Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0236993. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236993

Decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B and D virus infections in an endemic area in Peru 23 years after the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against hepatitis B

Cesar Cabezas 1,2,*, Omar Trujillo 3, Johanna Balbuena 1, Flor de Maria Peceros 1, Manuel Terrazas 1, Magna Suárez 1, Luis Marin 1, Janet Apac 4, Max Carlos Ramírez-Soto 1
Editor: Yury E Khudyakov5
PMCID: PMC7410281  PMID: 32760100

Abstract

In 1991, Peru launched the first vaccination program against hepatitis B in children aged under 5 years in the hyperendemic [hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis D virus (HDV)] province of Abancay. We conducted a cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of HBV and HDV infections, 23 years after the launch of the vaccination program, as well as the post-vaccine response against hepatitis B in terms of prevalence of hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs ≥10 mUI/ml). Among 3165 participants aged from 0 to 94 years, the prevalence rates of hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), and hepatitis B core antibody (total anti-HBc) were 1.2% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85–1.64%], and 41.67% (95% CI 39.95–43.41%), respectively. The prevalence rate of anti-HBs at protective levels (≥10 mUI/ml) in individuals who HBsAg and anti-HBc negative was 66.36% (95% CI 64.15–68.51%). The prevalence rate of HBsAg in children aged <15 years was nil, and among adult HBsAg carriers, the prevalence of hepatitis D antibody (anti-HDV) was 5.26% (2/38; 95% CI 0.64–17.74). These findings showed that HBV prevalence has changed from high to low endemicity, 23 years following implementation of the vaccination program against hepatitis B, and HDV infection was not detected in those aged <30 years.

Introduction

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a serious public health problem worldwide [1]. Since 1984, prevention programs against HBV infection have been implemented in various countries, including immunization using hepatitis B vaccine and use of immunoglobulin in infants born to hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive mothers [2,3], which have led to a substantial decline in the prevalence of HBV and hepatitis D virus (HDV) infections among children in hyperendemic countries such as China, Japan and Colombia [26]. In this context, a model study has shown that vaccination of infants and neonates is already driving a significant decrease in new infections; vaccination has already prevented 210 million new cases of chronic infections by 2015 and will have averted 1.1 million deaths by 2030 [7]. Similarly, morbi-mortality for HBV-related liver diseases has substantially declined in children and adults since the introduction of vaccination against HBV [8,9].

In 1991, Peru launched the first vaccination program against HBV in children aged under 5 years in the HBV- and HDV-hyperendemic province of Abancay [10]. The program began with immunization of 3791 children aged under 5 years between 1991 and 1994, and subsequently expanded to universal vaccination in Abancay as well as other hyperendemic provinces in Peru [10]. Following implementation of the program against HBV, the carrier rate of HBsAg decreased from 9.8% in 1991 (in the general Abancay population) [11] to below 3% in 2010 among those aged ≥18 years (including 2.5% and 1.9% of university students and blood donors, respectively) [12,13]. Over the next 22 years, this vaccination program has also led to a decline in the mortality burden of HBV-related liver diseases, particularly cirrhosis and fulminant hepatitis, in children aged under 15 years [14].

Despite the benefits of the vaccination program in terms of lower carrier rates of HBsAg in those aged ≥18 years and reduced mortality rates from HBV-related liver diseases [1214], to date, there are no data on the impact of the HBV vaccination program on the carrier rates of HBsAg, hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc), hepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) and hepatitis D antibody (anti-HDV) in the general population of Abancay. Therefore, in this study, we determined the prevalence of HBV and HDV infections in Abancay province 23 years since the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against HBV, as well as the post-vaccine response against hepatitis B in terms of prevalence of anti-HBs. These findings would prove useful in determining the effectiveness of the program, in order to mitigate the mortality risk and strengthen vaccination coverages in at-risk populations, with an overall aim to eradicate HBV infection in Abancay by 2030.

Material and methods

Study design

A cross-sectional study was conducted in the general population of the province of Abancay in Peru between November and December 2014.

Study population and sample method

The province of Abancay is the departmental capital of Apurímac, a poor area in the south central highlands of Peru. Abancay has nine districts, each with a population ranging between 1213 and 51,225 inhabitants. The overall estimated population of Abancay in 2007 was 96,064, according to a regularly updated census of the National Institute of Statistics and Information (INEI) (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Geographic location of Abancay province in Peru.

Fig 1

The required sample size was calculated using the design effect. Based on 95% confidence interval (CI), a margin of error of 4.3%, a design effect of 2, a prevalence rate of 50%, and a response rate of 80%, the required sample size was 3520 participants.

Conglomerate (population groups) stratified random sampling and multi-stage were used in this study. First, conglomerates in each geographical area were selected using INEI’s 2007 national population census and housing data. A total of 113 conglomerates comprising 32 inhabitants each were selected for analysis. Second, conglomerate houses were selected, based on urban and rural population lists derived from the census. In cases of rejections or losses, the houses were replaced by the next eligible house on the list. Third, participants were selected, based on the birthday date closest to the date of the survey visit; otherwise, the participants were allocated to the next selected dwelling. If more than one member of the same family shared the same birth date, only one of these members was randomly selected. Men and women of all ages residing for more than 6 months in Abancay were included in the study. People with mental or physical disabilities who had communication difficulties, verbal and written, were excluded from the study. Due to geographical barriers and accessibility in Abancay province, only a total of 3165 participants from 0 to 94 years were included in this study (Fig 1).

