Bryce D Smith1, Anthony K Yartel2. 1. CDC, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: bsmith6@cdc.gov. 2. CDC Foundation, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is unidentified in an estimated 40%-85% of infected adults. Surveillance and modeling data have found significant increases in HCV-associated morbidity and mortality. PURPOSE: To compare two HCV antibody (anti-HCV) testing strategies based on (1) elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (ALT) and (2) a birth cohort approach for people born during 1945-1965. METHODS: Data from 19,055 adults aged 20-70 years who completed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 1999-2008 were analyzed in 2013. Two independent models were evaluated, based on membership in the 1945-1965 birth cohort or elevated ALT, to compare the number of identified anti-HCV-positive (anti-HCV+) individuals; proportion of total identified cases; and the number of people that would be tested using either strategy. RESULTS: The prevalence of anti-HCV among adults aged 20-70 years was estimated at 2.0% (95% CI=1.8%, 2.3%), representing about 3.6 million people. The birth cohort strategy would result in testing about 85.4 million people and identifying nearly 2.8 million anti-HCV+ people with a sensitivity of 76.6%. The ALT strategy would test about 21.5 million adults and identify approximately 1.8 million anti-HCV+ people with a sensitivity of 50.0%. Implementing both strategies concurrently would identify 87.3% of anti-HCV+ adults. CONCLUSIONS: The birth cohort strategy, which is recommended by both the CDC and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, would identify 1 million more anti-HCV+ people than the elevated ALT approach. Concurrent implementation would identify an even larger number of individuals ever infected. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND:Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is unidentified in an estimated 40%-85% of infected adults. Surveillance and modeling data have found significant increases in HCV-associated morbidity and mortality. PURPOSE: To compare two HCV antibody (anti-HCV) testing strategies based on (1) elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (ALT) and (2) a birth cohort approach for people born during 1945-1965. METHODS: Data from 19,055 adults aged 20-70 years who completed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 1999-2008 were analyzed in 2013. Two independent models were evaluated, based on membership in the 1945-1965 birth cohort or elevated ALT, to compare the number of identified anti-HCV-positive (anti-HCV+) individuals; proportion of total identified cases; and the number of people that would be tested using either strategy. RESULTS: The prevalence of anti-HCV among adults aged 20-70 years was estimated at 2.0% (95% CI=1.8%, 2.3%), representing about 3.6 million people. The birth cohort strategy would result in testing about 85.4 million people and identifying nearly 2.8 million anti-HCV+ people with a sensitivity of 76.6%. The ALT strategy would test about 21.5 million adults and identify approximately 1.8 million anti-HCV+ people with a sensitivity of 50.0%. Implementing both strategies concurrently would identify 87.3% of anti-HCV+ adults. CONCLUSIONS: The birth cohort strategy, which is recommended by both the CDC and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, would identify 1 million more anti-HCV+ people than the elevated ALT approach. Concurrent implementation would identify an even larger number of individuals ever infected. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: William N Southern; Mari-Lynn Drainoni; Bryce D Smith; Elisa Koppelman; M Diane McKee; Cindy L Christiansen; Allen L Gifford; Cindy M Weinbaum; Alain H Litwin Journal: Qual Manag Health Care Date: 2014 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 0.926
Authors: Daniele Prati; Mitchell L Shiffman; Moisés Diago; Edward Gane; K Rajender Reddy; Paul Pockros; Patrizia Farci; Christopher B O'Brien; Pilar Lardelli; Steven Blotner; Stefan Zeuzem Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2006-01-25 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Eric Lawitz; Alessandra Mangia; David Wyles; Maribel Rodriguez-Torres; Tarek Hassanein; Stuart C Gordon; Michael Schultz; Mitchell N Davis; Zeid Kayali; K Rajender Reddy; Ira M Jacobson; Kris V Kowdley; Lisa Nyberg; G Mani Subramanian; Robert H Hyland; Sarah Arterburn; Deyuan Jiang; John McNally; Diana Brainard; William T Symonds; John G McHutchison; Aasim M Sheikh; Zobair Younossi; Edward J Gane Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Phillip O Coffin; Anne M Stevens; John D Scott; Joanne D Stekler; Matthew R Golden Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2011-06-06 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Andrew D Schreiner; John Bian; Jingwen Zhang; Z Merle Haulsee; Justin Marsden; Valerie Durkalski-Mauldin; Patrick D Mauldin; William P Moran; Don C Rockey Journal: Am J Med Date: 2019-07-29 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Anthony K Yartel; David B Rein; Kimberly Ann Brown; Katherine Krauskopf; Omar I Massoud; Cynthia Jordan; Natalie Kil; Alex D Federman; David R Nerenz; Joanne E Brady; Danielle L Kruger; Bryce D Smith Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Bryce D Smith; Anthony K Yartel; Katherine Krauskopf; Omar I Massoud; Kimberly A Brown; Michael B Fallon; David B Rein Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-01-16 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Boris Kauhl; Jeanne Heil; Christian J P A Hoebe; Jürgen Schweikart; Thomas Krafft; Nicole H T M Dukers-Muijrers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kirsty Roberts; John Macleod; Chris Metcalfe; Joanne Simon; Jeremy Horwood; William Hollingworth; Sharon Marlowe; Fiona H Gordon; Peter Muir; Barbara Coleman; Peter Vickerman; Graham I Harrison; Cherry-Ann Waldron; William Irving; Matthew Hickman Journal: Trials Date: 2016-07-29 Impact factor: 2.279