Primary care physicians' approach to diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis B and hepatitis C patients

Linkage-to-Care Following Community-Based HBV and HCV Screening Among Immigrants from the Washington–Baltimore Metropolitan Area, 2016–2019

Understanding characteristics that impact linkage-to-care (LTC) among individuals living with HBV and/or HCV can enhance public health efforts to provide tailored care services to prevent and treat viral hepatitis among immigrants. Using HBV/HCV screening and LTC data from immigrants (2016–2019), descriptive and logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess (1) the relationship between LTC and sociodemographic factors and (2) factors associated with HBV/HCV LTC. About 87% of those positive HBsAg had LTC and 52% had LTC among those with HCVAB and confirmed PCR. Access to care was an important LTC predictor for HBV–LTC: those who had neither health insurance nor primary care provider (PCP) were more likely to have HBV–LTC than those who had either health insurance or PCP (aOR = 2.95, 95% CI = 1.32–6.59). It is essential to equally provide HBV/HCV LTC support to all immigrants from countries with high prevalence regardless of access to care.

Incidental detection of hepatitis B and C viruses and their coinfection in a hospital-based general population in tertiary care hospital of Uttar Pradesh

Introduction:

Substantial proportion of liver diseases worldwide is caused by hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections which manifest not only as an acute illness but also lead to chronic sequelae. Together HBV and HCV cause chronic infection in more than 500 million persons and about one million deaths annually. Most of the people with chronic infection are not aware of the infection thus enabling it to go unnoticed, and undiagnosed and act as a potential source of infection for the community at large. Therefore, we aimed to find the prevalence of HBV and HCV in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh among individuals attending the tertiary care hospital.

Materials and Methods:

From February 2015 to January 2016, 3750 patients attending the outdoor patient departments or admitted to the indoor patient departments of teaching hospital and advised to undergo HBV and HCV for screening before any invasive/surgical procedure were included in the study. Screening was done by rapid card test followed by the confirmation of all samples by enzyme immunoassay.

Results:

Seroprevalence of HBV and HCV was found to be 3.9% and 1.76% respectively with higher seroprevalence among males and in married participants in both infections. Blood transfusion is statistically a significant risk factor for HCV infection (P < 0.05). Coinfection with HBV/HCV was seen in 0.16% of the individuals visiting the hospital.

Conclusion:

Higher seroprevalence of HBV and HCV among the hospital-based population mandates screening of high-risk individuals. Awareness by health education of safe sexual practices and improved safety of blood and its products are among the most important preventive measures to control HBV and HCV infection.

Limited impact of awareness-raising campaigns on hepatitis C testing practices among general practitioners

The global hepatitis strategy calls for increased effort to diagnose those infected, with a target of 90% diagnosed by 2030. Scotland's Action Plan on Hepatitis C included awareness-raising campaigns, undertaken during 2008-2011, to promote testing by general practitioners. We examined hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing practice among general practitioners before and following these campaigns. Scottish general practitioners were surveyed, using Dillman's method, in 2007 and 2013; response rates were 69% and 60%, respectively. Most respondents offer testing when presented with a risk history (86% in 2007, 88% in 2013) but only one-fifth actively sought out risk factors (19% in 2007, 21% in 2013). Testing was reportedly always/almost always/usually offered to people who inject drugs (84% in 2007, 87% in 2013). Significant improvements in the offer of testing were reported in patients with abnormal LFTs (41% in 2007, 65% in 2013, P<.001) and who had received medical/dental treatment in high prevalence countries (14% in 2007, 24% in 2013, P=.001). In 2013, 25% of respondents had undertaken HCV-related continued professional development. This group was significantly more likely to actively seek out risk factors (P=.009) but only significantly more likely to offer a test to patients who had received medical/dental treatment in high prevalence countries (P=.001). Our findings suggest that government-led awareness raising campaigns have limited impact on general practitioners' testing practices. If the majority of the HCV-infected population are to be diagnosed, practitioner-based or physician-centred interventions should be considered alongside educational initiatives targeted at professionals.

The role of the general practitioner in the screening and clinical management of chronic viral hepatitis in six EU countries

INTRODUCTION

Chronic viral hepatitis is still a major public health concern in the EU. In order to halt the progression of the disease and to prevent onward transmission, timely recognition and accurate clinical management are crucial. The aim of the present study was to investigate the role of the general practitioner (GP) in the screening of persons at risk and in the clinical management of chronic viral hepatitis patients in six EU countries.

METHODS

An online survey among GPs and secondary-care specialists was conducted in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary, Italy and Spain. In the GP survey, we used a four-point Likert scale to find out how commonly risk groups are screened. In both surveys, we measured GPs involvement in monitoring clinical indicators in patients undergoing antiviral treatment, and explored whether patients in four clinical scenarios are referred back to primary care.

