Ivo Ditah1, Badr Al Bawardy1, Humberto C Gonzalez2, Behnam Saberi1, Callistus Ditah3, Patrick S Kamath1, Michael Charlton4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 2. Department of Transplant Surgery, Methodist University Hospital, University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, USA. 3. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. Hepatology and Liver Transplantation, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Identifying barriers to access to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment among screen detected subjects is critical for any public health strategy aimed at controlling HCV infection in the general population. METHODS: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey HCV Follow-up study from 2001 to 2010 were used. Participants who tested positive for HCV were sent a letter informing them of their test results and advised to pursue further evaluation. Information on HCV transmission and its potential complications was also provided to all positive participants. These subjects were recontacted 6 months after notification to determine what action they had taken regarding the positive result. RESULTS: Of 38,025 participants, 502 tested positive for HCV infection, giving a prevalence of 1.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8%, 1.8%). A total of 205 subjects participated in the 6-month follow-up interview. Those who could not be reached were more likely to be less educated, injecting drugs, and not to have health insurance. Half (50.2%) of the positive individuals were not aware of their status before notification. A total of 166 (81%) had pursued further evaluation. Only 18 (26.9%) received therapy. The main reason for not receiving treatment was high cost (19.4%). In adjusted analysis, the only barrier to pursuing downstream HCV care was the lack of health insurance (2.76, 95% CI 1.54, 7.69; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the lack of health insurance may attenuate the theoretical benefits of a screening program that identifies asymptomatic HCV-infected individuals who are less likely to pursue downstream care.
OBJECTIVES: Identifying barriers to access to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment among screen detected subjects is critical for any public health strategy aimed at controlling HCV infection in the general population. METHODS: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey HCV Follow-up study from 2001 to 2010 were used. Participants who tested positive for HCV were sent a letter informing them of their test results and advised to pursue further evaluation. Information on HCV transmission and its potential complications was also provided to all positive participants. These subjects were recontacted 6 months after notification to determine what action they had taken regarding the positive result. RESULTS: Of 38,025 participants, 502 tested positive for HCV infection, giving a prevalence of 1.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8%, 1.8%). A total of 205 subjects participated in the 6-month follow-up interview. Those who could not be reached were more likely to be less educated, injecting drugs, and not to have health insurance. Half (50.2%) of the positive individuals were not aware of their status before notification. A total of 166 (81%) had pursued further evaluation. Only 18 (26.9%) received therapy. The main reason for not receiving treatment was high cost (19.4%). In adjusted analysis, the only barrier to pursuing downstream HCV care was the lack of health insurance (2.76, 95% CI 1.54, 7.69; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the lack of health insurance may attenuate the theoretical benefits of a screening program that identifies asymptomatic HCV-infected individuals who are less likely to pursue downstream care.
Authors: David B Rein; John S Wittenborn; Cindy M Weinbaum; Miriam Sabin; Bryce D Smith; Sarah B Lesesne Journal: Dig Liver Dis Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 4.088
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: Johannes Vermehren; Beate Schlosser; Diana Domke; Sandra Elanjimattom; Christian Müller; Gudrun Hintereder; Karin Hensel-Wiegel; Rudolf Tauber; Annemarie Berger; Norbert Haas; Felix Walcher; Martin Möckel; Ralf Lehmann; Stefan Zeuzem; Christoph Sarrazin; Thomas Berg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David P Durham; Laura A Skrip; Robert Douglas Bruce; Silvia Vilarinho; Elamin H Elbasha; Alison P Galvani; Jeffrey P Townsend Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Henry N Luma; Servais A F B Eloumou; Dominique N Noah; B Aude Eyenga; Georges Nko'Ayissi; T Sylvie Taku; Agnes Malongue; Olivier Donfack-Sontsa; Ivo C Ditah Journal: J Clin Exp Hepatol Date: 2018-01-12
Authors: Zaki A Sherif; Mehdi Nouraie; Rehana Begum; Ali Afsari; Babak Shokrani; Edward Lee; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Hassan Brim; Hassan Ashktorab Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Albert Do; Yash Mittal; AnnMarie Liapakis; Elizabeth Cohen; Hong Chau; Claudia Bertuccio; Dana Sapir; Jessica Wright; Carol Eggers; Kristine Drozd; Maria Ciarleglio; Yanhong Deng; Joseph K Lim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Susan L Stewart; Sandy L Kwong; Christopher L Bowlus; Tung T Nguyen; Annette E Maxwell; Roshan Bastani; Eric W Chak; Moon S Chen Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Alexandra DeBose-Scarlett; Raymond Balise; Deukwoo Kwon; Susan Vadaparampil; Steven Xi Chen; Eugene R Schiff; Gladys Patricia Ayala; Emmanuel Thomas Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2018-06-28 Impact factor: 5.531