Hepatitis C screening: getting it right

The Hepatitis C Clinical Exchange Network: A Local Health Department Partnership With Acute Care Hospitals to Promote Screening and Treatment of Hepatitis C Virus Infection

CONTEXT

As of 2015, an estimated 116000 New York City (NYC) residents had chronic hepatitis C, many of them undiagnosed. Although effective medications have been available since 2014 with the advent of direct-acting antivirals, provider-based barriers to treatment remain. The NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Health Department) coordinated the Hepatitis C Clinical Exchange Network (HepCX) from 2015 to 2019. The main goal of HepCX was to promote hepatitis C screening and treatment by hospital-based providers.

PROGRAM

The Health Department recruited hepatitis C champions (Champions) from acute care hospitals (n = 40) to promote improved hepatitis C care at their institutions. The Health Department provided technical assistance for hospitals to improve electronic medical record (EMR) systems and implement reflex RNA testing, coordinated trainings to increase capacity to treat hepatitis C, and distributed dashboards containing facility-specific testing and treatment metrics.

IMPLEMENTATION

By the end of the project period (2019), most hospitals (36/40; 90%) reported having a screening alert for baby boomers in their EMR system and 34 (85%) reported performing reflex RNA testing after a positive hepatitis C antibody test. The Health Department coordinated opportunities for Champions to share their work with providers from network hospitals at meetings and webinars and provided clinical education on hepatitis C treatment in partnership with a local nonprofit organization focused on liver health. Facility-specific dashboards were distributed annually to hospital leadership. RNA confirmation testing increased from an average of 57% in 2015 to 85% in 2018. Treatment initiation rates remained similar over 2 years, averaging 39% in 2017 and 38% in 2018.

DISCUSSION

HepCX was a multipronged initiative designed to promote hepatitis C testing and treatment initiation among providers at NYC acute care hospitals. Improvements were observed in confirmatory testing rates; however, treatment initiation rates did not change. Further efforts should be targeted to hospitals in need of additional resources for linkage to care and treatment of hepatitis C.

Increasing hepatitis C screening in a large integrated health system: science and policy in concert

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the updated 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening recommendations, related Affordable Care Act provisions, and the impending availability of efficacious therapies were associated with increased screening in an integrated health system.

STUDY DESIGN

We analyzed 665,339 records of adult patients visiting Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States clinics from 2003 to 2014.

METHODS

We used Cox proportional hazards to estimate time to HCV screening and confirmation after June 1, 2013, compared with prior.

RESULTS

HCV screening steadily increased over time, but it jumped 29% (P <.01) from 2013 to 2014 versus 4% (P <.01) from 2012 to 2013. The adjusted hazard ratio for HCV screening since June 2013 was 2.40 (95% CI, 2.34-2.47) times higher than it was pre-intervention among the birth cohort (those born 1945-1965) and 2.00 (95% CI, 1.96-2.04) times higher in those born in other years, representing a 1.20-fold (95% CI, 1.17-1.24) greater increase in the screening rate among the birth cohort. We also identified variability in those thought to be at higher risk of HCV infection.

CONCLUSIONS

HCV screening has been increasing in our healthcare system, more so since June 2013 and among the birth cohort. The availability of efficacious therapies and coverage policies coincident with the USPSTF recommendations may have facilitated access to screening and treatment in ways that were absent at the time of the 2012 CDC recommendations. Health systems must also be poised to make resources available to clinicians and patients in order to incentivize screening. Future research should inform a better understanding of incentives and barriers to screening and linkage to care from all stakeholder perspectives.