Laboratory analysis

A total volume of 4 ml of venous blood sample was obtained from each participant aged ≤10 years, and 7 ml from each aged >10 years. Serological screening for HBsAg, total anti-HBc and anti-HBs was performed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy, Beijing, China) at the Laboratorio de Referencia Nacional Hepatitis, Centro Nacional de Salud Puública of the Instituto Nacional de Salud, Peru. In cases of reactive results for HBsAg, the assay was repeated at least twice. HBsAg was considered confirmed when associated with reactive anti-HBc. If an HBsAg-reactive sample was total anti-HBc negative, it was considered unconfirmed. HBsAg-reactive samples were tested for anti-HBc immunoglobulin M (IgM), hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), hepatitis B e antibody (anti-HBe) and anti-HDV, using ELISA (Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy). Levels of anti-HBs of ≥10 and <10 mUI/ml were considered as protective and non-protective against HBV infection, respectively, following the manufacturer’s instructions (100% sensibility and 99.58% specificity). The HBV viral load was quantified by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), using COBAS AmpliPrep /COBAS TaqMan VHB Test version 2.0 (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Branchburg, NJ, USA).

Ethics

The study protocol was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Instituto Nacional de Salud, Lima -Peru. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants aged ≥18 years. For participants aged <18 years, written consent was obtained from their parents or guardians. A translator was available for those participants who were Quechua speakers, who then gave their signed consent to participate in the study.

Statistical analysis

The prevalence rates of HBsAg, total anti-HBc, and anti-HBs ≥10 mUI/ml (by gender, age and district) with 95% CIs were calculated. The prevalence rate at protective levels of anti-HBs (≥10 mUI/ml) was calculated in participants with HBsAg and total anti-HBc negative. The prevalence rate of anti-HDV was calculated in HBsAg carriers. The prevalence rates (by gender, age and district) were compared using Pearson’s χ2 test. P-values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA 16 for Windows (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX, US).

Results

The overall prevalence rates of HBsAg and total anti-HBc were 1.20% (95% CI 0.85–1.64%) and 41.67% (95% CI 39.95–43.41%), respectively (Table 1). The prevalence rates of HBsAg and anti-HBc total by gender, age and district are shown in Table 1. The prevalence rates of HBsAg and total anti-HBc total in children aged 0–10 years were 0 and 14.40% (95% CI 8.76–21.80%), respectively. Only two participants, aged 15 and 16 years, respectively, were HBsAg positive; therefore, the prevalence rate of HBsAg in children aged <15 years was nil. The prevalence rates of HBsAg among those aged ≥11 years were similar across all age groups (0.81–1.48%), while prevalence rates of total anti-HBc increased significantly with age (p<0.0001) (Table 1). The prevalence rate of anti-HDV was 5.26% (95% CI 0.64–17.74) (2 of the 38 HBsAg carriers, including only participants aged >30 years).

Table 1. Prevalence rates of HBsAg and total anti-HBc in Abancay, Peru, 2014.

  N (%) HBsAg Total anti-HBc
Positive (n) Prevalence % (95% CI) p* Positive (n) Prevalence % (95% CI) p*
Overall 3165 (100%) 38 1.20% (0.85–1.64)   1319 41.67% (39.95–43.41)  
Gender              
Male 2004 (63.3%) 20 0.99% (0.61–1.53) 0.169 829 41.36% (39.20–43.55) 0.645
Female 1161 (16.7%) 18 1.55% (0.92–2.43)   490 42.20% (39.34–45.10)  
Age (years)**              
    0–10 125 (4.02%) 0 0.0% (0.0–0.0) 0.657 18 14.40% (8.76–21.80) 0.0001
    11–18 370 (11.87%) 3 0.81% (0.16–2.35)   67 18.10% (14.31–22.41)  
    19–29 933 (30.06%) 12 1.28% (0.66–2.23)   245 26.25% (23.46–29.20)  
    30–59 1409 (45.34%) 19 1.34% (0.81–2.09)   760 53.93% (51.29–56.56)  
    ≥60 270 (8.69%) 4 1.48% (0.40–3.74)   203 75.18% (69.58–80.22)  
District              
Abancay 2204 (69.9%) 26 1.18% (0.77–1.72) 0.092 909 41.24% (39.17–43.33) 0.001
Curahuasi 329 (12.4%) 7 2.12% (0.85–4.33)   201 61.09% (55.59–66.39)  
Tamburco 137 (4.3%) 1 0.72% (0.02–3.99)   47 34.30% (26.41–42.89)  
Huanipaca 122 (3.9%) 0 0.0% (0.0–0.0)   50 40.98% (32.16–50.25)  
Lambrana 97 (3.1%) 0 0.0% (0.0–0.0)   34 35.05% (25.63–45.40)  
San Pedro de Cachora 104 (3.3%) 1 0.96% (0.02–5.24)   34 32.69% (23.81–42.58)  
Pichirhua 51 (1.6%) 2 3.92% (0.47–13.45)   25 49.01% (34.75–63.40)  
Circa 47 (1.5%) 0 0.0% (0.0–0.0)   14 29.78% (17.33–44.89)  
Chacoche 11 (0.3%) 1 9.09% (0.22–41.27)   5 45.45% (16.74–76.62)  

*χ2 test.

**Age was obtained in 3107 participants.

A total of 3135 of 3165 was tested for anti-HBs. Of these, 1201 and 1846 individuals were anti-HBc-positive and anti-HBc-negative, respectively. On the other hand, 36 individuals total anti-HBc-positive had levels of anti-HBs <10 mUI/ml. The prevalence rate at protective levels of anti-HBs (i.e., ≥10 mIU/ml) in individuals who were HBsAg and anti-HBc negative was 66.36% (95% CI 64.15–68.51%) (Table 2). The prevalence rates of anti-HBs (≥10 mUI/ml) in individuals who HBsAg and total anti-HBc negative by gender, age and district are shown in Table 2. The prevalence rate of anti-HBs (≥10 mUI/ml) in children aged 0–10 years was 75.70% (95% CI 66.45–83.47), and the prevalence rates of anti-HBs decreased significantly from the age of 19 years (p<0.0001) (Table 2).

