The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 946954, 6 pages

doi:10.1100/2012/946954

Research Article

Risk Factors for Infection with Different Hepatitis C Virus Genotypes in Southern Brazil

Marisa Lúcia Romani Paraboni,¹ Marina Dallagasperina Sbeghen,¹ Fernando Herz Wolff,² and Leila Beltrami Moreira2,3,4

¹Universidade Regional Integrada Campus Erechim, Erechim, Brazil

²National Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS)-CNPq, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

³Post-Graduate Program in Medicine (Epidemiology)-Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil

⁴Pharmacology Department, Ciências Básicas da Saúde Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Received 23 January 2012; Accepted 19 February 2012

Academic Editors: G. A. Abrams, A. Arminio Monforte, H. Fickenscher, and S. Litvak

Copyright © 2012 Marisa Lúcia Romani Paraboni et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Objectives. To investigate the proportion of different genotypes in countryside microregions in southern Brazil, and their association with risk factors. Methods. Cross-sectional study including a convenience sample of patients who tested positive for HCV-RNA and were referred to a regional health center for genotyping, from December 2003 to January 2008. Data were obtained through the National Disease Surveillance Data System, from laboratory registers and from patient charts. Identification of genotypes was carried out using the Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism “in house” technique. Independent associations with genotypes were evaluated in multinomial logistic regression and prevalence rates of genotypes were estimated with modified Poisson regression. Results. The sample consisted of 441 individuals, years old, 56.5% men. Genotype 1 was observed in 41.5% (95% CI 37.9–48.1) of patients, genotype 2 in 19.3% (95% CI 15.0–23.6), and genotype 3 in 39.2% (95% CI 35.6–43.0). HCV genotype was significantly associated with gender and age. Dental procedures were associated with higher proportion of genotype 2 independently of age, education, and patient treatment center. Conclusions. The hepatitis C virus genotype 1 was the most frequent. Genotype 2 was associated with female gender, age, and dental procedure exposition.

1. Background

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) was identified in 1989 and has been considered a major cause of chronic liver disease worldwide [1]. There is a great variability in its geographical distribution, associated to the degree of nation development. High prevalence is found in Africa and Asia, in opposite to low-prevalence areas localized in industrialized nations in North America, north and west Europe, and Australia [2–4]. In Brazil, according to the World Health Organization, the estimated prevalence ranges from 2.5 to 4.9% [5].

Transmission of HCV has been mainly related to intravenous drug use since blood products transmission has decreased in most developed countries. On the other hand, contaminated injection equipment appears to be the major risk factor for HCV infection in several countries and sharing personal hygiene objects might explain the transmission of virus C to those not infected by the usual routes [6]. The distribution of different genotypes also varies according to the studied population and viral transmission risk factors. In studies from Spain there is a predominance of genotypes 1a and 1b [7, 8] while in other European regions genotype 2 is usually the most prevalent [4, 9–11]. Genotype 1 predominates in Central America [12], and in Latin-American countries such as Argentina [13, 14] and Venezuela [15] genotypes 1 and 2 account for 90% of cases. In Brazil, genotypes 1 and 3 are the most frequent [16, 17], but in Da Silva et al. study [18] almost half of the hepatitis C patients from South of Brazil were infected by genotypes 2 and 3. In this study we investigated the proportion of different genotypes in countryside microregions of a state in southern Brazil, and their association with sociodemographic characteristics and HCV infection risk factors.

2. Methods

A cross-sectional study included a nonprobabilistic sample of patients under followup at the HCV program of Brazilian Public Health System, in countryside cities of southern Brazil. Patients from the Brazilian Public Health System, who tested positive for anti-HCV, were referred for genotyping, from December 2003 to January 2008, to a main regional health center in the southernmost state of Brazil. Genotyping was routinely performed to choose the recommended treatment according HCV genotype. HCV-RNA was carried out as a confirmatory test and the samples of all patients genotyped at the central laboratory in the period were included consecutively.

Retrospective data collection was carried out and included demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, exposure and behavioral risks factors. Data were obtained through the National Disease Surveillance Data System (SINAN), laboratory registers and from patient charts at their cities of origin. Researchers were trained before data collection start, and quality control was performed by random repetition of data collection in 10% of the sample.

