td>45 (19.48)</td><td>186 (80.52)</td><td>0.96 (0.62-1.5)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Indication for current admission</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>General surgery<sup>b</sup></td><td>181</td><td>18 (9.94)</td><td>163 (90.06)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Special surgery<sup>b</sup></td><td>101</td><td>15 (14.85)</td><td>86 (85.15)</td><td>1.58 (0.76-3.29)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>General IM<sup>b</sup></td><td>44</td><td>7 (15.91)</td><td>37 (84.09)</td><td>1.71 (0.67-4.4)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Special IM<sup>b</sup></td><td>121</td><td>27 (22.31)</td><td>94 (77.69)</td><td>2.6 (1.36-4.97)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Liver/ GIT complaint</td><td>53</td><td>32 (60.38)</td><td>21 (39.62)</td><td>13.8 (6.62-28.77)*</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

IM: Internal medicine, GIT: Gastro-intestinal.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246836.t001

while the remaining 45% were recruited from the internal medicine hospital, as aimed for to reflect relative admission rates to these two hospitals. The patients' age ranged from 21 to 85 (mean± standard deviation = 45.37 ±16.21), while HCWs were aged 22 to 57 (mean± standard deviation = 36.36 ±10.80). Females comprised 42.40% of the patient participants and 66.00% of HCW participants, and 74.80% of the patient participants (resp. 60.00% of the HCW participants) were married at the time of study.

<footnote>a Chi2/ Fisher exact test.</footnote>

<footnote>b Other than Liver/ GIT symptom/ sign.</footnote>

<footnote>* Indicates statistical significance (p<0.05).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 2. Medical exposures associated with HCV antibody status among participating patients.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Total N = 500</th><th>Positive N = 99<br>N (Row %)</th><th>Negative N = 401<br>N (Row %)</th><th>Crude OR (95%CI)</th><th>P value<sup>a</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>PAT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>460</td><td>76 (16.52)</td><td>384 (83.48)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>40</td><td>23 (57.5)</td><td>17 (42.5)</td><td>6.84 (3.49-13.4)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Surgery</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.905</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>139</td><td>28 (20.14)</td><td>111 (79.86)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>361</td><td>71 (19.67)</td><td>290 (80.33)</td><td>0.97 (0.6-1.58)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Intravenous catheter</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.450</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>152</td><td>27 (17.76)</td><td>125 (82.24)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>348</td><td>72 (20.69)</td><td>276 (79.31)</td><td>1.21 (0.74-1.97)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Sutures</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>260</td><td>50 (19.23)</td><td>210 (80.77)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>240</td><td>49 (20.42)</td><td>191 (79.58)</td><td>1.08 (0.69-1.67)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Blood transfusion</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>403</td><td>66 (16.38)</td><td>337 (83.62)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>97</td><td>33 (34.02)</td><td>64 (65.98)</td><td>2.63 (1.6-4.32)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Blood sample</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.145</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>146</td><td>23 (15.75)</td><td>123 (84.25)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>354</td><td>76 (21.47)</td><td>278 (78.53)</td><td>1.46 (0.88-2.44)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Injection</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.432</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>194</td><td>35 (18.04)</td><td>159 (81.96)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>306</td><td>64 (20.92)</td><td>242 (79.08)</td><td>1.2 (0.76-1.9)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Endoscopy</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>425</td><td>67 (15.76)</td><td>358 (84.24)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>75</td><td>32 (42.67)</td><td>43 (57.33)</td><td>3.98 (2.35-6.73)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gastric lavage</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>&lt;0.001</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>486</td><td>91 (18.72)</td><td>395 (81.28)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>14</td><td>8 (57.14)</td><td>6 (42.86)</td><td>5.79 (1.96-17.09)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>IUD insertion<sup>b</sup></strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.376</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>134</td><td>18 (13.43)</td><td>116 (86.57)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>78</td><td>14 (17.95)</td><td>64 (82.05)</td><td>1.41 (0.66-3.02)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Cardiac catheter</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.253</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>480</td><td>93 (19.38)</td><td>387 (80.63)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>20</td><td>6 (30)</td><td>14 (70)</td><td>1.78 (0.67-4.77)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Dialysis</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>489</td><td>97 (19.84)</td><td>392 (80.16)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>11</td><td>2 (18.18)</td><td>9 (81.82)</td><td>0.9 (0.19-4.22)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Wound dressing</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.864</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>279</td><td>56 (20.07)</td><td>223 (79.93)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>221</td><td>43 (19.46)</td><td>178 (80.54)</td><td>0.96 (0.62-1.5)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Hospitalization</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.149</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>124</td><td>19 (15.32)</td><td>105 (84.68)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>376</td><td>80 (21.28)</td><td>296 (78.72)</td><td>1.49 (0.86-2.58)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>ASU hospital admission</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.011</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>207</td><td>34 (16.43)</td><td>173 (83.57)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>169</td><td>46 (27.22)</td><td>123 (72.78)</td><td>1.9 (1.15-3.14)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Public hospital admission</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.123</td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 2.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Total N = 500</th><th>Positive N = 99</th><th>Negative N = 401</th><th rowspan="2">Crude OR (95%CI)</th><th rowspan="2">P value<sup>a</sup></th></tr><tr><th>N (Row %)</th><th>N (Row %)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>No</td><td>155</td><td>39 (25.16)</td><td>116 (74.84)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>221</td><td>41 (18.55)</td><td>180 (81.45)</td><td>0.68 (0.41–1.11)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Private hospital admission</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.293</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>294</td><td>66 (22.45)</td><td>228 (77.55)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>82</td><td>14 (17.07)</td><td>68 (82.93)</td><td>0.71 (0.38–1.35)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Number of hospitalizations<sup>c</sup></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.196</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>124</td><td>19 (15.32)</td><td>105 (84.68)</td><td>reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Once</td><td>137</td><td>33 (24.09)</td><td>104 (75.91)</td><td>1.75 (0.94–3.28)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&gt; once</td><td>232</td><td>44 (18.97)</td><td>188 (81.03)</td><td>1.29 (0.72–2.33)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