Table 2. Prevalence rate of anti-HBs ≥10 mUI/ml in individuals HBsAg and total anti-HBc negative in Abancay, Peru, 2014.

  N (%) Positive (n) Prevalence % (95% CI) p*
Overall 1846 1225 66.36% (64.15–68.51)  
Gender        
Male 671 (72.70) 454 67.66% (63.97–71.18 0.371
Female 1175 (27.30 771 65.61% (62.82–68.33)  
Age (years)**        
    0–10 107 (5.90) 81 75.70% (66.45–83.47) 0.0001
    11–18 303 (16.70) 281 92.73% (89.21–95.39)  
    19–29 688 (37.93) 522 75.87% (72.49–79.02)  
    30–59 649 (35.78) 307 47.30% (43.40–51.22)  
    ≥60 67 (3.69) 18 26.86% (16.76–39.09)  
District        
Abancay 1295 (70.15) 872 67.33% (64.70–69.88) 0.0001
Curahuasi 191 (10.35) 114 59.68% (52.36–66.70)  
Tamburco 90 (4.88) 62 68.88% (58.26–78.23)  
Huanipaca 72 (3.90) 42 58.33% (46.11–69.84)  
San Pedro de Cachora 70 (3.79) 36 51.42% (39.17–63.55)  
Lambrama 63 (3.41) 51 80.95% (69.09–89.75)  
Circa 33 (1.79) 21 63.63% (45.12–79.60)  
Pichirhua 26 (1.41) 25 96.15% (80.36–99.90)  
Chacoche 6 (0.33) 2 33.33% (4.32–77.72)  

*χ2 tests.

**Age was obtained in 1814 participants.

All HBsAg-positive participants (n = 38) were HBeAg negative and anti-HBe positive, and only one 30-year-old male participant was anti-HBc IgM positive. HBV viral load was detected in 30 of 38 carriers. Of these 30 carriers, 9 (30%), 15 (50%) and 3 carriers (10%) had HBV DNA levels of <20, 20–1000 and 1000–2000 IU/ml, respectively, and only 3 carriers (10%) had HBV DNA levels of >2000 IU/ml. In a participant with anti-HBc IgM positive the HBV viral load was >2000 IU/ml. In the participants with anti-HDV-positive the HBV viral load were <2000 IU/ml.

Discussion

Our findings showed that since the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against HBV in Abancay, there has been a decrease in the HBsAg carrier rate over the past two decades, from high to low endemicity (9.8% in 1991 vs. 1.2% in 2014), compared with those reported in previous studies, especially in children (Fig 2) [11]. Our study did not find chronic HBsAg carriers among children aged <15 years, whereas with other studies which showed reduced HBsAg carrier rates from 9.8% to 2.3% in children aged 5–14 years and 1% in those aged <1 year in China and 0.5% in children aged <11 years in Colombia [6,15]. Therefore, our study showed that the vaccination program is already preventing new chronic infections in Abancay. In addition, infant vaccination is reducing mortality from HBV-related liver diseases, including cirrhosis, hepatocarcinoma and fulminant hepatitis, as reported previously [14].

Fig 2. Carrier rates of HBsAg, compared with HBsAg carrier rates reported from previous studies, in Abancay province in Peru [11,12,1618].

Fig 2

In this study, we also observed a change in the prevalence of HDV among HBsAg carriers, from 9% in 1990 [11] to 5.2% in 2014, 23 years since the launch of the vaccination program, and HBV infection was not detected in those aged <30 years, thus correlating with the reduced HBsAg carrier rate. These findings are in agreement with other studies, which reported a decrease in the prevalence of HDV in chronic HBsAg carriers, following vaccination against HBV [19]. Moreover, several studies suggested that high vaccination coverage against HBV can eliminate both HBV and HDV infections [20]. In our study most HBsAg carriers had HBV viral load low (<2000 IU/ml). HBV DNA level is closely associated with stadium to the infection. Therefore, it likely these to have been infected in adulthood, and it are experiencing viral clearance as the natural course of the infection progressed. However, in this study we did not follow to HBsAg carriers.

Anti-HBc-positive/HBsAg-negative indicates previous HBV infection [21]. In this study, our findings demonstrated a high anti-HBc prevalence rate in Abancay province, and this prevalence rate was increased significantly with age. One possible reason for this is that those aged >18 years had greater exposure to HBV before the introduction of the vaccination program; hence, the probability of anti-HBc positivity increased in individuals aged >18 years. Moreover, there were two outbreaks of HBV infection in Abancay [16] before the introduction of the vaccination program, which would also contribute to high anti-HBc prevalence rates in those aged ≥18 years. Therefore, the increasing prevalence of total anti-HBc with age suggested natural immunity. Moreover, the anti-HBc prevalence was lower in children and adolescents. These findings also confirm that the prevalence rate of anti-HBc has declined since the introduction of the vaccination program in Abancay province. These findings are consistent with other studies, which found low total anti-HBc carrier rates in children, compared with those aged ≥18 years where seropositivity of total anti-HBc increased with the age [22].

In our study, we found high prevalence rates of anti-HBs at protective levels (i.e., ≥10 mIU/ml) in individuals aged 0–18 years who were HBsAg and anti-HBc negative. These high prevalence rates of anti-HBs in individuals aged 0–18 years show that HBV vaccination program has been successfully implemented for >20 years with good coverage and efficacy among the children in Abancay, Peru. Levels of anti-HBs considered protective against HBV are an indicator of successful vaccination. However, in this study, low prevalence rates of anti-HBs at protective levels were obtained in individuals aged 30–59 years who were HBsAg and anti-HBc negative, and reached its lowest level in those aged ≥60 years. This is probably related to the fact that these individuals either did not have access to vaccination, because of a low coverage of hepatitis B vaccination in the young/older adult group, or did not respond to the vaccine, possibly due to either a defense mechanism or changes in their immune response. However, our study methodology here did not allow for us to confirm this hypothesis. This observation was previously described by other researchers such as Zaffina et al. [23], who showed that repeated vaccinations in this group of people did not alter the levels of memory B cells or the production of anti-HBs antibodies. Therefore, further research is necessary, especially on host immune response, in the context of implementation of HBV elimination programs, with the aim to, at least, reduce to a minimum the number of people susceptible to infection, if not to eliminate HBV.

The main limitation of this study relates to different time periods (1990 vs. 2014) used in comparing HBsAg carrier rates in different populations, as a result of the HBV vaccination program, since there were no cohort effects in children aged under 5 years who were vaccinated between 1991 and 1994. However, the effects of the HBV vaccination program that was introduced in 1991 would manifest in an age-specific manner and would be expected mainly in individuals aged <30 years, as shown by Chang et al. [9] who compared data from 1986 and 1994 [9]. Another study limitation is that the number of participants included in this study was smaller than the required sample size, and the proportion of women was higher than that of men, in accordance with other studies [24,25]. Given these limitations, it is possible that carrier rates were either underestimated or overestimated, thus resulting in potential bias. Finally, the prevalence rates of HBV varies from distric to distric, particularly as some district have small population, therefore, it can lead to a bias. However, according to used methods, the objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of HBV and HDV infections in Abancay province. Despite these limitations, this population-based study showed that vaccination against HBV has a positive impact by reducing HBsAg carrier rates in the general population and in children aged <15 years in Abancay, Peru.

Conclusions

Our study findings showed that HBV prevalence has changed from high to low endemicity, 23 years after the introduction of the vaccination program against HBV in Abancay. It is noteworthy that there are no chronic HBsAg carriers among children aged <15 years and no HDV infection has been detected in those aged under 30 years. Moreover, we found high prevalence rates of anti-HBs at protective levels in individuals aged 0–18 years, and low prevalence rates of anti-HBs at protective levels in individuals aged older 29 years who were HBsAg and anti-HBc negative. These findings highlight the necessity to strengthen the vaccination program against HBV in those aged older 29 years, as well as to diagnose and treat in a timely manner chronic HBsAg carriers, with a view to eliminating HBV in the future.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLS)

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Instituto Nacional de Salud, Peru. We thank to the researchers and professionals at Centro Nacional de Salud Puública, Instituto Nacional de Salud, Lima, Peru, DIRESA Apurímac and Ministerio de Salud (MINSA).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was supported by the Instituto Nacional de Salud, Lima -Peru [project OI- 083-2013].

References

  • 1.Schweitzer A, Horn J, Mikolajczyk RT, Krause G, Ott JJ. Estimations of worldwide prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a systematic review of data published between 1965 and 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(10003):1546–55. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)61412-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chen DS, Hsu NHM, Sung JL, et al. A mass vaccination program in Taiwan against hepatitis B virus infection in infants of hepatitis B surface antigen-carrier mothers. JAMA. 1987;257:2597–2603. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ujiie M, Sasaki K, Yoshikawa N, Enami T, Shobayashi T. Introduction of a hepatitis B vaccine into the national routine immunisation programme of Japan. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(12):1325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hu YC, Yeh CC, Chen RY, Su CT, Wang WC, Bai CH, et al. Seroprevalence of hepatitis B virus in Taiwan 30 years after the commencement of the national vaccination program. Peer J. 2018;6:e4297 10.7717/peerj.4297 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhou Y, He H, Deng X, Yan R, Tang X, Xie S, et al. Significant reduction in notification and seroprevalence rates of hepatitis B virus infection among the population of Zhejiang Province, China, aged between 1 and 29 years from 2006 to 2014. Vaccine. 2017;35(34):4355–61. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.06.078 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.García D, Porras A, Mendoza AR, Alvis N, Navas MC, De La Hoz F, et al. Hepatitis B infection control in Colombian Amazon after 15 years of hepatitis B vaccination. Effectiveness of birth dose and current prevalence. Vaccine. 2018;36(19):2721–6. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nayagam S, Thursz M, Sicuri E, Conteh L, Wiktor S, Low-Beer D, et al. Requirements for global elimination of hepatitis B: a modelling study. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2016;16(12):1399–408. 10.1016/S1473-3099(16)30204-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chang CH, Lin JW, Tu YK. Secular trends were considered in the evaluation of universal hepatitis B vaccination in Taiwan. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68 (4):405–11. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Chang MH, Chen CJ, Lai MS, Hsu HM, Wu TC, Kong MS, et al. Universal hepatitis B vaccination in Taiwan and the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in children. Taiwan childhood hepatoma study group. N Engl J Med. 1997;336 (26):1855–9. 10.1056/NEJM199706263362602 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cabezas C, Echevarría C, Gómez G, Gotuzzo E. Pilot program of immunization against viral hepatitis B, integrated in the extended immunization program in Abancay (Perú). Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 1995;15(3):215–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Indacochea S, Gotuzzo E, De La Fuente J, Phillips I, Whignal S. High prevalence of hepatitis B and delta markers in the inter Andean valley of Abancay. Rev Med Hered. 1991;2(4):168–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ramírez-Soto MC, Huichi-Atamari M, Aguilar-Ancori EG, Pezo-Ochoa JD. [Seroprevalence of viral hepatitis B in university students in Abancay, Peru]. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2011;28(3):513–7. 10.1590/s1726-46342011000300017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ramírez-Soto MC, Huichi-Atamari M. [Hepatitis B in blood donors at an hospital in Apurimac, Peru]. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2012;29(1):163 10.1590/s1726-46342012000100033 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ramírez-Soto MC, Ortega-Cáceres G, Cabezas C. Trends in mortality burden of hepatocellular carcinoma, cirrhosis, and fulminant hepatitis before and after roll-out of the first pilot vaccination program against hepatitis B in Peru: An analysis of death certificate data. Vaccine. Si 2017;35(31):3808–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Luo Z, Li L, Ruan B. Impact of the implementation of a vaccination strategy on hepatitis B virus infections in China over a 20-year period. Int J Infect Dis. 2012;16(2):e82–8. 10.1016/j.ijid.2011.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Méndez M, Arce M, Kruger, Sánchez S. Prevalencia de marcadores serológicos de hepatitis vírica en diversos grupos de población del Perú. Bol Of Panam. 1989;106(2):127–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dávalos E. Prevalencia de antígenos y anticuerpos de la hepatitis B y hepatitis C por el método (EIA) inmunoenzayo enzimático en población aparentemente sana en el hospital de apoyo I de IPSS-Abancay [Thesis Bachelor]. Cusco: Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, UNSAAC; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Flores A, Gotuzzo E, Cabezas C, Watts D, Holgado W. Estudio demográfico de la hepatitis B y Delta en la ciudad de Abancay-Apurímac. Bol Soc Per Infecc Trop. 1995;4:26. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sagnelli E, Sagnelli C, Pisaturo M, Macera M, Coppola N. Epidemiology of acute and chronic hepatitis B and delta over the last 5 decades in Italy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(24):7635–43. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i24.7635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Goyal A, Murray JM. The impact of vaccination and antiviral therapy on hepatitis B and hepatitis D epidemiology. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e110143 10.1371/journal.pone.0110143 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Wang Q, Klenerman P, Semmo N. Significance of anti-HBc alone serological status in clinical practice. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2(2):123–134. 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30076-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Liu J, Zhang S, Wang Q, Shen H, Zhang M, Zhang Y, et al. Seroepidemiology of hepatitis B virus infection in 2 million men aged 21–49 years in rural China: a population-based, cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(1):80–86. 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00218-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zaffina S, Marcellini V, Santoro AP, Scarsella M, Camisa V, Vinci MR, et al. Repeated vaccinations do not improve specific immune defenses against Hepatitis B in non-responder health care workers. Vaccine. 2014; 5;32(51):6902–10. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.10.066 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Alvarado-Mora MV, Fernandez MF, Gomes-Gouvêa MS, de Azevedo Neto RS, Carrilho FJ, et al. Hepatitis B (HBV), hepatitis C (HCV) and hepatitis delta (HDV) viruses in the Colombian population—how is the epidemiological situation? PLoS One. 2011;6(4):e18888 10.1371/journal.pone.0018888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chen CJ, Yang HI. Natural history of chronic hepatitis B REVEA Led. 2011. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;26(4):628–38. 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06695.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Yury E Khudyakov

