Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMC Public Health ; 19(1): 1038, 2019 Aug 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31375104

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Age cohort screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) might be an effective strategy if the majority of undiagnosed cases are concentrated in a particular age group. The objective of this study was to determine HCV prevalence in different age cohorts of the general population in the Central European part of Russia and second, to assess feasibility of HCV antigen testing for community screening programs. METHODS: Sera from 2027 volunteers were tested for anti-HCV (Architect Anti-HCV, Abbott Laboratories). All anti-HCV reactive samples were confirmed in an immunoblot and tested for HCV Ag (ARCHITECT HCV Ag, Abbott Laboratories), HCV RNA and HCV viral load. RESULTS: Out of 31 individuals with anti-HCV reactive result, 22 (71%) were confirmed by immunoblot, six were false positives and three were indeterminate. Active infection was observed in 73% of anti-HCV confirmed positives. Five out of 16 individuals had low HCV-RNA levels (< 10,000 IU/mL) and one of those had a very low level (594 IU/mL). Agreement between HCV Ag and HCV RNA was 100%. Total anti-HCV and active HCV infection rates were 1.09% (22/2027) and 0.79% (16/2027), respectively. The peak rates were observed in people 60 years or older (anti-HCV: 2.84% [95% CI: 1.66-4.74%], 13/319; HCV RNA/HCV Ag: 2.23% [95% CI: 1.20-4.00%], 10/319). CONCLUSIONS: Overall HCV prevalence is low, except in people 60 years or older. The latter should be considered as a target group for HCV screening. The high agreement between HCV RNA and HCV Ag suggests the utility of HCV Ag testing to confirm active infection in screening programs.


Assuntos
Serviços de Saúde Comunitária , Hepatite C/epidemiologia , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Feminino , Hepacivirus/genética , Hepacivirus/imunologia , Hepacivirus/isolamento & purificação , Hepatite C/sangue , Antígenos da Hepatite C/sangue , Humanos , Lactente , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Prevalência , RNA Viral/sangue , Federação Russa/epidemiologia , Adulto Jovem
2.
PLoS One ; 14(7): e0219687, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31310636

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Screening for hepatitis C in Russia is a complex process that involves several visits and stepwise testing, limiting adherence and substantially reducing the yield in the identification of active infections. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different screening algorithms from a health system perspective. METHODS: A decision analytic model was applied to a hypothetical adult population eligible to participate in a general screening program for hepatitis C in Russia. The standard pathway (I: Screen for anti-HCV antibodies followed by a nucleic acid test for HCV RNA on antibody positives) was compared to three alternatives (II: Screen for antibodies, a reflexed test for HCV antigen on antibody positives, and RNA on antigen negatives; III: Screen for antibodies, a reflexed test for HCV antigen on antibody positives; IV: Screen for antigen). Each strategy considered a cascade of events (referral, adherence, testing, diagnosis) that must occur for screening to be effective. The primary measure of effectiveness was the number of diagnosed active infections. Calculations followed a health system perspective with costs derived from 2017 reimbursement rates and a willingness-to-pay of 2,000RUB ($82) per diagnosed active infection. Model was tested with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Non-adherence to screening stages reduced the capture rate of active infections in Strategy I from 79.0% to 40.6%. Strategies II, III, and IV were less affected and identified 69%, 67%, and 104% more infections. Average costs per diagnosed infection were decreased by 41% from 89,599RUB ($3,681) for I to 53,072RUB ($2,180), 53,004RUB ($2,177), and 59,633RUB ($2,450) for II, III, and IV, respectively. With a probability of 97%, Strategy III was most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio vs. I of -1,373RUB (CI: -5,011RUB to -2,033RUB; $-56; CI: -$206 to -$84). Below a willingness-to-pay of 91,000RUB ($3,738), Strategy IV was not cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of results. CONCLUSIONS: Testing strategies for hepatitis C with HCV antigen on HCV antibody positive cases offer a streamlining opportunity for population screening programs. Those shall increase the chances for detecting active infections and are cost-effective over current practice in Russia.


Assuntos
Análise Custo-Benefício , Hepacivirus , Hepatite C/diagnóstico , Hepatite C/epidemiologia , Programas de Rastreamento/métodos , Algoritmos , Antígenos Virais/análise , Tomada de Decisões , Hepatite C/economia , Anticorpos Anti-Hepatite C/análise , Humanos , Programas de Rastreamento/economia , Modelos Estatísticos , Cooperação do Paciente , Probabilidade , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , RNA Viral/análise , Federação Russa/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA