Benefits and adverse effects of hepatitis C screening: early results of a screening program

Determining reinfection rates by hepatitis C testing interval among key populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Detecting hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection among key populations helps prevent ongoing transmission. This systematic review aims to determine the association between different testing intervals during post-SVR follow-up on the detection of HCV reinfection among highest risk populations.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases between January 2014 and February 2023 for studies that tested individuals at risk for HCV reinfection at discrete testing intervals and reported HCV reinfection incidence among key populations. Pooled estimates of reinfection incidence were calculated by population and testing frequency using random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-one single-armed observational studies (9453 individuals) were included. Thirty-eight studies (8931 individuals) reported HCV reinfection incidence rate and were included in meta-analyses. The overall pooled estimate of HCV reinfection incidence rate was 4.13 per 100 per person-years (py) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.45-4.81). The pooled incidence estimate among people who inject drugs (PWID) was 2.84 per 100 py (95% CI: 2.19-3.50), among men who have sex with men (MSM) 7.37 per 100 py (95% CI: 5.09-9.65) and among people in custodial settings 7.23 per 100 py (95% CI: 2.13-16.59). The pooled incidence estimate for studies reporting a testing interval of ≤6 months (4.26 per 100 py; 95% CI: 2.86-5.65) was higher than studies reporting testing intervals >6 months (5.19 per 100 py; 95% CI: 3.92-6.46).

CONCLUSIONS

HCV reinfection incidence was highest in studies of MSM and did not appear to change with retesting interval. Shorter testing intervals are likely to identify more reinfections, help prevent onward transmission where treatment is available and enable progress towards global HCV elimination, but additional comparative studies are required.

The Ethics of Screening and Treating Persons with Hepatitis C: A Canadian Perspective

In this article, I argue that the Canadian government’s position against screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) and publicly funding HCV treatment is ethically unjustifiable. Cost of medication and likelihood of widening existing health inequality are the government’s argument for not funding HCV treatment and for also not having a screening program. I object to this position and argue in favour of a screening program and public funding of HCV treatment. I argue that these barriers are ethically unjust. Conclusively, being denied screening and early treatment is to be denied the best possible outcome.

Healthcare contact and treatment uptake following hepatitis C virus screening and counseling among rural Appalachian people who use drugs

BACKGROUND

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains a major contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Since 2009, Kentucky has led the United States in cases of acute HCV, driven largely by injection drug use in rural areas. Improved treatment regimens hold promise of mitigating the impact and transmission of HCV, but numerous barriers obstruct people who inject drugs (PWID) from receiving care, particularly in medically underserved settings.

METHODS

503 rural people who use drugs were recruited using respondent-driven sampling and received HCV screening and post-test counseling. Presence of HCV antibodies was assessed using enzyme immunoassay of dried blood samples. Sociodemographic and behavioral data were collected using computer-based questionnaires. Predictors of contacting a healthcare provider for follow-up following HCV-positive serotest and counseling were determined using discrete-time survival analysis.

RESULTS

150 (59%) of 254 participants reported contacting a healthcare provider within 18 months of positive serotest and counseling; the highest probability occurred within six months of serotesting. 35 participants (14%) reported they were seeking treatment, and 21 (8%) reported receiving treatment. In multivariate time-dependent modeling, health insurance, internet access, prior substance use treatment, meeting DSM-IV criteria for generalized anxiety disorder, and recent marijuana use increased the odds of making contact for follow-up. Participants meeting criteria for major depressive disorder and reporting prior methadone use, whether legal or illegal, were less likely to contact a provider.

CONCLUSION

While only 8% received treatment after HCV-positive screening, contacting a healthcare provider was frequent in this sample of rural PWID, suggesting that the major barriers to care are likely further downstream. These findings offer insight into the determinants of engaging the cascade of medical treatment for HCV and ultimately, treatment-as-prevention. Further study and increased resources to support integrated interventions with effectiveness in other settings are recommended to mitigate the impact of HCV in this resource-deprived setting.

Does the Strategy of Risk Group Testing for Hepatitis C Hit the Target?