11 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-35864

Decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B and D virus infections in an endemic area in Peru 23 years after the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against hepatitis B

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ramírez-Soto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Your manuscript was reviewed by 3 experts in the field. All reviewers were very critical of your submission and produced many important comments. Please carefully review the attached comments and provide thorough responses to each point.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study performed by Cabezas and colleagues demonstrated HBV prevalence reduction 23 years after the introduction of a pilot vaccination program in the high prevalence area of Abancay, Peru. The study has merit, however, some points should be addressed before publication.

Keywords (line 40): It would be more informative to add Peru as a keyword instead Abancay.

Material and Methods:

The number and exact location of study population is not clear. How many people from each district/conglomerate were selected? It is partially set in table 1, but should be better explained. How many individuals are from urban areas and how many are from rural areas? Please, clarify these points. I suggest this information to be added to Figure 1 to make it more informative. Figure 1 could contain more details about the study population (number of subjects/district and district locations). As it stands, it is very similar to other figures available on various websites (wikipedia etc).

Line 91: What the authors mean as “each geographical area”? It should be better explained. I suggest it to be placed in figure 1.

Line 92: The authors mean “A total of 113 conglomerates comprising 32 inhabitants each ? If yes, please add this word.

Lines 95-95: In the sentence “In cases of rejections or losses, the houses were not replaced by the next eligible house on the list”, is the word ‘not’ placed correctly? If yes, the sentence is not relevant. If no, please make the correction.

Results:

Line 133: How many individuals were recruited and what was the loss? Please, provide this information.

Figure 2: Please, rephrase the caption. It is not clear, the text could be improved. Also, on the x-axis of the chart, the term “Carrier rate of HBsAg (%)” is confusing. Please replace to "HBsAg carriers (%)" or just "HBsAg (%)".

Lines 135-137: The sentence “A decreased trend in the carrier rates of HBsAg, compared with those reported in previous studies, in populations of Abancay 24 years since the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against HBV was observed (9.8% in 1991 vs. 1.2% in 2014 (Fig 2) [11].” is more a discussion than a result. Also, in other points of the paper, the authors set 23 instead 24 years since the first vaccination program. Please, standardize the time interval.

Line 143: How was the viral load and serological profile of the HBV acute infected subject?

Lines 146-147: Did the anti-HDV carriers present higher HBV viral loads?

Lines 148-154: I suggest to replace “carrier rates of HBsAg, anti-HBc and anti-HBs” by “HBsAg anti-HBc and anti-HBs prevalences” or “HBsAg anti-HBc and anti-HBs positivity”.

Discussion:

Lines 169-170: “In this study, we also observed a decline in the prevalence of HDV among HBsAg carriers, from 9% in 1990 [11] to 5.2% in 2014”. Was this decrease statistically significative?

