Hepatitis B and C among healthcare workers and patient groups at increased risk of iatrogenic transmission in the European Union/European Economic Area

In the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) approximately 9 million people are chronically infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV), and many are undiagnosed. Targeted active case finding initiatives are needed. Iatrogenic transmission of HBV/HCV is relevant in Europe but people at risk of infection are often overlooked. This study aimed to identify groups at increased risk of HBV/HCV infection due to iatrogenic transmission, including healthcare workers, and to estimate incidence and prevalence. PubMed and Embase were systematically searched in February 2017 using strings combining terms for HBV/HCV, occurrence and population subgroups. All retrieved publications were screened and included articles were quality assessed. A predefined set of variables were extracted, and detailed summary tables were developed per population group of interest, virus and outcome. Thirty-eight articles were included, two reported on HBV, 22 on HCV and 16 on both, contributing 70 estimates of prevalence or incidence among: haemodialysis recipients, diabetes patients, recipients of substances of human origin, recipients of medical/dental procedures and healthcare workers. Estimates varied widely from 0.4% to 11.7% for HBV and from 0.7% to over 90% for HCV with most being higher than in the general population. Despite the limited number of studies retrieved, mostly old and focused on populations with multiple risk factors, our findings highlight the importance of considering population groups at higher risk for HBV/HCV iatrogenic transmission as target groups for active case finding in the EU/EEA. Test offers should be guided by individual risk assessment alongside local epidemiological data and local context.

The role of the general practitioner in the screening and clinical management of chronic viral hepatitis in six EU countries

INTRODUCTION

Chronic viral hepatitis is still a major public health concern in the EU. In order to halt the progression of the disease and to prevent onward transmission, timely recognition and accurate clinical management are crucial. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of the general practitioner (GP) in the screening of persons at risk and in the clinical management of chronic viral hepatitis patients in six EU countries.

METHODS

An online survey among GPs and secondary-care specialists was conducted in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary, Italy and Spain. In the GP survey, we used a four-point Likert scale to find out how commonly risk groups are screened. In both surveys, we measured GPs involvement in monitoring clinical indicators in patients undergoing antiviral treatment, and explored whether patients in four clinical scenarios are referred back to primary care.

RESULTS

Between five and 10 experts per professional group were surveyed, except for Spain (GPs: n = 2; Specialists: n = 4) and, in the case of the GP survey, Hungary (GPs: n = 1) and Germany (GPs: n = 4). Migrants are variably or not routinely screened for hepatitis B/C in the majority of cases. The majority of GPs reported that hepatitis B/C screening was routinely offered to people who inject drugs. In Hungary, Italy and in the Netherlands, screening sex workers is not a regular practice. As to whether GPs offer screening to men who have sex with men, responses varied; in Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, screening was "variably" or "commonly" implemented, while in Hungary the practice seems to be sporadic. In the UK, screening for hepatitis B seems to be common practice among GPs, while hepatitis C testing is only occasionally offered to this risk group. Most GPs (> 44%) in all countries except Hungary reported that hepatitis B/C screening was very commonly offered to HIV patients. The role of GPs in monitoring hepatitis cases and the referral of cases back to GPs by specialists varied both within and between countries. GPs are unlikely to monitor clinical outcomes other than side effects in patients undergoing treatment. Patients who have had a sustained virological response are usually referred back to GPs, whereas patients undergoing antiviral treatment and those who do not respond to treatment are rarely referred back.

CONCLUSIONS

The GP's decision to offer screening to risk groups often seems to be an individual choice of the healthcare professional. Raising GPs' awareness of the disease, for example through the adoption of effective strategies for the dissemination and implementation of the existing guidelines for general practice, is strongly needed. The role of GPs and specialists involved in the management of chronically infected patients should also be clarified, as opinions sometimes differ markedly even within each professional group.

Strategies to manage hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection disease burden - volume 2

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemic was forecasted through 2030 for 15 countries, and the relative impact of two scenarios was considered: (i) increased treatment efficacy while holding the treated population constant and (ii) increased treatment efficacy and increased annual treated population. Increasing levels of diagnosis and treatment, in combination with improved treatment efficacy, were critical for achieving substantial reductions in disease burden. In most countries, the annual treated population had to increase several fold to achieve the largest reductions in HCV-related morbidity and mortality. This suggests that increased capacity for screening and treatment will be critical in many countries. Birth cohort screening is a helpful tool for maximizing resources. In most of the studied countries, the majority of patients were born between 1945 and 1985.

The present and future disease burden of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections with today's treatment paradigm - volume 2

Morbidity and mortality attributable to chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are increasing in many countries as the infected population ages. Models were developed for 15 countries to quantify and characterize the viremic population, as well as estimate the number of new infections and HCV related deaths from 2013 to 2030. Expert consensus was used to determine current treatment levels and outcomes in each country. In most countries, viremic prevalence has already peaked. In every country studied, prevalence begins to decline before 2030, when current treatment levels were held constant. In contrast, cases of advanced liver disease and liver related deaths will continue to increase through 2030 in most countries. The current treatment paradigm is inadequate if large reductions in HCV related morbidity and mortality are to be achieved.

Historical epidemiology of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in select countries - volume 2

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a leading cause of liver related morbidity and mortality. In many countries, there is a lack of comprehensive epidemiological data that are crucial in implementing disease control measures as new treatment options become available. Published literature, unpublished data and expert consensus were used to determine key parameters, including prevalence, viremia, genotype and the number of patients diagnosed and treated. In this study of 15 countries, viremic prevalence ranged from 0.13% in the Netherlands to 2.91% in Russia. The largest viremic populations were in India (8 666 000 cases) and Russia (4 162 000 cases). In most countries, males had a higher rate of infections, likely due to higher rates of injection drug use (IDU). Estimates characterizing the infected population are critical to focus screening and treatment efforts as new therapeutic options become available.

European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (EARSS): susceptibility testing of invasive Staphylococcus aureus

Over 400 laboratories participate in EARSS (European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System) and send data to the National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) in The Netherlands. Data on about 14 000 isolates of Staphylococcus aure

ESEN: a comparison of vaccination programmes - Part three : measles mumps and rubella

Cet article est le dernier d une serie de trois articles portant sur la comparaison, dans huit pays (Danemark, Angleterre et Pays de Galles, Finlande, France, Allemagne, Italie, Suede et Pays-Bas), des programmes vaccinaux et de l impact epidemiologique d

ESEN : a comparison of vaccination programmes Part two : pertussis

This article is the second of a series of three, which compare vaccination programmes, immunisation schedules, vaccine coverage, and the epidemiological impact of vaccination for diphtheria, pertussis, measles, mumps, and rubella in eight countries (Denma

ESEN : a comparison of vaccination programmes Part one: diphtheria

The aim of the European Sero-Epidemiology Network (ESEN) is to coordinate and harmonise the serological surveillance of immunity to vaccine preventable diseases in eight countries in Europe (Denmark, England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Finla