4.7 Article

Outcome of screening for hepatitis C virus infection based on risk factors

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages 131-137

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01522.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: Screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in individuals at increased risk is currently recommended by most, but not all, health authorities. This study identifies outcomes of individuals diagnosed through a screening program targeting high-risk patients. METHODS: Veterans presenting for care in VA facilities are assessed for HCV risk factors by a questionnaire. Those with a risk factor are offered anti-HCV testing. Between October 1998 and May 2004, 25,701 patients were assessed and 8,471 patients had a risk factor for HCV. Patients diagnosed through the screening program were assessed per study protocol. RESULTS: The prevalence of a positive HCV antibody in veterans who identified a risk factor was 7.3% (95% CI 6.6-8.0%). Among those diagnosed through the screening program (N = 260), 47% had chronic hepatitis C. Among patients with chronic HCV, 18% had evidence of advanced liver disease (stage III/IV on biopsy or clinical cirrhosis) while 34% had persistently normal alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Two-thirds of individuals who underwent liver biopsy had minimal or no fibrosis. About half (47%) of the screen-detected patients with chronic HCV were treatment candidates. Forty-four percent were not immediate candidates secondary to medical or psychiatric comorbidities or active substance abuse. Twenty-two patients (8%) had died after a median follow-up of 911 days. Two were liver-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Screening for hepatitis C in persons at high risk can lead to early identification of individuals at risk for progressive liver disease who may benefit from antiviral therapy and counseling to reduce HCV-related liver injury.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available