Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Adults: A Systematic Review to Update the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.
ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Identification of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected persons through screening could lead to interventions that improve clinical outcomes. PURPOSE: To review evidence about potential benefits and harms of HCV screening in asymptomatic adults without known liver enzyme abnormalities. DATA SOURCES: English-language publications identified from MEDLINE (1947 to May 2012), the Cochrane Library Database, clinical trial registries, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials and cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that assessed yield or clinical outcomes of screening; studies reporting harms from HCV screening; and large series reporting harms of diagnostic liver biopsies. DATA EXTRACTION: Multiple investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality by using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: No study evaluated clinical outcomes associated with screening compared with no screening or of different risk- or prevalence-based strategies. Three cross-sectional studies in higher prevalence populations found screening strategies that targeted multiple risk factors were associated with sensitivities greater than 90% and numbers needed to screen to identify 1 case of HCV infection of less than 20. Data on direct harms of screening were sparse. A large study of percutaneous liver biopsies (n = 2740) in HCV-infected patients with compensated cirrhosis reported no deaths and a 1.1% rate of serious adverse events (primarily bleeding and severe pain). LIMITATIONS: Modeling studies were not examined. High or unreported proportions of potentially eligible patients in the observational studies were not included in calculations of screening yield because of unknown HCV status. CONCLUSIONS: Although screening tests can accurately identify adults with chronic HCV infection, targeted screening strategies based on the presence of risk factors misses some patients with HCV infection. Well-designed prospective studies are needed to better understand the effects of different HCV screening strategies on diagnostic yield and clinical outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 17 of 172 included studies in a recent systematic review of blood tests for hepatic fibrosis or cirrhosis reported diagnostic accuracy results discordant from 2 x 2 tables, and 60 studies reported inadequate data to construct 2 x 2 tables. This study explores the yield of contacting authors of diagnostic accuracy studies and impact on the systematic review findings.09/2014; 3(1):107. DOI:10.1186/2046-4053-3-107
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rapid hepatitis C virus (HCV) and simultaneous HCV/HIV antibody testing in substance abuse treatment programs.DesignWe used a decision analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of no HCV testing referral or offer, off-site HCV testing referral, on-site rapid HCV testing offer, and on-site rapid HCV and HIV testing offer. Base case inputs included 11% undetected chronic HCV, 0.4% undetected HIV, 35% HCV co-infection among HIV-infected, 53% linked to HCV care after testing antibody positive, and 67% linked to HIV care. Disease outcomes were estimated from established computer simulation models of HCV (HEP-CE) and HIV (CEPAC).Setting and ParticipantsData on test acceptance and costs were from a national randomized trial of HIV testing strategies conducted at 12 substance abuse treatment programs in the USA.MeasurementsLifetime costs (2011 US dollars) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) discounted at 3% annually; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)FindingsOn-site rapid HCV testing had an ICER of $18,300/QALY compared with no testing, and was more efficient than (dominated) off-site HCV testing referral. On-site rapid HCV and HIV testing had an ICER of $64,500/QALY compared with on-site rapid HCV testing alone. In one and two-way sensitivity analyses, the ICER of on-site rapid HCV and HIV testing remained <$100,000/QALY, except when undetected HIV prevalence was <0.1% or when we assumed frequent HIV testing elsewhere. The ICER remained <$100,000/QALY in approximately 90% of probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Conclusions On-site rapid hepatitis C virus and HIV testing in substance abuse treatment programs is cost-effective at a <$100,000/ quality-adjusted life years threshold.Addiction 10/2014; 110(1). DOI:10.1111/add.12754 · 4.60 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite new Hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapeutic advances, challenges remain for HCV testing and linking patients to care. A point-of-care (POC) HCV antibody testing strategy was compared to traditional serological testing to determine patient preferences for type of testing and linkage to treatment in an innovative mobile medical clinic (MMC). From 2012 to 2013, all 1,345 MMC clients in New Haven, CT underwent a routine health assessment, including for HCV. Based on patient preferences, clients could select between standard phlebotomy or POC HCV testing, with results available in approximately 1 week versus 20 min, respectively. Outcomes included: (1) accepting HCV testing; (2) preference for rapid POC HCV testing; and (3) linkage to HCV care. All clients with reactive test results were referred to a HCV specialty clinic. Among the 438 (32.6 %) clients accepting HCV testing, HCV prevalence was 6.2 % (N = 27), and 209 (47.7 %) preferred POC testing. Significant correlates of accepting HCV testing was lower for the "baby boomer" generation (AOR 0.67; 95 % CI 0.46-0.97) and white race (AOR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.36-0.78) and higher for having had a prior STI diagnosis (AOR 5.03; 95 % CI 1.76-14.26), prior injection drug use (AOR 2.21; 95 % CI 1.12-4.46), and being US-born (AOR 1.76; 95 % CI 1.25-2.46). Those diagnosed with HCV and preferring POC testing (N = 16) were significantly more likely than those choosing standard testing (N = 11) to be linked to HCV care within 30 days (93.8 vs. 18.2 %; p < 0.0001). HCV testing is feasible in MMCs. While patients equally preferred POC and standard HCV testing strategies, HCV-infected patients choosing POC testing were significantly more likely to be linked to HCV treatment. Important differences in risk and background were associated with type of HCV testing strategy selected. HCV testing strategies should be balanced based on costs, convenience, and ability to link to HCV treatment.Journal of Community Health 08/2014; 39(5). DOI:10.1007/s10900-014-9932-9 · 1.28 Impact Factor