Improving hepatitis C screening and diagnosis in patients born between 1945 and 1965 in a safety-net primary care clinic

Cost-effectiveness analysis of emergency department-based hepatitis C screening and linkage-to-care program

BACKGROUND

In the United States (US), hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening is not covered by payers in settings outside of primary care. A non-traditional, emergency department (ED)-based HCV screening program can be cost-effective and identify infection in vulnerable populations with a high HCV risk. This study examined the long-term cost-effectiveness of routine HCV screening and linkage-to-care for high-risk patients in the ED from the payer's perspective.

METHODS

The University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System (UIH) implemented Project HEAL (HIV & HCV Screening, Education, Awareness, Linkage-to-Care). Under this initiative, patients who presented to the ED received opt-out HCV screening if they were at high risk for HCV infection (birth cohort between 1945 and 1964, persons who inject drugs, and HIV infection) with subsequent linkage-to-care if infected. Using the summary data from Project HEAL, a hybrid decision-analytic Markov model was developed based on the HCV screening procedure in the ED and the natural history of HCV. A 30-year time horizon and 1-year cycle length were used. All patients who received the ED-based HCV screening were referred for treatment with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) regardless of their fibrosis stage.

RESULTS

When unscreened/untreated patients received DAA treatment at F1, F2, F3, and compensated cirrhosis stages, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from $6,084 to $77,063 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. When unscreened/untreated patients received DAA treatment at the decompensated cirrhosis stage, no HCV screening was dominated.

CONCLUSION

ED-based HCV screening and linkage-to-care was cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000/QALY in all scenarios. A reduction in infected persons in the community may provide additional benefits not evaluated in this study.

Going (Anti)Viral: Improving HIV and HCV Screening and HPV Vaccination in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C (HCV) screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake remain suboptimal. To improve HIV and HCV screening and HPV vaccination, the authors implemented a quality improvement project in three southwestern Pennsylvania family medicine residency practices.

METHODS

From June 1 to November 30, 2021, participating practices used universal screening and vaccination guidelines and chose from multiple strategies at the office (for example, standing orders), provider (for example, multiple forms of provider reminders), and patient (for example, incentives) levels derived from published literature and tailored to local context. Age-eligible patients for each recommendation with at least one in-person office visit during the intervention period were included. To assess the interventions' effect, the authors obtained testing and vaccination data from the electronic health record for the intervention period, contrasted it with identical data from June 1 to November 30, 2020, and used logistic regression controlling for patient age, sex, and race to determine differences in screening and vaccination between intervention and baseline periods.

RESULTS

A total of 14,920 and 15,523 patients were eligible in the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Following the intervention, HIV lifetime screening but not first-time screening for patients 13-64 years old was significantly higher (78.9% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.004, and 39.6% vs. 36.6%, p = 0.152, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.38). HCV lifetime screening for patients 18-79 years old was significantly higher postintervention (62.5% vs. 53.5%, p < 0.001, aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.4-1.64). For patients 9-26 years old, no change in HPV initiation was observed, but the percentage of patients who completed their HPV vaccinations in the observed period was significantly higher postintervention (7.0% vs 4.6%, p = 0.006, aOR 1.58, 95% CI 1.14-2.2). During the postintervention period, the researchers identified 0 new HIV diagnoses and 48 HCV diagnoses (19 eligible for treatment).

CONCLUSION

Family medicine residency office-based multistrategy efforts appear to successfully increase patient uptake of HIV and HCV screenings and maintain HPV vaccination rates.

Advancing health equity in improving breast cancer screening with the use of a mobile mammography bus in marginalised population: quality improvement project

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer, the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in women in the USA, is effectively treated through early detection and screening. This quality improvement (QI) project aimed to improve mammography screening rates from the baseline of 50% to 60% within 12 months for patients aged 50-74 years at an Internal Medicine Clinic.

METHODS

We used the Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) model. A multidisciplinary team used a fishbone diagram to identify barriers to suboptimal screening. The QI team created a driver diagram and process flow map. The mammogram screening rate was the outcome measure. Mammogram order and completion rates were the process measures. We implemented six PDSA cycles. Major interventions included the use of a nurse navigator, enhancements in health information technology, and education to patients, providers, and nursing staff. Mammograms were offered in a mobile bus, located in the hospital campus and in under-resourced inner-city neighbourhoods to improve the access. Data analysis was performed using monthly statistical process control charts.

RESULTS

The project exceeded its initial goal, achieving a breast cancer screening rate of 66% (n=490 of 744) during the study period and was sustainable at 69%, 3 months post-project. The mammogram order rate was 58% (n=432 of 744) and completion rate was 53% (n=231 of 432) within 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

We attributed the success of this QI project to the education of patients, nurses and physicians, the use of a nurse navigator and engagement of a multidisciplinary team. Access to mobile mammography bus addressed the social determinants of health barriers in a marginalised population.

