Prevalence and associated risk factors for hepatitis B and C viruses among refugee populations living in Mahama, Rwanda: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the integration of refugees into Rwanda's national hepatitis C elimination agenda, a mass screening campaign for hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) was conducted among Burundian refugees living in Mahama Camp, Eastern Rwanda. This cross-sectional survey used data from the screening campaign to report on the epidemiology of viral hepatitis in this setting.
METHODS: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) were used to screen for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis C antibody (anti-HCV) among people of ≥15years old. We calculated seroprevalence for HBsAg and anti-HCV by age and sex and also calculated age-and-sex adjusted risk ratios (ARR) for other possible risk factors.
RESULTS: Of the 26,498 screened refugees, 1,006 (3.8%) and 297 (1.1%) tested positive for HBsAg and Anti-HCV, respectively. HBsAg was more prevalent among men than women and most common among people 25-54 years old. Anti-HCV prevalence increased with age group with no difference between sexes. After adjusting for age and sex, having a household contact with HBsAg was associated with 1.59 times higher risk of having HBsAg (95% CI: 1.27, 1.99) and having a household contact with anti-HCV was associated with 3.66 times higher risk of Anti-HCV (95% CI: 2.26, 5.93). Self-reporting having HBV, HCV, liver disease, or previously screened for HBV and HCV were significantly associated with both HBsAg and anti-HCV, but RDT-confirmed HBsAg and anti-HCV statuses were not associated with each other. Other risk factors for HBsAg included diabetes (ARR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.08, 3.59) and family history of hepatitis B (ARR = 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.56) and for anti-HCV included heart disease (ARR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.80) and history of surgery (ARR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.32).
CONCLUSION: Sero-prevalence and risks factors for hepatitis B and C among Burundian were comparable to that in the Rwandan general population. Contact tracing among household members of identified HBsAg and anti-HCV infected case may be an effective approach to targeted hepatitis screening given the high risk among self-reported cases. Expanded access to voluntary testing may be needed to improve access to hepatitis treatment and care in other refugee settings.

Introduction

Hepatitis B (HBV) and C (HCV) infections are the leading causes of cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and liver-related deaths globally [1]. Although effective curable treatments are increasingly available, most people remain unaware of their hepatitis status until symptoms appear [2]. Asia and Africa are the two continents most affected by viral hepatitis infections [3], with sub-Saharan Africa having an estimated 6.1% prevalence of HBsAg [4] and overall 2.9% prevalence for hepatitis C antibodies (anti-HCV) [5]. In Rwanda a recent population-based study revealed the prevalence of HBsAg to be 2.0% and the prevalence of anti-HCV to be 1.2% among people 15–64 years old [6]. In response to the viral hepatitis burden, Rwanda established a national hepatitis program in 2011 with the first viral hepatitis guidelines disseminated in 2015 [7]. These guidelines were followed by the launch of a five-year HCV elimination plan in 2018, which was associated with increasing access to free viral hepatitis screening and treatment services accessible for Rwandans [8].

Rwanda, like many other African countries, hosts a large number of refugee populations. However, refugees were not initially included in Rwanda’s national hepatitis program. In Europe and United states, refugee populations have been reported to have elevated risk of viral hepatitis compared to permanent residents of their host country. This risk is often attributed to poor living conditions during migration and resettlement [9-11]. However, it is also plausible that the higher risk of hepatitis B and C among immigrants and refugees may be primarily associated with differences in the prevalence of hepatitis between their host country and their country of origin rather [12, 13].

In December 2019, the Rwandan Ministry of Health (MoH) approved inclusion of refugees as part of the national hepatitis elimination plan and this was followed by a mass screening and treatment campaign initiated in the Mahama refugee camp; the largest camp in Rwanda hosting over 60,000 Burundian refugees that was established in 2015. Both Burundi and Rwanda are classified as countries with an intermediate burden of viral hepatitis B and C [14, 15]. In Burundi, the HBsAg prevalence has been estimated at 4.6% [16] and the anti-HCV prevalence at 8.2% [17]. However, these estimates are from the 2002, and little is known about the extent to which these prevalences can be generalized to Burundian refugees hosted in Rwanda today, as well as whether there are any specific risk factors that are associated with hepatitis among refugees. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and risk factors of HBV and HCV among refugee populations living in Mahama camp, Rwanda.

Methods

Study design

This cross-sectional study used data from a mass screening campaign among refugee populations residing in Mahama camp, which was conducted in February and March 2020.

Screening program & participants

This screening program was led by Partners In Health/Inshuti Mu Buzima (PIH/IMB), an international non-government organization that supports health care implementation in three rural Rwandan districts in partnership with other key stakeholders: Ministry in charge of Emergency Management (MINEMA), MoH, United nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR), Save the children and Alight. In compliance to the Rwandan national viral hepatitis guidelines, a voluntary mass screening campaign for HBV and HCV was available to all refugees aged ≥ 15 years living in Mahama camp, in Kirehe district, Eastern Province. Prior to the screening campaign, 18 people in the camp had already been initiated on viral hepatitis treatment in the HIV clinic where they were enrolled, but hepatitis screening and treatment was not otherwise available.

Briefly, community awareness for the campaign was done through meetings with health implementing organization-partners of UNHCR, Save the Children, and Alight. Executive committees, the elected representative of the refugees, and local community health workers, mobilized the population for the screening. On the day but prior to being screened, group education, information and communication session was conducted and verbal consent for screening for all eligible participants age 15 and above was obtained. All participants completed a digital registration form where data on location, demographic and risk factors were collected. During screening, trained nurses and laboratory technicians collected capillary blood samples. Lab testing was performed using SD Bioline rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) manufactured by Abbott Diagnostics Korea Inc, Giheung-gu, Korea, with sensitivity and specificity of >99% to detect anti-HCV and sensitivity of 96.7% and specificity of 98.9% to detect HBsAg [18]. For those who screened positive, a 4–5 ml venous blood sample for HBV Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) and/or HCV Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) was collected in an Ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) tubes for viral load testing. Collected blood samples for viral load testing were arranged, first in a tube rack, put in a cooler and transported the same day to Rwamagana provincial hospital located at 98 kilometers from the screening site for analysis. At the hospital, samples were centrifuged, plasma separated from other blood components immediately and stored in a fridge at a temperature between 2–8°C. Samples that could not be analyzed within 72 hours were stored in a freezer at -20°C temperature while waiting further processing. Analysis was performed using COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV and HBV Test, V.2.0: Quantitative (Roche) with a lower limit of quantification of 15 IU/mL. All sample analyzes were performed within one month from the time of their reception at the testing hub.

