METHODS: Based on data from a published systematic review on chronic HBV, we applied a linear model on the logit scale to assess time trends in country-specific prevalence. Estimated HBsAg prevalence in 2000 and relative changes in prevalence over time were evaluated by country and region.
RESULTS: Sufficient data were available for 50 countries, mostly showing reductions in prevalence over time. Various degrees of heterogeneity were observed within regions, with a relatively homogenous pattern in the Eastern Mediterranean region with strong decreases in HBsAg prevalence. Europe showed a mixed pattern: higher and stable chronic HBsAg prevalence in Eastern, and constantly low prevalence in Western Europe. In Africa, some countries demonstrated no change in prevalence; increases were seen in Uganda (odds ratio 1.05 per year; 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.06), Nigeria (1.02; 1.02-1.02), Senegal (1.01; 1.01-1.02), and South Africa (1.02; 1.01-1.02). With some exceptions, country-patterns overlapped among countries of South East Asian and Western Pacific regions, characterized by low-medium HBsAg decreases, most prominent in China and Malaysia.
CONCLUSIONS: Most countries experienced decreases in HBsAg prevalence. Dynamics varied, even within regions; decreases occurred mostly before the direct effects of childhood vaccination may have manifested. These findings together with stable and increasing HBsAg prevalence in some countries of Africa and Eastern Europe indicate the need for further tailored country-specific prevention.
LAY SUMMARY: This study investigated time trends in prevalence of chronic HBV infection in 50 countries worldwide over the last decade, by estimating relative changes in prevalence. Results show decreases in chronic HBV infection in most countries; no changes or increases in prevalence are noted in some African countries. Reasons for time changes need to be investigated further; based on the results, various prevention measures have contributed to reductions, and further tailored HBV prevention is required to combat the disease on a global level.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a validated self-administered questionnaire. A convenience sample of 147 community pharmacists working in community pharmacies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 147 pharmacists, of whom 104 responded to the survey, a 70.7% response rate. The mean age of participants was 29 years. The majority (n = 101, 98.1%) had graduated with a bachelorette degree and worked in chain pharmacies (n = 68, 66.7%). Only 23 (22.1%) said they were familiar with the ADR reporting process, and only 21 (20.2%) knew that pharmacists can submit ADR reports online. The majority of the participants (n = 90, 86.5%) had never reported ADRs. Reasons for not reporting ADRs most importantly included lack of awareness about the method of reporting (n = 22, 45.9%), misconception that reporting ADRs is the duty of physician and hospital pharmacist (n = 8, 16.6%) and ADRs in community pharmacies are simple and should not be reported (n = 8, 16.6%). The most common approach perceived by community pharmacists for managing patients suffering from ADRs was to refer him/her to a physician (n = 80, 76.9%).
CONCLUSION: The majority of community pharmacists in Riyadh have poor knowledge of the ADR reporting process. Pharmacovigilance authorities should take necessary steps to urgently design interventional programs in order to increase the knowledge and awareness of pharmacists regarding the ADR reporting process.