Hepatitis C Virus
Infection in Young, Low-Income Women: The Role of Sexually
Transmitted Infection as a Potential Cofactor for Hepatitis C Virus
Infection
April
2002, Vol 92, No. 4 | American Journal of Public Health
670-676
© 2002
Kimberly A. Page-Shafer, PhD,
MPH, Barbara Cahoon-Young, PhD, Jeffrey D. Klausner, MD, MPH,
Scott Morrow, PhD, Fred Molitor, PhD, Juan Ruiz, MD, DrPH and
Willi McFarland, MD PhD for the Young Women's Survey Team
Kimberly A. Page-Shafer is
with the Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, Department of
Medicine, University of California San Francisco, Calif.
Barbara Cahoon-Young is with East Bay Liver Clinic, Oakland,
Calif. Jeffrey D. Klausner is with the Division of STD
Control, San Francisco Department of Public Health, San
Francisco, Calif. Scott Morrow is with San Mateo County
Department of Public Health, Redwood City, Calif. Fred Molitor
and Juan Ruiz are with the Office of AIDS, HIV/AIDS
Epidemiology Branch, California Department of Health Services,
Sacramento, Calif. Willi McFarland is with the HIV
Epidemiology Unit, San Francisco Department of Public Health,
San Francisco, Calif.
Correspondence: Requests for
reprints should be sent to Kimberly A. Page-Shafer, PhD, MPH,
Center for AIDS Prevention Studies, UCSF, 74 New Montgomery
St, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94105 (e-mail: kshafer@psg.ucsf.edu).
ABSTRACT
Objectives. We evaluated risk for hepatitis C virus (Hepatitis C Virus)
infection in women residing in low-income
neighborhoods of northern California.
Methods. A population-based sample of 1707 women,
aged 18 to 29, were surveyed and screened for
sexually transmitted infections and Hepatitis C Virus.
Results. Women infected with Hepatitis C Virus (2.5%) were more
likely to have a history of injection and
noninjection drug use, to exchange sex for money or
drugs, and to have sexually transmitted infections. Hepatitis C Virus
was independently associated with history of injection drug
use, herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection, and
heroin and cocaine use.
Conclusions. Injection drug use is the highest risk
exposure for Hepatitis C Virus, but HSV-2 and noninjection drug
use contribute significantly to increased risk. Hepatitis C Virus
prevention programs in impoverished areas should
integrate drug treatment and sexually transmitted infection
control.
INTRODUCTION
Hepatitis C virus (Hepatitis C Virus) is the most important cause of acute
and chronic liver disease in the United States. An
estimated 4 million people, 1.8% of the US general
population, are Hepatitis C Virus infected.1
Persistent infection develops in more than 85% of the
persons exposed. Chronic hepatitis develops in 50% to 70%
of the infected persons, and 10% to 20% of these may go
on to develop cirrhosis.2
Liver failure and hepatocellular carcinomas necessitating
liver transplantation are some of the most severe consequences
of Hepatitis C Virus infection. An estimated 8000 to 10 000 deaths per
year are attributed to Hepatitis C Virus-associated liver disease, a figure
expected to triple in the next 10 to 20 years.3
Given the current low response to treatment (<
50%),4,5
primary prevention remains the most important
public health control strategy to reduce Hepatitis C Virus-related
morbidity.
Hepatitis C Virus infection is most easily acquired parenterally. As a
result, prevalence is highest among injection drug
users (IDUs) and hemophiliacs.6–8
Nonparenteral transmission of Hepatitis C Virus appears to be
inefficient.7–14
Past research has documented the cofactor role of
sexually transmitted infections in amplifying the
acquisition and transmission of HIV and hepatitis B virus
(HBV),15–17
but this interrelationship has not been well examined
for Hepatitis C Virus. High rates of sexually transmitted infections and
Hepatitis C Virus coinfection among IDUs suggest that ulcerative or
nonulcerative urogenital infections may be
cofactors for Hepatitis C Virus transmission. However,
investigation of sexually transmitted infections as potential
cofactors for sexual transmission of Hepatitis C Virus is hampered by
the confounding effects of concomitant high-risk sexual
behavior and injection practices.18
Lack of data on the determinants of sexual
transmission of Hepatitis C Virus has limited the development of guidelines
for sexual partners who may be at risk for transmitting or
acquiring Hepatitis C Virus.9,19
The current study examined Hepatitis C Virus in the Young Women's Survey,
a population-based sample of young women recruited in
lowincome, multiethnic neighborhoods of northern
California.20
Analysis focused on sexual behavior and sexually
transmitted infections as risk factors for Hepatitis C Virus and
their associated population attributable fractions.
