Viral Hepatitis Surveillance--India, 2011-2013.

The burden of viral hepatitis in India is not well characterized. In 2009, the national Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP) began conducting surveillance across all Indian states for epidemic-prone diseases, including foodborne and waterborne forms of viral hepatitis (e.g., hepatitis A and E). Information on outbreaks of all forms of viral hepatitis, including A, B, C, and E, also is collected. This report summarizes viral hepatitis surveillance and outbreak data reported to IDSP during 2011-2013. During this period, 804,782 hepatitis cases and 291 outbreaks were reported; the virus type was unspecified in 92% of cases. Among 599,605 cases tested for hepatitis A, 44,663 (7.4%) were positive, and among 187,040 tested for hepatitis E, 19,508 (10.4%) were positive. At least one hepatitis outbreak report was received from 23 (66%) of 35 Indian states. Two-thirds of outbreaks were reported from rural areas. Among 163 (56%) outbreaks with known etiology, 78 (48%) were caused by hepatitis E, 54 (33%) by hepatitis A, 19 (12%) by both hepatitis A and E, and 12 (7%) by hepatitis B or hepatitis C. Contaminated drinking water was the source of most outbreaks. Improvements in water quality and sanitation as well as inclusion of hepatitis A vaccine in childhood immunization programs should be considered to reduce the public health burden of hepatitis in India. Efforts to decrease the proportion of cases for which the etiology is unspecified, including expanding the IDSP to support hepatitis B and C testing, might help further elucidate the epidemiology of these diseases.

Nevirapine versus efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV and tuberculosis infections in India: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Administration of rifampicin along with nevirapine reduces the plasma concentration of nevirapine in human immunodeficiency virus positive individuals with concomitant tuberculosis (HIV-TB patients). Nevirapine is a much cheaper drug than its alternative efavirenz, and might be beneficial in resource constrained settings. METHODS: A randomised open label trial was conducted at All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. During the regimen of an antiretroviral therapy (ART), naive HIV-TB patients were randomly assigned to receive either nevirapine or efavirenz based ART with concomitant rifampicin based anti-tubercular therapy (ATT). Participants were followed for 24 months after starting ART. The end points were virological, immunological and clinical responses, and progression of HIV disease marked by failure of ART. RESULTS: Of the 135 HIV-TB patients, who were receiving rifampicin based ATT, 68 were selected randomly to receive efavirenz based ART and 67 to receive nevirapine based ART. The virological failure rates in the overall population, and the nevirapine and efavirenz groups were 14.1% (19/135); 14.9% (10/67) and 13.2% (9/68), respectively (p =0.94). No significant difference was found between the groups in the rate of clinical, immunological or virological failures. The overall mortality was 17% with no significant difference between the two groups. Except for the lead in period on day 14, the mean nevirapine concentration remained above 3 mg/L. No association was found between plasma levels of nevirapine and incidence of unfavourable outcomes in this group. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome of ART in HIV-TB patients on rifampicin based ATT showed no significant difference, irrespective of whether efavirenz or nevirapine was used. Therefore, nevirapine based ART could be an alternative in the resource limited settings in patients with HIV and tuberculosis co-infection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT No. 01805258.