PAT: Parenteral anti-schistosomiasis treatment.

a Chi2/ Fisher exact test.

b In females only.

c Seven patients couldn't remember the number of their past hospitalizations.

* Indicates statistical significance (p<0.05).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246836.t002

75.20% of patient (resp. 70.00% of HCW) participants had been previously hospitalized and 72.20% (resp. 62.00% of HCW) had a history of surgical intervention. Forty (8.00%) patient participants reported receiving PAT and 48 (9.60%) reported having a previous diagnosis of HCV. Fig 1 shows a flow chart of treatment course of the 48 patients who had received previous HCV diagnosis. None of the HCW participants recalled having received PAT, and none reported having been diagnosed with HCV before the study.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Treatment course of patients who received a previous diagnosis of HCV. * Of the 48 patients with previous HCV diagnosis, 43 (89.58%) tested positive for anti HCV in the current study.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246836.g001
Prevalence of anti-HCV positive status and association with risk factors

The overall prevalence of anti-HCV antibodies was 19.80% (95% CI: 16.54–23.52) among par-
ticipating patients, and 8.00% (95% CI: 0.48–15.52) among participating HCWs. Among the
99 patients who were anti-HCV seropositive, 56 (56.57%) had positive viremia, while 2
(50.00%) of the 4 anti-HCV seropositive HCWs had positive viremia, translating as 11.20% of
viremic patients (95% CI: 8.44–13.73) and 4.00% of viremic HCWs (95% CI: 0–9.43) overall.
Interestingly, a previous HCV infection diagnosis was reported by only 43 of the 99 patients
who were found to have anti-HCV antibodies upon hospital admission, and by none of the 4
anti-HCV positive HCWs.

Table 1 shows the association between HCV infection and potential socio-demographic risk factors among patients. Patients admitted to the internal medicine hospital were twice as likely to test positive for anti-HCV antibodies compared to patients admitted to surgery hospital (p < 0.001). The sex-specific prevalence was significantly higher among males (23.26%) than in females 15.09% (p = 0.023). Older age was also significantly associated with positive HCV status (p < 0.001). The mean age of anti-HCV positive patients was 54.35 ±14.46 years, while the mean age of anti-HCV negative patients was 43.16 ±15.86. The most affected age group was the age group ≥ 60 years, especially among men, who had an anti-HCV prevalence of 44.78% (95% CI: 33.48–56.64). Fig 2 depicts the prevalence of anti-HCV positivity by sex

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Prevalence of anti-HCV antibodies by sex and age groups among participating patients.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246836.g002
<table><caption>Table 3. Socio-demographic factors associated with HCV antibody status among participating HCWs.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Total N = 50</th><th>Positive N = 4</th><th>Negative N = 46</th><th rowspan="2">Crude OR (95%CI)<sup>a</sup></th><th rowspan="2">p-value<sup>b</sup></th></tr><tr><th>N (Row %)</th><th>N (Row %)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Age</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.007</td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 50</td><td>43</td><td>1 (2.33)</td><td>42 (97.67)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ 50</td><td>7</td><td>3 (42.86)</td><td>4 (67.14)</td><td>22.04 (2.39–203.57)*</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gender</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1.000</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>33</td><td>3 (5.88)</td><td>30 (94.12)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>17</td><td>1 (9.09)</td><td>16 (90.91)</td><td>0.79 (0.10–6.18)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Marital status</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.641</td></tr><tr><td>Single, widowed or divorced</td><td>20</td><td>1 (5.00)</td><td>19 (95.00)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Married</td><td>30</td><td>3 (10.00)</td><td>27 (90.00)</td><td>1.65 (0.21–12.76)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Place of living</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.560</td></tr><tr><td>Cairo</td><td>41</td><td>3 (7.32)</td><td>38 (92.68)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>9</td><td>1 (11.11)</td><td>8 (88.89)</td><td>1.94 (0.23–16.48)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246836.t003

and age groups. Education level was significantly associated with HCV infection (p = 0.002), with the highest prevalence of anti-HCV seropositivity observed among illiterates at 42.42% (95% CI: 33.15–52.26).