Identification of genotypes was carried out using the Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism “in house” technique [19], which uses universal primers and real time-polymerase chain reaction to amplify specific genomic sequences and it compares to strip hybridization. Next, DNA fragments of different sizes are generated by enzymatic restriction digestion, which recognizes specific cleavage sites for each genotype. This method allows differentiation of genotypes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 [20]. Preanalytic quality control included the sample and the reagents preparation, amplification and detection, and environment control.

The study has been performed according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of Passo Fundo University, Brazil. Regional health centers consented with the study, and an agreement on data use was signed.

A sample size of 384 individuals was necessary to estimate a genotype 1 prevalence of 50%, with a 95% confidence interval and a 10% prevalence variation. Considering the less expected genotype 2, 292 patients would be necessary to determine 5% ±5 prevalence.

Data was described using frequency and central tendency measures, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated when applicable. Associations between risk factors and genotype were analyzed using chi-square. To identify independent associations with genotype we used multinomial logistic regression. Models were tested taking into account variables with a value < 0.20 on the crude analysis, and those that remained independently associated with the genotype were included in the final model. To explore risk factors that could be associated with the prevalence of genotype 2, genotypes 1 and 3 were grouped in the reference category, and adjusted prevalence ratio was calculated using modified Poisson regression, in a model that included the same variables as the multinomial logistical regression.

3. Results

From December 1st 2003 to January 28th 2008, 411 patients HCV-RNA positive were submitted to genotyping. Mean age was 41.1±12.0 years, 56.5% were men and most patients (73.9%) were from the health regional coordination of Passo Fundo, a medium size city in south of Brazil.

The proportions of genotypes were 41.5% (95% CI 37.9–48.1, ) for type 1 (55 subtype 1a and 41 subtype 1b), 19.3% (95% CI 15.0–23.6, ) for type 2, and 39.3% (95% CI 35.6–43.0, ) for type 3. There was a difference in genotype 2 distribution when comparing health centers, with higher genotype 2 prevalence in the largest city (22.7% versus 9.6%; ). Table 1 presents the genotype distribution according to sociodemographic characteristics and risk factors. Data regarding genotype, gender, and age were obtained for all patients. Some other variables were lost due to incomplete notification form filling. Genotype 1 was the most prevalent among men, while among women it was genotype 3 (). Patients carrying genotype 2 were older (52.2 ± 12.8 years for type 2, versus 43.6 ± 11.2 years for type 1 and 45.6 ± 11.5 years for type 3; ), and the prevalence of nonwhite subjects was lower than in other groups (3.6% in type 2, versus 13.1% in type 1 and 6.6% in type 3). Among several established risk factors for HCV infection, use of intravenous and inhalation drugs, surgical treatment, and dental procedures were associated to the genotype (Table 2). On the multinomial regression, older age, history of dental procedure, and higher education increased the risk for infection by genotype 2 (Table 3). Adjusted prevalence ratios are shown in Figure 1. Dental procedure was associated with higher prevalence of genotype 2 independently of age, education and of which treatment center patient came from.

Table 1: Sociodemographic characteristics of hepatitis C virus infected patients according to genotype.

Characteristics
*
Genotype 1
Genotype 2
Genotype 3
value

(%)
(%)
(%)

Male
249
116 (46.6)
40 (16.1)
93 (37.3)
0.028

Female
192
67 (34.9)
45 (23.4)
80 (41.7)

White color
389
152 (39.1)
81 (20.8)
156 (40.1)
0.012

Nonwhite color
38
24 (63.1)
3 (7.9)
11 (28.9)

Education

0.079

    0–3 years
54
24 (44.4)
14 (25.9)
16 (29.6)

    4–11 years
220
89 (40.5)
38 (17.3)
93 (42.3)

    College
57
22 (38.6)
18 (31.6)
17 (29.8)

Age
441

<0.001

    18–40 years
79 (51.1)
18 (11.6)
58 (37.4)

    >40–60 years
92 (39.9)
51 (21.6)
93 (39.4)

    >60 years
12 (24.0)
16 (32.0)
22 (44.0)

Table 2: Genotype distribution according to risk factors among hepatitis C virus-infected patients from the countryside of southern Brazil ( and %).