METHODS
Study Design
The Young Women's Survey was a single-stage, cluster-sample,
population-based, door-to-door, cross-sectional survey
designed to measure the prevalence of HIV, sexually
transmitted diseases, and related risk behavior in
young, low-income women in northern California. The
Young Women's Survey study methods, study population, and
primary outcomes have been described in detail elsewhere.20
Hepatitis C Virus testing was conducted on stored sera from
participants in 4 counties: Alameda, San Francisco,
San Joaquin, and San Mateo.
Study Subjects
The target population was young women residing in low-income
neighborhoods. Eligibility criteria were being female,
aged 18 to 29 years, fluent in English or Spanish,
and a resident in the target area. The target area
was defined as 1990 US census block groups below
the 10th percentile for median household income. In
the 4 counties included in the study of Hepatitis C Virus, a total of
19 270 inhabited dwellings were enumerated in 276 randomly
selected street blocks within the target area. Contact
was made with a resident in each of 15 943
dwellings (82.7%). Of the 2828 eligible women
identified, 2096 (74.1%) were enrolled from April
1996 to January 1998. Sera were available for 1707 (81.4%)
of the women who were interviewed.
Measures
A structured interviewer-administered survey was conducted to
gather data on sociodemographic characteristics, sexual
behavior, substance use, medical history, and other
health-related factors. Response rates for most
variables were greater than 99%. Blood and urine
samples were obtained to test for HIV, syphilis, herpes simplex
virus types 1 and 2 (HSV-1, HSV-2), HBV, gonorrhea, and
chlamydia.
Laboratory Methods
Antibody to Hepatitis C Virus (anti-Hepatitis C Virus) was detected with a
third-generation enzyme immunoassay (EIA-3.0; Ortho
Diagnostics Systems, Raritan, NJ). Specimens
reactive by initial EIA-3.0 were confirmed with a
strip recombinant immunoblot assay (RIBA 2.0; Chiron,
Emeryville, Calif). Discrepant results (EIA+, RIBA–)
were considered negative. HIV testing was conducted
with enzyme immunoassay (EIA; Abbott Laboratories,
Abbott Park, Ill) and confirmed by immunofluorescent
antibody (IFA; Neufeld, Vienna, Austria). Antibody
to hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) was detected by
EIA (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill), and hepatitis
B surface antigen (HBsAg) was detected by microparticle
EIA (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill). HSV-1
and HSV-2 specific antibodies were differentiated
based on recombinant antigen bands for gG1, gB1,
gG2, and gD2 with a strip recombinant immunoblot assay
(RIBA HSV Type 1/Type 2 SIA; Chiron, Emeryville, Calif). Blood
samples were tested for syphilis by rapid plasma reagin or
VDRL tests; reactive specimens were confirmed by
microhemagglutination test for Treponema
pallidum. Ligase chain reaction (LCx; Abbott Laboratories,
Abbott Park, Ill) was used to detect gonococcal and
chlamydial DNA in urine specimens.
Statistical Methods
To account for the single-stage, cluster-sample survey design,
we used Stata, Version 6.0, Survey (SVY) procedures to
construct point prevalences, 95% confidence
intervals (CIs), and odds ratios (ORs).21
Ninety-five-percent confidence intervals were adjusted
to account for homogeneity within the primary sampling units
(i.e., city blocks). Because crude prevalence estimates in
the sample differed from the survey-adjusted estimates, we
present only weighted percentages.
Multiple logistic regression analysis, adjusting for the
survey design, was used to identify independent
correlates of Hepatitis C Virus infection based on factors
significant in bivariate analyses, a priori hypotheses
(such as coinfection with HIV or HBV), and other variables
of interest or potential confounders (such as age, race/ethnicity,
and county). Models were examined with both a
backward and a forward stepwise process. Variables were
retained in the models if they reached a
significance level of .05 or less. The final
multiple logistic model and aflogit procedures21
employing Stata statistical software were used to obtain
estimates of adjusted population attributable
fraction and corresponding 95% confidence intervals
with an approach based on unconditional logistic
regression.22,23
The 95% confidence intervals associated with the
population attributable fraction estimates were adjusted for
probability weights but not for the cluster weights.