Lower levels of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate are associated with more advanced liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C

Chronic infection with the hepatitis C virus induces liver fibrosis, but it is unknown why some patients progress to advanced fibrosis while others remain with mild disease. Recently, an inverse association between serum levels of dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEA-S) and liver fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease was described, and it was postulated that dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) has antifibrotic effects. Our aim was to compare serum DHEA-S levels with liver fibrosis in hepatitis C patients. We collected serum samples from hepatitis C patients at the same day they underwent a liver biopsy. S-DHEA was compared to different stages of fibrosis. Binary logistic regression models were applied to evaluate independent variables associated to fibrosis. We included 287 patients (43.9% male). According to fibrosis stages 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, median serum DHEA-S levels were 103 (26-462), 73 (5-391), 46 (4-425), 35 (6-292) and 28 (2-115) μg/dL, respectively (P < .001). Median serum DHEA-S levels were 74 (5-462) vs 36 (2-425) μg/dL for mild (F0-1) vs significant (F2-4) fibrosis, respectively (P < .001). Median serum DHEA-S levels were 64 (4-462) vs 31 (2-292) μg/dL for non advanced (F0-2) vs advanced fibrosis (F3-4), respectively (P < .001). The same association was found when the subgroup of HCV patients with and without steatosis or steatohepatitis was analysed. The association between lower DHEA-S levels and advanced fibrosis was independent of age, gender, diabetes mellitus, obesity and steatosis. Lower circulating DHEA-S levels are associated with more advanced stages of liver fibrosis in hepatitis C patients.

Low hepatitis C antibody screening rates among an insured population of Tennessean Baby Boomers

INTRODUCTION

Chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) infection is common and can cause liver disease and death. Persons born from 1945 through 1965 ("Baby Boomers") have relatively high prevalence of chronic HCV infection, prompting recommendations that all Baby Boomers be screened for HCV. If chronic HCV is confirmed, evaluation for antiviral treatment should be performed. Direct-acting antivirals can cure more than 90% of people with chronic HCV. This sequence of services can be referred to as the HCV "cascade of cure" (CoC). The Tennessee (TN) Department of Health (TDH) and a health insurer with presence in TN aimed to determine the proportion of Baby Boomers who access HCV screening services and appropriately navigate the HCV CoC in TN.

METHODS

TDH surveillance data and insurance claim records were queried to identify the cohort of Baby Boomers eligible for HCV testing. Billing codes and pharmacy records from 2013 through 2015 were used to determine whether HCV screening and other HCV-related services were provided. The proportion of individuals accessing HCV screening and other steps along the HCV CoC was determined. Multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with HCV screening and treatment.

RESULTS

Among 501,388 insured Tennessean Baby Boomers, 7% were screened for HCV. Of the 40,019 who received any HCV-related service, 86% were screened with an HCV antibody test, 20% had a confirmatory HCV PCR, 9% were evaluated for treatment, and 4% were prescribed antivirals. Hispanics were more likely to be screened and treated for HCV than non-Hispanic whites. HCV screening was more likely to occur in the Nashville-Davidson region than in other regions of TN, but there were regional variations in HCV treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Many insured Tennessean Baby Boomers do not access HCV screening services, despite national recommendations. Demographic and regional differences in uptake along the HCV CoC should inform public health interventions aimed at mitigating the effects of chronic HCV.

Continuum of hepatitis C care in France: A 20-year cohort study

Background

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients require a specific continuum of care (CoC) from HCV screening to treatment. We assessed CoC of HCV-infected patients in a longitudinal study.

Methods

We established a cohort of subjects undergoing HCV screening (high alanine aminotransferase levels or risk factors) during preventive consultations at a French regional medical center from 1993 to 2013. Patients were considered to be HCV-infected if HCV RNA was detected in their serum. CoC was assessed as described by Viner et al. (Hepatology 2015): Stage 1, HCV screening; Stage 2, HCV RNA testing; Stage 3, continuing care; Stage 4, antiviral treatment. Cox multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors favoring CoC, defined as at least one course of antiviral treatment.

Results

In total, 12,993 HCV tests were performed and 478 outpatients were found to be HCV-seropositive. We included 417 seropositive patients, after excluding false positives and patients lost to follow-up. The baseline characteristics of the patients were: sex ratio (M/F) 1.4; mean age 38.5 years; intravenous drug use (IDU) in 55%; and 28% in unstable social situations, estimated by the EPICES deprivation score. Antiviral treatment was initiated for 179 (42.9%) of the 379 (90.9%) patients attending specialist consultations. CoC was associated with screening after 1997 (HR 2.0, 95%CI 1.4–2.9), age > 45 years (HR 1.5, 95%CI 1.02–2.3), patient acceptance of care (HR 9.3, 95%CI 5.4–16.10), specialist motivation for treatment (HR 10.9, 95%CI 7.4–16.0), and absence of cancer (HR 6.7, 95%CI 1.6–27.9). Other comorbid conditions, such as depression and IDU, were not associated with CoC.