Table 2 shows the association between HCV infection and the history of medical exposures among patients. Patients with a history of anti-schistosomiasis treatment (PAT) had a nearly 7-fold increase in the odds of being anti-HCV positive (p < 0.001). Histories of having had a gastric lavage, having had an endoscopy and receiving blood transfusion were also significantly associated with anti-HCV positivity. A history of hospitalization was not associated with HCV status; however, a relatively higher proportion (58.33%) of patients with a previous admission to ASU hospitals tested positive for anti-HCV antibodies compared to those who had never been admitted to ASU hospitals (p = 0.011).

Tables 3 and 4 present the association between potential socio-demographic and occupational risk factors and HCV infection among participating HCWs. The only factors significantly associated with anti-HCV seropositivity were older age (p = 0.007) and profession (p = 0.002). The mean age of anti-HCV positive HCWs was 51.25 ± 5.38 years, while the mean age of negative HCWs was 35.07 ± 10.18 years. All anti-HCV positive participating HCWs were cleaners or porters, with 40.00% (4 out of 10) participating HCWs from these professions being positive. None of the anti-HCV positive HCWs reported always wearing gloves before contact with non-intact skin (vs. 43.48% of negative HCWs, p = 0.14), or gowns in case of potential contact with body fluids or blood (vs. 54.35% of negative HCWs, p = 0.11). Finally, a higher proportion of anti-HCV positive HCWs had a history of injuring themselves with sharp objects at work (75.00% vs. 34.78% of negative HCWs, p = 0.15). No past medical/hospitalization/surgery exposure was found to be associated with HCV status in HCWs.

## Multivariable analysis of risk factors for anti-HCV status of patients

Eleven variables that had level of significance 0.05 or less in the bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate logistic regression model. The initial full model included: hospital type; age categories; gender; place of living; education level; indication for current admission;

<footnote>a Computed using Firth's penalized logistic regression.</footnote>

<footnote>b Based on a Fisher exact test.</footnote>

<footnote>* Indicates statistical significance (p<0.05).</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 4. Occupational exposure factors associated with HCV antibody status among participating HCWs.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Total N = 50</th><th>Positive N = 4<br>N (Row %)</th><th>Negative N = 46<br>N (Row %)</th><th>Crude OR (95%CI)<sup>a</sup></th><th>p-value<sup>b</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Hospital</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.614</td></tr><tr><td>Surgery hospital</td><td>27</td><td>3 (1.11)</td><td>24 (88.89)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Internal medicine hospital</td><td>23</td><td>1 (4.35)</td><td>22 (95.65)</td><td>0.47 (0.06-3.58)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Profession</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.002</td></tr><tr><td>Doctor (resident or house officer)</td><td>13</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td>13 (100.00)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cleaner or porter</td><td>10</td><td>4 (40.00)</td><td>6 (60.00)</td><td>18.69 (0.77-453.54) *</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Nurse or nurse's aide</td><td>22</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td>22 (100.00)</td><td>0.60 (0.01-36.12)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Technician</td><td>5</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td>5 (100.00)</td><td>2.45 (0.03-184.03)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Other profession (outside ASU hospital)</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.353</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>45</td><td>3 (6.67)</td><td>42 (93.33)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>5</td><td>1 (20.00)</td><td>4 (80.00)</td><td>4.0 (0.40-40.56)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gloves always worn before contact with blood</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>30</td><td>2 (6.67)</td><td>28 (93.33)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>20</td><td>2 (10.00)</td><td>18 (90.00)</td><td>1.54 (0.23-10.16)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gloves always worn before contact with body fluids</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>31</td><td>3 (9.68)</td><td>28 (90.32)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>19</td><td>1 (5.26)</td><td>18 (94.74)</td><td>0.66 (0.09-5.11)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gloves always worn before contact with mucous membranes</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>31</td><td>3 (9.68)</td><td>28 (90.32)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>19</td><td>1 (5.26)</td><td>18 (94.74)</td><td>0.66 (0.09-5.11)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gloves always worn before contact with non-intact skin</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.14</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>30</td><td>4 (13.33)</td><td>26 (86.67)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>20</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td>20 (100.00)</td><td>0.14 (0.01-3.03)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gloves always worn before contact with contaminated equipment</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>32</td><td>4 (12.50)</td><td>28 (87.50)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>18</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td>18 (100.00)</td><td>0.17 (0.01-3.64)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gown always worn in case of potential contact with blood or body fluids</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.11</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>25</td><td>4 (16.00)</td><td>21 (84.00)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>25</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td>25 (25.00)</td><td>0.09 (0.00-1.95)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Goggles always worn in case of potential contact with blood or body fluids</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.41</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>44</td><td>3 (6.82)</td><td>41 (93.18)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>6</td><td>1 (16.67)</td><td>5 (83.33)</td><td>3.23 (0.34-30.39)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Face mask always worn in case of potential contact with blood or body fluids</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>41</td><td>4 (9.76)</td><td>37 (90.24)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>9</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td>9 (100.00)</td><td>0.44 (0.02-10.30)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>History of syringe injury at work</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>16</td><td>1 (6.25)</td><td>15 (93.75)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>34</td><td>3 (8.82)</td><td>31 (91.18)</td><td>1.15 (0.15-9.00)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>History of injury with a sharp object at work</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>31</td><td>1 (3.23)</td><td>30 (96.77)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>19</td><td>3 (15.79)</td><td>16 (84.21)</td><td>4.31 (0.56-33.27)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>History of blood exposure of non-intact skin at work</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>36</td><td>3 (8.33)</td><td>33 (91.67)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>14</td><td>1 (7.14)</td><td>13 (92.86)</td><td>1.06 (0.13-8.45)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Awareness of HCV</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>3</td><td>0 (0.00)</td><td>3 (100.0)</td><td>Reference</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