Lines 186-190: This is probably related to the fact that these individuals either did not have access to vaccination or did not respond to the vaccine.One possible explanation is that those with repeated HBV exposure no longer became infected and hence did not mount protective levels of anti-HBs, possibly due to either a defense mechanism or changes in their immune response”.If I understood correctly, in this sentence the authors attributed the anti-HBs levels (that might be due to low vaccination response) to repeated HBV exposures over time. It is a quite speculative and unlikely to happen, once individuals exposed to HBV usually have positivity for both anti-HBs and anti-HBc serological markers. Please clarify the sentence.

Other comments:

-Is there any difference in HBV prevalences between urban and rural areas?

-Based on table one, individuals from nine districts have been recruited, most of them to Abancay, where the highest prevalences of HBV serological markers were observed. It can lead to a bias and should be better discussed.

-The age groups showed in table 1 could be standardized and better explored/discussed

-The authors performed molecular tests (HBV viral loads) but did not provide any discussion exploring these points.

Reviewer #2: This study presented the change of hepatitis B and D virus infection in Peru 23 years after the implementation of HBV vaccination, but this is not novel as previous study has already showed such pattern [12-14]. Although the authors mentioned that there are no data on the impact of the HBV vaccination program on the carrier rates of HBsAg, anti-HBc, anti-HBs and anti-HDV. Apart from the change of HBsAg in Figure, there was no data to support the changes of other antigens/antibodies. In addition, the step of sample collection is not clear to me. For instance, what is the meaning of conglomerates? Why 'in case of rejection or losses, the houses were not replaced by the next eligible house on the list'? What's more, the statistical analysis is not appropriate. To my knowledge, there is no 'by bivariate analysis, using chi-square test and odds ratios'. Odds ratios were obtained via logistic regression. And it seems that Table used such analysis but it could be done by using simple chi-square test. The detail of my comments are as below:

1. The description seems not consistent:

Line 88-89 Study population and sample method: the author calculated the sample size should be at least 3520, but only 3165 were included in this study.

2. Line 99-100: why people with mental or physical disabilities...were excluded from this study?

3. Line 112-113: Levels of anti-HBs of >=10 and <10mUI/ml were considered as protective and non-protective...How did the author get the cutoff? Any reference to support this? What's the sensitivity and specificity?

4. Line 125: how did the authors calculate the 95% CIs?

5. Table 2: apart from age and gender, should not the paper has other variables? It would be interesting to check the other characteristics of antigen prevalence?

6. Line 162: the reduction of hbv prevalence was purely derived from the comparison with previous study in the region. Therefore, it is very important to show the similarity between the previous and the current study. For instance, the mean age, gender distribution?

7. Line 166-168: Therefore, our study showed that...reducing mortality...This study did not provide any data about the liver cancer mortality?

8. Line 169: we also observed a decline in the prevalence of HDV...No data from the result section was presented for the prevalence of HDV.

9. Line 176-183: this paragraph is very confusing and I could see the logic here.

Reviewer #3: The authors conducted a survey on hepatitis B and D infection in Peru after a Hepatitis B vaccination program started. The results of the survey were compared to survey results from the times before the vaccination regulations. The prevalence of chronic hepatitis B declined and surprisingly the prevalence of anti-HBc was higher than the prevalence of anti-HBs. Anti-HBs positive, anti-HBc negative results indicate a vaccination. It was not shown how many participants had this constellation. Anti-HBc positive indicates an infection with HBV. About 40 % of the population had a HBV infection. This is an astonishing result for a population that had been vaccinated.

Major concerns

1) The authors conceive the comparison of two surveys conducted many years apart as a study. I would say the survey in 2014 was a study and the results of this study should be compared to the previous publication in the results section.

2) Are the results of the survey conducted in 2014 published elsewhere? It is surprising that it took six years to present the results. Please comment.

3) Why do the findings highlight the necessity to strengthen the childhood vaccination program? It is not known whether vaccination was performed or not. Please explain.

Minor concerns

1) Discussion line 161: continuous decrease? You compare two different survey and you have now information on what happened between them. So delete continuous.

2) line 163: in contrast? Why in contrast?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Albert Nienhaus

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review PLos jan 2020.docx

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0236993. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236993.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 May 2020

Response-to-reviewers: Manuscript PONE-D-19-35864

We thank the Reviewers for their comments and constructive criticism, we believe that the quality of our manuscript has been significantly improved. We have revised our paper in a point-by-point manner. Modifications are in yellow text.

Reviewer #1: The study performed by Cabezas and colleagues demonstrated HBV prevalence reduction 23 years after the introduction of a pilot vaccination program in the high prevalence area of Abancay, Peru. The study has merit, however, some points should be addressed before publication.

Keywords (line 40): It would be more informative to add Peru as a keyword instead Abancay.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected the keywords (Line 40).

Material and Methods:

The number and exact location of study population is not clear. How many people from each district/conglomerate were selected? It is partially set in table 1, but should be better explained. How many individuals are from urban areas and how many are from rural areas? Please, clarify these points. I suggest this information to be added to Figure 1 to make it more informative. Figure 1 could contain more details about the study population (number of subjects/district and district locations). As it stands, it is very similar to other figures available on various websites (wikipedia etc).

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected the Fig. 1.

Line 91: What the authors mean as “each geographical area”? It should be better explained. I suggest it to be placed in figure 1.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected the Fig. 1.

Line 92: The authors mean “A total of 113 conglomerates comprising 32 inhabitants each ? If yes, please add this word.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected the text (line 93).

Lines 95-95: In the sentence “In cases of rejections or losses, the houses were not replaced by the next eligible house on the list”, is the word ‘not’ placed correctly? If yes, the sentence is not relevant. If no, please make the correction.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected the sentence (line 95-96).

Results:

Line 133: How many individuals were recruited and what was the loss? Please, provide this information.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; due to geographical barriers and accessibility in Abancay province, only a total of 3165 participants were included in this study (lenes 101-102).

Figure 2: Please, rephrase the caption. It is not clear, the text could be improved. Also, on the x-axis of the chart, the term “Carrier rate of HBsAg (%)” is confusing. Please replace to "HBsAg carriers (%)" or just "HBsAg (%)".

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected the Fig. 2.

Lines 135-137: The sentence “A decreased trend in the carrier rates of HBsAg, compared with those reported in previous studies, in populations of Abancay 24 years since the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against HBV was observed (9.8% in 1991 vs. 1.2% in 2014 (Fig 2) [11].” is more a discussion than a result. Also, in other points of the paper, the authors set 23 instead 24 years since the first vaccination program. Please, standardize the time interval.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; the paragraph has been included in the Discussion section (lines 161-164)

Line 143: How was the viral load and serological profile of the HBV acute infected subject?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; In a participant with anti-HBc IgM positive the HBV viral load was >2000 IU/ml (line 151).

Lines 146-147: Did the anti-HDV carriers present higher HBV viral loads?

Reponse: Thank you for this suggestion; In the participants with anti-HDV positive the HBV viral load were <2000 IU/ml (lines 151-152).

Lines 148-154: I suggest to replace “carrier rates of HBsAg, anti-HBc and anti-HBs” by “HBsAg anti-HBc and anti-HBs prevalences” or “HBsAg anti-HBc and anti-HBs positivity”.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected these typos (lines 135-137 and 140-146).

Discussion:

Lines 169-170: “In this study, we also observed a decline in the prevalence of HDV among HBsAg carriers, from 9% in 1990 [11] to 5.2% in 2014”. Was this decrease statistically significative?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; a statistical comparison cannot be performed. We have corrected this paragraph (line 175).

Lines 186-190: This is probably related to the fact that these individuals either did not have access to vaccination or did not respond to the vaccine.One possible explanation is that those with repeated HBV exposure no longer became infected and hence did not mount protective levels of anti-HBs, possibly due to either a defense mechanism or changes in their immune response”.If I understood correctly, in this sentence the authors attributed the anti-HBs levels (that might be due to low vaccination response) to repeated HBV exposures over time. It is a quite speculative and unlikely to happen, once individuals exposed to HBV usually have positivity for both anti-HBs and anti-HBc serological markers. Please clarify the sentence.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected this paragraph (Lines 196-199).

Other comments:

Is there any difference in HBV prevalences between urban and rural areas?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; difference in HBV prevalences between urban and rural areas was not an objective of the study. These data were not available.

Based on table one, individuals from nine districts have been recruited, most of them to Abancay, where the highest prevalences of HBV serological markers were observed. It can lead to a bias and should be better discussed.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have included a limitation (lines 214-217).

The age groups showed in table 1 could be standardized and better explored/discussed.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; The age groups was standardized in this way to be comparable with other studies.

The authors performed molecular tests (HBV viral loads) but did not provide any discussion exploring these points.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have included a paragraph on HBV viral load (181-184).

Reviewer #2: This study presented the change of hepatitis B and D virus infection in Peru 23 years after the implementation of HBV vaccination, but this is not novel as previous study has already showed such pattern [12-14]. Although the authors mentioned that there are no data on the impact of the HBV vaccination program on the carrier rates of HBsAg, anti-HBc, anti-HBs and anti-HDV.

Apart from the change of HBsAg in Figure, there was no data to support the changes of other antigens/antibodies. In addition, the step of sample collection is not clear to me.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In the previous study there were no data on anti-HBc and anti-HBs.

For instance, what is the meaning of conglomerates?

Response: Thank you for your comment. Conglomerate are population groups (line 91).

Why 'in case of rejection or losses, the houses were not replaced by the next eligible house on the list'?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have corrected this tipo (line 95-96).

What's more, the statistical analysis is not appropriate. To my knowledge, there is no 'by bivariate analysis, using chi-square test and odds ratios'. Odds ratios were obtained via logistic regression. And it seems that Table used such analysis but it could be done by using simple chi-square test.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Statistical analyzes were reviewed with our statistician (lines 129-130 and Table 2).

1. The description seems not consistent:

Line 88-89 Study population and sample method: the author calculated the sample size should be at least 3520, but only 3165 were included in this study.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; due to geographical barriers and accessibility in Abancay province, only a total of 3165 participants were included in this study (lines 1011-102).

2. Line 99-100: why people with mental or physical disabilities...were excluded from this study?

Response: Thank you for your comment. We didn't have informed consent from them.

3. Line 112-113: Levels of anti-HBs of >=10 and <10mUI/ml were considered as protective and non-protective...How did the author get the cutoff? Any reference to support this? What's the sensitivity and specificity?

Response: Thank you for your comment. Levels of anti-HBs of �10 and <10 mUI/ml were considered as protective and non-protective against HBV infection, respectively, following the manufacturer’s instructions (Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy, Beijing, China) (lines 114-115).

4. Line 125: how did the authors calculate the 95% CIs?

Response: Thank you for your comment. 95% CIs were calculated with the Statistical Program.

5. Table 2: apart from age and gender, should not the paper has other variables? It would be interesting to check the other characteristics of antigen prevalence?

Response: Thank you for your comment. For the purposes of this study, prevalence by district was included (Table 1).

6. Line 162: the reduction of hbv prevalence was purely derived from the comparison with previous study in the region. Therefore, it is very important to show the similarity between the previous and the current study. For instance, the mean age, gender distribution?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; a statistical comparison cannot be performed. We have corrected this paragraph (lines 161-164).

7. Line 166-168: Therefore, our study showed that...reducing mortality...This study did not provide any data about the liver cancer mortality?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have corrected this paragraph (168-170).

8. Line 169: we also observed a decline in the prevalence of HDV...No data from the result section was presented for the prevalence of HDV.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have corrected this paragraph. The HDV prevalence are shown in the Results section (lines 137-138).

