| Literature DB >> 31587676 |
A Trickey1,2, A Sood3, V Midha3, W Thompson4, C Vellozzi4, S Shadaker4, V Surlikar5, S Kanchi5, P Vickerman1,2, M T May1,2, F Averhoff4.
Abstract
To better understand hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemiology in Punjab state, India, we estimated the distribution of HCV antibody positivity (anti-HCV+) using a 2013-2014 HCV household seroprevalence survey. Household anti-HCV+ clustering was investigated (a) by individual-level multivariable logistic regression, and (b) comparing the observed frequency of households with multiple anti-HCV+ persons against the expected, simulated frequency assuming anti-HCV+ persons are randomly distributed. Village/ward-level clustering was investigated similarly. We estimated household-level associations between exposures and the number of anti-HCV+ members in a household (N = 1593 households) using multivariable ordered logistic regression. Anti-HCV+ prevalence was 3.6% (95% confidence interval 3.0-4.2%). Individual-level regression (N = 5543 participants) found an odds ratio of 3.19 (2.25-4.50) for someone being anti-HCV+ if another household member was anti-HCV+. Thirty households surveyed had ⩾2 anti-HCV+ members, whereas 0/1000 (P < 0.001) simulations had ⩾30 such households. Excess village-level clustering was evident: 10 villages had ⩾6 anti-HCV+ members, occurring in 31/1000 simulations (P = 0.031). The household-level model indicated the number of household members, living in southern Punjab, lower socio-economic score, and a higher proportion having ever used opium/bhuki were associated with a household's number of anti-HCV+ members. Anti-HCV+ clusters within households and villages in Punjab, India. These data should be used to inform screening efforts.Entities:
Keywords: Epidemiology; hepatitis C; serosurvey; statistics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31587676 PMCID: PMC6805795 DOI: 10.1017/S0950268819001705
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Epidemiol Infect ISSN: 0950-2688 Impact factor: 2.451
Fig. 1.The proportion of hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV) positive individuals by socio-economic score (higher score is more affluent), for all participants (with 95% confidence interval), urban participants and rural participants.
Logistic regression odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of hepatitis C virus antibody positivity by individual characteristics (N = 5543 individuals)
| Odds ratio (95% CI) for having anti-HCV | ||
|---|---|---|
| Variable | Unadjusted | Adjusted |
| Another member of household anti-HCV+ | 4.53 (3.28–6.27) | 3.19 (2.25–4.50) |
| Living in rural dwelling | 3.01 (2.07–4.39) | 1.57 (1.02–2.42) |
| Living in the south | 3.25 (2.23–4.73) | 2.60 (1.75–3.87) |
| Age (years) | 1.03 (1.02–1.03) | 1.02 (1.01–1.03) |
| Male | 1.28 (0.94–1.73) | |
| Medical risks | ||
| Ever had surgery | 1.54 (1.14–2.09) | |
| Ever had a medical procedure | 2.20 (1.23–3.92) | |
| Ever had a dental procedure | 1.62 (1.20–2.19) | |
| Had a medical injection in the last 6 months | 1.48 (1.09–2.01) | |
| Ever had a streptomycin injection | 2.40 (1.01–5.72) | |
| Ever received blood | 1.96 (1.21–3.18) | |
| Ever been hospitalised | 1.43 (1.05–1.95) | |
| Medical risk score | 1.31 (1.18–1.46) | 1.17 (1.02–1.33) |
| Socio-economic indicators | ||
| Receiving water through a tube well | 2.25 (1.66–3.04) | |
| Certified healthcare | 0.53 (0.37–0.75) | |
| Kacha (less solid) | 1.32 (0.83–2.10) | |
| Household income (rupees) | ||
| 0–10 000 | 1 | |
| 10 001–20 000 | 0.74 (0.52–1.05) | |
| >2000 | 0.58 (0.36–0.92) | |
| Education level | ||
| None/primary | 1 | |
| Middle/secondary | 0.70 (0.51–0.96) | |
| Graduate | 0.21 (0.10–0.46) | |
| Socio-economic status score | 0.69 (0.62–0.77) | 0.75 (0.66–0.86) |
| Drugs (ever taken) | ||
| Ever drank alcohol | 0.62 (0.44–0.88) | 0.56 (0.38–0.84) |
| Ever used opium/bhuki | 5.06 (3.25–7.90) | 2.85 (1.71–4.76) |
| Ever smoked tobacco | 1.21 (0.63–2.32) | |
| Social risks | ||
| Have a tattoo | 1.54 (0.98–2.44) | |
| Use barbers | 1.52 (1.08–2.14) | 1.78 (1.22–2.60) |
| Have body piercings | 0.84 (0.53–2.85) | |
| Other variables | ||
| Ever been incarcerated | 2.70 (1.20–6.08) | 1.42 (0.58–3.46) |
| Ever had a motor vehicle accident | 1.77 (1.25–2.48) | 1.33 (0.92–1.95) |
For power only the combined socio-economic status score variable was included rather than the socio-economic variables, and similarly only the combined medical risk score from the individual medical risk variables. All other variables that were associated with anti-HCV in the single variable analysis were then included in the multivariable analysis.
Fig. 2.The proportion of hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV) positive individuals by medical risk score, for all participants (with 95% confidence interval), urban participants and rural participants.
Fig. 3.The distribution of the number of households with two or more hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV) positive members in the 1000 simulated datasets assuming HCV randomly distributed, compared to the observed number of households with two or more members with HCV (the dashed line).
Fig. 4.Histograms showing the number of hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV) positive members of each village/ward (left panel: observed, right panel: average of 1000 simulations).