(Continued)
<table><caption>**Table 4.** (Continued)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Total N = 50</th><th>Positive N = 4<br>N (Row %)</th><th>Negative N = 46<br>N (Row %)</th><th>Crude OR (95%CI)<sup>a</sup></th><th>p-value<sup>b</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>Yes</th><td>47</td><td>4 (8.51)</td><td>43 (91.49)</td><td>0.72 (0.02–25.45)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246836.t004

history of receiving PAT; history of receiving blood transfusion, history of having gastric lavage, history of endoscopy and history of past ASU hospital admission.

During backward elimination, history of having gastric lavage was removed first, followed by history of having endoscopy, then education, then gender, and finally hospital type. The final best model to explain HCV status, presented in Table 5, included: age; place of living; indication for current admission; history of receiving PAT; history of blood transfusion and history of past ASU hospital admission. Significant association was observed between anti-HCV seropositivity and older age, living outside Cairo, Liver/GIT-related current admission and history of PAT. The model had good fit according to the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (P = 0.51), as well as good discrimination (AUC = 0.79 [0.74–0.84]).

<table><caption>**Table 5.** Multiple logistic regression model describing variables associated with anti-HCV status among participating patients.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Risk factors</th><th rowspan="2">Adjusted OR</th><th colspan="2">95% CI of OR</th><th rowspan="2">P value</th></tr><tr><th>Lower limit</th><th>Upper limit</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Age</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&lt; 50</td><td>Reference</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>&ge; 50</td><td>3.36</td><td>1.94</td><td>5.82</td><td>&lt; 0.001*</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Place of living</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cairo</td><td>Reference</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>2.06</td><td>1.23</td><td>3.44</td><td>&lt; 0.001*</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Indication for current admission</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>General surgery</td><td>Reference</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Special surgery</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.40</td><td>1.97</td><td>0.774</td></tr><tr><td>General IM</td><td>1.06</td><td>0.39</td><td>2.92</td><td>0.907</td></tr><tr><td>Special IM</td><td>1.44</td><td>0.71</td><td>2.94</td><td>0.314</td></tr><tr><td>Liver/ GIT complaint</td><td>4.21</td><td>1.78</td><td>9.94</td><td>0.001*</td></tr><tr><td><strong>History of PAT</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>Reference</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>2.67</td><td>1.22</td><td>5.85</td><td>0.014*</td></tr><tr><td><strong>History of Blood transfusion</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>Reference</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1.66</td><td>0.90</td><td>3.03</td><td>0.104</td></tr><tr><td><strong>History of ASU admission</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>Reference</td><td>-</td><td>-</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Yes</td><td>1.41</td><td>0.83</td><td>2.41</td><td>0.206</td></tr></tbody></table>

Dependent variable: anti-HCV antibody status. Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square = 102.02, on 9 df; p-value < 0.001.

