The Effect of Underreporting on the Apparent Incidence and Epidemiology of Acute Vhial Hepatitis

To determine if passively reported cases of acute viral hepatitis are representative of the affected population, an active surveillance system was set up that identified all persons in Pierce County, Washington, who had been diagnosed by a physician as having acute viral hepatitis in the period March 1 through August 31, 1984. In this county, this was part of an ongoing epidemiologic study of viral hepatitis that had previously included some stimulation of reporting. The active surveillance system covered all primary sources of medical care, including all private physicians who were most likely to see persons with hepatitis. Secondary sources, those that did not provide direct medical care but might be aware of new cases, were also surveyed. The results of active surveillance showed that passive reporting was about 65% complete in Pierce County. No change occurred in the number of hepatitis A cases reported, but hepatitis B cases increased by 50%, and non-A, non-B hepatitis cases increased by 138%. Most of the increase was a result of enhanced reporting from private physicians. The two risk groups most affected by underreporting were homosexual men with hepatitis B and blood transfusion recipients with non-A, non-B hepatitis. During active surveillance, the proportion of persons with hepatitis B who reported homosexual activity was 52% compared with 20% from passive surveillance. Transfusion recipients represented 24% of the non-A, non-B hepatitis reported from active surveillance compared with 9% reported from passive surveillance. Although Pierce County may not be representative of all counties in the United States, persons responsible for public health prevention programs should recognize that data acquired through passive surveillance may not accurately reflect the magnitude of the risk for specific populations or the amount of disease that can be prevented.