A survey on hepatitis B vaccination policies in genitourinary medicine in UK and Ireland

Sexual transmission and prevention of the hepatitis viruses A-E and G

OBJECTIVES

To assess current knowledge about the potential for sexual transmission of the hepatitis viruses A-E and G and how to prevent any such transmission.

METHOD

A search of published literature identified through Medline 1966-June 1998 (Ovid v 3.0), the Cochrane Library and reference lists taken from each article obtained. Textword and MeSH searches for hepatitis A, B, C, D, E, G, delta, GB virus, GBV-C were linked to searches under the textword terms sex$, vaccine$, prevent$, and MeSH subheadings, epidemiology, transmission, prevention, and control.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence for heterosexual transmission of hepatitis B, C, D, and G and homosexual transmission of hepatitis A-D and G. Condoms are an effective method for preventing transmission by penetrative vaginal or anal sex although spread of types A and B are linked also to oro-anal sex. Hepatitis types A and B can be prevented by pre- and post-exposure active or passive immunisation. There is still some uncertainty about appropriate target groups for pre-exposure vaccination, particularly against hepatitis A.

Hepatitis B virus infection in patients attending a genitourinary medicine clinic: risk factors and vaccine coverage

BACKGROUND

The hepatitis B virus (HBV) immunisation policy in the United Kingdom includes offering vaccines selectively to those at risk by sexual contact. Among genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinic attenders, homosexual men are offered vaccine, but estimates of the vaccine uptake are required to monitor policy and estimate the possible impact on transmission; heterosexuals are not routinely offered vaccine, but this policy might change if the prevalence was found to be high.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the prevalence of HBV infection and vaccine uptake among patients attending a GUM clinic.

METHODS

HBV seroprevalence determined by unlinked anonymous testing of consecutive blood samples sent for syphilis serology. Demographic and risk factor data and history of HBV immunization extracted from clinic notes before unlinking. Prevalence data were compared with a population of first time blood donors from the same area.

SETTING

Open access GUM clinic in central London.

RESULTS

Samples were obtained and tested from 441 homosexual and 527 heterosexual men and from 821 women over a 4 month period in 1990. After exclusion of injecting drug users and their sexual partners (n = 30) and HBV carriers attending for follow up (n = 12), the prevalence of antibody to HBV core (anti-HBc) was 38.7% in homosexual men, 5.9% in heterosexual men, and 3.5% in women (50.0%, 6.0%, 3.7% respectively if previous vaccinees were also excluded). The prevalence of HBV surface antigen positivity was 4.2%, 0.60%, and 0.39% respectively after exclusion of vaccinees (chi(2) p < 0.001 for homosexual men versus others). The prevalence of the anti-HBc in first time blood donors was 1.1% (8/749). Among male GUM clinic attenders, the prevalence of anti-HBc was higher in those of non-UK origin or place of birth and/or non-white ethnicity (odds ratios 2.87, 95% CI 1.57-5.24 and 8.06, CI 3.39-19.1, in homosexuals and heterosexuals respectively). In homosexual men anti-HBc prevalence increased with age (OR 1.05, CI 1.02-1.07 for each year) and lifetime number of STDs (OR 6.36, CI 3.77-10.8 for > or = 2 versus < 2) and in clinic reattenders compared with new patients (OR 5.42, 95% CI 3.32-9.16). Among heterosexuals, age was associated with anti-HBc prevalence in women (OR 1.09, CI 1.04-1.12) but not men (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.02). There were no other associations in heterosexuals. A history of HBV immunisation in homosexual men was recorded in 13/131 (9.9%) of new patients and 103/305 (33.8%; OR 4.63, CI 2.49-8.60) clinic reattenders.

CONCLUSIONS

Although higher than a sample of blood donors, the prevalence of serological markers of HBV infection among heterosexuals was low, providing little support for extending HBV immunisation to all heterosexuals attending GUM clinics as a targeted strategy for control of HBV infection. Homosexual men remain at high risk of infection, but many are now being immunised. Efforts to improve compliance with existing vaccine policies in GUM clinics should be encouraged.

Targeted hepatitis B vaccination--a cost effective immunisation strategy for the UK?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the potential cost effectiveness of vaccination against hepatitis B virus (HBV) targeted at genitourinary clinic (GU) attendees with that of universal infant vaccination.

DESIGN

A mathematical model of sexual and perinatal transmission of HBV was used to compare the effectiveness among heterosexual and homosexual populations of programmes of mass infant vaccination and targeted immunisation of genitourinary medicine (GU) clinic attendees. Each was applied to 90% of the eligible population with differing assumptions about rates of compliance and seroconversion - problems of delivery (obtaining high compliance) was considered a significant drawback of targeted vaccination. Observed relationships between GU clinic attendance and sex partner change rates for heterosexuals and for homosexuals were used to define the rates of vaccination uptake within sexual activity risk groups.

SETTING

England and Wales.

RESULTS

Model results showed that for heterosexuals universal infant vaccination became more effective than clinic based vaccination only approximately 40 years after the start of the programme and that the predicted cost effectiveness of GU clinic vaccination was greater at all times. For homosexuals, clinic vaccination was always more effective over the time frame considered, but by 50 years if it were carried out without prior screening it had become appreciably less cost effective than a mass infant programme. With prior screening in GU clinics this cost effectiveness deficit was only marginal.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted vaccination might have a much greater potential than is realised at present, particularly if it were possible to improve compliance of clinic attendees. A fuller comparison between mass infant and targeted vaccination must await the specific inclusion in the model of other risk groups such as intravenous drug users. An important determinant of the relative merits of the two approaches is the relationship between rates of attendance and of changing sexual partners. Further research on this is required.