IM: Internal medicine, PAT: Parenteral anti-schistosomiasis treatment.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246836.t005

<footnote>a Computed using Firth's penalized logistic regression.</footnote>

<footnote>b Based on a Fisher exact test.</footnote>

<footnote>* Indicates statistical significance (p<0.05).</footnote>

<footnote>*Indicates statistical significance (p<0.05).</footnote>
Discussion

In this study, we described the HCV status and risk factors associated with anti-HCV antibodies among 500 patients admitted to the internal medicine and surgery Ain Shams hospitals in Cairo, Egypt, as well as among 50 HCWs from these two hospitals. We found a 19.80% prevalence of HCV antibodies among participating patients, which is high compared to available estimates among hospital patients from other countries that are typically below 5% [16–21], but in accor- dance with the previously observed high prevalence of HCV among Egyptian hospital patients [14,22]. In participating HCWs, we found a lower prevalence of 8.0%, although this is again higher than estimates from other countries [23–28]. In both groups, older age was strongly asso- ciated with positive HCV status. Among patients, we also found HCV positive status to be associ- ated with living outside Cairo, being admitted for liver problems, having received PAT or a blood transfusion, and a previous admission to Ain Shams University hospitals.

The prevalence we found among HCWs (8.00%) is consistent with that previously esti-
mated in Ain Shams university hospitals by Munier et al. (7.2%, 95% CI: 5.3%-10%) [14] and
by Okasha et al. (8.0%, 95% CI: 6.7%-9.2%) [29]. The higher prevalence found among patients
than among HCWs was also expected, due to the high prevalence of older individuals and fre-
quent at-risk invasive medical exposure in this population, especially in the internal medicine
hospital. However, we found a lower patient prevalence upon admission within the internal
medicine hospital (28.8% (65/226), 95% CI: 22.9%-34.7%) than the prevalence estimated in
2008–2010 in the Munier study among patients of this same hospital (55.6% (75/135), 95% CI:
47.2%-63.9%) [14]. This may simply reflect the overall decreasing prevalence of HCV in Egypt,
due in part to the aging of the cohort that was infected in the 1960’s, as well as to the imple-
mentation of infection control measures through the recently established National Committee
for the Control of Viral Hepatitis.

The risk factors we found for patients are also in line with the findings of earlier epidemiologi-
cal studies. Older age and history of PAT are well-known risk factors of HCV in Egypt [4]. HCV
prevalence is known to vary according to the place of residence in Egypt, with a higher prevalence
in rural governorates [30] where access to treatment and referral centres may also be more of an
issue, explaining why we found living outside Cairo to be a risk factor. In addition, history of
blood transfusion has been identified in 24.3% and needle reuse in 20.6% of HCV-positive cases
in earlier studies [31,32]. It should be noted here that, to limit recall bias in our cross-sectional
study, we did not collect information on the date when these procedures were performed, and
therefore were unable to determine whether older exposures may have been more at-risk than
more recent exposures, potentially reflecting progress in infection control.

The cross-sectional nature of our study also limits the causal interpretation of our results, as
this design allows for reverse causation. In particular, the other procedures we found associ-
ated with HCV seropositivity in the bivariate analyses (endoscopy and gastric lavage) may not
necessarily be predisposing factors for HCV infection. Rather, patients with chronic HCV liver
disease could have specifically undergone these procedures for treatment of a complication
such as hematemesis due to oesophageal varices, which is a common presentation for chronic
HCV patients admitted to hospitals. The same inverse-temporal relationship goes for the asso-
ciation with admission for liver problems, which is probably a consequence of HCV. Finally,
the association we found with history of ASU admission may be due to the fact that ASU hos-
pitals are a referral centre for treatment of HCV liver disease. It could also reflect the fact that
the population that ASU hospitals serve is different from populations from other public or pri-
vate hospitals regarding their HCV prevalence. In the current study, out of 44 ever hospitalized
patients with previous HCV diagnosis, 33 (68.75%) had a history of admission to ASU hospi-
tals (p < 0.001).
In their occupational environment, HCWs are frequently exposed to multiple blood-borne pathogens, including HCV. After residents, nurses and physicians have been shown to be at highest risk of acquiring HCV infection during their daily practice [33]. Previously identified risk factors for HCV infection among HCWs include being female, certain types of profession, the type of ward they work in, the frequency and nature of invasive procedures they perform, the severity of injuries (if any) of the patients they tend and the viral load in HCV-infected patients in that facility [34,35]. Based on the literature, the major route of HCV acquisition in HCWs appears to be needlestick injuries [36]. In Egypt, the number of needlestick injuries was estimated at 4.9 per HCW per year [37], and has been shown to remain high even in recent years [38].

Due to the design of this study, only 50 HCWs were included, leading to a clear lack of statistical power that hindered our full understanding of their HCV status. In addition, in order to limit the length of the study inclusion questionnaires, we chose to focus on a few aspects of infection control practices and knowledge rather than use a longer though validated scale such as the Compliance with Standard Precautions Scale [39]. However, the risk factors we did find to be associated with HCV seropositivity in HCWs are in line with those reported in earlier studies.

Other limitations of our study include its potential lack of generalizability to other hospital specialties beyond internal medicine and surgery (e.g. intensive care unit or obstetrics), non-university hospitals and Egyptian hospitals located outside Cairo. Finally, the questionnaire data we collected may also have been affected by recall bias, possibly causing misclassification of past medical exposures among study participants.

## Conclusions

Over the last decades, many efforts have been implemented in Egypt to control the spread of HCV. In 2008, the National Committee for the Control of Viral Hepatitis developed a National Control Strategy for Viral Hepatitis and established HCV prevention and treatment programs [40]. The committee recommended prevention and education campaigns targeting the general population as well as healthcare workers (HCWs) [41]. Following successful negotiations for 99% discounted direct-acting antiviral agents prices [42], Egypt launched an ambitious national HCV treatment program aiming to treat over 250,000 chronically infected individuals per year, with the goal of achieving a national chronic infection prevalence of <2% by 2025 [43]. Finally, in October 2018, Egypt's Ministry of Health launched the “100 Million Healthy Lives” initiative, which aimed at screening more than 52 million citizens for hepatitis C (HCV). The initiative ended in April 2019 after targeting more than 45 million citizens.

However, in order to fully control HCV in the Egyptian context, better understanding the role played by hospitals and the risks incurred for both hospital patients and HCWs remains crucial. This work may help in this regard, for instance by allowing to identify at-risk patient profiles upon hospital admission, for whom reinforced control measures should be implemented during their entire hospital stay. The importance of defining such criteria is underlined by the high rates of occult infections we found. This work also constitutes the first step in a larger follow-up study, during which both participating patients and HCWs were followed longitudinally in order to assess their risk of HCV acquisition due to exposure to at-risk medical procedures within the hospital.

## Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the hospital staff from Ain Shams University hospitals, especially the nurses who collected the study data. We would also like to thank Larissa Vernier, Anna-Louise Funk and Anca Vasiliu for their help in managing the data collection.
## Author Contributions

**Conceptualization:** Wagida A. Anwar, Arnaud Fontanet, Laura Temime.

**Data curation:** Maha El Gaafary, Mona Rafik, Wafaa M. Hussein, Isis M. Mossad, Laura Temime.

**Formal analysis:** Wafaa M. Hussein, Laura Temime.

**Funding acquisition:** Wagida A. Anwar, Laura Temime.

**Investigation:** Wagida A. Anwar, Maha El Gaafary, Samia A. Girgis, Mona Rafik, Wafaa M. Hussein, Dalia Sos, Isis M. Mossad, Laura Temime.

**Methodology:** Laura Temime.

**Project administration:** Laura Temime.

**Resources:** Samia A. Girgis.

**Software:** Wafaa M. Hussein, Isis M. Mossad.

**Supervision:** Wagida A. Anwar, Arnaud Fontanet, Laura Temime.

**Visualization:** Wafaa M. Hussein, Isis M. Mossad.

**Writing – original draft:** Wagida A. Anwar, Maha El Gaafary, Mona Rafik, Wafaa M. Hussein, Isis M. Mossad.

**Writing – review & editing:** Samia A. Girgis, Dalia Sos, Arnaud Fontanet, Laura Temime.

## References

1. Thursz M, Fontanet A. HCV transmission in industrialized countries and resource-constrained areas. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014; 11(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2013.179 PMID: 24080775

2. World Health Organization. Global hepatitis report 2017: World Health Organization; 2017.

3. World Health Organization. Global Health Estimates 2016: Deaths by Cause, Age, Sex by Country and by Region 2000–2016; 2018. World Health Organization. 2019.

4. Kouyoumjian SP, Chemaitelly H, Abu-Raddad LJ. Characterizing hepatitis C virus epidemiology in Egypt: systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-regressions. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1):1661. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17936-4 PMID: 29374178

5. El-Zanaty F, Way A. Egypt demographic and health survey 2008. Cairo: Egyptian Ministry of Health, 2009.

6. El-Zanaty F, ICF international. Egypt Health Issues Survey 2015. Cairo, Egypt and Rockville, Maryland, USA: Ministry of Health and Population and ICF International, 2016 Contract No.: 4.