Data sources

All data collected during patient registration, screening, and viral load testing was recorded in a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) database for use to facilitate patient follow-up. Prior to analysis, data was extracted from REDCap, duplicate entries were identified and removed from the database, and household contacts with HBsAg and Anti-HCV were identified. Names, identifying numbers, and address were removed from the dataset prior to analysis.

Data collected during the campaign included HBsAg and Anti-HCV seroprevalence, demographics (age, sex, marital status, level of education, year of arrival in Mahama camp)and self-reported clinical characteristics. Marital status was categorized (into widowed, divorced, or separated versus never married or currently married or cohabitating), education level (no schooling, primary, secondary, or university), self-reported comorbidities on HIV, HBV and HCV, diabetes, heart diseases, chronic renal failure and cancer, and risk factors (previously diagnosis with liver disease, history of hepatitis in the family, surgery, traditional operation, unhygienic medical or household practices, multiple sex partners). Having a household contact for HBsAg and anti-HCV was defined as living in the same plot as another person identified as having HBsAg or anti-HCV during the screening.

Statistical methods and data analysis

Data were summarized using proportions and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Prevalence were reported overall and also stratified by age and sex. To identify risk factors associated with HBsAg and anti-HCV, we dichotomized categorical risk factors and conducted bivariate analysis to calculate crude risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals and age-and-sex adjusted risk ratios (ARR) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Adjusted risk ratios were calculated using strata defined by sex and 20-year age intervals. We also assessed associations between having a detectable viral load for HBV DNA or HCV RNA and age, sex, and comorbidities among individuals who screened positive for HBsAg or Anti-HCV. As a sensitivity analysis, we also assessed the association between demographic characteristics and having a viral load >20,000 IU/mL, which is the threshold for automatically qualifying for HBV treatment in Rwanda, among patients with detectable HBV DNA. To compare the prevalence among refugees in Mahama with, the recent results from the nationally-representative Rwanda Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (RPHIA), which published prevalence of hepatitis B and C among Rwandans aged 15–64, we recalculated the crude prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV among 15 to 64 year-old participants in the Mahama screening program among men and women. To create directly comparable estimates that were not confounded by age, we also calculated prevalence that were standardized to the age distribution of RPHIA survey respondents using 5-year age categories. Finally, we reported the indirectly standardized prevalence ratios (SPR) and 95% confidence intervals comparing the observed number of Mahama residents who screened positive for HBsAg or anti-HCV with the number of positive cases that we would have expected if each age group in Mahama had experienced the same age-specific prevalence as reported in the RPHIA report. The interpretation of the SPR is similar to the interpretation of the more commonly used Standardized Mortality Ratio, in that a SPR greater than 1 would reflect that, after adjusting for age, Mahama residents have a higher prevalence than Rwandan general population while an SPR less than 1 reflects a lower prevalence among Mahama residents relative to the general population. All analyses were conducted using STATA version 15.1 [19].

Ethics statement

The study was approved by Inshuti Mu Buzima Research Committee (IMBRC) and Rwanda National Ethics Committee (RNEC) 015/RNEC/2020). Clinicians received oral consent from all participants aged 15 and older during the screening process. However, this study used retrospective data, which was collected as part of routine clinical practice; therefore, informed consent was not required by RNEC. All methods were performed in accordance with local guidelines and regulations. The screening campaign was also approved by the Ministry of Health through its implementing agency Rwanda Biomedical Centre (RBC).

Results

Participant’s characteristics

Socio-demographic and self-reported clinical comorbidities of the 26,498 unique individuals who participated in the screening campaign are presented in Table 1. More than half of the campaign participants (53.8%) were female. The majority of participants were married or lived with a partner (58.4%). About one third (33.4%) had no formal education and another third had some secondary school or higher (32.1%). Almost all refugees reported to have directly come to Rwanda after leaving their country and most of them (77.8%) arrived in 2015. The most commonly reported co-morbidities were HIV (3.3%) and heart diseases (2.7%), while the most common self-reported risk factors were unhygienic medical or household practices 12,198 (46%), multiple sex partners 8,839 (33.4%), and traditional operation 8,246 (31.1%).

Table 1

Sociodemographic and self-reported clinical characteristics.

Variable	Frequency	%
Sex (N = 26,285)
Female	14,136	53.8
Male	12,149	46.2
Age (N = 26,323)
15–24	7,159	27.2
25–34	8,632	32.8
35–44	5,267	20.0
45–54	2,778	10.6
55–64	1,482	5.6
65+	1,005	3.8
Marital Status (25,829)
Never married	7,265	28.1
Married or living together	15,095	58.4
Widowed	1,569	6.1
Divorced	271	1
Separated	1,629	6.3
Highest Education Level (N = 26,417)
No School	8,836	33.4
Primary	9,084	34.3
Secondary	7,990	30.2
University	507	1.9
Year of Arrival in Mahama camp (N = 26,392)
2015	20,564	77.9
2016	2,731	10.3
2017	1,417	5.4
2018	880	3.3
2019	646	2.4
2020	154	0.6
Co-morbidities1 (N = 25,442)
HIV	850	3.3
Heart diseases	675	2.7
Chronic renal failure	264	1.0
Diabetes	140	0.6
Self-reported HBV	118	0.5
Self-reported-HCV	76	0.3
Cancer	28	0.1
Risk factors1 (N = 26,498)
Unhygienic medical or household practices	12,298	46.0
Multiple sexual partners	8,839	33.4
Physical trauma	8,260	31.2
Had a traditional operation	8,246	31.1
Had hepatitis in the family	3,206	12.1
Surgery	2,777	10.5
Diagnosed with liver disease	1,054	4.0
Previously screened for HBV/HCV	780	2.9
Household contact (N = 26,317)
Household contact with HBsAg	1,366	5.2
Household contact with Anti-HCV	401	1.5

1Individuals could report more than one comorbidity and risk factor.