RESULTS

Between five and 10 experts per professional group were surveyed, except for Spain (GPs: n = 2; Specialists: n = 4) and, in the case of the GP survey, Hungary (GPs: n = 1) and Germany (GPs: n = 4). Migrants are variably or not routinely screened for hepatitis B/C in the majority of cases. The majority of GPs reported that hepatitis B/C screening was routinely offered to people who inject drugs. In Hungary, Italy and in the Netherlands, screening sex workers is not a regular practice. As to whether GPs offer screening to men who have sex with men, responses varied; in Germany, the Netherlands and Italy, screening was "variably" or "commonly" implemented, while in Hungary the practice seems to be sporadic. In the UK, screening for hepatitis B seems to be common practice among GPs, while hepatitis C testing is only occasionally offered to this risk group. Most GPs (> 44%) in all countries except Hungary reported that hepatitis B/C screening was very commonly offered to HIV patients. The role of GPs in monitoring hepatitis cases and the referral of cases back to GPs by specialists varied both within and between countries. GPs are unlikely to monitor clinical outcomes other than side effects in patients undergoing treatment. Patients who have had a sustained virological response are usually referred back to GPs, whereas patients undergoing antiviral treatment and those who do not respond to treatment are rarely referred back.

CONCLUSIONS

The GP's decision to offer screening to risk groups often seems to be an individual choice of the healthcare professional. Raising GPs' awareness of the disease, for example through the adoption of effective strategies for the dissemination and implementation of the existing guidelines for general practice, is strongly needed. The role of GPs and specialists involved in the management of chronically infected patients should also be clarified, as opinions sometimes differ markedly even within each professional group.

Knowledge, attitudes and practice of primary health care physicians towards hepatitis B virus in Al-Jouf province, Saudi Arabia

Background

Primary health care (PHC) physicians will be in the forefront of managing hepatitis B (HBV) patients. In Saudi Arabia, very little is known about knowledge, attitudes, and practice of PHC physicians towards HBV. This study aimed to assess the same parameters.

Methods

During April 2012, a cross-sectional survey of 180 practitioners aged 38.1 ± 10.3 years was carried out in the primary health care centers (PHCCs) in AlJouf Province of Saudi Arabia. The physicians were asked to fill a valid questionnaire containing their sociodemographic data, and well-modified questions regarding their knowledge base, attitudes, and practice towards HBV. Data was processed and analyzed using SPSS (version 17) program, the level of significance was set at P < 0.05.

Result

Response rate 88.3% yielded 159 questionnaires for analysis. Majority of the physicians surveyed 128 (80.6%) believed that PHC physicians are capable to achieve a major role in the management of HBV. 119 (74.8%) physicians surveyed were willing to manage HBV patients and 127 (79.9%) believed that vaccination is the most effective means to prevent HBV. There was a statistical significant correlation between physicians’ qualifications and continuity of care for HBV patients (32.8% vs 23.4%; p = 0.006), while continuality of care was more frequent among physicians with higher degrees compared to graduate physicians. Only 69 (43.4%) physicians were able to interpret HBV seromarkers. The vast majority of the physicians 142 (89.3%) were willing to subscribe in regular training programs about HBV.

Conclusion

Suitable attitudes with lack of knowledge are found, and practice of our physicians with regard to this significant health issue appeared inappropriate. More education focusing on HBV is recommended.

Chronic hepatitis B management based on standard guidelines in community primary care and specialty clinics

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prior studies have underlined the need for increased screening and awareness of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), especially in certain high-risk populations. However, few studies have examined the patterns of evaluation and management of CHB between primary care physicians (PCP) and specialists according to commonly-used professional guidelines. Our goal was to examine whether necessary laboratory parameters used to determine disease status and eligibility for antiviral therapy were performed by PCPs and specialists.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 253 treatment-naïve CHB patients who were evaluated by PCP only (n=63) or by specialists (n=190) for CHB at a community multispecialty medical center between March 2007 and June 2009. Criteria for CHB management and treatment eligibility were based on the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases 2007 guideline and the US Panel 2006 algorithm. Required parameters for optimal evaluation for CHB included hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg), HBV DNA, and alanine aminotransferase (ALT). Preferred antiviral agents for CHB included pegylated interferon, adefovir, and entecavir.

RESULTS

The majority of patients were Asians (90%) and (54%) with a mean age of 43±11.6 years. Compared to PCPs, specialists were more likely to order laboratory testing for ALT (94 vs. 86%, P=0.05), HBeAg (67 vs. 41%, P<0.0001) and HBV DNA (83 vs. 52%, P<0.0001). The proportion of patients having all three laboratory parameters was significantly higher among those evaluated by specialists compared to PCP (62 vs. 33%, P<0.0001). A total of 55 patients were initiated on antiviral treatment (n=47 by specialists and n=6 by PCPs). Lamivudine was prescribed more often by PCPs than specialists (33 vs. 2%, P=0.05). Preferred agents were used 96% of the time by specialists compared to 67% of those treated by PCPs (P=0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients evaluated by specialists for CHB are more likely to undergo more complete laboratory evaluation and, if eligible, are also more likely to be treated with preferred longer-term agents for CHB compared to those evaluated by PCPs only. A collaborative model of care involving both PCP and specialists may further optimize management of patients with CHB.

Prevalence, risk factors, and disease knowledge of chronic hepatitis B infection in Vietnamese Americans in California

Our goal is to examine the prevalence, risk factors, and disease knowledge of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) among Vietnamese Americans in California. We also examined treatment eligibility and linkage to care among patients who tested positive for CHB. We enrolled 717 subjects from ten different hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening events in five locations from January 2009 to June 2010 in California. HBV status was determined by hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody. Data were collected by a 36-question survey. A total of 99 patients (13.8 %) had positive HBsAg, especially those aged 31-40 years (23.6 %), and 177 (24.7 %) were still susceptible to HBV infection. A significant proportion of those who were HBsAg positive or still susceptible reported a history of HBV vaccination (10 and 20 %, respectively). Following adjustments for age and sex, significant predictors for HBsAg positivity were lack of healthcare coverage (OR=2.4, p=0.004), having a family history of CHB (OR=2.1, p=0.009), and prior occupational exposure (OR=3.0, p=0.007). Of those who tested positive, 13.3 % met criteria for antiviral therapy, but none had been initiated on treatment. HBV prevalence in Vietnamese Americans in California was high (13.8 %), especially in those between 31 and 40 years of age. Patient disease and treatment knowledge was poor, as were follow-up and management of those found to have CHB and/or have indication for antiviral therapy.

Hepatitis B learning needs assessment of family medicine trainees in Canada: results of a nationwide survey

BACKGROUND

An estimated 350 million people worldwide have chronic hepatitis B (CHB), which is a major cause of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the level of knowledge among family medicine trainees regarding the identification and management of CHB.

METHODS

questionnaire to assess knowledge regarding screening and management of patients with CHB and cirrhosis was developed. The questionnaire was pilot tested among primary care physicians, subsequently revised and distributed to family medicine trainees across Canada through an online survey program (QuestionPro).

RESULTS

A total of 158 trainees completed the questionnaire. Of these, 54% to 56% routinely offered vaccination against hepatitis A or hepatitis B virus (HBV), and 42% regularly screened patients for HBV risk factors. The percentage who recognized the need to screen highrisk populations for CHB, ie, individuals from an HBV-endemic country, men who have sex with men, or intravenous drug users was 73%, 66% and 74%, respectively. While less than 50% of respondents used the appropriate HBV screening tests, 86% to 91% correctly interpreted various HBV serological patterns. Only 3% recognized cirrhosis in our case scenario. Almost 80% of respondents inappropriately preferred prescribing a narcotic or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug over acetaminophen (4%) for pain control in a patient with cirrhosis. While less than 60% recognized HBeAg negative CHB as an indication for referral and treatment, 90% would have referred a patient in the immune-tolerant phase, even though treatment is not indicated.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge gaps regarding CHB among family medicine trainees in the areas of primary prevention, disease recognition and management of cirrhosis were identified. Results suggest that opportunities to prevent potentially life-threatening complications are being missed.

Current trends in chronic hepatitis B management: results of a questionnaire

OBJECTIVE

Diagnosis and treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB) have improved in recent years with introduction of new oral antiviral drugs. Aim of this study was to analyze general knowledge, therapeutic and diagnostic trends of physicians treating CHB in Spain.

METHODS

A questionnaire was distributed to 692 physicians of the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver. The questionnaire assessed habits in CHB management and approach to a pair of hypothetical CHB cases: HBeAg positive and HBeAg negative.

RESULTS

One hundred and nineteen (17%) physicians answered the questionnaire. Most of them correctly identified indications for CHB treatment (95%), and had experience with lamivudine (89%), adefovir dipivoxil (84%) and interferon (76%), but only 45% knew the efficacy rate of these drugs. Seventy-six percent recommended pegylated interferon as initial treatment for HBeAg-positive patients, and 86% would treat HBeAg-negative patients with oral antiviral drugs (42% with lamivudine, 36% with adefovir dipivoxil, and 8% with entecavir). Hepatitis B virus (HBV)-DNA determination was used to monitor therapy by 74%, and only 24% used HBV drug resistance test. The only independent factor associated with adequate use of drugs and correct monitoring was experience of treating more than five patients per year. Antiviral prophylaxis for HBV carriers receiving immunosuppression was indicated by 78% of physicians. Physicians working at university hospitals were significantly more likely to recommend antiviral prophylaxis than physicians working at nonuniversity hospitals (86 vs. 65%; P=0.009).