7. Cornberg M, Razavi HA, Alberti A, Bernasconi E, Buti M, Cooper C, et al. A systematic review of hepatitis C virus epidemiology in Europe, Canada and Israel. Liver Int. 2011; 31 Suppl 2:30–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-3231.2011.02539.x PMID: 21651702

8. Frank C, Mohamed MK, Strickland GT, Lavanchy D, Arthur RR, Magder LS, et al. The role of parenteral antischistosomal therapy in the spread of hepatitis C virus in Egypt. Lancet. 2000; 355(9207):887–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(99)06527-7 PMID: 10752705

9. Arafa N, El Hoseiny M, Rekacewicz C, Bakr I, El-Kafrawy S, El Daly M, et al. Changing pattern of hepatitis C virus spread in rural areas of Egypt. J Hepatol. 2005; 43(3):418–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2005.03.021 PMID: 16019104

10. Magder LS, Fix AD, Mikhail NN, Mohamed MK, Abdel-Hamid M, Abdel-Aziz F, et al. Estimation of the risk of transmission of hepatitis C between spouses in Egypt based on seroprevalence data. International journal of epidemiology. 2005; 34(1):160–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh370 PMID: 15647312

11. Mohsen A, Bernier A, LeFouler L, Delarocque-Astagneau E, El-Daly M, El-Kafrawy S, et al. Hepatitis C virus acquisition among Egyptians: analysis of a 10-year surveillance of acute hepatitis C. Trop Med Int Health. 2015; 20(1):89–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12410 PMID: 25336067
12. Alduraywish A, Ragheb M, Taher I, Louis N, Aldossari K, Kishk R. Prevalence, risk factors and impact of occult HCV infection on liver morbidity among haemodialysis patients: hospital-based cross-sectional study. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2020; 55(8):963-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2020.1790649 PMID: 32649843

13. Tabash M, Kashkash R, Eljedi A. Compliance of health-care staff toward infection control precautions in hemodialysis units-Gaza governorates. Innovare Journal of Health Sciences. 2018; 6(1):34-40.

14. Munier A, Marzouk D, Abravanel F, El-Daly M, Taylor S, Mamdouh R, et al. Frequent transient hepatitis C viremia without seroconversion among healthcare workers in Cairo, Egypt. PLoS One. 2013; 8(2): e57835. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057835 PMID: 23469082

15. Firth D. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika. 1993; 80:27-38.

16. Torian LV, Felsen UR, Xia Q, Laraque F, Rude EJ, Rose H, et al. Undiagnosed HIV and HCV infection in a New York City emergency department, 2015. American journal of public health. 2018; 108(5):652-8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304321 PMID: 29565667

17. Bielen R, Kremer C, Koc ÖM, Busschots D, Hendrickx DM, Vanelderen P, et al. Screening for hepatitis C at the emergency department: Should babyboomers also be screened in Belgium? Liver International. 2019; 39(4):667-75. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.14016 PMID: 30525269

18. Cieply L, Simmons R, Ijaz S, Kara E, Rodger A, Rosenberg W, et al. Seroprevalence of HCV, HBV and HIV in two inner-city London emergency departments. Epidemiology & Infection. 2019;147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268819000360 PMID: 30869036

19. Bundle N, Balasegaram S, Parry S, Ullah S, Harris RJ, Ahmad K, et al. Seroprevalence and demographic factors associated with hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV infection from a hospital emergency department testing programme, London, United Kingdom, 2015 to 2016. Eurosurveillance. 2019; 24 (27):1800377. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.27.1800377 PMID: 31290390

20. Million Y, Teklu T, Alemu S, Ferede A, Belachew T, Desta K. Hepatitis B and hepatitis C viral infections and associated factors among patients with diabetes visiting gondar referral teaching hospital, North-west Ethiopia: A comparative cross-sectional study. Journal of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. 2019; 6:143. https://doi.org/10.2147/JHC.S222609 PMID: 31632934

21. Pyziak-Kowalska KA, Horban A, Bielecki M, Kowalska J. Missed opportunities for diagnosing viral hepatitis C in Poland. Results from routine HCV testing at the Emergency Department in the Hospital for Infectious Diseases in Warsaw. Clinical and Experimental Hepatology. 2019; 5(4):294. https://doi.org/10.5114/ceh.2019.89148 PMID: 31893241

22. Dahab AA, Youssef MM, Eid HM, Elsadi KW. Reporting the Undiagnosed Cases of Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C Viruses among Patients Undergoing Elective Eye Surgery in a Specialized Eye Hospital in Egypt. Journal of ophthalmology. 2019;2019.

23. Marconi A, Candido S, Talamini R, Libra M, Nicoletti F, Spandidos DA, et al. Prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection among health-care workers: A 10-year survey. Molecular medicine reports. 2010; 3 (4):561-4. https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr_00000297 PMID: 21472279

24. Ganczak M, Korzeń M, Szych Z. Seroprevalence of hepatitis C virus infection among surgical nurses, their patients and blood donation candidates in Poland. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2012; 82(4):266-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2012.08.021 PMID: 23110996

25. Slusarczyk J, Małkowski P, Bobilewicz D, Juszczyk G. Cross-sectional, anonymous screening for asymptomatic HCV infection, immunity to HBV, and occult HBV infection among health care workers in Warsaw, Poland. Przeglad epidemiologiczny. 2012; 66(3):445-51. PMID: 23230715