Comparing the mean characteristics of households (N = 1593) with 0, 1 and ⩾2 members testing positive for hepatitis C virus antibody, respectively
| Number of members anti-HCV | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2+ | ||
| Number of households | Test for differences | |||
| Characteristic | 1433 | 130 | 30 | |
| Mean number of members in the household | 3.32 | 4.72 | 5.67 | |
| Mean proportion in rural dwellings | 0.60 | 0.79 | 0.87 | |
| Mean proportion living in the south | 0.56 | 0.72 | 0.90 | |
| Mean age | 38 | 37 | 40 | |
| Mean proportion male | 0.45 | 0.48 | 0.51 | |
| Medical risks | ||||
| Mean proportion that have had surgery | 0.44 | 0.41 | 0.49 | |
| Mean proportion that have a medical procedure | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |
| Mean proportion that have had a dental procedure | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.47 | |
| Mean proportion that have had a medical injection in the last 6 months | 0.34 | 0.41 | 0.39 | |
| Mean proportion that have had a streptomycin injection | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |
| Mean proportion that have received blood | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.07 | |
| Mean proportion that have been hospitalised | 0.55 | 0.54 | 0.58 | |
| Mean medical risk score | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.1 | |
| Socio-economic indicators | ||||
| Mean proportion receiving water from a tube well | 0.32 | 0.45 | 0.68 | |
| Mean proportion with certified healthcare | 0.40 | 0.27 | 0.23 | |
| Mean proportion in a kacha house (less solid structure) | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.04 | |
| Household income | 0.62 | 0.50 | 0.47 | |
| Education level | 1.76 | 1.64 | 1.63 | |
| Mean socio-economic status score | 4.2 | 3.7 | 3.5 | |
| Drugs (ever taken) | ||||
| Mean proportion that have ever drunk alcohol | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.30 | |
| Mean proportion that have ever used opium/bhuki | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.16 | |
| Mean proportion that have ever smoked tobacco | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.05 | |
| Social risks | ||||
| Mean proportion with tattoo | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.08 | |
| Mean proportion using barber | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.25 | |
| Mean proportion with body piercings | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.49 | |
| Other variables | ||||
| Mean proportion that have ever been incarcerated | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | |
| Mean proportion that have ever had a motor vehicle accident | 0.19 | 0.20 | 0.27 | |
Hepatitis C antibody-positive.
ANOVA test (single variable).
Receiving healthcare from a certified healthcare provider (as opposed to an uncertified/alternative health care provider).
Education and household income are using an ordinal variable where lower categories indicate lower education or income.
Bhuki is an intoxicating wild grass that is ingested.
Multivariable ordered logistic regression odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of hepatitis C virus antibody positivity by household characteristics (N = 1593 households)
| Odds ratio (95% CI) for having 0, 1 or ⩾2 members in the household with anti-HCV | ||
|---|---|---|
| Adjusted | Fully adjusted, backwards elimination | |
| Number of members in the household | 1.31 (1.22–1.40) | 1.38 (1.28–1.48) |
| Living in rural dwellings | 2.88 (1.87–4.43) | |
| Living in the south | 3.29 (2.14–5.04) | 3.15 (1.98–5.02) |
| Mean age | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) | |
| Proportion male | 1.83 (0.90–3.72) | |
| Medical risks | ||
| Proportion that have had surgery | 0.87 (0.47–1.61) | |
| Proportion that have had a medical procedure | 1.05 (0.30–3.66) | |
| Proportion that have had a dental procedure | 1.13 (0.67–1.91) | |
| Proportion that have had a medical injection in the last 6 months | 2.25 (1.30–3.88) | |
| Proportion that have had a streptomycin injection | 1.50 (0.20–11.11) | |
| Proportion that have received blood | 2.21 (0.82–5.93) | |
| Proportion that have been hospitalised | 1.04 (0.60–1.80) | |
| Mean medical risk score | 1.16 (0.95–1.43) | |
| Socio-economic indicators | ||
| Receiving water through a tube well | 1.94 (1.33–2.84) | |
| Proportion with a certified healthcare provider ( | 0.34 (0.20–0.58) | |
| Kacha (less solid) vs pucca house (more solid) | 1.77 (1.05–2.98) | |
| Household income | 0.64 (0.49–0.85) | |
| Education level | 0.51 (0.36–0.74) | |
| Mean socio-economic status | 0.61 (0.51–0.74) | 0.63 (0.55–0.74) |
| Drugs (ever taken) | ||
| Proportion that have ever drank alcohol | 0.66 (0.35–1.24) | |
| Proportion that have ever used opium/bhuki | 26.68 (9.05–78.62) | 16.69 (5.46–51.02) |
| Proportion that have ever smoked tobacco | 0.36 (0.06–2.16) | |
| Social risks | ||
| Proportion with a tattoo | 1.67 (0.63–4.44) | |
| Proportion using barbers | 1.46 (0.69–3.07) | |
| Proportion with body piercings | 0.60 (0.31–1.17) | |
| Other variables | ||
| Proportion that have ever been incarcerated | 6.01 (1.11–32.59) | |
| Proportion that have ever had a motor vehicle accident | 1.74 (0.89–3.39) | |
Adjusted for the number of members in the household.
Variables that were associated with HCV in the analyses only adjusting for number of members in the household (the second column), denoted c, were entered into a backwards elimination model, with the third column presenting the variables that were selected by the backwards elimination model (for power only the mean socio-economic status was included in the selection model rather than the individual socio-economic variables).
Variables entered into the backwards elimination model.
Education and household income are using ordinal variables where lower categories indicate lower education or income.
Hepatitis C antibodies.