Racial/ethnic disparities in hepatocellular carcinoma incidence and mortality rates in the United States, 1992-2018.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: HCC is characterized by racial/ethnic disparities in rates. Recent USA reports suggest that incidence has begun to decline, but it is not clear whether the declines have occurred among all groups, nor whether mortality has declined. Thus, the current study examined USA incidence and mortality between 1992 and 2018. APPROACH & RESULTS: HCC incidence and incidence-based mortality data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program were used to calculate age-standardized rates by race/ethnicity, sex, and age. Trends were analyzed using joinpoint regression to estimate annual percent change (APC). Age-period-cohort models assessed the effects on trends of age, calendar period, and birth cohort. Overall, HCC incidence significantly declined between 2015 and 2018 (APC, -5.6%). Whereas most groups experienced incidence declines, the trends were most evident among Asians/Pacific Islanders, women, and persons <50 years old. Exceptions were the rates among non-Hispanic Black persons, which did not significantly decline (APC, -0.7), and among American Indians/Alaska Natives, which significantly increased (APC, +4.3%). Age-period-cohort modeling found that birth cohort had a greater effect on rates than calendar period. Among the baby boom cohorts, the 1950-1954 cohort had the highest rates. Similar to the overall incidence decline, HCC mortality rates declined between 2013 and 2018 (APC, -2.2%). CONCLUSIONS: HCC incidence and mortality rates began to decline for most groups in 2015, but persistent differences in rates continued to exist. Rates among non-Hispanic Black persons did not decline significantly, and rates among American Indians/Alaska Natives significantly increased, suggesting that greater effort is needed to reduce the HCC burden among these vulnerable groups.

Accelerating the elimination of viral hepatitis: a Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology Commission.

Viral hepatitis is a major public health threat and a leading cause of death worldwide. Annual mortality from viral hepatitis is similar to that of other major infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis. Highly effective prevention measures and treatments have made the global elimination of viral hepatitis a realistic goal, endorsed by all WHO member states. Ambitious targets call for a global reduction in hepatitis-related mortality of 65% and a 90% reduction in new infections by 2030. This Commission draws together a wide range of expertise to appraise the current global situation and to identify priorities globally, regionally, and nationally needed to accelerate progress. We identify 20 heavily burdened countries that account for over 75% of the global burden of viral hepatitis. Key recommendations include a greater focus on national progress towards elimination with support given, if necessary, through innovative financing measures to ensure elimination programmes are fully funded by 2020. In addition to further measures to improve access to vaccination and treatment, greater attention needs to be paid to access to affordable, high-quality diagnostics if testing is to reach the levels needed to achieve elimination goals. Simplified, decentralised models of care removing requirements for specialised prescribing will be required to reach those in need, together with sustained efforts to tackle stigma and discrimination. We identify key examples of the progress that has already been made in many countries throughout the world, demonstrating that sustained and coordinated efforts can be successful in achieving the WHO elimination goals.

Hepatitis B Vaccination, Screening, and Linkage to Care: Best Practice Advice From the American College of Physicians and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Background: Vaccination, screening, and linkage to care can reduce the burden of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. However, recommendations vary among organizations, and their implementation has been suboptimal. The American College of Physicians' High Value Care Task Force and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed this article to present best practice statements for hepatitis B vaccination, screening, and linkage to care. Methods: A narrative literature review of clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, randomized trials, and intervention studies on hepatitis B vaccination, screening, and linkage to care published between January 2005 and June 2017 was conducted. Best Practice Advice 1: Clinicians should vaccinate against hepatitis B virus (HBV) in all unvaccinated adults (including pregnant women) at risk for infection due to sexual, percutaneous, or mucosal exposure; health care and public safety workers at risk for blood exposure; adults with chronic liver disease, end-stage renal disease (including hemodialysis patients), or HIV infection; travelers to HBV-endemic regions; and adults seeking protection from HBV infection. Best Practice Advice 2: Clinicians should screen (hepatitis B surface antigen, antibody to hepatitis B core antigen, and antibody to hepatitis B surface antigen) for HBV in high-risk persons, including persons born in countries with 2% or higher HBV prevalence, men who have sex with men, persons who inject drugs, HIV-positive persons, household and sexual contacts of HBV-infected persons, persons requiring immunosuppressive therapy, persons with end-stage renal disease (including hemodialysis patients), blood and tissue donors, persons infected with hepatitis C virus, persons with elevated alanine aminotransferase levels (≥19 IU/L for women and ≥30 IU/L for men), incarcerated persons, pregnant women, and infants born to HBV-infected mothers. Best Practice Advice 3: Clinicians should provide or refer all patients identified with HBV (HBsAg-positive) for posttest counseling and hepatitis B-directed care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma screening by combinations of ultrasound and alpha-fetoprotein among Alaska Native people, 1983-2012.