Development and Feasibility Testing of a Multilevel Intervention to Increase Hepatitis C Virus Screening Among Baby Boomers in Primary Care

Chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) results in an increased risk of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Only 15% of baby boomers (born 1945-1965) have ever been screened. We aimed to develop a multilevel intervention to increase HCV screening for baby boomers in a primary care setting. This study included two phases: intervention development (phase 1) and feasibility testing (phase 2). In phase 1, we partnered with a Community Advisory Board and a Provider Advisory Board to develop a multilevel intervention to increase HCV screening to be delivered to both providers and patients in primary care. Phase 2 assessed intervention feasibility, acceptability, and usability by conducting Concurrent Think Aloud (CTA) interviews and surveys using previously validated scales with patients (n = 8) and providers (n = 7). Phase 1 results: The patient-level intervention included a mailed reminder letter and CDC pamphlet and a 7-min in-clinic educational video. The provider-level intervention included a 30-min educational session and monthly performance feedback e-mails. Phase 2 results: Qualitatively, both the patient and provider-level intervention were feasible, acceptable, and usable by the target audiences. Quantitatively, on a 1-4 scale, the range of patient-level scores was 3.00-4.00 and provider level was 3.50-4.00 for feasibility, acceptability, and usability. This intervention could improve HCV screening among a high-risk population and therefore reduce HCV-related morbidity and mortality. This project developed a feasible, acceptable, and usable multilevel intervention aimed at increasing HCV screening in primary care.

Birth cohort hepatitis C antibody prevalence in real-world screening settings in Ontario

BACKGROUND

Widespread screening and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) is required to decrease late-stage liver disease and liver cancer. Clinical practice guidelines and Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care recommendations differ on the value of one-time birth cohort (1945-75) HCV screening in Canada. To assess the utility of this approach, we conducted a real-world analysis of HCV antibody (Ab) prevalence among birth cohort individuals seen in different clinical contexts.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of individuals born between 1945 and 1975 who completed HCV Ab testing at multiple participating centres in Ontario, Canada between January 2016 and December 2020. Differences in prevalence were compared by year of birth, gender, and setting.

RESULTS

Among 16,672 birth cohort individuals tested, HCV Ab prevalence was 3.2%. Prevalence was higher among younger individuals which increased from 0.9% among those born between 1945 and 1956 to 4.6% among those born between 1966 and 1975. Prevalence was higher among males (4.4%) compared with females (2.0%) and differed by test site. In primary care, the prevalence was 0.5%, whereas the prevalence was highest among those tested at drug treatment centres (28.7%) and through community outreach (14.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

HCV Ab prevalence remains high in the 1945-1975 birth cohort. These data highlight the need to re-evaluate existing Canadian Preventative Task Force recommendations, to consider incorporating one-time birth cohort and/or other population-based approaches to HCV screening into the clinical workflow as a preventative health measure, and to increase training among community providers to screen for and treat HCV.

Educating Primary Care Providers and Associate Care Providers About Hepatitis C Screening of Baby Boomers: a Multi-practice Study

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) increases the risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Despite higher prevalence of HCV in persons born 1945-1965 (baby boomer), screening has not been widely adopted. Both primary care providers (PCPs) and associate care providers (ACPs) need to be educated about the rationale and methods to screen for HCV. In five Federally Qualified Health Centers serving low-income Hispanic communities, PCPs and ACPs attended a 50-min training lecture about HCV epidemiology, screening methods, and evaluation. Using a 12-item questionnaire, knowledge and attitudes were compared for PCPs and ACPs at baseline (pre-test) and following training (post-test). A higher proportion of PCPs correctly answered 3 of 6 knowledge questions on both pre-test and post-test but ACPs' showed more improvement in knowledge (all P < 0.05). ACPs had more favorable attitudes about linking patients to care on pre- and post-tests than PCPs, and ACPs' attitudes improved on all 6 items versus 4 for PCPs. Both PCPs and ACPs improved knowledge and attitudes after training about HCV screening but ACPs had more favorable attitudes than PCPs. Engaging the entire primary care practice team in learning about HCV screening promotes knowledge and attitudes necessary for successful implementation.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Inreach With or Without Mailed Outreach to Promote Hepatitis C Screening in a Difficult-to-Reach Patient Population

INTRODUCTION

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment can significantly reduce the risk of liver-related mortality; however, many patients remain unaware of their infection in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of inreach, with and without mailed outreach, to increase HCV screening and follow-up in a large, difficult-to-reach patient population.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic randomized clinical trial from August 2018 to May 2019 in a large safety-net health system. Patients born between 1945 and 1965 were randomly assigned (1:1) to inreach with an electronic health record reminder to providers (n = 6,195) or inreach plus mailed HCV screening outreach (n = 6,191) to complete HCV antibody screening. Outreach also included processes to promote HCV RNA testing among those with a positive HCV antibody and linkage to care among those with positive HCV RNA. The primary outcome was completion of HCV antibody testing within 3 months of randomization (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03706742).

RESULTS

We included 12,386 eligible patients (median age 60 years; 46.5% Hispanic, 33.0% Black, and 16.0% White). In intent-to-treat analyses, HCV screening completion was significantly higher among inreach-plus-outreach patients than inreach-alone patients at 3 months (14.6% vs 7.4%, P < 0.001) and 6 months (17.4% vs 9.8%, P < 0.001) after randomization. Among those who completed HCV screening within 6 months, a higher proportion of inreach-plus-outreach patients with positive antibody results completed RNA testing within 3 months than inreach-alone patients (81.1% vs 57.1%, respectively, P = 0.02); however, linkage to care within 3 months of HCV infection confirmation did not significantly differ between the 2 groups (48.1% vs 75.0%, respectively, P = 0.24).

DISCUSSION

Among difficult-to-reach patients, a combination of inreach and mailed outreach significantly increased HCV screening compared with inreach alone. However, HCV screening completion in both arms remained low, highlighting a need for more intensive interventions.