Confirmation of guideline-defined hepatitis C screening strategies within the 'Check-Up35+' examination in the primary care setting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Screening strategies for undiagnosed infections are fundamental for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. We previously investigated HCV prevalence and screening strategies in an urban primary care setting. IV drug abuse, blood transfusion before 1992, immigration, or elevated ALT were identified as risk factors in a post hoc analysis and diagnosed 83% of unknown HCV-RNA-positive cases by screening only 26% of the population. We aimed to validate prospectively the proposed screening algorithm in two independent urban and rural cohorts and to analyse for potential differences. METHODS: Anti-HCV and ALT were included in a routine check-up together with a questionnaire covering risk factors. HCV-RNA was analysed in anti-HCV-positive individuals. RESULTS: In urban and rural areas, 4323 and 9321 individuals were recruited. The anti-HCV prevalence was 0.56% and 0.49%, and 0.1% of patients were HCV-RNA-positive in both regions. Fifty-two anti-HCV positive patients including eight HCV-RNA-positive cases were unaware of the infection (number needed to screen to detect one unknown anti-HCV-positive individual: 262). At least one of the three aforementioned risk factors or elevated serum ALT was present in 3000 patients (22%). Restricting HCV screening to only those with risk factors, 52% and 75% of all anti-HCV and HCV-RNA-positive undiagnosed patients were identified (number needed to screen: 111). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm prospectively the efficiency of a risk-based HCV screening. The risk-based algorithm should be evaluated in other countries with similarly low HCV prevalence as in Germany to achieve WHO HCV elimination goals.

Age Dependence of Liver Enzymes: An Analysis of Over 1,300,000 Consecutive Blood Samples.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Upper levels of normal for alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and γ-glutamyltransferase (GGT) generally take sex into account, but not age. This simplification may lead to misclassification and burden the patient and health system unnecessarily. METHODS: Consecutive blood samples were analyzed from a German laboratory. Subcohorts included samples from a prescribed routine check-up and a healthy cohort, defined as patients without increased GGT, triglyceride, cholesterol, glycated hemoglobin, or glucose levels, and without known hepatitis B. RESULTS: A total of 1,369,180 blood samples were analyzed from 601,779 participants (50.8% female; mean age, 58.5 y; SD, 18.0 y). There is an extreme age dependence in ALT values for men: increased values were seen in 20.0% (95% CI, 19.5%-20.4%) of patients in the age group of 25 to 34 years, but only 6.7% (95% CI, 6.4%-7.0%) for the ages of 65 to 74 years. The 95th percentile reaches values greater than 80 U/L instead of 50 U/L at the age of 35, and decrease to less than 50 U/L by the age of 75. Similar qualitative results were found in the healthy and prescribed routine check-up subcohorts. The age dependence is much weaker for ALT in women. The proportion of women with an increased AST level increases from approximately 6% to 12% at approximately age 50. The 95th percentile for GGT increases up to the age of 60 in men, and throughout life in women. CONCLUSIONS: Current guidelines and reference values for ALT imply that subsequent diagnostics are needed for a large proportion of young men. Our data strongly suggest that age adaptation should be considered.

From Screening to Therapy: Anti-HCV Screening and Linkage to Care in a Network of General Practitioners and a Private Gastroenterology Practice.

(1) Background: Low rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) diagnosis and sub-optimal linkage to care constitute barriers toward eliminating the infection. In 2012/2013, we showed that HCV screening in primary care detects unknown cases. However, hepatitis C patients may not receive further diagnostics and therapy because they drop out during the referral pathway to secondary care. Thus, we used an existing network of primary care physicians and a practice of gastroenterology to investigate the pathway from screening to therapy. (2) Methods: HCV screening was prospectively included in a routine check-up of primary care physicians who cooperated regularly with a private gastroenterology practice. Anti-HCV-positive patients were referred for further specialized diagnostics and treatment if indicated. (3) Results: Seventeen primary care practices screened 1875 patients. Twelve individuals were anti-HCV-positive (0.6%), six of them reported previous antiviral HCV therapy, and one untreated patient was HCV-RNA-positive (0.05% of the population). None of the 12 anti-HCV-positive cases showed up at the private gastroenterology practice. Further clinical details of the pathway from screening to therapy could not be analyzed. (4) Conclusions: The linkage between primary and secondary care appears to be problematic in the HCV setting even among cooperating partners, but robust conclusions require larger datasets.

The Practicability of the Xpert HCV Viral Load Fingerstick Point-of-Care Assay in Primary Care Settings.

Linkage to care presents one obstacle toward eliminating HCV, and the current two-step pathway (anti-HCV, followed by HCV-RNA testing) results in the loss of patients. HCV screening was tested in the primary care setting with the fingerstick Xpert HCV viral load point-of-care assay to analyze the practicability of immediate diagnosis. Anti-HCV (Cobas) and HCV-RNA (Cobas Amplicor version 2.0, only performed if anti-HCV was positive) were analyzed centrally as the gold standard. The Xpert assay was performed by 10 primary care private practices. In total, 622 patients were recruited. Five individuals (0.8%) were anti-HCV positive, and one was HCV-RNA positive. The Xpert test was valid in 546/622 (87.8%) patients. It was negative in 544 and positive in 2 cases, both of whom were anti-HCV negative. The HCV-RNA PCR and the Xpert test were both negative in 4/5 anti-HCV-positive cases, and the individual with HCV-RNA 4.5 × 106 IU/mL was not detected by the Xpert test. Primary care physicians rated the Xpert test practicability as bad, satisfactory, or good in 6%, 13%, and 81%, respectively, though 14/29 (48%) bad test ratings were assigned by a single practice. Despite adequate acceptance, interpretability and diagnostic performance in primary care settings should be further evaluated before its use in HCV screening can be recommended.