BACKGROUND: The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) recommends semi-annual hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening using ultrasound (US) in persons with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) virus infection at high risk for HCC such as Asian males aged ≥40 years and Asian females aged ≥50 years. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the cost-effectiveness of 2 HCC screening methods in the Alaska Native (AN) health system: US-alone, or screening by alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) initially and switching to US for subsequent screenings if AFP >10 ng/mL (AFP→US). DESIGN: A spreadsheet-based model was developed for accounting the costs of 2 hypothetical HCC screening methods. We used epidemiologic data from a cohort of 839 AN persons with CHB who were offered HCC screening by AFP/US semi-annually during 1983-2012. We assumed that compared with AFP→US, US-alone identifies 33% more tumours at an early stage (defined as a single tumour ≤5 cm or ≤3 tumours ≤3 cm in diameter). Years of life gained (YLG) attributed to screening was estimated by comparing additional years of survival among persons with early- compared with late-stage tumours. Screening costs were calculated using Medicare reimbursement rates in 2012. Future screening costs and YLG were projected over a 30-year time horizon using a 3% discount rate. RESULTS: The total cost of screening for the cohort by AFP→US would have been approximately $357,000 ($36,000/early-stage tumour detected) compared to $814,000 ($59,000/early-stage tumour detected) by US-alone. The AFP→US method would have yielded an additional 27.8 YLG ($13,000/YLG) compared with 38.9 YLG ($21,000/YLG) for US-alone. Screening by US-alone would incur an additional $114,000 per extra early-tumour detected compared with AFP→US and $41,000 per extra YLG. CONCLUSIONS: Although US-alone HCC screening might have yielded more YLG than AFP→US, the reduced costs of the AFP→US method could expand access to HCC screening in resource constrained settings.

Impact of immunizations on the disease burden of American Indian and Alaska native children.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people have suffered disproportionately from infectious diseases compared with the general US population. As recently as 25 years ago, rates of hepatitis A and B virus, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and Streptococcus pneumoniae infections were as much as 10 times higher among AI/AN children compared with the general US child population. In the past quarter century, routine use of childhood immunizations for hepatitis A and B viruses has eliminated disease disparities for these pathogens in AI/AN children, and significant decreases have been demonstrated for H influenzae type b, S pneumoniae, and pertussis. Nevertheless, certain infectious diseases continue to occur at higher rates in AI/AN children. The reason for continued disparities is most likely related to adverse living conditions such as household crowding, lack of indoor plumbing, poverty, and poor indoor air quality. Although tremendous strides have been made in eliminating disparities in infectious disease among AI/AN children, further gains will require addressing disparities in adverse living conditions.

Results of a hepatitis C general transfusion lookback program for patients who received blood products before July 1992.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody (anti-HCV) screening for persons who received blood products before July 1992. A general transfusion lookback program was implemented to identify, counsel, and screen persons who received transfusions at the Alaska Native Medical Center between January 1980 and July 1992. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Hard-copy transfusion records data were entered, and available databases were queried to identify deceased patients and the mailing address of those living. Patients were notified by letter of their HCV risk and encouraged to seek counseling and testing. Serum samples were screened for anti-HCV and HCV RNA, and program costs were estimated. RESULTS: Overall, 3169 transfusion recipients were identified, with 1356 (43%) living and targeted for notification. Of 764 patients notified and screened by this program, 41 (5%) were anti-HCV-positive and 19 (2%) were HCV RNA-positive. There was a higher probability of detecting anti-HCV with each subsequent increase of a transfusion event. Among 298 lookback patients, 33 percent were unaware of having received a blood transfusion. The estimated cost per person sent notification was US$57 and to detect an anti-HCV-positive case it was US$3146. CONCLUSION: This general transfusion lookback program successfully notified and screened patients at a reasonable cost. Further investigation would be helpful in determining the role these programs or other measures could play in promoting HCV screening in persons receiving transfusions before July 1992, especially among those who are unaware of their transfusion history.