In the European Union, it is estimated that there are 5.5 million individuals with chronic infection of hepatitis C. Intravenous drug abuse is undoubtedly the key source of the hepatitis C epidemic in Europe and the most efficient mode of transmission of HCV infections (primarily due to short incubation time, but also because the virus is introduced directly into the blood stream with the infected needle). Potentially high-risk and vulnerable populations in Europe (and the world) include immigrants, prisoners, sex workers, men having sex with men, individuals infected with HIV, psychoactive substance users etc. Since there is a lack of direct evidence of clinical benefits of HCV testing, decisions related to testing are made based on indirect evidence. Clinical practice has shown that HCV antibody tests are mostly adequate for identification of HCV infection, but the problem is that this testing strategy does not hit the target. As a result of this health care system strategy, a large number of infected patients remain undetected or they are diagnosed late. There is only a vague link between screening and treatment outcomes since there is a lack of evidence on transmission risks, multiple causes, risk behavior, ways of reaching screening decisions, treatment efficiency, etc. According to results of limited number of studies it can be concluded that there is a need to develop targeted programmes for detection of HCV and other infections, but there also a need to decrease potential harms.

Outcomes of hepatitis C screening programs targeted at risk groups hidden in the general population: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Effective screening programs are urgently needed to provide undiagnosed hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected individuals with therapy. This systematic review of characteristics and outcomes of screening programs for HCV focuses on strategies to identify HCV risk groups hidden in the general population.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1991-2010, including studies that screened the general population using either a newly developed (nonintegrated) screening program or one integrated in existing health care facilities. Look-back studies, prevalence studies, and programs targeting high-risk groups in care (e.g., current drug users) were excluded.

RESULTS

After reviewing 7052 studies, we identified 67 screening programs: 24 nonintegrated; 41 programs integrated in a variety of health care facilities (e.g., general practitioner); and 2 programs with both integrated and nonintegrated strategies. Together, these programs identified approximately 25,700 HCV-infected individuals. In general, higher HCV prevalence was found in programs in countries with intermediate to high HCV prevalence, in psychiatric clinics, and in programs that used a prescreening selection based on HCV risk factors. Only 6 programs used a comparison group for evaluation purposes, and 1 program used theory about effective promotion for screening. Comparison of the programs and their effectiveness was hampered by lack of reported data on program characteristics, clinical follow-up, and type of diagnostic test.

CONCLUSIONS

A prescreening selection based on risk factors can increase the efficiency of screening in low-prevalence populations, and we need programs with comparison groups to evaluate effectiveness. Also, program characteristics such as type of diagnostic test, screening uptake, and clinical outcomes should be reported systematically.

Potential consequences of healthcare recommendations: a focus on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Healthcare guidelines and recommendations have broad-reaching impact. They serve as the evidence to enforce medical testing by establishing a bar for standard of care through their intrinsic credibility but also by affecting reimbursement. In this article, we discuss the various organizations in the United States that develop healthcare policy and guidelines. We focus on the recent recommendations for hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening put forward by these agencies and the potential effect of these documents. Additional discussion is provided on the recent draft HCV screening recommendations provided by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), comparison of these to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, and professional societies' response to these.

CONCLUSION

As written, the USPSTF recommendations may reduce physician adoption of HCV screening in the 1945-1965 birth cohort as advocated by the CDC. Conflicting guidelines may further confuse providers and the public. This will ultimately hinder recognition of chronic HCV in an otherwise easily identifiable, high prevalence group, allowing progression of disease at a time when therapeutic advances make cure a realistic opportunity for many.

Hepatitis C screening: getting it right

Hepatitis C is the most prevalent bloodborne viral disease in the United States and the deadliest. This year, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) will update its 2004 hepatitis C guideline, which recommends against screening asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C. This guideline has hampered public health efforts to encourage screening and identify and refer infected persons for care by declaring that such interventions were not supported by the evidence. A draft revision of the guideline, released on November 26, 2012, concludes that testing persons born between 1945 and 1965 probably has at least a small net benefit, but stops short of definitively recommending that this cohort be screened. This article examines the Task Force's process for writing its guidelines. It recommends that the Task Force adopt a balanced approach to evaluating the benefits and harms of screening; use the preponderance of the evidence as a standard for evaluating interventions that target serious public health problems; be transparent about the value judgments that go into its decisions; consider the wide variation in disease prevalence in diverse patient populations; and recommend screening asymptomatic adults for hepatitis C.

CONCLUSION

By taking a broader view of the evidence, the Task Force can write new guidelines that will serve efforts to curb the hepatitis C epidemic, rather than frustrate them.