26. Ramírez-Zamudio L, Castillo-Barradas M. Seroprevalence of the hepatitis C virus in healthcare personnel of the IMSS. Revista de gastroenterologia de Mexico. S0375-906 (20) 30092-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rgmx.2020.06.007 PMID: 32919793

27. Alhamoudi H, Alhalabi N, Zein M, Ibrahim N. Hepatitis C virus antibodies are absent among high risk group of health care workers in Damascus Hospital. Arab journal of gastroenterology. 2018; 19(2):80-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajg.2018.02.012 PMID: 29934266

28. Zafar U, Ammar Hasan BA, Khalid Z, Baig MU, Akram S. The Frequency of Hepatitis C and its Risk Factors Among Health Care Providers at Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Hasilpur, Pakistan. Cureus. 2018; 10(8). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.3176 PMID: 30357086

29. Okasha O, Munier A, Delarocque-Astagneau E, El Houssinne M, Rafik M, Bassim H, et al. Hepatitis C virus infection and risk factors in health-care workers at Ain Shams University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. East Mediterr Health J. 2015; 21(3):199-212. https://doi.org/10.26719/2015.21.3.213 PMID: 26074220

30. Kandeel A, Genedy M, El-Refai S, Funk AL, Fontanet A, Talaat M. The prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection in Egypt 2015: implications for future policy on prevention and treatment. Liver Int. 2017; 37 (1):45-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.13186 PMID: 27275625
31. Ali NK, Mohamed RR, Saleh BE, Alkady MM, Farag ES. Occult hepatitis C virus infection among hae-modialysis patients. Arab J Gastroenterol. 2018; 19(3):101–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajg.2018.09.001 PMID: 30245116

32. Mostafa A, Ebeid FSE, Khaled B, Ahmed RHM. El-Sayed MH. Micro-elimination of hepatitis C through testing of Egyptian pregnant women presenting at delivery: implications for screening policies. Trop Med Int Health. 2020; 25(7):850–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.13404 PMID: 32306545

33. Bosques-Padilla FJ, Vazquez-Elizondo G, Villasenor-Todd A, Garza-Gonzalez E, Gonzalez-Gonzalez JA, Maldonado-Garza HJ. Hepatitis C virus infection in health-care settings: medical and ethical impli-cations. Ann Hepatol. 2010; 9 Suppl:132–40. PMID: 20714010

34. Askarian M, Yadollahi M, Kuochak F, Danaei M, Vakili V, Momeni M. Precautions for health care work-ers to avoid hepatitis B and C virus infection. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2011; 2(4):191–8. PMID: 23022838

35. Yazdanpanah Y, De Carli G, Migueres B, Lot F, Campins M, Colombo C, et al. Risk factors for hepatitis C virus transmission to health care workers after occupational exposure: a European case-control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2005; 41(10):1423–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/497131 PMID: 16231252

36. Sulkowski MS, Ray SC, Thomas DL. Needlestick transmission of hepatitis C. JAMA. 2002; 287 (18):2406–13. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.18.2406 PMID: 11988061

37. Talaat M, Kandeel A, El-Shoubary W, Bodenschatz C, Khairy I, Oun S, et al. Occupational exposure to needlestick injuries and hepatitis B vaccination coverage among health care workers in Egypt. Am J Infect Control. 2003; 31(8):469–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2003.03.003 PMID: 14647109

38. Gabr HM, El-Badry AS, Younis FE. Risk Factors Associated with Needlestick Injuries among Health Care Workers in Menoufia Governorate, Egypt. Int J Occup Environ Med. 2018; 9(2):63–8. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2018.1156 PMID: 29667643

39. Lam SC. Validation and cross-cultural pilot testing of compliance with standard precautions scale: self-administered instrument for clinical nurses. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014; 35(5):547–55. https://doi.org/10.1086/675835 PMID: 24709724

40. Doss W, Mohamed M, Esmat G, El Sayed M, Fontanet A, Cooper S, et al. Egyptian national control strategy for viral hepatitis 2008–2012. In: Arab Republic of Egypt MoHaP, National Committee for the Control of Viral Hepatitis, editor. 2008.

41. Centers for Disease Control Prevention. Progress toward prevention and control of hepatitis C virus infection—Egypt, 2001–2012. MMWR Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 2012; 61(29):545. PMID: 22832935

42. Kim DD, Hutton DW, Raouf AA, Salama M, Hablas A, Seifeldin IA, et al. Cost-effectiveness model for hepatitis C screening and treatment: implications for Egypt and other countries with high prevalence. Global public health. 2015; 10(3):296–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2014.984742 PMID: 25469976

43. Ayoub HH, Abu-Raddad LJ. Impact of treatment on hepatitis C virus transmission and incidence in Egypt: A case for treatment as prevention. J Viral Hepat. 2017; 24(6):486–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/jvh.12671 PMID: 28039923