Dataset Information

The global burden of chronic hepatitis B virus infection: comparison of country-level prevalence estimates from four research groups.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Progress towards viral hepatitis elimination goals relies on accurate estimates of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infection prevalence. We compared existing sources of country-level estimates from 2013 to 2017 to investigate the extent and underlying drivers of differences between them.

Methods

The four commonly cited sources of global-prevalence estimates, i.e. the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Schweitzer et al., the World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDA Foundation, were compared by calculating pairwise differences between sets of estimates and assessing their within-country variation. Differences in underlying empirical data and modelling methods were investigated as contributors to differences in sub-Saharan African estimates.

Results

The four sets of estimates across all ages were comparable overall and agreed on the global distribution of HBV burden. The WHO and the CDA produced the most similar estimates, differing by a median of 0.8 percentage points. Larger discrepancies were seen in estimates of prevalence in children under 5 years of age and in sub-Saharan African countries, where the median pairwise differences were 2.7 percentage and 2.4 percentage points for all-age prevalence and in children, respectively. Recency and representativeness of included data, and different modelling assumptions of the age distribution of HBV burden, seemed to contribute to these differences.

Conclusion

Current prevalence estimates, particularly those from the WHO and the CDA based on more recent empirical data, provide a useful resource to assess the population-level burden of chronic HBV-infection. However, further seroprevalence data in young children are needed particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This is a priority, as monitoring progress towards elimination depends on improved knowledge of prevalence in this age group.

SUBMITTER: Schmit N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8128471 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the updated disease burden, risk factors, and temporal trends of liver cancer based on age, sex, and country.MethodsWe estimated the incidence of liver cancer and its attribution to hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) in 2018 based on the Global Cancer Observatory and World Health Organization (WHO) Cancer Causes database. We extracted the prevalence of risk factors from the WHO Global Health Observatory to examine the associations by weighted linear regression. The trend analysis used data from the Cancer Incidence in Five Continents and the WHO mortality database from 48 countries. Temporal patterns of incidence and mortality were calculated using average annual percent change (AAPC) by joinpoint regression analysis.ResultsThe global incidence of liver cancer was (age-standardized rate [ASR]) 9.3 per 100,000 population in 2018, and there was an evident disparity in the incidence related to HBV (ASR 0.2-41.2) and HCV (ASR 0.4-43.5). A higher HCV/HBV-related incidence ratio was associated with a higher level of alcohol consumption (β 0.49), overweight (β 0.51), obesity (β 0.64), elevated cholesterol (β 0.70), gross domestic product (β 0.20), and Human Development Index (HDI; β 0.45). An increasing trend in incidence was identified in many countries, especially for male individuals, population aged ≥50 years, and countries with a higher HCV/HBV-related liver cancer incidence ratio. Countries with the most drastic increase in male incidence were reported in India (AAPC 7.70), Ireland (AAPC 5.60), Sweden (AAPC 5.72), the UK (AAPC 5.59), and Norway (AAPC 4.87).ConclusionWe observed an overall increasing trend of liver cancer, especially among male subjects, older individuals, and countries with a higher prevalence of HCV-related liver cancer. More efforts are needed in enhancing lifestyle modifications and accessibility of antiviral treatment for these populations. Future studies should investigate the reasons behind these epidemiological changes.

Project description:BackgroundTo plan for the financial sustainability of immunization programs and make informed decisions to improve immunization coverage and equity, decision-makers need to know how much these programs cost beyond the cost of the vaccine. Non-vaccine delivery cost estimates can significantly influence the cost-effectiveness estimates used to allocate resources at the country level. However, many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) do not have immunization delivery unit cost estimates available, or have estimates that are uncertain, unreliable, or old. We undertook a Bayesian evidence synthesis to generate country-level estimates of immunization delivery unit costs for LMICs.MethodsFrom a database of empirical immunization costing studies, we extracted estimates of the delivery cost per dose for routine childhood immunization services, excluding vaccine costs. A Bayesian meta-regression model was used to regress delivery cost per dose estimates, stratified by cost category, against a set of predictor variables including country-level [gross domestic product per capita, reported diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis third dose coverage (DTP3), population, and number of doses in the routine vaccination schedule] and study-level (study year, single antigen or programmatic cost per dose, and financial or economic cost) predictors. The fitted prediction model was used to generate standardized estimates of the routine immunization delivery cost per dose for each LMIC for 2009-2018. Alternative regression models were specified in sensitivity analyses.ResultsWe estimated the prediction model using the results from 29 individual studies, covering 24 countries. The predicted economic cost per dose for routine delivery of childhood vaccines (2018 US dollars), not including the price of the vaccine, was $1.87 (95% uncertainty interval $0.64-4.38) across all LMICs. By individual cost category, the programmatic economic cost per dose for routine delivery of childhood vaccines was $0.74 ($0.26-1.70) for labor, $0.26 ($0.08-0.67) for supply chain, $0.22 ($0.06-0.57) for capital, and $0.65 ($0.20-1.66) for other service delivery costs.ConclusionsAccurate immunization delivery costs are necessary for assessing the cost-effectiveness and strategic planning needs of immunization programs. The cost estimates from this analysis provide a broad indication of immunization delivery costs that may be useful when accurate local data are unavailable.

Project description:BackgroundMany countries are currently rethinking their global health research funding priorities. When resources are limited, it is important to understand and use information about existing research strengths to inform research strategies and investments and to drive impact. This study describes a method to rapidly assess a country's global health research expertise and applies this method in the Canadian context.MethodsWe developed a three-pronged rapid environmental scan to evaluate Canadian global health research expertise that focused on research funding inputs, research activities and research outputs. We assessed research funding inputs from Canada's national health research funding agency and identified the 30 Canadian universities that received the most global health research funding. We systematically searched university websites and secondary databases to identify research activities, including research centres, research chairs and research training programmes. To evaluate research outputs, we searched PubMed to identify global health research publications by Canadian university-affiliated researchers. We used these three perspectives to develop a more nuanced understanding of Canadian strengths in global health research from different perspectives.ResultsCanada's main global health research funder, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, invested a total of $314 M from 2000 to 2016 on global health research grants. This investment has contributed to Canada's wealth of global health research expertise, including 12 training programmes, 27 Canada Research Chairs, 6 research centres and 30 WHO Collaborating Centres across 27 universities. Research activities were concentrated in Canada's biggest cities and most commonly focused on health equity and globalisation issues. Canadian-affiliated researchers have contributed to a research output of 822 unique publications on PubMed. There is an opportunity to build global health expertise in regions not already concentrated with research activity, focusing on transnational risks and neglected conditions research.ConclusionsOur three-pronged approach allowed us to rapidly identify clear geographic and substantive areas of strength in Canadian global health research, including urban regions and research focused on health equity and globalisation topics. This information can be used to support research policy directives, including to inform a Canadian global health research strategy, and to allow relevant academic institutions and funding organisations to make more strategic decisions regarding their future investments.