9. Line 176-183: this paragraph is very confusing and I could see the logic here.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have corrected this paragraph (186-193).

Reviewer #3: The authors conducted a survey on hepatitis B and D infection in Peru after a Hepatitis B vaccination program started. The results of the survey were compared to survey results from the times before the vaccination regulations. The prevalence of chronic hepatitis B declined and surprisingly the prevalence of anti-HBc was higher than the prevalence of anti-HBs. Anti-HBs positive, anti-HBc negative results indicate a vaccination. It was not shown how many participants had this constellation. Anti-HBc positive indicates an infection with HBV.

About 40 % of the population had a HBV infection. This is an astonishing result for a population that had been vaccinated.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The objective of our study was to determine the prevalence of HBV and HDV infections in Abancay 23 years since the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against HBV, as well as the post-vaccine response against hepatitis B (lines 67-70).

Major concerns

1) The authors conceive the comparison of two surveys conducted many years apart as a study. I would say the survey in 2014 was a study and the results of this study should be compared to the previous publication in the results section.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. The results of both studies are compared in the Discussion section.

2) Are the results of the survey conducted in 2014 published elsewhere? It is surprising that it took six years to present the results. Please comment.

Response: Our delay was due to logistical, administrative and financial difficulties in completing the study.

3) Why do the findings highlight the necessity to strengthen the childhood vaccination program? It is not known whether vaccination was performed or not. Please explain.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have corrected this sentence. These findings highlight the necessity to strengthen the vaccination program against HBV in individuals aged >18 years, as well as to diagnose and treat in a timely manner chronic HBsAg carriers, with a view to eliminating HBV in the future (lines 225-226).

Minor concerns

1) Discussion line 161: continuous decrease? You compare two different survey and you have now information on what happened between them. So delete continuous.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have corrected this sentence (line 162).

2) line 163: in contrast? Why in contrast?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have corrected this

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response-to-reviewers_PLOSONE-D-19-35864.docx

Decision Letter 1

Yury E Khudyakov

1 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-35864R1

Decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B and D virus infections in an endemic area in Peru 23 years after the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against hepatitis B

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ramírez-Soto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Your manuscript was reviewed by 3 original reviewers. Although 2 reviewers were satisfied with your responses, one reviewer still identified some points that require your attention.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 16 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for the authors responses to my comments. As responded by the author, the novity of this study was the results about anti-HBc (~42%) and anti-HBs (~39%). Based on the low prevalence of HBsAg, I assume the increasing prevalence of anti-HBc with age suggested natural immunity while the decreasing prevalence of anti-HBs with age correlated with the immunization program. But such kind of summary was not found in the current paper. I agree the reduction of HBsAg was consistent with previous study which showed validity of the data. But I would recommend the author wrote more about the novel results and the interpretation of them.

My other concern is still about the statistical test and presentation of the results. For instance,

1. Table 1. As the study showed the prevalence, there should not be any 95% CI include negative values. But this is the case in a lot of numbers.

2. Table 2. The author used chi-square test, but what the reference group and how large are the samples for each group. As this is not an adjusted analysis, why did not the authors combine Table 2 with Table 1? By doing this, more statistical comparison could also be provided.

Reviewer #3: The comments of the reviewers were adressed and the manuscript improved. It is ready for publication now

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Wen-Qiang He

Reviewer #3: Yes: Albert Nienhaus

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 6;15(8):e0236993. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236993.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Jul 2020

Response-to-reviewers: Manuscript PONE-D-19-35864R1

We thank the Reviewers for their comments and constructive criticism, we believe that the quality of our manuscript has been significantly improved. We have revised our paper in a point-by-point manner. Modifications are in yellow text.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for the authors responses to my comments. As responded by the author, the novity of this study was the results about anti-HBc (~42%) and anti-HBs (~39%). Based on the low prevalence of HBsAg, I assume the increasing prevalence of anti-HBc with age suggested natural immunity while the decreasing prevalence of anti-HBs with age correlated with the immunization program. But such kind of summary was not found in the current paper. I agree the reduction of HBsAg was consistent with previous study which showed validity of the data. But I would recommend the author wrote more about the novel results and the interpretation of them.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; We have corrected these paragraphs in Discussion section (lines 205-214 and lines 218-228).

My other concern is still about the statistical test and presentation of the results. For instance,

1. Table 1. As the study showed the prevalence, there should not be any 95% CI include negative values. But this is the case in a lot of numbers.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have corrected Table 1.

2. Table 2. The author used chi-square test, but what the reference group and how large are the samples for each group. As this is not an adjusted analysis, why did not the authors combine Table 2 with Table 1? By doing this, more statistical comparison could also be provided.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion; we have combine Table 2 with Table 1 “Prevalence rates of HBsAg and anti-HBc”, include the p-values. For a better understanding of the readers, we have also include a Table 2 “prevalence rates of anti-HBs at protective levels (i.e., �10 mIU/ml) in individuals who were HBsAg and anti-HBc negative”. We have also re-estimated the prevalence rates of anti-HBs (lines 160-167 and Table 2).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response-to-review_PONE-D-19-35864R1.docx

Decision Letter 2

Yury E Khudyakov

20 Jul 2020

Decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B and D virus infections in an endemic area in Peru 23 years after the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against hepatitis B

PONE-D-19-35864R2

Dear Dr. Ramírez-Soto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Yury E Khudyakov

27 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-35864R2

Decrease in the prevalence of hepatitis B and D virus infections in an endemic area in Peru 23 years after the introduction of the first pilot vaccination program against hepatitis B

Dear Dr. Ramírez-Soto:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yury E Khudyakov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLS)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review PLos jan 2020.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response-to-reviewers_PLOSONE-D-19-35864.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response-to-review_PONE-D-19-35864R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES