An Easy-to-Implement Risk Score for Targeted Hepatitis C Virus Testing in the General Population.

Despite the effectiveness of available treatments, hepatitis C virus (HCV) remains a major public health problem, mainly due to the high percentage of undiagnosed individuals. We aim to create an easy-to-implement risk score to facilitate targeted HCV testing in the general population. This is a substudy derived from a prospective study in primary care in Madrid (Spain). Participants completed a 21-question risk assessment questionnaire, followed by HCV testing for those with at least one positive response and those >50 years of age, even if they did not answer positively. We used the population >50 years of age to fit a logistic regression model to create a score predicting the risk of a positive test result. We then performed a sensitivity analysis by applying the score obtained to the population <50 years of age, to assess its diagnostic accuracy. Data collected from 2,302 participants were included in the analysis. The prevalence of HCV infection was 1.3%. Five items were selected, showing a C-statistic of 0.896, i.e., male sex, Eastern European origin, use of intravenous drugs, self-perceived risk of acquired HCV infection, and past hepatitis or unexplained liver disease. The sensitivity was 98%, and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 for participants with scores of 0 (49.8% in our sample), ruling out HCV infection with high probability. We obtained similar estimates in the population <50 years of age. This tool achieved high diagnostic accuracy to target HCV testing. This could help optimize resources when universal screening is not feasible. IMPORTANCE Despite the highly effective treatments currently available, HCV remains one of the major public health problems related to an infectious agent, mainly because a high percentage of individuals remain undiagnosed. Universal screening has been proposed as a way to end this epidemic; however, it is not feasible in all settings due to different implementation barriers. With this work, we aim to collaborate in improving the diagnosis of HCV infection by creating a simple 5-item score that rules out HCV infection with a very high probability. Almost one-half of the participants in our sample did not present any affirmative answers to these questions, and their probability of being infected was close to 0%. This tool could be a useful strategy and could be considered a cost-effective alternative to optimize resources when universal screening is not feasible.

Outcome of an HIV education program for primary care providers: Screening and late diagnosis rates.

BACKGROUND: Late HIV diagnosis remains one of the challenges in combating the epidemic. Primary care providers play an important role in screening for HIV infection. Our study aims to evaluate the relationship between knowledge and barriers to HIV testing and screening outcomes. The impact of an education program for primary care providers, towards improving HIV testing and late diagnosis rates, is also assessed. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire that was developed within the framework of the European project OptTEST was used to examine HIV knowledge and barriers to HIV testing scores before and after being involved in an HIV education program. A quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-intervention measures was performed to investigate its impact. We performed multivariable logistic regression analysis to assess the relationship between variables for the HIV testing offer. RESULTS: A total of 20 primary care centers and 454 primary care staff were included. Baseline OptTEST results showed that more knowledgeable staff offered an HIV test more frequently (OR 1.07; CI 95% 1.01-1.13; p = 0.027) and had lower barrier scores (OR 0.89; CI 95% 0.77-0.95; p = 0.005). Nurses had lower scores in knowledge-related items (OR 0.28; CI 95% 0.17-0.46; p<0.001), but higher scores in barrier-related items than physicians (OR 3.28; CI 95% 2.01-5.46; p<0.001). Specific centers with more knowledgeable staff members had a significant association with a greater level of new HIV diagnosis rates (OR 1.61; CI 95% 1.04-2.49; p = 0.032). After the intervention, we found that 12 out of 14 individual questions showed improved scores. In the 6 months after the training program, we similarly found a higher HIV testing rate (OR 1.19; CI 1.02-1.42; p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the association between knowledge and barriers to HIV testing, including HIV testing rates. It shows that it is possible to modify knowledge and reduce perceived barriers through educational programs, subsequently improving HIV screening outcomes.