Prevalence of hepatitis C in the general population in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is transmitted by blood-blood contact and this leads to high HCV prevalence in risk populations such as haemophilia patients and intravenous drug users. The prevalence in the general Dutch population is unknown, although it appears to be very low in screened blood donors (0.0169%). AIM: The objective of this study is to estimate the prevalence of HCV in a general population sample living in an urbanized region in the Netherlands. METHODS: We randomly selected 2200 EDTA blood samples that had been submitted for analysis of biochemical parameters to a regional servicing laboratory for general practitioners (SHO, Arnhem/Nijmegen, the Netherlands). HCV antibody testing was performed using a three-step approach. For initial screening, an enzyme immunoassay (Bioelisa HCV 4.0, Biokit, Spain) was used. Positive samples were subjected to a second, microparticle enzyme-linked immunoassay (AxSYM HCV version 3.0, Abbott laboratories, IL , USA). Genotypes were determined by Line Probe Assay. RESULTS: A total of four persons (two females, two males) (0.2%) tested positive for HCV antibodies. The average OD/cut-off ratio of the screening assay was 2.9 (range 1.0 to 7.3) and serological findings were confirmed using a specific second immunoassay. HCV RNA (genotype 1b) was found in the sera of two persons. CONCLUSION: The HCV prevalence in our sample of the Dutch population was 0.2% which accords with earlier estimates from prevalence studies in the Netherlands.

A critical appraisal of non-invasive diagnosis and exclusion of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in outpatients with suspected deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism: how many tests do we need?

The requirement for a safe diagnostic strategy should be based on an overall posttest incidence of venous thromboembolism of less than 1% during 3 month follow-up. Compression ultrasonography (CUS) has a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% to 98% indicating the need of repeated CUS testing. Serial CUS testing is safe but you have to repeat 100 CUS to find 1 or 2 CUS positive for deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which is not cost-effective indicating the need to improve the diagnostic work-up of DVT by the use of clinical score assessment and D-dimer testing. The combination of a less sensitive D-dimer test (SimpliRed) and low clinical score does not, whereas the combination of a sensitive D-dimer test (ELISA VIDAS or Tinaquant) and low clinical score does safely exclude DVT without the need of CUS. The combination of a first negative CUS and a negative less sensitive D-dimer test (SimpliRed) or a sensitive ELISA D-dimer at a higher cut off level of 1,000 ng/ml safely excludes DVT with a NPV of > 99% without the need to repeated CUS in about 60%. The sequential use of a sensitive D-dimer and clinical score assessment will safely reduce the need for CUS testing by 40% to 60%. Large prospective outcome studies demonstrate that one negative examination with complete duplex color ultrasonography (CCUS) of the proximal and distal veins of the affected leg with suspected DVT is safe to withhold anticoagulant treatment with a NPV of 99.5%. This indicates that CCUS is equal or superior to serial CUS or the combined use of clinical score, D-dimer testing and CUS. Pulmonary angiography is the gold standard for segmental pulmonary embolism (PE) but not for subsegmental PE. A normal perfusion lung scan and a normal rapid ELISA VIDAS D-dimer test safely exclude PE. Helical spiral CT detects all clinically relevant PE and a large number of alternative diagnoses in symptomatic patients with a non-diagnostic ventilation perfusion scan (VP-scan) or a high probability VP-scan. Single-slice helical CT as the primary diagnostic test in patients with suspected PE in 5 retrospective studies and in 3 prospective management studies indicate that the NPV of a normal helical spiral CT, a negative CUS of the legs together with a low or intermediate pretest clinical probability is 99%. Helical spiral CT can replace both the VP-scan and pulmonary angiography to safely rule in and out PE. The combination of clinical assessment, a rapid ELISA VIDAS D-dimer followed by CUS will reduce the need for helical spiral CT by 40% to 50%.

Diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis: how many tests do we need?

The requirement for a safe diagnostic strategy should be based on an overall post-test incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of less than 1% during 3 month follow-up. Compression ultrasonography (CUS) has a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97 to 98% indicating a post-CUS incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of 2 to 3%. A post-CUS DVT incidence of 3% implicates that 90 to 120 DVTs per 1 million inhabitants will be overlooked each year indicating the need to improve the diagnostic work-up of DVT as much as possible. The qualitative D-dimer test (SimpliRed) has a sensitivity of 82 to 89% and a negative predictive value of 94 to 95% indicating a 5 to 6% post-test incidence of DVT, which is not sensitive enough for venous thrombosis exclusion. The post-test DVT incidence could be reduced from 3.2% to 0.6% in one study and from 11% to 2% in another study by the combination of a normal CUS and low clinical score and from 4.5% to 1.6% by the combination of low clinical score and a negative SimpliRed test in one study. The combination of a negative CUS and a negative SimpliRed test reduced the post-test incidence of DVT from 2.6% to < 1% or even < 1% in two management studies without the need of a repeated CUS on the basis of which anticoagulant therapy can safely be withheld. The rapid quantitative turbidimetric D-dimer assay (Tinaquant) has a sensitivity and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.7% with a 2.3% post-test incidence of DVT. The combination of a normal Tinaquant D-Dimer test result plus a low to moderate clinical score reduces the post-test incidence of DVT from 2.3 to 0.6% without the need of CUS testing in 29% of patients with suspected DVT. The rapid ELISA VIDAS D-dimer assay has a sensitivity and NPV of 98.6 and 99.5% in two management studies for the exclusion of DVT irrespective of clinical score. The combination of a normal ELISA VIDAS D-Dimer test with clinical score assessment will reduce the post-test DVT incidence of less than 0.5% and the need for CUS testing by 40 to 50%. It is concluded that the sequential use of a rapid quantitative D-dimer test, clinical score and CUS appears to be safe and the most cost-effective diagnostic work-up of DVT.