Current state of and needs for hepatitis B screening: results of a large screening study in a low-prevalent, metropolitan region.

<h4>Background</h4>In low hepatitis B virus (HBV)-prevalent countries, most HBV-infected persons are unaware of their status. We aimed to evaluate whether (i) previous HBV-testing, (ii) physicians decision to screen, and (iii) CDC's recommendations identified infected individuals an...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Julie Bottero, Anders Boyd, Maud Lemoine, Fabrice Carrat, Joel Gozlan, Anne Collignon, Nicolas Boo, Philippe Dhotte, Brigitte Varsat, Gerard Muller, Olivier Cha, Nadia Valin, Jean Nau, Pauline Campa, Benjamin Silbermann, Marc Bary, Pierre-Marie Girard, Karine Lacombe
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2014-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24663387/?tool=EBI
Description
Summary:<h4>Background</h4>In low hepatitis B virus (HBV)-prevalent countries, most HBV-infected persons are unaware of their status. We aimed to evaluate whether (i) previous HBV-testing, (ii) physicians decision to screen, and (iii) CDC's recommendations identified infected individuals and which risk-factor groups needing testing.<h4>Methods</h4>During a mass, multi-center HBV-screening study from September 2010-August 2011, 3929 participants were screened for hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), anti-HBs and anti-Hepatitis B core antibodies (anti-HBcAb). Questions on HBV risk-factors and testing practices were asked to participants, while participants' eligibility for HBV-testing was asked to study medical professionals.<h4>Results</h4>85 (2.2%) participants were HBsAg-positive, while 659 (16.8%) had either resolved HBV infection or isolated anti-HBcAb. When comparing practices, HBV-testing was more likely to occur in HBV-infected participants if Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations were used (Sensitivity = 100%, 95%CI: 95.8-100) than physicians' discretion (Sensitivity = 87.1%, 95%CI: 78.0-93.4) or previous HBV-test (Sensitivity = 36.5%, 95%CI: 26.3-47.6) (p<0.0001). Nevertheless, many non-infected individuals would still have been screened using CDC-recommendations (Specificity = 31.1%, 95%CI: 29.6-32.6). Using multivariable logistic regression, HBsAg-positive status was significantly associated with the following: males, originating from high HBV-endemic region, contact with HBV-infected individual, without national healthcare, and intravenous-drug user (IDU). Of these risk-factors, physician's discretion for testing HBV was not significantly associated with participants' geographical origin or IDU.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Missed opportunities of HBV-screening are largely due to underestimating country of origin as a risk-factor. Applying CDC-recommendations could improve HBV-screening, but with the disadvantage of many tests. Further development of HBV-testing strategies is necessary, especially before severe disease occurs.
ISSN:1932-6203