Risk factors
N *
Genotype 1
Genotype 2
Genotype 3
P value*

Blood transfusion
397

0.160

    Yes

50 (36.5)
33 (24.1)
54 (39.4)

    No

118 (45.4)
46 (17.7)
96 (36.9)

Use of IV medication
393

0.199

    Yes

68 (41.7)
39 (23.9)
56 (34.4)

    No

95 (41.3)
40 (17.4)
95 (41.3)

Acupuncture
393

0.726

    Yes

4 (30.8)
3 (23.1)
6 (46.2)

    No

163 (41.5)
79 (20.1)
151 (38.4)

Hemodialysis
390

0.510

    Yes

4 (30.8)
2 (15.4)
7 (53.8)

    No

157 (41.6)
77 (20.4)
143 (37.9)

Exposure to blood or organic secretions
391

0.119

    Yes

26 (31.7)
19 (23.2)
37 (45.1)

    No

137 (44.3)
58 (18.8)
114 (36.9)

Tatoo
393

0.207

    Yes

25 (46.3)
6 (11.1)
23 (42.6)

    No

138 (40.7)
73 (21.5)
128 (37.8)

Use of injection drugs
394

0.032

    Yes

38 (53.5)
7 (9.9)
26 (36.6)

    No

129 (39.9)
71 (22.0)
123 (38.1)

Surgical treatment
393

0.023

    Yes

81 (39.5)
52 (25.4)
72 (35.1)

    No

82 (43.6)
27 (14.4)
79 (42.0)

Piercing
393

0.643

    Yes

4 (40.0)
1 (10.0)
5 (50.0%)

    No

159 (41.5)
78 (20.4)
146 (38.1)

Inhalation drug
389

0.028

    Yes

32 (53.3)
5 (8.3)
23 (38.3)

    No

130 (39.5)
73 (22.2)
126 (38.3)

Dental procedure
394

0.010

    Yes

72 (36.7)
51 (26.0)
73 (37.2)

    No

92 (46.5)
28 (14.1)
78 (39.4)

Transplant
391

0.287

    Yes

1 (25.0)
0 (0.0)
3 (75.0)

    No

161 (41.6)
79 (20.4)
147 (38.0)

Percutaneous accident
389

0.979

    Yes

7 (43.8)
3 (18.8)
6 (37.5)

    No

154 (41.3)
75 (20.1)
144 (38.6)

-square test; IV: intravenous.

Table 3: Risk factors for genotype 1 and for genotype 3 compared to genotype 2 in patients with HCV infection in the countryside of southern Brazil.

RR
95% CI
*

Genotype 1

Age
0.94
0.91–0.96
<0.001

Education

    0–3 years
2.38
0.81–6.57
0.095

    4–11 years
1.94
0.89–4.25
0.096

    ≥12 years
1

Dental procedure

    Yes
0.37
0.19–0.70
0.002

    No
1

Genotype 3

Age
0.95
0.92–0.97
<0.001

Education

    0–3 years
1.98
0.69–5.73
0.206

    4–11 years
2.69
1.21–5.98
0.016

    ≥12 years
1

Dental procedure

    Yes
0.48
0.25–0.93
0.029

    No
1

*Multinomial regression adjusted for age, education, skin color, and dental procedure.

Figure 1: Prevalence ratio for genotype type 2 in patients with hepatitis C in southern Brazil.

4. Discussion

In this study we observed prevalence of genotypes 1, 2, and 3 of 41.5%, 19.3%, and 39.2%, respectively, which are not the same as observed in other regions of the country and the world. A study conducted in Spanish health centers [7] described a higher proportion of genotype 1 (65.4%) and only 3.1% of genotype 2. In Poland [9] there is a genotype 1 percentage much similar to the one found in this study, but with a higher genotype 2 (37.8%) and a lower genotype 3 (23.4%) proportion. In south India genotype 1 was found in only 18.8% of population, and genotype 3 was higher (62.2%) than in this study [24]. Of 284 samples from the III National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, conducted in North and Central America, 275 were genotyped [25]. As in our study, genotype 1 was the most common one, but with an even higher prevalence (78.2%; 1a = 51.6% and 1b = 26.6%). Genotypes 2 (12.7%; 2a = 2.9 and 2b = 9.8) and 3 (6.2%) were less common, and genotypes 4 and 6 were also detected (1.1% and 1.8%, resp.). In Latin America countries such as Argentina and Venezuela, genotypes 1 and 2 account for almost 90% of cases [13–15].

