Hsieh Yu-Hsiang, Rothman Richard E, Laeyendecker Oliver B, Kelen Gabor D, Avornu Ama, Patel Eshan U, Kim Jim, Irvin Risha, Thomas David L, Quinn Thomas C
Department of Emergency Medicine.
Department of Emergency Medicine Division of Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
Clin Infect Dis. 2016 May 1;62(9):1059-65. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw074. Epub 2016 Feb 21.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends 1-time hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing in the 1945-1965 birth cohort, in addition to targeted risk-based testing. Emergency departments (EDs) are key venues for HCV testing because of the population served and success in HIV screening. We determined the burden of undocumented HCV infection in our ED, providing guidance for implementation of ED-based HCV testing.
An 8-week seroprevalence study was conducted in an urban ED in 2013. All patients with excess blood collected for clinical purposes were included. Demographic and clinical information including documented HCV infection was obtained from electronic medical records. HCV antibody testing was performed on excess samples.
Of 4713 patients, 652 (13.8%) were HCV antibody positive. Of these, 204 (31.3%) had undocumented HCV infection. Among patients with undocumented infections, 99 (48.5%) would have been diagnosed based on birth cohort testing, and an additional 54 (26.5%) would be identified by risk-based testing. If our ED adhered to the CDC guidelines, 51 (25.0%) patients with undocumented HCV would not have been tested. Given an estimated 7727 unique ED patients with HCV infection in a 1-year period, birth cohort plus risk-based testing would identify 1815 undocumented infections, and universal testing would identify additional 526 HCV-infected persons.
Birth cohort-based testing would augment identification of undocumented HCV infections in this ED 2-fold, relative to risk-based testing only. However, our data demonstrate that one-quarter of infections would remain undiagnosed if current CDC birth cohort recommendations were employed, suggesting that in high-risk urban ED settings a practice of universal 1-time testing might be more effective.
美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)建议,除了基于风险的针对性检测外,对1945年至1965年出生队列人群进行一次丙型肝炎病毒(HCV)检测。急诊科(ED)是进行HCV检测的关键场所,这是由于其服务人群以及在HIV筛查方面取得的成功。我们确定了急诊科未记录的HCV感染负担,为实施基于急诊科的HCV检测提供指导。
2013年在一家城市急诊科进行了一项为期8周的血清流行率研究。纳入所有因临床目的采集了多余血液的患者。从电子病历中获取包括记录的HCV感染在内的人口统计学和临床信息。对多余样本进行HCV抗体检测。
在4713例患者中,652例(13.8%)HCV抗体呈阳性。其中,204例(31.3%)有未记录的HCV感染。在未记录感染的患者中,99例(48.5%)可根据出生队列检测确诊,另外54例(26.5%)可通过基于风险的检测识别。如果我们的急诊科遵循CDC指南,51例(25.0%)未记录HCV的患者将不会接受检测。假设在1年期间估计有7727例急诊科独特的HCV感染患者,出生队列检测加基于风险的检测将识别出1815例未记录的感染,而普遍检测将识别出另外526例HCV感染患者。
相对于仅基于风险的检测,基于出生队列的检测将使该急诊科未记录的HCV感染识别率提高两倍。然而,我们的数据表明,如果采用当前CDC的出生队列建议,四分之一的感染仍将未被诊断,这表明在高风险城市急诊科环境中,普遍进行一次检测的做法可能更有效。