RESULTS
Prevalence of Anti-Hepatitis C Virus, by Social and Demographic
Characteristics
The population-based estimate of Hepatitis C Virus prevalence among women
aged 18 to 29 years in low-income neighborhoods of the
4-county target area was 2.5% (95% CI = 1.4, 3.6)
(Table 1 ).
The estimate is based on the 40 Hepatitis C Virus RIBA-confirmed
specimens of a total of 63 found to be positive
with EIA-3.0. More than a third (39.2%) of the
subjects were African American, 31.9% were Latina, 15.4% were
White, 6.7% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 6.7% indicated
other or mixed race/ethnicity. Most women
(70.5%) were born in the United States; 16.9% were
born in Mexico, and 12.5% were born in other
countries. The median age was 23.9 years (interquartile range
= 21.0–26.7).
TABLE 1 —Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus (Hepatitis C Virus)
Infection, by Demographic Characteristics, in Women Aged 18 to
29 Years From Low-Income Neighborhoods of 4 Northern
California Counties, April 1996–January 1998
|
|
Population
Prevalence of Variable, %a
|
Population
Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus Antibody, % (95% CI)a,b
|
OR
(95% CI)a
|
|
Total
|
|
2.5 (1.4, 3.6)b
|
|
|
County of residence
|
|
Alameda
|
30.0
|
3.8 (1.7, 6.0)
|
8.9
(2.6, 29.7)*
|
|
San
Francisco
|
27.9
|
4.3 (1.4, 7.1)
|
10.0
(2.8, 35.4)*
|
|
San
Joaquin
|
13.2
|
1.4 (0.1, 2.7)
|
Referent
|
|
San
Mateo
|
28.9
|
0 (NAc)
|
NAc
|
|
Monthly household income, $
|
|
0–499
|
25.9
|
5.1 (2.4, 7.8)
|
5.6
(2.1, 14.7)*
|
|
500–999
|
33.7
|
2.2 (0.8, 3.7)
|
2.4
(0.9, 6.2)
|
|
1000–2999
|
33.0
|
1.1 (0.2, 2.1)
|
Referent
|
|
3000
|
7.3
|
0 (NAc)
|
NAc
|
|
Race/ethnicity
|
|
White
|
15.4
|
3.8 (1.1, 6.4)
|
5.3
(1.3, 21.5)***
|
|
African
American
|
39.2
|
4.0 (2.0, 5.9)
|
5.6
(1.8, 17.5)**
|
|
Asian
or Pacific Islander
|
6.7
|
0.9 (0, 2.5)
|
1.2
(0.1, 11.6)
|
|
Other
|
6.7
|
1.7 (0, 4.0)
|
2.3
(0.4, 15.0)
|
|
Latina
|
31.9
|
0.7 (0, 1.6)
|
Referent
|
|
Education
|
|
<
High school
|
40.6
|
3.1 (1.4, 4.8)
|
5.7
(0.9, 36.8)
|
|
High
school graduate
|
27.0
|
2.6 (1.1, 4.1)
|
4.7
(0.7, 32.1)
|
|
Vocational
or some college
|
22.2
|
2.4 (0.7, 4.0)
|
4.3
(0.5, 35.0)
|
|
College degree
|
10.2
|
0.6 (0, 1.7)
|
Referent
|
|
Marital status
|
|
Currently
married
|
19.4
|
1.9 (0, 4.1)
|
0.7
(0.2, 2.2)
|
|
Previously
married
|
8.4
|
4.9 (1.1, 8.6)
|
1.8
(0.8, 4.3)
|
|
Unmarried
partnership
|
10.1
|
0.6 (0, 1.7)
|
0.2
(0.3, 1.4)
|
|
Single
|
62.1
|
2.7 (1.4, 4.0)
|
Referent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note. CI = confidence
interval; OR = odds ratio.
|
|
aAll prevalence
estimates, 95% CIs, and ORs are adjusted for the
survey design.
|
|
bAnti-Hepatitis C Virus
confirmed in n = 40.
|
|
cNot able to
calculate survey-adjusted CIs or ORs when no
infections were detected.
|
|
*P
.001;
**P
.01;
***P
.05.
|
|
The prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus varied significantly by county of
residence, income level, and race/ethnicity. Hepatitis C Virus
prevalence was highest in the 2 most urban
counties: San Francisco (4.3%; 95% CI = 1.4, 7.1)
and Alameda (3.8%; 95% CI = 1.7, 6.0). Hepatitis C Virus prevalence increased
with decreasing income, reaching 5.1% (95% CI = 2.4, 7.8)
among women in the lowest income category (< $500 per month).
By race/ethnicity, Hepatitis C Virus prevalence was highest among African
Americans (4.0%; 95% CI = 2.0, 5.9).
Women for whom sera were not available did not differ
significantly from women with sera with respect to
age, education, income, or injection drug use
history. However, women without sera available were
more likely to be single and to have 2 or more male sex partners
and less likely to be Latina ( 2
test, P < .05). The latter finding
resulted from sera not being available for a
disproportionate number of subjects from San Joaquin County.
Prevalence of Anti-Hepatitis C Virus, by Sexually Transmitted
Infections and Sexual Behavior
Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus was significantly higher among women with
serologic markers for infection with syphilis (18.3%;
95% CI = 0, 41.7), HSV-2 (4.2%; 95% CI = 1.9, 6.4),
HBV (8.3%; 95% CI = 3.2, 13.5), and HIV (63.5%; 95%
CI = 0.8, 119.5) (Table 2 ).
Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus increased with increasing number of lifetime
male sexual partners, from 0.4% (95% CI = 0, 1.3) among
women with 1 partner to 3.9% (95% CI = 2.2, 5.7)
among women with 5 or more partners. Only 2 women
(0.1%) reported no male sexual partners, and 1 of
these women had Hepatitis C Virus infection. Other sexual risk
behaviors associated with increased Hepatitis C Virus prevalence were sex
with an IDU (12.6%; 95% CI = 7.2, 18.0), exchange sex (trading
sex for money, drugs, or other needs) (13.6%; 95% CI =
5.6, 18.6), and ever having anal sex (4.5%; 95% CI
= 2.1, 7.0).
TABLE 2 —Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus (Hepatitis C Virus)
Infection, by Sexually Transmitted Infections and Reported
Sexual Behavior, in Women Aged 18 to 29 Years From Low-Income
Neighborhoods of 4 Northern California Counties, April
1996–January 1998
|
|
Population
Prevalence of Variable, %a
|
Population
Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus Antibody, % (95% CI)a,b
|
Bivariate
OR (95% CI)a
|
|
Chlamydia
|
3.2
|
2.1 (2.0, 6.2)
|
0.8
(0.1, 6.0)
|
|
Syphilis
|
0.8
|
18.3 (0, 41.7)
|
9.1
(1.7, 46.8)**
|
|
Gonorrhea
|
0.8
|
0 (NAc)
|
NAc
|
|
Herpes simplex virus type 2
|
34.2
|
4.2 (1.9, 6.4)
|
10.4
(3.2, 34.3)*
|
|
Hepatitis B (core antibody or
surface antigen)
|
8.8
|
8.3 (3.2, 13.5)
|
4.1
(1.9, 8.8)*
|
|
HIV
|
0.2
|
63.5 (0.8, 119.5)
|
69.6
(6.1, 788.0)*
|
|
Lifetime male sex partners
|
|
1
|
19.8
|
0.4 (0, 1.3)
|
Referent
|
|
2–4
|
26.2
|
1.0 (0, 2.2)
|
1.4
(0.2, 8.5)
|
|
5
|
53.9
|
3.9 (2.2, 5.7)
|
5.6
(1.3, 23.8)**
|
|
Sex with injection drug user
|
10.3
|
12.6 (7.2, 18.0)
|
10.4
(5.8, 18.6)*
|
|
Traded sex for money or drugs
|
12.1
|
13.6 (5.6, 18.6)
|
14.5
(7.1, 29.7)*
|
|
Anal sex
|
22.9
|
4.5 (2.1, 7.0)
|
2.3
(1.3, 4.1)**
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note. CI = confidence
interval; OR = odds ratio.
|
|
aAll prevalence
estimates, 95% CIs, and ORs are adjusted for the
survey design.
|
|
bAnti-Hepatitis C Virus
confirmed in n = 40.
|
|
cNot able to
calculate survey-adjusted CIs or ORs when no
infections were detected.
|
|
*P
.001;
**P
.01.
|
|
Prevalence of Anti-Hepatitis C Virus, by Injection and Noninjection
Drug Use
Table 3
shows the prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus among women by reported alcohol,
noninjection drug, and injection drug use. Of note, the
estimate of lifetime injection drug use in the target
population was 4.4% (95% CI = 2.9, 5.9). Hepatitis C Virus
infection was strongly associated with a history of
injecting any drug (OR = 64.6; 95% CI = 33.0, 126.2,
P < .001). Hepatitis C Virus infection was significantly more
likely among women who reported sharing needles in
the past 6 months compared with those who did not
(66.7% vs 37.1%; OR = 3.3; 95% CI = 1.0, 11.0) but
not among women who reported having ever shared a
needle compared with those who did not (OR = 2.7; 95% CI
= 0.8, 10.1). Among women with a history of injection drug
use, the prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus increased significantly with
age: 19.7% (95% CI = 5.5, 34.2) among those younger
than 24 years and 55% (95% CI = 38.0, 72.0) among
those 24 years and older (data not shown).
TABLE 3 —Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus (Hepatitis C Virus)
Infection, by Alcohol, Noninjection Drug, and Injection Drug
Use, in Women Aged 18 to 29 Years From Low-Income
Neighborhoods of 4 Northern California Counties, April
1996–January 1998
|
|
Population
Prevalence of Variable, %a
|
Population
Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus Antibody, % (95% CI)a,b
|
OR
(95% CI)a
|
|
History of injection drug use
|
4.4
|
37.5 (26.4, 48.6)
|
64.6 (33.0, 126.2)*
|
|
Shared needles (among those
with a history of injection drug use)
|
|
Ever
|
56.0
|
51.4 (38.8, 63.9)
|
2.7 (0.8, 10.1)
|
|
Last
6 mo
|
38.5
|
66.7 (47.2, 86.1)
|
3.3 (1.0,
11.0)***
|
|
Alcohol
|
|
Ever
|
78.0
|
2.8 (1.6, 4.2)
|
2.2 (0.8, 6.3)
|
|
Last
6 mo
|
60.3
|
2.8 (1.5, 4.1)
|
1.3 (0.7, 2.7)
|
|
Sex
while high on
|
30.7
|
4.3 (2.3, 6.4)
|
2.6 (1.3, 5.3)**
|
|
Amphetamine
|
|
Ever
|
12.3
|
9.3 (4.7, 13.8)
|
7.1 (4.0, 12.6)*
|
|
Last
6 mo
|
5.0
|
15.6 (8.3, 22.9)
|
9.8 (5.6, 17.4)*
|
|
Sex
while high on
|
2.8
|
19.7 (9.0, 30.3)
|
11.8 (6.0, 23.3)*
|
|
Injected amphetamine
|
|
Ever
|
2.2
|
42.2 (26.5, 57.8)
|
43.8 (18.8, 102.0)*
|
|
Last
6 mo
|
1.0
|
55.8 (34.8, 76.7)
|
61.9 (21.9, 174.7)*
|
|
Sex
while high on
|
0.6
|
50.0 (28.1, 71.9)
|
44.0 (15.7, 123.5)*
|
|
Cocaine
|
|
Ever
|
17.5
|
12.1 (7.8, 16.4)
|
27.6 (11.2, 67.9)*
|
|
Last
6 mo
|
8.5
|
21.1 (14.5, 27.7)
|
32.9 (15.8, 68.5)*
|
|
Sex
while high on
|
5.2
|
24.5 (15.4, 33.7)
|
24.3 (11.2, 52.5)*
|
|
Injected cocaine
|
|
Ever
|
1.6
|
51.2 (33.2, 69.2)
|
59.9 (25.5, 140.8)*
|
|
Last
6 mo
|
0.9
|
72.6 (51.0, 94.2)
|
135.5 (40.7, 451.2)*
|
|
Sex
while high on
|
0.2
|
100 (NAc)
|
NAc
|
|
Heroin
|
|
Ever
|
5.1
|
28.9 (18.8, 38.9)
|
36.2 (18.8, 68.9)*
|
|
Last
6 mo
|
2.2
|
50.4 (36.9, 64.1)
|
68.4 (32.7, 143.1)*
|
|
Sex
while high on
|
1.5
|
51.7 (34.3, 69.1)
|
59.2 (25.9, 135.0)*
|
|
Injected heroin
|
|
Ever
|
2.8
|
44.5 (32.5, 56.5)
|
59.5 (28.5, 124.2)*
|
|
Last
6 mo
|
1.7
|
66.7 (56.1, 77.2)
|
140.6 (71.4, 276.6)*
|
|
Sex
while high on
|
1.2
|
62.8 (51.2, 74.3)
|
93.4 (47.7, 182.8)*
|
|
Ever on methadone treatment
|
1.2
|
45.5 (21.3, 69.8)
|
41.0 (13.0, 129.8)*
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note. CI = confidence
interval; OR = odds ratio.
|
|
aAll prevalence
estimates, 95% CIs, and ORs are adjusted for the
survey design.
|
|
bAnti-Hepatitis C Virus
confirmed in n = 40.
|
|
cNot able to
calculate survey-adjusted CIs or ORs when the
point estimate is 0 or 100%.
|
|
*P
.001;
**P
.01;
***P
.05.
|
|
Ever and recent use of alcohol was not associated with
increased Hepatitis C Virus prevalence, but having had sex while
high on alcohol was (OR = 2.6; 95% CI = 1.3, 5.3).