Conclusions

Our 20-year cohort study reveals the real-life continuum of care for HCV-infected patients in France. The number of patients involved in HCV care after positive testing was substantial due to the organization of healthcare in France. An improved CoC along with new direct-acting antivirals should help to decrease chronic HCV infection.

Comparison of Rapid Point-of-Care Tests for Detection of Antibodies to Hepatitis C Virus

OraSure had the highest sensitivity at 92.7% followed closely by Chembio's three blood tests. False results were associated with HIV, and hepatitis B core antibody. The OraSure and Chembio blood tests have good performance characteristics.

Background. Hepatitis C is one of the most prevalent blood-borne diseases in the United States. Despite the benefits of early screening, among 3.2 million Americans who are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV), 50%–70% are unaware of their infection status.

Methods. Data were collected between 2011 and 2014, from 1048 clients who were in the following groups: (1) injection drug users, (2) women at sexual risk, (3) gay and bisexual men, and (4) transgender individuals. The sensitivity and specificity of point-of-care tests included (1) the MedMira rapid human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HCV antibody test, (2) MedMira hepatitis B (HBV)/HIV/HCV antibody test, (3) Chembio HCV Screen Assay used with both whole blood and (4) oral specimens, (5) Chembio HIV-HCV Assay also used with both whole blood and (6) oral specimens, (7) Chembio HIV-HCV-Syphilis Assay, and (8) OraSure HCV Rapid Antibody Test used with whole blood. The gold standard for the HCV tests were HCV enzyme immunoassay (EIA) 2.0.

Results. OraSure had the highest sensitivity at 92.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 88.8%–96.5%) followed closely by Chembio's 3 blood tests at 92.1% (95% CI = 87.7%–96.4%), 91.5% (95% CI = 87.2%–95.7%), and 92.3% (95% CI = 88.4%–96.2%). The sensitivities of MedMira HIV/HCV and MedMira HIV/HCV/HBV tests were the lowest, at 79.1% (95% CI = 72.6%–85.5%), and 81.5% (95% CI = 75.2%–87.8%), respectively. Specificity for the OraSure was 99.8% (95% CI = 99.4%–100%); specificity for the Chembio blood tests was 99.2% (95% CI = 98.6%–99.9%), 99.4% (95% CI = 98.8%–99.9%), and 99.3% (95% CI = 98.8%–99.9%); and specificity for the MedMira was100% and 100%. False-negative results were associated with HIV and hepatitis B core antibody serostatus.

Conclusions. The OraSure and Chembio blood tests (including those multiplexed with HIV and syphilis) appear to good performance characteristics. This study has identified potential limitations of rapid testing in those testing positive for HIV and HBcAb. There should be discussion of updates to the 2013 CDC guidance.

Can hepatitis C be eradicated in the United States?

The advent of highly effective antiviral regimens will make the eradication of hepatitis C in high-income countries such as the United States technically feasible. But eradicating hepatitis C will require escalating our response to the epidemic in key domains, including surveillance and epidemiology, prevention, screening, care and treatment, policy, research, and advocacy. Surveillance must be nimble enough to quickly assess the magnitude of new transmission patterns as they emerge. Basic prevention strategies - community-based outreach and education, testing and counseling, and access to sterile injection equipment and opioid substitution therapies - must be scaled up and adapted to target groups in which new epidemics are emerging. All adults should be screened for hepatitis C, but special efforts must focus on groups with increased prevalence through community outreach and rapid testing. Government, industry, and payers must work together to assure full access to health services and antiviral drugs for everyone who is infected. Access to the new regimens must not be compromised by excessively high prices or arbitrary payer restrictions. Partnerships must be forged between hepatitis providers and programs that serve people who inject illicit drugs. Healthcare providers and systems, especially primary care practitioners, need education and training in treating hepatitis C and caring for substance-using populations. Services must be provided to the disadvantaged and stigmatized members of society who bear a disproportionate burden of the epidemic. Environments must be created where people who use drugs can receive prevention and treatment services without shame or stigma. Action is needed to end the policy of mass incarceration of people who use drugs, reduce the stigma associated with substance use, support the human rights of people who use drugs, expand social safety net services for the poor and the homeless, remove the legal barriers to hepatitis C prevention, and build public health infrastructure to reach, engage, and serve marginalized populations. Governments must take action to bring about these changes. Public health agencies must work with penal institutions to provide prevention and treatment services, including antiviral therapy, to those in need in jails and prisons or on probation or parole. Research is needed to guide efforts in each of these domains. Strong and sustained political advocacy will be needed to build and sustain support for these measures. Leadership must be provided by physicians, scientists, and the public health community in partnership with community advocates and people living with or at risk for hepatitis C. Eliminating hepatitis C from the United States is possible, but will require a sustained national commitment to reach, test, treat, cure, and prevent every case. With strong political leadership, societal commitment, and community support, hepatitis C can be eradicated in the United States. If this is to happen in our lifetimes, the time for action is now. This article forms part of a symposium in Antiviral Research on "Hepatitis C: next steps toward global eradication."

HCV among The Miriam Hospital and Rhode Island Hospital Adult ED Patients

The Emergency Department (ED) appears to be an ideal place to conduct hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of prior HCV test positivity among adult (18-64 year-old) patients at The Miriam Hospital and Rhode Island Hospital EDs, as well as the undiagnosed HCV antibody seroprevalence among patients with any self-reported injection or non-injection drug use who agreed to undergo rapid HCV antibody testing. The prevalence of prior HCV test positivity among 8,500 adult ED patients was approximately 4.6%, and the previously undiagnosed HCV antibody seroprevalence among 621 drug-using adult ED patients was 1.6%. Among the ten ED patients with a positive rapid HCV antibody test not previously diagnosed, eight were born after 1965 and six never had injected drugs. If current HCV screening recommendations were followed exclusively in this setting, this practice would have missed half of those with a positive rapid HCV antibody test.

Brief intervention to increase emergency department uptake of combined rapid human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C screening among a drug misusing population

OBJECTIVES

In this study, Increasing Viral Testing in the Emergency Department (InVITED), the authors investigated if a brief intervention about human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) risk-taking behaviors and drug use and misuse in addition to a self-administered risk assessment, compared to a self-administered risk assessment alone, increased uptake of combined screening for HIV and HCV, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and impacted beliefs and opinions on HIV/HCV screening.

METHODS

InVITED was a randomized, controlled trial conducted at two urban emergency departments (EDs) from February 2011 to March 2012. ED patients who self-reported drug use within the past 3 months were invited to enroll. Drug misuse severity and need for a brief or more intensive intervention was assessed using the Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two study arms: a self-administered HIV/HCV risk assessment alone (control arm) or the assessment plus a brief intervention about their drug misuse and screening for HIV/HCV (intervention arm). Beliefs on the value of combined HIV/HCV screening, self-perception of HIV/HCV risk, and opinions on HIV/HCV screening in the ED were measured in both study arms before the HIV/HCV risk assessment (pre), after the assessment in the control arm, and after the brief intervention in the intervention arm (post). Participants in both study arms were offered free combined rapid HIV/HCV screening. Uptake of screening was compared by study arm. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate factors related to uptake of screening.

