U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Adolescents and Adults: A Systematic Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Adolescents and Adults: A Systematic Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Evidence Synthesis, No. 188

Investigators: , MD, , MLS, , PhD, , MBBS, MPH, , MA, , MPH, CPH, , BA, and , MD, MHS.

Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 19-05256-EF-1

Structured Abstract

Background:

Prior reviews on hepatitis C (HCV) infection screening and treatment used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) to inform its 2013 recommendation found interferon-containing antiviral therapies associated with sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of 68 percent to 78 percent and an association between SVR after antiviral therapy and improved clinical outcomes. Interferon-containing regimens were associated with a high rate of harms. Since the prior reviews, interferon-containing antiviral therapies have been replaced by all-oral direct acting antiviral (DAA) regimens.

Purpose:

To systematically review the evidence on screening for HCV infection in asymptomatic adults and adolescents, including effects of DAA regimens and interventions to prevent mother-to-child transmission.

Data Sources:

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov through February 2019, manually reviewed reference lists, and conducted literature surveillance through November 22, 2019.

Study Selection:

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials, and cohort studies of HCV screening, antiviral therapy, and interventions to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HCV infection on SVR and clinical outcomes; and cohort studies on the association between an SVR after antiviral therapy versus no SVR and clinical outcomes. Treatment studies focused on populations without cirrhosis who are more likely to be asymptomatic and identified by screening.

Data Extraction:

One investigator abstracted data, and a second investigator checked data abstraction for accuracy. Two investigators independently assessed study quality using methods developed by the USPSTF.

Data Synthesis (Results):

No study evaluated the benefits of HCV screening versus no screening, or the yield of repeat versus one-time screening. Previously reviewed studies found that HCV screening might be associated with negative psychological and social consequences, but had important methodological limitations; no new studies were identified. One new study found similar diagnostic yield of risk-based and birth cohort screening, but it was retrospective and assumed perfect implementation of risk-based screening. Ten trials reported improvements in some quality of life and functional outcomes following DAA treatment compared with prior to treatment, but differences were small, studies were open-label, and there was no non-DAA comparison group. Forty-nine trials found DAA regimens associated with pooled SVR rates that ranged from 95.5 percent to 98.9 percent across genotypes; rates of serious adverse events (1.9%) and withdrawal due to adverse events (0.4%) were low. Seven trials reported SVR rates in adolescents with DAA therapy similar to those observed in adults. An SVR after antiviral therapy was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality (13 studies, pooled hazard ratio [HR] 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28 to 0.56), liver mortality (4 studies, pooled HR 0.11, 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.27), cirrhosis (4 cohorts in 3 studies, pooled HR 0.36, 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.40), and hepatocellular carcinoma (20 studies, pooled HR 0.29, 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.38) versus no SVR, after adjustment for potential confounders. New evidence on interventions to reduce the risk of mother-to-infant transmission was limited and did not change the conclusion from the prior review that no intervention has been clearly demonstrated to reduce risk.

Limitations:

Most DAA trials were not randomized and did not have a non-DAA comparison group, almost all DAA trials relied on SVR as the main efficacy outcome, observational studies varied in how well they adjusted for confounders, and few studies evaluated the effectiveness of DAA regimens in adolescents.

Conclusions:

The USPSTF previously determined that HCV screening is highly accurate. Currently recommended all-oral DAA regimens are associated with very high SVR rates (95.5% to 98.9% across genotypes) and few harms relative to older antiviral therapies. An SVR after antiviral therapy is associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with no SVR, after adjusting for potential confounders. Direct evidence on the benefits of HCV screening remains unavailable, and direct evidence on the effects of antiviral therapy on clinical outcomes remains limited but indicates improved long-term outcomes.

Contents

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA-290-2015-00009-I, Task Order No. 7 Prepared by: Pacific Northwest Evidence-Based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Mail Code: BICC, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239; www.ohsu.edu/epc

Suggested citation:

Chou R, Dana T, Fu R, Zakher B, Wagner J, Ramirez S, Grusing S, Jou JH. Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Adolescents and Adults: A Systematic Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 188. AHRQ Publication No. 19-05256-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020.

This report is based on research conducted by the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA-290-2015-00009-I, Task Order No. 7). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decision makers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients).

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.

Copyright Notice
Bookshelf ID: NBK554896PMID: 32155014

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (6.1M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

ClearTurn OffTurn On

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...