Laboratory reform counteracts the WHO hepatitis C elimination strategy in Germany.

The World Health Organization and the German government have announced an initiative to eliminate chronic hepatitis C until the year 2030. To reach this goal, one important step is adequate screening and detection of so far undiagnosed infections. The most common initial test is anti-HCV. This parameter was extra-budgetary reimbursed by statuary healthcare insurances in the past. However, this policy has changed after a nationwide laboratory reform which should reduce the laboratory costs of patients insured in the statuary healthcare insurances. We therefore analysed the impact of the laboratory reform on the order of anti-HCV tests in 510 656 anonymized patient data sets before and after the initiation of the reform. The number of anti-HCV tests declined by 9.4% in quarters I-III 2018 in comparison with the same time period of the year 2017. The number of HBsAg tests declined by 7.4%, indicating that the reduced anti-HCV laboratory orders are not parameter-specific, but most likely a surrogate of the intention of the laboratory reform to generally lower the demands of blood samples and laboratory costs. Thus, the scenario is an important example, how political decisions of the medical self-government influence the screening setting for viral hepatitis: if the current policy is not changed, the laboratory reform directly counteracts the WHO hepatitis C elimination strategy in Germany.

Linkage to care of HbsAg-positive and anti-HCV-positive patients after a systematic screening approach in the German primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Identification of previously unknown cases is important to lower the burden of chronic hepatitis B and C infection. However, a screening program in the primary care setting has not yet been established. Therefore, a systematic screening project was conducted in 21 008 patients (Wolffram and colleagues). Here, we describe linkage to care of identified HbsAg-positive and anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive patients. METHODS: General practitioners characterized further medical care by a standardized questionnaire. Data of 48/110 HbsAg-positive and 114/199 anti-HCV-positive patients were available. An APRI index more than 2 or up to 0.5 indicated the presence of cirrhosis or the absence of fibrosis. RESULTS: APRI was calculated in 32/48 hepatitis B virus (HBV) patients (>2: n=1; ≤0.5: n=29) and 34/114 HCV patients (>2: n=4; ≤0.5: n=23). The general practitioners were already aware of the positive HBsAg and anti-HCV-test in 13/48 and 59/114 patients, respectively.For 29/35 newly diagnosed HBV patients and 26/55 HCV patients, further diagnostics were initiated: ultrasound 77 versus 38%, liver biopsy 20 versus 4%, and gastroscopy 20 versus 7%.Antiviral treatment was initiated in 5/35 HBV cases and in 10/55 HCV patients.A family screening was initiated in 22/35 HBV versus 13/55 HCV index patients and showed one additional HbsAg-positive and two anti-HCV-positive cases.Diagnostic procedures differed significantly between anti-HCV-positive and HbsAg-positive patients (P<0.001 for APRI, ultrasound, and family screening; P=0.03 for liver biopsy). CONCLUSION: Diagnostic procedures should be improved for hepatitis C-infected patients. The APRI index was only of limited value in the primary care setting.

Prevalence of elevated ALT values, HBsAg, and anti-HCV in the primary care setting and evaluation of guideline defined hepatitis risk scenarios.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Prevalence data for hepatitis B and C and an evaluation of a guideline based screening in the primary care setting are not yet available. We therefore implemented a hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening and developed guideline based screening strategies. METHODS: HBsAg, anti-HCV, and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were included in a routine check-up together with a questionnaire covering 16 guideline adapted risk scenarios. Significant risk factors were identified by stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: 51 private practices screened 21,008 patients. The HBsAg, anti-HCV, and HCV-RNA prevalence was 0.52%, 0.95%, and 0.43%, respectively. Infections were previously unknown in 85% and 65% of HBsAg and anti-HCV positive individuals, respectively. Sexual risk factors were under-reported, while the following scenarios were significantly associated with viral infections (Odds ratio [95% confidence interval]). HBV: Immigration (4.4 [2.9, 6.7]), infection in household (2.5 [1.2, 4.5]), male gender (1.6 [1.1, 2.4]). Male immigrants had a 2.1% HBsAg prevalence and 80% were unaware of the infection. HCV: IV drug use (384 [233, 644]), blood transfusion before 1992 (5.3 [3.5, 7.9]), immigration (2.4 [1.5, 3.6]). Presence of either one of the HBV related guideline defined risk scenarios or elevated ALT identified 82% of previously undiagnosed patients. Presence of one of the three significant HCV risk factors or elevated ALT levels diagnosed 83% of unknown HCV-RNA positive cases by screening only 26% of the population. CONCLUSIONS: Undiagnosed hepatitis B and C infections frequently exist in the primary care setting. Easy to apply guideline defined risk scenarios help to diagnose previously unknown infections.