RESULTS

Of the 395 participants in the study, the median age was 28 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 23 to 38 years), 44.8% were female, 82.3% had ever been tested for HIV, and 67.3% had ever been tested for HCV. Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening was nearly identical by study arm (64.5% vs. 65.2%; Δ = -0.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -10.1% to 8.7%). Of the 256 screened, none had reactive HIV antibody tests, but seven (2.7%) had reactive HCV antibody tests. Multivariable logistic regression analysis results indicated that uptake of screening was not related to study arm assignment, total ASSIST drug scores, need for an intervention for drug misuse, or HIV/HCV sexual risk assessment scores. However, uptake of screening was greater among participants who indicated placing a higher value on combined rapid HIV/HCV screening for themselves and all ED patients and those with higher levels of perceived HIV/HCV risk. Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening was not related to changes in beliefs regarding the value of combined HIV/HCV screening or self-perceived HIV/HCV risk (post- vs. pre-risk assessment with or without a brief intervention). Opinions regarding the ED as a venue for combined rapid HIV/HCV screening were not related to uptake of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake of combined rapid HIV/HCV screening is high and considered valuable among drug using and misusing ED patients with little concern about the ED as a screening venue. The brief intervention investigated in this study does not appear to change beliefs regarding screening, self-perceived risk, or uptake of screening for HIV/HCV in this population. Initial beliefs regarding the value of screening and self-perceived risk for these infections predict uptake of screening.

Telaprevir or boceprevir triple therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C and varying severity of cirrhosis

BACKGROUND

Risks and benefits of protease inhibitor (PI) (telaprevir or boceprevir) triple therapy in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients with mildly decompensated cirrhosis, including those wait-listed for liver transplantation (LT), are incompletely known.

AIM

To assess virological responses and safety of PI triple therapy in patients with mildly decompensated Child-Pugh (CP) CP ≥6 vs. compensated (CP = 5) cirrhosis.

METHODS

Multicentre cohort of 160 adults with cirrhosis treated with peginterferon/ribavirin (peg-IFN/RBV) plus telaprevir (69%) or boceprevir (31%), comparing outcomes between those with CP = 5 and CP ≥6.

RESULTS

Patients, 47% with CP ≥6 cirrhosis (CP range 6-10), received PI triple therapy for a targeted duration of 48 weeks. The cohort was median age 59 years, 32% female, 59% genotype 1a, 35% previous null/partial responders. Sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12) was achieved by 35% of patients with CP ≥6 vs. 54% of those with CP = 5 (P = 0.02). CP = 5, achievement of rapid virological response and genotype 1b/other, independently predicted SVR12. Compared to those with CP = 5, patients with CP ≥6 had more peg-IFN dose reductions, eltrombopag use, transfusions and hospitalisations to manage adverse events (all P < 0.05). Overall, 67 (42%) discontinued treatment early. Nine wait-listed patients were treated for a median of 97 days (IQR 60-160) prior to liver transplantation and five achieved post-LT SVR.

CONCLUSIONS

In the presence of mild decompensation (Child-Pugh ≥6), SVR12 rates with protease inhibitor triple therapy are significantly reduced and adverse events increased. Thus, treatment with protease inhibitor triple therapy, if judged as necessary, should be undertaken with close monitoring and awareness of the significant risks.

Long-term benefit of hepatitis C therapy in a safety net hospital system: a cross-sectional study with median 5-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the survival benefit from sustained virological response (SVR) in a safety net hospital population with limited resources for hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a retrospective study at an urban safety net hospital in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION

242 patients receiving standard HCV therapy between 2001 and 2006.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Response rates, including SVR, were recorded for each patient. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of SVR and 5-year survival.

RESULTS

A total of 242 eligible patients were treated. Treatment was completed in 197 (81%) patients, with 43 patients discontinuing therapy early-32 due to adverse events and 11 due to non-compliance. Complications on treatment were frequent, including three deaths. SVR was achieved in 83 patients (34%). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a decreased likelihood of achieving SVR included African-American race (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.54), genotype 1 HCV infection (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.50) and the presence of cirrhosis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58). Survival was 98% in those achieving SVR (median follow-up 72 months) and 71% in non-responders and those discontinuing therapy (n=91, median known follow-up 65 and 36 months, respectively). On multivariate analysis, the only independent predictor of improved survival was SVR (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.52). Both cirrhosis and hypoalbuminaemia were independent predictors of increased mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment before histological cirrhosis develops, in combination with careful selection, may improve long-term outcomes without compromising other healthcare endeavours in safety net hospitals and areas with financial limitations.