Benjamin P Linas1, Haihong Hu2, Devra M Barter3, Michael Horberg2. 1. HIV Epidemiology and Outcomes Research Unit, Section of Infectious Diseases, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Mass; Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: Benjamin.Linas@BMC.org. 2. Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic Permanente Research Institute, Rockville, Md. 3. HIV Epidemiology and Outcomes Research Unit, Section of Infectious Diseases, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Mass.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As new hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies emerge, only 1%-12% of individuals are screened in the US for HCV infection. Presently, HCV screening trends are unknown. METHODS: We utilized the Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States' (KPMAS) data repository to investigate HCV antibody screening between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2012. We identified the proportion screened for HCV and 5-year cumulative incidence of screening, the screening positivity rate, the provider types performing HCV screening, patient-level factors associated with being screened, and trends in screening over time. RESULTS: There were 444,594 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 15.8% of the cohort was ever screened for HCV. Adult primary care and obstetrics and gynecology providers performed 75.9% of all screening. The overall test positivity rate was 3.8%. Screening was more frequent in younger age groups (P <.0001) and those with a documented history of illicit drug use (P <.0001). Patients with missing drug use history (46.7%) were least likely to be screened (P <.0001). While the rate of HCV screening increased in the later years of the study among those enrolled in KPMAS 2009-2012, only 11.8% were screened by the end of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Screening for HCV is increasing but remains incomplete. Targeting screening to those with a history of injection drug will not likely expand screening, as nearly half of patients have no documented drug use history. Routine screening is likely the most effective approach to expand HCV screening.
BACKGROUND: As new hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies emerge, only 1%-12% of individuals are screened in the US for HCV infection. Presently, HCV screening trends are unknown. METHODS: We utilized the Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States' (KPMAS) data repository to investigate HCV antibody screening between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2012. We identified the proportion screened for HCV and 5-year cumulative incidence of screening, the screening positivity rate, the provider types performing HCV screening, patient-level factors associated with being screened, and trends in screening over time. RESULTS: There were 444,594 patients who met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 15.8% of the cohort was ever screened for HCV. Adult primary care and obstetrics and gynecology providers performed 75.9% of all screening. The overall test positivity rate was 3.8%. Screening was more frequent in younger age groups (P <.0001) and those with a documented history of illicit drug use (P <.0001). Patients with missing drug use history (46.7%) were least likely to be screened (P <.0001). While the rate of HCV screening increased in the later years of the study among those enrolled in KPMAS 2009-2012, only 11.8% were screened by the end of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Screening for HCV is increasing but remains incomplete. Targeting screening to those with a history of injection drug will not likely expand screening, as nearly half of patients have no documented drug use history. Routine screening is likely the most effective approach to expand HCV screening.
Authors: Philip R Spradling; Loralee Rupp; Anne C Moorman; Mei Lu; Eyasu H Teshale; Stuart C Gordon; Cynthia Nakasato; Joseph A Boscarino; Emily M Henkle; David R Nerenz; Maxine M Denniston; Scott D Holmberg Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Bryce D Smith; Rebecca L Morgan; Geoff A Beckett; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Deborah Holtzman; Chong-Gee Teo; Amy Jewett; Brittney Baack; David B Rein; Nita Patel; Miriam Alter; Anthony Yartel; John W Ward Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2012-08-17
Authors: Gregory L Armstrong; Annemarie Wasley; Edgar P Simard; Geraldine M McQuillan; Wendi L Kuhnert; Miriam J Alter Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-05-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lesley S Miller; Francois Rollin; Shelly-Ann Fluker; Kristina L Lundberg; Brandi Park; Kristi Quairoli; Nyiramugisha K Niyibizi; Anne C Spaulding Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Melissa D Klein; Bryna J Harrington; Joan East; Jennifer Cunningham; Nicole Ifill; Jan Lee Santos Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2021 Sep-Oct 01 Impact factor: 1.095
Authors: Souvik Sarkar; Denise A Esserman; Melissa Skanderson; Forrest L Levin; Amy C Justice; Joseph K Lim Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Joshua A Barocas; Abriana Tasillo; Golnaz Eftekhari Yazdi; Jianing Wang; Claudia Vellozzi; Susan Hariri; Cheryl Isenhour; Liisa Randall; John W Ward; Jonathan Mermin; Joshua A Salomon; Benjamin P Linas Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 20.999
Authors: Baligh R Yehia; Ramin S Herati; John A Fleishman; Joel E Gallant; Allison L Agwu; Stephen A Berry; P Todd Korthuis; Richard D Moore; Joshua P Metlay; Kelly A Gebo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 3.240