Hepatitis C Virus prevalence was significantly higher among women
reporting use of amphetamine, cocaine, or heroin
compared with women not using these drugs. For each of these
drugs, Hepatitis C Virus prevalence was higher among those reporting recent
use compared with ever use and among those reporting injecting
compared with those not injecting. Of any risk factor measured,
Hepatitis C Virus prevalence was highest among women reporting recent cocaine
injection (72.6%; 95% CI = 51.0, 94.2), followed by those
reporting recent heroin injection (66.7%; 95% CI = 56.1, 77.2).
Independent Risk Factors for Hepatitis C Virus Infection
In multivariate analyses (Table 4 ),
the strongest independent associations with Hepatitis C Virus
infection were history of injection drug use
(adjusted OR = 4.9; 95% CI = 2.7, 9.2), serological evidence
of HSV-2 infection (OR = 3.7; 95% CI = 1.2, 11.5), any
use of heroin (OR = 5.6; 95% CI = 3.1, 10.2), any
use of cocaine (OR = 3.4; 95% CI = 1.2, 9.5), and
very low income (adjusted OR for income < $500
per month = 4.2; 95% CI = 1.2, 14.4) after adjustment
for age. Sexual risk behavior did not reach statistical significance
in the model. The associations found between Hepatitis C Virus infection
and race/ethnicity were confounded by income and reported
sexual risk behavior. African American women were most
likely to have HSV-2 infection, to have lower
income, and to report a history of trading sex for
drugs or money and thus were at highest risk for
Hepatitis C Virus infection. No significant interactions were
found between age, racial/ethnic group, and sexual risk behaviors.
HIV infection was a significant risk factor for Hepatitis C Virus in
this study but was excluded from the model because of small
numbers and the observation that parameter estimates of
the other variables were not significantly changed
by its inclusion. The adjusted odds ratio for Hepatitis C Virus
infection associated with HIV infection was 7.5
(95% CI = 1.5, 37.0).
TABLE 4 —Independent Associations With Hepatitis C
Virus Infection (Multivariate Analysis) and Associated
Population Attributable Fractions for Women Aged 18 to 29
Years From Low-Income Neighborhoods of 4 Northern California
Counties, April 1996–January 1998
|
|
Adjusted
OR (95% CI)
|
Adjusted
Population Attributable Fraction (95% CI)
|
|
History of injection drug use
|
4.9 (2.7, 9.2)
|
0.332 (–0.9, 0.8)
|
|
Herpes simplex virus type 2
|
3.7 (1.2, 11.5)
|
0.506 (–13.8, 1.0)
|
|
Heroin use (ever)
|
5.6 (3.1, 10.2)
|
0.394 (–1.1, 0.8)
|
|
Cocaine use (ever)
|
3.4 (1.2, 9.5)
|
0.442 (–9.2, 1.0)
|
|
Age (< 24 vs
24)
|
2.5 (0.9, 7.2)
|
|
|
Monthly income, $
|
|
<
500
|
4.2 (1.2, 14.4)
|
0.400 (–6.4, 1.0)
|
|
500–999
|
1.5 (0.3, 6.9)
|
0.695 (–2.3, 0.7)
|
|
1000
|
Referent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note. CI = confidence
interval; OR = odds ratio.
|
|
Analyses among women with no history of injection drug use
were conducted to evaluate risk factors associated
with nonparenteral acquisition of Hepatitis C Virus infection. In
this subset, 12 women (0.9%) were positive for
anti-Hepatitis C Virus. Factors associated with Hepatitis C Virus among women
non-IDUs were African American race/ethnicity, noninjection
cocaine use, and lower income (Table 5 ).
Cocaine use and exchange sex (e.g., trading sex for
money or drugs) were highly collinear; however,
cocaine use had a stronger association. Among women non-IDUs,
African Americans were significantly more likely (OR =
27.5; 95% CI = 3.4, 221.5) to be positive for Hepatitis C Virus than were
non–African American women, an association confounded
by income level (the unadjusted OR was 36.0).
|