| Indian Journal of Medical Ethics | ||||||
![]() Home Current Issue Past Issues Support About IJME Jan-Mar2000-8(1) |
Epidemiology and ethics in the Hepatitis B vaccine Anant Phadke, Ashok Kale The current claims of Hepatitis B virus (HBV) carrier rate in India are highly exaggerated, unscientific and misleading. A series of errors is being made in estimating the burden of HBV disease and its significance. These errrors must be corrected, and we must scientifically assess the burden of morbidity, mortality and consequent loss of life- years due to HBV in India. Finally, we must also discuss the various options for a HBV vaccination strategy in India on the basis of cost effectiveness and logistical feasibility. We are unaware of any such exercise by the Indian Association of Paediatrics before its strong recommendation of universal immunisation of Indian children against HBV. Frightening figures First, the studies are all one- time cross- sectional studies of prevalence of HBsAg positivity. Positivity is different from a carrier state — the persistence of infection for six months or more (2). Second, many of these studies are based on data from blood bank donors, including professional blood donors who are known to have a higher prevalence of HBV infection. One study reports on dental professionals, another high risk group. These groups cannot be used to estimate prevalence in the general population. Finally, the average prevalence of 4.7 percent has been arrived at not as a weighted average but by calculating the simple average of the numbers in the individual studies. A more accurate estimate of the carrier rate — a carrier being someone who has tested positive for HBsAg in two tests six or more months apart — using the same data in the 19 studies, and after excluding the professional blood donors and dental personnel and those studies in which the numbers tested are not mentioned (and taking into account the positive predictive value of the test being used currently) works out to be 1.42%, with a carrier pool of 12.75 million (3). It is also important to note that, contrary to the current assertions (4), not all HBsAg positives are highly infectious. The prevalence of highly infectious carriers (“ Hbe positives”) is much lower than the estimate of 24.43 per cent of HBsAg positives or approximately 10 million (1). We arrive at the much lower figure of 3.26 million highly infectious carriers (3). Is it a public health problem? We do not have adequate data on prevalence of HBsAg positivity in India, on the carrier rate in different age groups and on the prevalence of acute and chronic HBV diseases and their sequelae in these age groups, to estimate the number of life years lost due to HBV compared to other (especially vaccine preventable) diseases in India. While we do not attempt this here, a range of studies suggests that the overall burden of disease is much lower than it is made out to be (3). Before recommending Universal Immunisation of HepatitisB vaccine, it is necessary to estimate on the basis of available data (Western or Indian), the life years lost per lakh of population due to Hepatitis B. This will form the basis for estimating the cost- efficacy of this vaccine. Immunisation strategies For these reasons, we should consider the option of selective immunisation of newborns of HBsAg positive mothers or of all pregnant women. Logistically this is feasible, because unlike the high risk groups in the US, this vulnerable group in India (newborns/ infants) is visited by the health services anyway, for immunisation work. In the context of other health programmes 1992 (7), which may have increased to Rs 30. Even at a subsidised Rs 100 per child, the vaccine costs alone of vaccinating just newborns against HBV would be Rs 2,500 million per year. Extending the programme to the 0- 4 or 5- 14 age groups could send costs to Rs 12,730 million annually. To put these figures in context, this year´s budget for malaria is Rs 2,240 million and TB is Rs 1,050 million (8). We also need an estimate of the programme´s cost efficacy. The cost efficacy of different immunisation strategies depends on the cost per life year saved from immunisation, and cost per unit reduction in the infectious pool. Can we afford to introduce a vaccination strategy with a cost efficacy of say Rs 15,000 per life year saved when our per capita annual income is around Rs 10,000? Need for debate References: Additional reading: Anant Phadke,CEHAT, 2/10, Swanand, Aapli Sahakari Society, 481, Parvatidarshan, Pune 411009 Ashok Kale,D-17, Taljai Greens Co-operative Housing Society, Dhankawadi, Pune 411043
|
|||||
|
| ||||||