Prevalence by age and sex

Of the 26,498 individuals who were RDT screened, 1,006 (3.8% (95% CI 3.57, 4.03), were found HBsAg positive, with higher prevalence among men in all age categories and highest among men aged 25–54 years old (Fig 1). A similar age pattern with highest prevalence among middle-aged individuals was observed among women. Of the 26,498 people screened, those with positive anti-HCV were 297(1.1%) (95% CI: 1.00, 1.25). In both sexes anti-HCV positivity increased with age with no significant differences between the sexes (Fig 2). Only nine cases had HBV and HCV co-infections.

Fig 1

Hepatitis B surface antigen prevalence by age and sex.

Fig 2

Hepatitis C antibody prevalence by age and sex.

Risk factors

Table 2 shows crude age- and sex-adjusted risk ratios for possible risk factors of HBsAg and anti-HCV. After adjusting for the distribution age and sex, we found that no additional demographic characteristics were associated with either HBsAg or anti-HCV positivity. Among self-reported comorbidities, diabetes (ARR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.08, 3.59) was associated with HBsAg positivity while heart disease was associated with anti-HCV positivity [ARR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.30, 1.80]. Patients who self-reported having HBV, HCV, liver disease, or having previously screened for HBV and HCV were significantly more likely to have HBsAg as well as anti-HCV. However, those with RDT-confirmed HBsAg were not more likely to be positive for anti-HCV (ARR = 1.05 95% CI: 0.59, 1.87) and those with RDT-confirmed anti-HCV were not more likely to be positive for HBsAg (ARR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.58, 1.91). Having a household contact with HBsAg was significantly associated with having HBsAg (ARR = 1.32, 95%: 1.12,1.56) while having a household contact with anti-HCV was significantly associated with anti-HCV (ARR = 3.66, 95% CI: 2.26, 5.92). Other risk factors for HBV include having history of hepatitis in the family (ARR = 1.32, 95% CI:1.12, 1.56) while other risk factors for HCV included history of surgery (ARR = 1.69,95% CI: 1.24, 2.31).

Table 2

Risk ratios for the association between risk factors and hepatitis B surface antigen or hepatitis C antibody.

Risk Factor	Hepatitis B Surface Antigen			Hepatitis C Antibody
	N	Crude Risk Ratio	Adjusted Risk Ratio	N	Crude Risk Ratio	Adjusted Risk Ratio
Socio-demographics
Widowed, separated, or divorced	26,045	0.84 (0.77, 10)	0.94 (0.77, 1.15)	26,058	2.87 (2.26, 3.63)	1.32 (0.99, 1.76)
No Schooling	26,045	0.96 (0.84, 1.09)	1.04 (0.91, 1.20)	26,058	1.85 (1.48, 2.32)	0.86 (0.67, 1.12)
Self-reported comorbidities
HIV	24,999	0.91 (0.63, 1.31)	0.92 (0.63, 1.32)	25,012	1.1 (0.59, 2.06)	0.86 (0.45, 1.61)
Diabetes	24,999	1.91 (1.05, 3.49)	1.97 (1.08, 3.59)	25,012	4.05 (1.83, 8.94)	2.14 (0.97, 4.71)
Heart diseases	24,999	1.07 (0.74, 1.56)	1.19 (0.81, 1.74)	25,012	4.35 (2.99, 6.35)	1.91 (1.30, 2.80)
Chronic renal failure	24,999	1.53 (0.93, 2.51)	1.59 (0.97, 2.62)	25,012	1.78 (0.74, 4.28)	0.97 (0.4, 2.33)
Cancer	24,999	0.95 (0.14, 6.52)	0.93 (0.14, 6.26)	25,012	3.33 (0.48, 22.88)	2.56 (0.41, 16.12)
Self-reported hepatitis status
Hepatitis B	24,999	12.61 (10.22, 15.55)	11.81 (9.54, 14.63)	25,012	`---	`---
Hepatitis C	24,999	2.82 (1.46, 5.44)	2.68 (1.38, 5.19)	25,012	20.72 (13.18, 32.56)	17.44 (11.25, 27.04)
Diagnosed with liver disease	26,045	2.46 (2.01, 3.02)	2.41 (1.96, 2.96)	26,058	2.32 (1.56, 3.45)	2.23 (1.51, 3.32)
Previously screened for HBV/HCV	26,045	2.8 (2.25, 3.48)	2.69 (2.16, 3.35)	26,058	3.56 (2.44, 5.18)	3.15 (2.17, 4.57)
RDT confirmed HCV/HBV status
Screened positive for HBV	26,045	`---	`---	26,018	0.97 (0.53, 1.77)	1.05 (0.58, 1.91)
Screened positive for HCV	26,018	0.97 (0.54, 1.75)	1.05 (0.59, 1.87)	26,058	`---	`---
Household contacts
Household contact HBV RDT+	25,898	1.59 (1.27, 1.98)	1.59 (1.27, 1.99)	25,910	`---	`---
Household contact HCV RDT+	25,898	`---	`---	25,910	3.67 (2.24, 6.01)	3.66 (2.26, 5.93)
Other risk factors
Had hepatitis in the family	26,045	1.32 (1.12, 1.57)	1.32 (1.11, 1.56)	26,058	1.33 (0.98, 1.82)	1.21 (0.89, 1.65)
Surgery	26,045	0.98 (0.81, 1.20)	1.02 (0.84, 1.25)	26,058	1.56 (1.15, 2.14)	1.7 (1.24, 2.32)
Had a traditional operation	26,045	1.02 (0.89, 1.16)	1.02 (0.89, 1.16)	26,058	1.34 (1.06, 1.69)	0.95 (0.75, 1.20)
Multiple sex partners	26,045	1.18 (1.04, 1.33)	1.05 (0.93, 1.20)	26,058	0.77 (0.6, 1)	0.88 (0.68, 1.14)
Physical trauma	26,045	0.93 (0.81, 1.06)	0.89 (0.78, 1.02)	26,058	0.81 (0.63, 1.05)	0.79 (0.61, 1.02)
Unhygienic medical or household practices	26,045	0.96 (0.85, 1.08)	0.97 (0.86, 1.10)	26,058	0.84 (0.67, 1.06)	0.82 (0.66, 1.04)
Arrived in Mahama after 2015	25799	1.29 (0.85, 1.95)	1.22 (0.81, 1.84)	25812	1.61 (0.8, 3.23)	1.65 (0.83, 3.29)

The prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV did not meaningfully change when we restricted our sample to residents aged 15–64 or when we standardized our age distribution to the ages of respondents to the Rwandan Population-based HIV Impact Assessment 2018–2019 (Table 3). Our indirectly standardized prevalence ratios suggest that after adjusting for age, Mahama residents have a 1.86 times higher prevalence of HBsAg than the Rwandan general population (95% CI: 1.74–1.98). The prevalence of HBsAg is, especially elevated among women (SPR = 2.44, 95% CI: 2.21–2.69). The prevalence of anti-HCV is significantly lower in the overall Mahama population than among the Rwandan population (SPR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74–0.96), driven largely by a lower prevalence among men (SPR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.58–0.87).

Table 3

Prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV among Mahama residents aged 15–64 compared to age-standardized prevalence in the general population.

Infection by sex	Crude prevalence and 95% CI among Mahama residents 15–64	Age-standardized prevalence and 95% CI among Mahama residents 15–64	Indirectly standardized prevalence ratio and 95% CI1
HBsAg
Female	3.1% (2.8%, 3.4%)	3% (2.7%, 3.3%)	2.44% (2.21, 2.69)
Male	4.7% (4.4%, 5.1%)	4.5% (4.2%, 4.9%)	1.58% (1.46, 1.72)
Total	3.9% (3.6%, 4.1%)	3.7% (3.5%, 4%)	1.86% (1.74, 1.98)
Anti-HCV
Female	1% (0.8%, 1.2%)	1.1% (0.9%, 1.3%)	0.99% (0.83, 1.17)
Male	0.8% (0.7%, 1%)	0.9% (0.7%, 1.1%)	0.71% (0.58, 0.87)
Total	0.9% (0.8%, 1%)	1% (0.9%, 1.1%)	0.84% (0.74, 0.96)

1Data age distribution and age- and sex-specific hepatitis prevalence extracted from the Rwandan Population-based HIV Impact Assessment 2018–2019 [6].

Viral load test results by characteristics

Table 4 shows that, of the 1006 patients who screened positive for HBsAg, 916 (91.0%) had viral load results returned and of these 916, 781 (85.3%, 95% CI: 82.80, 87.50) had detectable HBV DNA. Male sex and younger age were both associated with viral load positivity for HBV as well as with having a viral load >20,000 IU/mL among those with detectable viral loads (S1 Appendix). For HCV, of 297 of patients who screened positive, 271 (91.2%) had valid viral load results returned of which 213 (78%, 95% CI: 73.23, 83.33) had detectable HCV RNA positive results.

Table 4

Viral load results by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

Variable	HBV DNA Test result		p-value	HCV RNA Test result		p-value
	Undetectable (<20 IU/mL)	Detectable (≥ 20 IU/mL)		Undetectable (< 15 IU/mL)	Detectable (≥15 IU/mL)
	N = 135	N = 781		N = 58	N = 213
Sex			0.003			0.13
Female	73 (54.5%)	315 (40.6%)		40 (69.0%)	121 (57.3%)
Male	61 (45.5%)	461 (59.4%)		18 (31.0%)	90 (42.7%)
Age			0.004			0.85
15–24	21 (15.6%)	162 (20.8%)		4 (6.9%)	8 (3.8%)
25–34	36 (26.7%)	292 (37.6%)		12 (20.7%)	47 (22.1%)
35–44	37 (27.4%)	191 (24.6%)		13 (22.4%)	42 (19.7%)
45–54	25 (18.5%)	84 (10.8%)		9 (15.5%)	37 (17.4%)
55–64	12 (8.9%)	33 (4.2%)		9 (15.5%)	29 (13.6%)
65+	4 (3.0%)	15 (1.9%)		11 (19.0%)	50 (23.5%)
Self-reported co-morbidities/Risk factors
Hepatitis B	12 (9.0%)	37 (5.0%)	0.07
Hepatitis C	1 (0.8%)	6 (0.8%)	1.00	5 (8.9%)	9 (4.5%)	0.20
Diabetes	2 (1.5%)	8 (1.1%)	0.65	1 (1.8%)	5 (2.5%)	1.00
Heart diseases	5 (3.8%)	19 (2.6%)	0.39	5 (8.9%)	21 (10.6%)	0.81
Chronic renal failure	5 (3.8%)	10 (1.3%)	0.06	3 (5.4%)	2 (1.0%)	0.07
Cancer	0 (0.0%)	1 (0.1%)	1.00	0 (0.0%)	1 (0.5%)	1.00
Household contact HBV RDT+			0.87			0.35
No	124 (92.5%)	713 (91.8%)		53 (91.4%)	202 (94.8%)
Yes	10 (7.5%)	64 (8.2%)		5 (8.6%)	11 (5.2%)
Household contact HCV RDT+						0.35
No				53 (91.4%)	202 (94.8%)
Yes				5 (8.6%)	11 (5.2%)

Discussion

This paper is the first to measure HBsAg and anti-HCV prevalence and assess for associated risk factors among refugee populations living in Rwanda. The 3.8% prevalence of HBsAg shown in our study is slightly higher than what has been reported in Rwanda’s recent population-based survey (2.0%) but comparable to previous estimate from mass screening campaigns among the Rwandan general population (3.9%). This elevated risk among refugees persisted even after we standardized our age distribution to the age of respondents to the RPHIA. Overall, the observed prevalence of HBsAg was almost twice higher among Mahama residents than we would have expected if Mahama residents had exhibited the same age-specific HBsAg prevalence’s as the respondents to the RPHIA survey. As elsewhere in Rwanda, we also found that men are at higher risk than women and that prevalence is highest among middle-aged individuals [16]. Anti-HCV prevalence among refugees (1.1%) was similar to the prevalence among Rwandans who participated in the RPHIA (1.2%). However, the observed prevalence of anti-HCV was slightly less among Mahama residents than we would have expected if Mahama residents had exhibited the same age-specific prevalence’s as the respondents to the RPHIA survey. This lower prevalence of anti-HCV among Mahama residents may largely reflect reduced HCV prevalences at older ages. We observed that 2.8% and 3.1% of male and female Mahama residents aged 55–64 were anti-HCV positive, respectively. However, RPHIA reported prevalences of between 4.3% and 11.0% for male and female Rwandans age between 50–64 [6].

