Prevalence of hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus infections in France in 2004: social factors are important predictors after adjusting for known risk factors.

To monitor the prevalence of hepatitis B and hepatitis C a cross-sectional survey was conducted in 2004 among French metropolitan residents. A complex sampling design was used to enroll 14,416 adult participants aged 18-80 years. Data collected included demographic and social characteristics and risk factors. Sera were tested for anti-HCV, HCV-RNA, anti-HBc and HBsAg. Data were analyzed with SUDAAN software to provide weighted estimates for the French metropolitan resident population. The overall anti-HCV prevalence was 0.84% (95% CI: 0.65-1.10). Among anti-HCV positive individuals, 57.4% (95% CI: 43.2-70.5) knew their status. Factors associated independently with positive anti-HCV were drug use (intravenous and nasal), blood transfusion before 1992, a history of tattoos, low socioeconomic status, being born in a country where anti-HCV prevalence >2.5%, and age >29 years. The overall anti-HBc prevalence was 7.3% (95%: 6.5-8.2). Independent risk factors for anti-HBc were intravenous drug use, being a man who has sex with men, low socioeconomic status, a stay in a psychiatric facility or facility for the mentally disabled, <12 years of education, being born in a country where HBsAg prevalence >2%, age >29 and male sex. The HCV RNA and HBsAg prevalence were 0.53% (95% CI: 0.40-0.70) and 0.65% (95% CI: 0.45-0.93), respectively. Among HBsAg positive individuals, 44.8% (95% CI: 22.8-69.1) knew their status. Anti-HCV prevalence was close to the 1990s estimates whereas HBsAg prevalence estimate was greater than expected. Screening of hepatitis B and C should be strengthened and should account for social vulnerability.

Assessment and proposal of a new combination of screening criteria for hepatitis C in France.

BACKGROUND: The current French hepatitis C virus infection screening programme is not yet reaching all populations at risk. In order to better identify individuals that would benefit from a screening test, we investigated an expanded combination of personal characteristics as potential screening criteria for this infection. METHODS: We constructed two multiple-regression models predicting hepatitis C antibody seropositivity using the population sample from the 2004 French national hepatitis C antibody seroprevalence survey (SPS) (n = 14 416): one representing current screening guidelines and another constructed from personal characteristics collected for the SPS. Performance of the two predictive models was statistically compared and we internally validated the better performing model. RESULTS: The expanded screening criteria model better discriminated seropositive and seronegative individuals [area under the ROC curve (AUC) 0.869 (95% CI 0.861-0.873)] than the current screening guidelines model [AUC 0.821 (95% CI 0.810-0.824)]. This performance difference was statistically significant (P < 0.00001). The expanded criteria model contains the variables age, sex, pre-1992 blood transfusion, intra-venous drug use, receipt of medical welfare for precarious individuals, previous surgeries, illicit nasal drug use, previous hepatitis C screening, tattoo, raised alanine aminotransferase level and birth in a hepatitis C high/moderate-prevalence country. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that an expanded combination of screening criteria better predicted hepatitis C antibody status and thus individuals needing screening than the current French-screening guidelines. The proposed combination of screening criteria could more effectively target hepatitis C risk-populations in France and could serve as the basis for a decision-making screening tool for the general population.

Outbreak of serogroup W135 meningococcal disease after the Hajj pilgrimage, Europe, 2000.

The 2000 Hajj (March 15-18) was followed by an outbreak of Neisseria meningitidis W135 2a: P1.2,5 in Europe. From March 18 to July 31, 2000, some 90 cases of meningococcal infection were reported from nine countries, mostly the United Kingdom (UK) and France; 14 cases were fatal. Although most early cases were in pilgrims, the outbreak spread to their contacts and then to those with no known pilgrim contact. In France and the UK, the outbreak case-fatality rate was compared with the rate reported from national surveillance. The risk of dying during this outbreak was higher in France and the UK, although the difference was not statistically significant. Prophylaxis for all pilgrims and their household contacts was offered in France; in the UK and other European countries, prophylaxis was recommended only for close contacts. No difference in transmission rates following intervention was detected between France and the UK.

Introduction of SARS in France, March-April, 2003.

We describe severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in France. Patients meeting the World Health Organization definition of a suspected case underwent a clinical, radiologic, and biologic assessment at the closest university-affiliated infectious disease ward. Suspected cases were immediately reported to the Institut de Veille Sanitaire. Probable case-patients were isolated, their contacts quarantined at home, and were followed for 10 days after exposure. Five probable cases occurred from March through April 2003; four were confirmed as SARS coronavirus by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction, serologic testing, or both. The index case-patient (patient A), who had worked in the French hospital of Hanoi, Vietnam, was the most probable source of transmission for the three other confirmed cases; two had been exposed to patient A while on the Hanoi-Paris flight of March 22-23. Timely detection, isolation of probable case-patients, and quarantine of their contacts appear to have been effective in preventing the secondary spread of SARS in France.