CONCLUSION

CHB management decisions are not always based on scientific evidence. Continuous medical education could improve knowledge and management of CHB.

A systematic review of provider knowledge of hepatitis C: is it enough for a complex disease?

As studies indicate that patients with hepatitis C face poor provider knowledge and even stigmatization, we conducted a systematic review of provider knowledge about and attitudes toward hepatitis C. We searched Medline for original studies between 1990 and 2005. Articles were abstracted to define target population, recruitment strategies, study design, and key findings. Twenty-six publications performed in nine countries were identified. Whereas studies demonstrated an understanding of the nature of hepatitis C, significant knowledge deficits existed related to natural history, diagnostic approaches, and treatment. The relevance of simple measures, such as vaccinations against hepatitis A and B, was underappreciated. While providers were aware of risk factors for the disease, there were substantial misperceptions, with 5%-20% of providers considering casual contact as a risk for disease acquisition. We conclude that while healthcare providers understand the nature of hepatitis C, important knowledge gaps persist, which may constitute barriers to appropriate therapy.

Screening in liver disease

A disease is suitable for screening if it is common, if the target population can be identified and reached and if both a good screening test and an effective therapy are available. Of the most common liver diseases only viral hepatitis and genetic hemochromatosis partially satisfy these conditions. Hepatitis C is common, the screening test is good and the therapy eliminates the virus in half of the cases, but problems arise in the definition of the target population. In fact generalized population screening is not endorsed by international guidelines, although some recommend screening immigrants from high prevalence countries. Opportunistic screening (case finding) of individuals with classic risk factors, such as transfusion before 1992 and drug addiction, is the most frequently used strategy, but there is disagreement whether prison inmates, individuals with a history of promiscuous or traumatic sex and health care workers should be screened. In a real practice setting the performance of opportunistic screening by general practitioners is low but can be ameliorated by training programs. Screening targeted to segments of the population or mass campaigns are expensive and therefore interventions should be aimed to improve opportunistic screening and the detection skills of general practitioners. Regarding genetic hemochromatosis there is insufficient evidence for population screening, but individual physicians can decide to screen racial groups with a high prevalence of the disease, such as people in early middle age and of northern European origin. In the other cases opportunistic screening of high risk individuals should be performed, with a high level of suspicion in case of unexplained liver disease, diabetes, juvenile artropathy, sexual dysfunction and skin pigmentation.

Clinical pathways for patients with newly diagnosed hepatitis C - what actually happens

Management of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected individuals requires referral to specialist care. To determine whether patients newly diagnosed as anti-HCV positive are appropriately referred for further investigation and management, and if not, to determine why not. We studied patients tested for antibodies to HCV by Nottingham Public Health Laboratory in a 2-year period (2000-2002). The progress of newly diagnosed anti-HCV positive patients into specialist clinics for further management was documented. For patients not referred for specialist care, a questionnaire was sent to the clinician requesting the initial anti-HCV test, to identify reasons for nonreferral. Eleven thousand one hundred and seventy-seven patients were tested for anti-HCV. Two hundred and fifty-six (2.3%) were newly diagnosed as being anti-HCV positive. Two per cent of samples sent from primary care were anti-HCV positive, compared to 18.8, 18.9 and 1.3% sent from prison, drug and alcohol units, and secondary care, respectively. About 64.3% of positive patients diagnosed in primary care were referred to specialist care, compared to 18.4, 42.4 and 62.6% of patients diagnosed in the other three settings. One hundred and twenty-five (49%) newly diagnosed patients were referred appropriately for further management. 68 of these attended clinic, 45 underwent liver biopsy and 26 (10%) began treatment. One hundred and thirty-one patients (51%) were not referred. In 54 cases, there was no evidence that the anti-HCV positive result reached the patient. In 15, referral was considered but rejected, and 20 patients were referred to non-HCV-specialists (their general practitioners or to genito-urinary medicine). Hence less than 50% of newly diagnosed anti-HCV positive patients are referred to an appropriate clinic for further investigation and management. Reasons for this are multifarious and complex, reflecting both systems failure and patient choice. Unless these are understood and addressed, the Department of Health Hepatitis C Strategy (2002) and Action Plan for England (2004) will fail to achieve their intended objectives.