HCV prevalence among refugees was much lower compared to prevalences from the previously campaign among people aged 25 years and above nationally (6.8%) and in Kirehe district, where Mahama refugee camp is located, (8.4%) [20]. Similar to what has been reported in previous campaigns in Rwanda, we found that anti-HCV prevalence increases with age with no differences between the sexes. This increased risk with age may be explained by historic unhygienic medical procedures, especially for those conducted by traditional practitioners, before the establishment of infection control policies. However, the risk of anti-HCV among Rwandans 50–64 was also much higher compared to among refugees of the same age.

Although our campaign in Mahama had extremely high coverage (76.9%) and is likely to be a relatively accurate estimate of the prevalence of HBV and HCV among refugees, we would expect a voluntary screening campaign to result in higher prevalence than a population-based survey as individuals who have prior knowledge or strong reasons to suspect that they may have hepatitis will be more motivated to participate in the campaign. This mechanism could also explain why the previous estimates from Rwanda’s general population mass screening campaigns were higher than those from their recent population-based survey.

Our estimates for the prevalence of HCV among Burundian refugees are much lower than what was previously reported in a 2002 population-based survey in Burundi (8.2%) [17], but is similar to the HCV prevalence among Burundian blood donors (1.04%) [21]. Research in Italy [13] and six other western countries [22] have found that the prevalence of hepatitis B, among refugees was more comparable to the prevalence of their country of origin than their host countries. However, it is also possible that the prevalence among refugees is lower than individuals in the host country due to the “healthy migrant effect, where migrants tend to be healthier than the general population of both their home country and receiving countries [23-26]. Notably, we did not observe any association between duration of stay in Mahama and risk of HBV or HVC, suggesting that transmission within the camp and between the refugees and the Rwandan host population was likely rare during our study period. However, it is important to note that this study is cross-sectional study and therefore cannot provide conclusive evidence against transmission within the camp.

As expected, patients who self-reported as having HBV were more likely to have RDT-confirmed HBsAg and those who self-reported as having HCV were more likely to have RDT-confirmed anti-HCV. However, self-reported HCV status was also associated with HBsAg, even though we did not observe an association between having RDT-confirmed HBsAg and RDT-confirmed anti-HCV (Table 4). We believe these finding largely reflects confusion among patients regarding which type of hepatitis they have been diagnosed with, and highlights the importance of high-quality patient education and confirmatory testing. These finding also suggests that even in the absence of mass screening campaigns, refugees with hepatitis may independently present for hepatitis treatment at health facilities if resources are made available to them.

As it has been previously reported in Rwanda and Egypt, we also found possible evidence of household transmission of both HBV and HCV [27, 28]. Within-household transmission could reflect a combination of sexual transmission between partners and vertical transmission during pregnancy, as has been documented for both HBV and HCV [29]. Additionally, people living in the same house or plot may be more likely to share sharp materials such as razors, scissors, and other personal hygiene items, which could transmit hepatitis. As previously suggested, screening of household contacts could be an efficient way to of identifying additional people with HBV or/and HCV who can benefit from treatment and follow-up [30]. Additional research may be needed to assess the feasibility of this strategy and to identify whether screening of all household contacts or only of sexual partners is most efficient.

Our findings on viral load positivity reflect a similarity with previous study conducted in Rwanda where 83% of the HBsAg positive had detectable HBV DNA while 72.2% of anti-HCV positive were confirmed with HCV RNA [27]. Younger men were not only more likely to be HBsAg positive, they were also more likely to have detectable viral load.

This study had a number of strengths. First, the screening campaign covered 76.9% of the target population and over 90% for women aged 30-64years old. This high coverage of the screening campaign gives us confidence that the population who participated in our screening campaign is reasonably representative of the general population living in Mahama. Second, we had low levels of missing data. Finally, due to the highly structured addresses within Mahama, we were able to estimate risk among household contacts, which would not have been possible in a general population setting. In addition, we were able to assess risk factors for both seroprevalence and hepatitis chronicity. However, there are also some limitations. First, we used a clinical data source, and some missing data, especially on VL results, did occur. Second, risk factors were self-reported and responses may have been affected by social desirability bias. Third, our screening strategy relied on HBsAg, and therefore some cases of occult hepatitis may have been escaped detection. Finally, the prevalence estimates from our study may not be generalizable to other refugee or displaced populations, particularly refugee populations coming from countries of origin with different prevalence of hepatitis B and C.

Conclusions

HBsAg and anti- HCV sero-prevalence among Burundian refugees living in Rwanda were comparable to those of Rwanda general population. Our results suggest additional research into targeted screening among household contacts of clients who screen positive for hepatitis B or hepatitis C as an efficient strategy may be warranted to identify additional viral infected index clients who could benefit from hepatitis screening and treatment.

Association between demographic & clinical characteristics and having a viral load >20,000 IU/mL.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

29 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-14910

Prevalence and associated risk factors for hepatitis B and C viruses among refugee populations living in Mahama, Rwanda: A cross-sectional study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kamali,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the several important points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 2 months. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Isabelle Chemin, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“DAB is supported by the Harvard Medical School Global Health Equity Research Fellowship, funded by Jonathan M. Goldstein and Kaia Miller Goldstein.”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The authors received no specific funds for this work. DAB is supported by the Harvard Medical School Global Health Equity Research Fellowship, funded by Jonathan M. Goldstein and Kaia Miller Goldstein.