In Brazil (Table 4), a study [21] with 1.668 samples collected between 1995 and 2000 in laboratories from different regions detected genotypes 1 (64.9%), 2 (4.6%), 3 (30.2%), 4 (0.2%), and 5 (0.1%). Proportions of each genotype were significantly different according to each region, but genotype 1 was always the most common (51.2% to 74.1%). The south region showed a lower proportion of genotype 1, when compared to other regions (51.2% versus 57.0 to 74.1%, ), and a higher proportion of genotype 3 (40.3% versus 24.7 to 31.6%). This pattern of distribution is similar to the one we found in the present study. Another study [22] with patients from several healthcare centers in Brazil included more participants, being 81% from public institutions and 19% from private practice. Patients mean age was 46 years, 62% were male and 80% were white. Genotypes 1 (64%), 2 (1.3%), 3 (33%), and 4 (1.7%) were identified. Most patients were from the south and southeast regions, and only 4% were from the northeast. Once again, there is a higher proportion of genotype 3 in the south compared to north and northeast (44% versus 27% and 26%). Genotype 1 was found in 51% of samples from southeast region and in 71% of samples from the northeast. Genotype 2 was detected in only 2% of samples from northeast and southeast, and in 5% of samples from the south. In the central-west region the prevalence of genotype 2 was higher (11.4%), but it was still lower than the one we found in our study (19.3%), which included only countryside cities. Our findings also differ from two studies conducted in Porto Alegre, the capital of state. The first was a retrospective study with 400 patients under treatment [23] from 1999 to 2000, which described a similar genotype distribution among men and women and a low prevalence of genotype 2 (41.3% of genotype 1, 5.0% of genotype 2, and 53.7% of genotype 3). In the second study [6], genotype 1 was diagnosed in 81.5% of coinfected outpatients in a HIV/AIDS reference center of the Brazilian public health system and was associated with male gender. The study recorded only 1.7% of genotype 2. The higher prevalence of genotype 3 among women found in our study can be explained by the older age of this group, since genotype 3 showed a positive and independent association with age.

Table 4: Proportional HCV genotype distribution according to Brazilian studies.

Study

Region
Genotypes (%)

1
2
3
4
5

Campiotto et al. [21]
85
North
74.1
1.2
24.7
0
0

237
Northeast
66.6
2.9
30.4
0
0

79
Center-west
57.0
11.4
31.6
0
0

1111
Southeast
59.6
3.8
28.4
0.3
0.2

176
South
51.2
8.0
40.3
0
0

1688
Total
64.9
4.6
30.2
0.2
0.1

Focaccia et al. [22]
121
Northeast
71.0
2.0*
27.0
NI
0

705
Southeast
72.0
2.0*
26.0
NI
0

522
South
51.0
5.0*
44.0
NI
0

1348
Total
64.0
1.3
33.0
1.7
0

Alves et al. [23]
400
Porto Alegre-RS
41.3
5.0
53.7
0
0

Wolff et al. [6]
173
Porto Alegre-RS
81.5
1.7
16.2
0
0

2 plus 4; NI: not informed.

In Venezuela, increasing genotype 2 prevalence was described, rising from 26% in 1994–96 to 41% in 2005-06 [15]. A study conducted in Yucatãn, Mexico [26], described a genotype 2 prevalence of 33.3% significantly associated with family history of liver disease. Factors positively associated with genotype 2 in our study were age, higher education, and history of dental procedures. These characteristics may indicate a higher socioeconomic level, suggesting a specific risk profile. Genotype 2 among patients from Passo Fundo may be associated to socioeconomic and cultural differences in comparison to other smaller cities in the region. Although dental treatment is a known risk factor for hepatitis B [27], dental procedures include surgical treatment which represents a potential for HCV transmission through contaminated injection equipment. Even oral cavity examination might be involved, since it was found that sharing personal hygiene objects might explain the transmission of HCV [6].

Viral load has crucial relevance on the viral transmission. On crude analysis, there was a statistically significant association between genotype and risk factors for HCV transmission, as the use of injection and inhalation drugs, surgical treatment and dental procedures. Despite infected patients with history of previous exposition to those factors being more commonly infected by genotype 1, genotype 2 was relatively more frequent in participants with history of dental procedure (26%) in comparison to other risk factors (Table 1). These findings differ from studies with drug users in Poland [9] and Siberia [28], which recorded association between dental procedures and HCV genotype 1. But it agrees with a study from Lybia that recorded high incidence of the genotype 2 after surgery and dental procedure [29].

HCV genotype is a predictive factor to antiviral treatment response. There are clear evidence [30] indicating that genotypes 1 and 4 are associated to poor interferon response, either in single therapy or combined with ribavirin, the opposite being true for genotypes 2 and 3 treated for 24 weeks. Best treatment results, measured by viral parameters, are reached within 48 weeks for patients with genotype 2 or 3, while patients with genotype 1 need one year of treatment. Therefore, long-term benefits of HCV treatment may be estimated based on the characteristics of the treated population.

Since HCV treatment has high costs and is provided by the public health care system for all Brazilian citizens, we believe that almost all HCV positive patients from that regional population were included in the studied sample, but they may be representative of the lower income population. Although disease register is mandatory, occasionally the form was incompletely filled, causing loss of epidemiologic information and a limitation of our study. The method limitation to identify genotype subtypes deserves mention, but this was not an aim of the study and it is still the method performed in the Brazilian health system and the only one offered by the public system, in the place where the study was conducted.

In conclusion, in a region from south Brazil the most common HCV genotype was type 1, followed by type 3, in accordance to previous reports, but the proportion of genotype 2 was higher than expected and was significantly associated to history of dental procedures and older age.

Conflict of Interests

The authors report no commercial association or any other potential conflict of interests.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval was gained from Ethics Committee of Passo Fundo University.

References

N. Bostan and T. Mahmood, “An overview about hepatitis C: a devastating virus,” Critical Reviews in Microbiology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 91–133, 2010.

G. L. Armstrong, A. Wasley, E. P. Simard, G. M. McQuillan, W. L. Kuhnert, and M. J. Alter, “The prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection in the United States, 1999 through 2002,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 144, no. 10, pp. 705–714, 2006.

C. W. Shepard, L. Finelli, and M. J. Alter, “Global epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection,” Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 558–567, 2005.

T. Sy and M. M. Jamal, “Epidemiology of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection,” International Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 41–46, 2006.

World Health Organization, “Hepatitis C—global prevalence,” Weekly Epidemiological Record, vol. 75, pp. 17–28, 2000.

F. H. Wolff, S. C. Fuchs, N. N. T. Barcellos et al., “Co-infection by Hepatitis C virus in HIV-infected patients in Southern Brazil: genotype distribution and clinical correlates,” PLoS One, vol. 5, no. 5, Article ID e10494, 2010.

J. M. Echevarría, P. León, F. Pozo, and A. Avellón, “Follow-up of the prevalence of hepatitis C virus genotypes in Spain during a nine-year period (1996–2004),” Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiologia Clinica, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 20–25, 2006.

M. Del Carmen Ramos-Sánchez and F. J. Martín-Gil, “Changes in the distribution of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotypes over the 1999 2010 period in Northern Valladolid, Spain,” Revista Espanola de Salud Publica, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 227–230, 2011.

S. Chlabicz, R. Flisiak, O. Kowalczuk et al., “High prevalence of genotype 4 among hepatitis C virus-infected intravenous drug users in North-Eastern Poland,” Journal of Medical Virology, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 615–618, 2008.

A. Maieron, S. Metz-Gercek, F. Hackl et al., “Chronic hepatitis C in Austria, 1992–2006: genotype distribution and demographic factors,” Euro Surveillance, vol. 15, no. 8, Article ID 19492, 2010.

M. Micalessi, C. Gerard, L. Ameye, S. Plasschaert, B. Brochier, and R. Vrankx, “Distribution of hepatitis C virus genotypes among injecting drug users in contact with centers in Belgium, 2004-2005,” Journal of Medical Virology, vol. 80, pp. 640–645, 2008.

A. I. Burguete-García, C. J. Conde-González, R. Jiménez-Méndez et al., “Hepatitis C seroprevalence and correlation between viral load and viral genotype among primary care clients in Mexico,” Salud Pública de México, vol. 53, supplement 1, pp. S7–S12, 2011.

V. Ré, M. Contigiani, C. F. T. Yoshida, and E. Lampe, “Identification of hepatitis C virus subtype 2c by sequencing analysis in patients from Córdoba, Argentina,” Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, vol. 102, no. 8, pp. 995–998, 2007.

V. Re, E. Lampe, C. F. Yoshida et al., “Hepatitis C virus genotypes in Cordoba, Argentina. Unexpected high prevalence of genotype 2,” Medicina, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 205–210, 2003.

F. H. Pujol and C. L. Loureiro, “Replacement of hepatitis C virus genotype 1b by genotype 2 over a 10-year period in Venezuela,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 518–520, 2007.

A. B. Oliveira-Filho, A. S. C. Pimenta, M. F. M. Rojas et al., “Prevalence and genotyping of hepatitis C virus in blood donors in the state of Pará, Northern Brazil,” Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, vol. 105, no. 1, pp. 103–106, 2010.

A. G. Vigani, M. H. Pavan, R. Tozzo et al., “Comparative study of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection due to genotypes 1 and 3 referred for treatment in southeast Brazil,” BMC Infectious Diseases, vol. 8, article 164, 2008.

C. M. D. Da Silva, C. Costi, L. P. Krug et al., “High proportion of hepatitis C virus genotypes 1 and 3 in a large cohort of patients from Southern Brazil,” Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, vol. 102, no. 7, pp. 867–870, 2007.

F. Davidson, P. Simmonds, J. C. Ferguson et al., “Survey of major genotypes and subtypes of hepatitis C virus using RFLP of sequences amplified from the 5' non-coding region,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 1197–1204, 1995.

X. Forns and J. Costa, “HCV virological assessment,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. S35–S39, 2006.

S. Campiotto, J. R. R. Pinho, F. J. Carrilho et al., “Geographic distribution of hepatitis C virus genotypes in Brazil,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 41–49, 2005.

R. Foccacia, D. C. M. Baraldo, M. L. G. Ferraz, A. L. C. Martinelli, F. R. Gonçalves Jr., and M. L. A. Pedro, “Demographic and antropometrical analysis and genotype distribution of cronic pacientes treated in public and private reference centers in Brazil,” Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 8, pp. 348–355, 2004.

A. V. Alves, A. P. D. C. De Azevedo, C. Perin et al., “Interferon-α and ribavirin therapy on chronic hepatitis C virus infection: the experience of Rio Grande do Sul State Health Department, Brazil,” Arquivos de Gastroenterologia, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 227–232, 2003.

S. Raghuraman, R. V. Shaji, G. Sridharan et al., “Distribution of the different genotypes of HCV among patients attending a tertiary care hospital in south India,” Journal of Clinical Virology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 61–69, 2003.

O. V. Nainan, M. J. Alter, D. Kruszon-Moran et al., “Hepatitis C virus genotypes and viral concentrations in participants of a general population survey in the United States,” Gastroenterology, vol. 131, no. 2, pp. 478–484, 2006.

B. M. García-Montalvo and P. L. Galguera-Colorado, “Distribution of hepatitis C virus genotypes, risk factors and liver disease in patients from Yucatán, México,” Annals of Hepatology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 345–349, 2008.

M. Artini, G. L. Scoarughi, R. Papa et al., “Specific anti cross-infection measures may help to prevent viral contamination of dental unit waterlines: a pilot study,” Infection, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 467–471, 2008.

A. V. Shustov, G. V. Kochneva, G. F. Sivolobova et al., “Molecular epidemiology of the hepatitis C virus in Western Siberia,” Journal of Medical Virology, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 382–389, 2005.

W. A. Alashek and M. Altagdi, “Risk factors and genotypes of hepatitis C virus infection in Libyan patients,” Libyan Journal of Medicine, vol. 3, no. 4, 2008.

M. Torres-Puente, J. M. Cuevas, N. Jiménez-Hernández et al., “Genetic variability in hepatitis C virus and its role in antiviral treatment response,” Journal of Viral Hepatitis, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 188–199, 2008.