4.7 Article

Testing strategy to identify cases of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and to project HCV incidence rates

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 499-506

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01229-07

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL076902, R01-HL-076902-01] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA009532, R01-DA09532, R01-DA13245, R01 DA013245, R01-DA16159, R01 DA016017, R01-DA-016017-03A1, R01 DA016159] Funding Source: Medline
  3. CSAT SAMHSA HHS [H79-TI1Z103] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surveillance for hepatitis C virus (HCV) is limited by the challenge of differentiating between acute and chronic infections. In this study, we evaluate a cross-sectional testing strategy that identifies individuals with acute HCV infection and we estimate HCV incidence. Anti-HCV-negative persons from four populations with various risks, i.e., blood donors, Veterans Administration (VA) patients, young injection drug users (IDU), and older IDU, were screened for HCV RNA by minipool or individual sample nucleic acid testing (NAT). The number of detected viremic seronegative infections was combined with the duration of the preseroconversion NAT-positive window period (derived from analysis of frequent serial samples from plasma donors followed from NAT detection to seroconversion) to estimate annual HCV incidence rates. Projected incidence rates were compared to observed incidence rates. Projected HCV incidence rates per 100 person-years were 0.0042 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.0025 to 0.007) for blood donors, 0.86 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.71) for VA patients, 39.8 (95% CI, 25.9 to 53.7) for young IDU, and 53.7 (95% CI, 23.4 to 108.8) for older IDU. Projected rates were most similar to observed incidence rates for young IDU (33.4; 95% CI, 28.0 to 39.9). This study demonstrates the value of applying a cross-sectional screening strategy to detect acute HCV infections and to estimate HCV incidence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据