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

5. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this cross-sectional study carried out from February to March 2020, the authors sought to determine the prevalence of hepatitis B and C and the associated risk factors among Burundian refugees living in Mahama camp in Rwanda. A total of 26,498 refugees aged 15 years and over were screened with rapid diagnosis test and the prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV were 3.8% and 1.1%, respectively. HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA quantification were performed in positive HBsAg and anti-HCV Burundian refugees. Other HBV markers haven’t been tested. Associated risk factors observed were family history (RRadjusted=1.32, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.56) and diabetes (RRadjusted=1.97, 95% CI: 1.08, 3.59) for HBsAg and history of surgery (RRadjusted=1.70, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.32) and heart disease (RRadjusted=1.91, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.80) for HCV antibodies.

The lines of the text haven’t been numbered.

Methods

The methods used to quantify HBV DNA and HCV-ARN must be specified as well as their detection and quantification limits. The authors should also specify the sensitivity and specificity of the rapid diagnostic tests used.

Since HCV is an RNA virus, it is very sensitive to temperature. Then condition of transport and storage (temperature) before processing viral load need to be indicated.

Did Refugees aged over 15–18 years give their assent and parents or tutors their consents?

Results

It would be interesting to have the rate of HBV-HCV co-infection among refugees in the Mahama camp since tests had been performed in the same population.

Table 3 could be restricted to the prevalence per age range observed on the current study in Mahama camp while the comparative analysis using the already published RPHIA data could be included in the discussion.

Table 4

Were patients with viral load at the detection thresholds (20 IU for HBV DNA and 15 IU for HCV RNA) considered as detectable or undetectable? Revise one of the signs of equality (table 4) to avoid confusion.

If data are available, it would have been interesting to see proportion of refugees who replicated the most (high viral load e.g., for HBV). Stratifying viral load will help to better orient strategies to limit contamination in the camp.

Discussion

Paragraph 2:

“We did not observe any association between duration of stay ……transmission within the camp and between the refugees and Rwandan host population is likely rare”

Even if we know that the main transmission route for HBV in Africa is vertical (mother-to-child) and horizontal (during childhood) transmission, it is difficult to conclude that transmission in the camp is rare because this current publication is a cross-sectional study. In addition, other HBV markers have not been evaluated.

Limits:

Since other HBV markers have not been tested (e.g., anti-HBc antibodies), occult hepatitis may escape to screening.

References

Revise references 6 and 19 (they are not accessible)

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

17 Aug 2021

“Prevalence and associated risk factors for hepatitis B and C viruses among refugee populations living in Mahama, Rwanda: A cross sectional study"

PLOS ONE Ref. PONE-D-21-14910

We thank the reviewers for their positive comments and for the opportunity to revise and strengthen this manuscript. We have responded to all comments, as outlined below. Reviewer comments are in bold italics text, our response is in normal text with additions in bold and removed text shown with a strikethrough.

Reviewer’s comment #1:

Reviewer #1: In this cross-sectional study carried out from February to March 2020, the authors sought to determine the prevalence of hepatitis B and C and the associated risk factors among Burundian refugees living in Mahama camp in Rwanda. A total of 26, 498 refugees aged 15 years and over were screened with rapid diagnosis test and the prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV were 3.8% and 1.1%, respectively. HBV-DNA and HCV-RNA quantification were performed in positive HBsAg and anti-HCV Burundian refugees. Other HBV markers haven’t been tested. Associated risk factors observed were family history (RRadjusted=1.32, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.56) and diabetes (RRadjusted=1.97, 95% CI: 1.08, 3.59) for HBsAg and history of surgery (RRadjusted=1.70, 95% CI: 1.24, 2.32) and heart disease (RRadjusted=1.91, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.80) for HCV antibodies.

The lines of the text haven’t been numbered.

The lines of the text (the whole manuscript) are now numbered and double spaced.

Reviewer Comment #2

Methods

The methods used to quantify HBV DNA and HCV-ARN must be specified as well as their detection and quantification limits. The authors should also specify the sensitivity and specificity of the rapid diagnostic tests used.

Comment addressed under Methods section, on page 6; lines 108-111

During screening, trained nurses and laboratory technicians collected capillary blood samples. Lab testing was performed using SD Bioline rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) manufactured by Abbott Diagnostics Korea Inc, Giheung-gu, Korea, with sensitivity and specificity of ˃99% to detect anti-HCV and sensitivity of 96.7% and specificity of 98.9% to detect HBsAg(18)

Since HCV is an RNA virus, it is very sensitive to temperature. Then condition of transport and storage (temperature) before processing viral load need to be indicated.

Comment addressed on pages 6-7, lines 114-122

Collected blood samples for viral load testing were arranged in a tube rack, stored in a cooler, and transported the same day to Rwamagana provincial hospital, located 98 kilometers from the screening site, for viral load testing. At the hospital, samples were centrifuged, plasma separated from other blood components immediately and stored in a fridge at a temperature between 2-8oC. Samples that could not be analyzed with 72 hours were stored in a freezer at -20oC temperature while waiting further processing. Analysis was performed using COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HCV and HBV Test, V.3.0: Quantitative (Roche) with a lower limit of quantification of 15 IU/mL. All sample analyzes were performed within one month from the time of their reception at the testing hub.

Did Refugees aged over 15–18 years give their assent and parents or tutors their consents?

Comment addressed under Ethics statement , on page 9, lines 170-175

We have added a sentence on Ethics statement section, and it reads as follows:

The study was approved by Inshuti Mu Buzima Research Committee (IMBRC) and Rwanda National Ethics Committee (RNEC) 015/RNEC/2020).Clinicians received oral consent from all participants aged 15 and older during the screening process. However, this study used retrospective data, which was collected as part of routine clinical practice; therefore, informed consent was not required by RNEC. All methods were performed in accordance with local guidelines and regulations. The screening campaign was also approved by the Ministry of Health through its implementing agency Rwanda Biomedical Centre (RBC)

Results

It would be interesting to have the rate of HBV-HCV co-infection among refugees in the Mahama camp since tests had been performed in the same population.

Comment addressed on page 11, line 199

Of the 26,498 individuals who were RDT screened, 1,006 (3.8% (95% CI 3.57, 4.03), were found HBsAg positive, with higher prevalence among men in all age categories and highest among men aged 25-54 years old (Figure 1). A similar age pattern with highest prevalence among middle-aged individuals was observed among women. Of the 26,498 people screened, those with positive anti-HCV were 297(1.1%) (95% CI: 1.00, 1.25). In both sexes anti-HCV positivity increased with age with no significant differences between the sexes (Figure 2). Only nine individuals had HBV and HCV co-infections

Table 3 could be restricted to the prevalence per age range observed on the current study in Mahama camp while the comparative analysis using the already published RPHIA data could be included in the discussion.

The recent release of the RPHIA final report provides additional details on the age-specific prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV, which allowed us to calculate an indirectly standardized prevalence ratio, which we believe is a better approach to comparing the two populations than the original table three. To that end, we have deleted the original table 3 and corresponding results section.

We have additionally altered the text of the Methods section, under statistical methods and data analysis, page 8 -9, lines 151-168 as follows:

To compare the prevalence among refugees in Mahama with the Rwandan general population, we recalculated the prevalence of HBsAg and Anti-HCV within the groups included in the Rwandan Population-based HIV National Impact Assessment (RPHIA), a recent national house-hold survey. recent results from the nationally-representative Rwanda Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (RPHIA), which published prevalence of hepatitis B and C among Rwandans aged 15-64, we recalculated the crude prevalence of HBsAg and Anti-HCV among 15 to 64 year-old participants in the Mahama screening program among men and women. To create directly comparable estimates that were not confounded by age, we also calculated prevalence that were standardized to the age distribution of RPHIA survey respondents using 5-year age categories. Finally, we reported the indirectly standardized prevalence ratios (SPR) and 95% confidence intervals comparing the observed number of Mahama residents who screened positive for HBsAg or anti-HCV with the number of positive cases that we would have expected if each age group in Mahama had experienced the same age-specific prevalence as reported in the RPHIA report. The interpretation of the SPR is similar to the interpretation of the more commonly used Standardized Mortality Ratio, in that a SPR greater than 1 would reflect that, after adjusting for age, Mahama residents have a higher prevalence than Rwandan general population while a SPR less than 1 reflects a lower prevalence among Mahama residents relative to the general population.

We have added the following text and table to our Results section, page14-15, lines 226-237 :

The prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV did not meaningfully change when we restricted our sample to residents aged 15-64 or when we standardized our age distribution to the ages of respondents to the Rwandan Population-based HIV Impact Assessment 2018-2019. Our indirectly standardized prevalence ratios suggest that after adjusting for age, Mahama residents have a 1.86 times higher prevalence of HBsAg than the Rwandan general population (95% CI: 1.74-1.98). The prevalence of HBsAg is, especially elevated among women (SPR=2.44, 95% CI: 2.21-2.69). The prevalence of anti-HCV is significantly lower in the overall Mahama population than among the Rwandan population (SPR=0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96), driven largely by a lower prevalence among men (SPR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.58-0.87).

Table 3. Prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV among Mahama residents aged 15-64 compared to age-standardized prevalence in the general population

Crude prevalence and 95% CI

among Mahama residents 15-64 Age-standardized prevalence and 95% CI among Mahama residents 15-64 Indirectly standardized prevalence ratio and 95% CI1

HBsAg

Female 3.1% (2.8%, 3.4%) 3% (2.7%, 3.3%) 2.44 (2.21, 2.69)

Male 4.7% (4.4%, 5.1%) 4.5% (4.2%, 4.9%) 1.58 (1.46, 1.72)

Total 3.9% (3.6%, 4.1%) 3.7% (3.5%, 4%) 1.86 (1.74, 1.98)

Anti-HCV

Female 1% (0.8%, 1.2%) 1.1% (0.9%, 1.3%) 0.99 (0.83, 1.17)

Male 0.8% (0.7%, 1%) 0.9% (0.7%, 1.1%) 0.71 (0.58, 0.87)

Total 0.9% (0.8%, 1%) 1% (0.9%, 1.1%) 0.84 (0.74, 0.96)

1Data age distribution and age- and sex-specific hepatitis prevalence extracted from the Rwandan Population-based HIV Impact Assessment 2018-2019

Finally, we have relocated any direct comparison to the RPHIA results to the discussion section, page 16-17, lines 255-272 and altered the text to read:

This paper is the first to measure HBsAg and anti-HCV prevalence and assess for associated risk factors among refugee populations living in Rwanda. The 3.8% prevalence of HBsAg shown in our study is slightly higher than what has been reported in Rwanda’s recent population-based survey (2.0%) but comparable to previous estimate from mass screening campaigns among the Rwandan general population (3.9%). This elevated risk among refugees persisted even after we standardized our age distribution to the age of respondents to the RPHIA. Overall, the observed prevalence of HBsAg was almost twice higher among Mahama residents than we would have expected if Mahama residents had exhibited the same age-specific HBsAg prevalence’s as the respondents to the RPHIA survey. As elsewhere in Rwanda, we also found that men are at higher risk than women and that prevalence is highest among middle-aged individuals (16). Anti-HCV prevalence among refugees (1.1%) was similar to the prevalence among Rwandans who participated in the RPHIA (1.2%). However, the observed prevalence of anti-HCV was slightly less among Mahama residents than we would have expected if Mahama residents had exhibited the same age-specific prevalence’s as the respondents to the RPHIA survey. This lower prevalence of anti-HCV among Mahama residents may largely reflect reduced HCV prevalences at older ages. We observed that 2.8% and 3.1% of male and female Mahama residents aged 55-64 were anti-HCV positive, respectively. However, RPHIA reported prevalences of between 4.3% and 11.0% for male and female Rwandans age between 50-64 (6) HCV prevalence among refugees was much lower compared to prevalence from the previously campaign among people aged 25 years and above nationally (6.8%) and in Kirehe district, where Mahama refugee camp is located, (8.4%) (21). Similar to what has been reported in previous campaigns in Rwanda, we found that anti-HCV prevalence increases with age with no differences between the sexes. This increased risk with age may be explained by historic unhygienic medical procedures, especially for those conducted by traditional practitioners, before the establishment infection control policies. However, the risk of anti-HCV among Rwandans 50-64 was also much higher compared to among refugees of the same age.

Although our campaign in Mahama had extremely high coverage (76.9%) and is likely to be a relatively accurate estimate of the prevalence of HBV and HCV among refugees, we would expect a voluntary screening campaign to result in higher prevalence than a population-based survey as individuals who have prior knowledge or strong reasons to suspect that they may have hepatitis will be more motivated to participate in the campaign. This mechanism could also explain why the previous estimates from Rwanda’s general population mass screening campaigns were higher than those from their recent population-based survey. In general, it appears that the age-specific risk of viral hepatitis in these two populations are generally comparable, with the possible exception of elevated risk of HCV among older Rwandans.

Table 4 : Were patients with viral load at the detection thresholds (20 IU for HBV DNA and 15 IU for HCV RNA) considered as detectable or undetectable? Revise one of the signs of equality (table 4) to avoid confusion.

Comment addressed on Page 16,

Thank you. The sign of equality for undetectable is revised for HBV (˂20 IU/mL) and HCV (˂15IU mL).

If data are available, it would have been interesting to see proportion of refugees who replicated the most (high viral load e.g., for HBV). Stratifying viral load will help to better orient strategies to limit contamination in the camp.

We have added the requested analysis, as described in the methods section on page 8; lines 147-167, and in the results section on page 15; lines 224-232 along with a table describing this analysis in the appendix

Statistical methods and data analysis: Page 8, lines 148-151

Data were summarized using proportions and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Prevalence were reported overall and stratified by age and sex. To identify risk factors associated with HBsAg and anti-HCV, we dichotomized categorical risk factors and conducted bivariate analysis to calculate crude risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals and age-and-sex adjusted risk ratios (ARR) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Adjusted risk ratios were calculated using strata defined by sex and 20-year age intervals. We also assessed associations between having a detectable viral load for HBV DNA or HCV RNA and age, sex, and comorbidities among individuals who screened positive for HBsAg or anti-HCV. As a sensitivity analysis, we also assessed the association between demographic characteristics and having a viral load >20,000 IU/mL, which is the threshold for automatically qualifying for HBV treatment in Rwanda, among patients with detectable HBV DNA. To compare the prevalence among refugees in Mahama with the Rwandan general population, we recalculated the prevalence of HBsAg and Anti-HCV within the groups included in the Rwandan Population-based HIV National Impact Assessment (RPHIA), a recent national house-hold survey. All analyses were conducted using STATA version 15.1 (20).

Results: Page 16, lines 241-247

Table 4 shows that, of the 1006 patients who screened positive for HBsAg, 916 (91.0%) had viral load results returned and of these 916, 781 (85.3%, 95% CI: 82.80, 87.50) had detectable HBV DNA. Male sex and younger age were both associated with viral load positivity for HBV as well as with having a viral load >20,000 UI/mL among those with detectable viral loads (Appendix A). For HCV, of 297 of patients who screened positive, 271 (91.2%) had valid viral load results returned of which 213 (78%, 95% CI: 73.23, 83.33) had detectable HCV RNA positive results.

Discussion: Paragraph 2:

“We did not observe any association between duration of stay ……transmission within the camp and between the refugees and Rwandan host population is likely rare”

Even if we know that the main transmission route for HBV in Africa is vertical (mother-to-child) and horizontal (during childhood) transmission, it is difficult to conclude that transmission in the camp is rare because this current publication is a cross-sectional study. In addition, other HBV markers have not been evaluated.

The comment is addressed on page 19, lines 297-302

Notably, we did not observe any association between duration of stay in Mahama and risk of HBV or HVC, suggesting that transmission within the camp and between the refugees and the Rwandan host population was is likely rare during our study period. However, it is important to note that this study is cross-sectional study and therefore cannot provide conclusive evidence against transmission within the camp.

Limits:

Since other HBV markers have not been tested (e.g., anti-HBc antibodies), occult hepatitis may escape to screening.

Thank you, the comment is well considered. We have added a sentence in the discussion section to highlight this as a limitation. Page 20, lines 335-337

First, we used a clinical data source, and some missing data, especially on VL results, did occur. Second, risk factors were self-reported and responses may have been affected by social desirability bias. Third, our screening strategy relied on HBsAg, and therefore some cases of occult hepatitis may have escaped detection.

References

Revise references 6 and 19 (they are not accessible)

Thank you. Reference 6 has been corrected and cited as suggested cited report:

Ministry of Health. Rwanda population-based HIV impact assessment. Kigali,Rwanda; 2020 Feb.Rwanda Biomedical Centre(RBC). Rwanda Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment (RPHIA) 2018-2019:Final Report [Internet]. Kigali: RBC; 2020 Sep. Available from:

http://phia.icap.columbia.edu

Reference 19 has been deleted, details on VL sample collection and transportation have been added in the method section. Nyirahabihirwe F. Impmentation of a mass screening screening campaign for hepatitis B and C among refugees living in Mahama, Rwanda. Rwinkwavu,Rwanda; 2021.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

14 Sep 2021

Prevalence and associated risk factors for hepatitis B and C viruses among refugee populations living in Mahama, Rwanda: A cross-sectional study

PONE-D-21-14910R1

Dear Dr. Kamali,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Isabelle Chemin, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have given adequate answers to questions and addressed all comments raised in a previous round of review.

Remark : The storage of RNA at 4 degree even for less than 72 hours is not optimum and can lead to under estimation in those samples.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

22 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-14910R1

Prevalence and associated risk factors for hepatitis B and C viruses among refugee populations living in Mahama, Rwanda: A cross-sectional study

Dear Dr. Kamali:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Mrs Isabelle Chemin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE