Hepatitis

For injection drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, providing treatment opportunities within a local needle exchange program can provide care to more patients and eventually cure more patients, a new study suggests.

The study’s findings help “counteract the implicit belief within the medical community that people who inject drugs can’t or don’t want to engage in health care,” lead author Benjamin Eckhardt, MD, with NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“By simply focusing on patient accompaniment, limiting stigma, and removing the punitive response for missed appointments, we can effectively engage people who inject drugs in health care and more specifically cure their infection, making significant inroads to HCV elimination,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

The study was published online  in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Nonjudgmental, patient-centered approach

Researchers included 165 injection drug users with HCV (mean age, 42 years; 78% men); 82 were randomly allocated to the accessible care intervention and 83 to a usual care control group.

The accessible care model provides HCV treatment within a community-based needle exchange program in a comfortable, nonjudgmental atmosphere, “without fear of shame or stigma that people who inject drugs often experience in mainstream institutions,” the investigators explain.

Control participants were connected to a patient navigator who facilitated referrals to community direct antigen antiviral therapy programs that were not at a syringe service program.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, those enrolled in the accessible care group achieved sustained viral eradication at 12 months at significantly higher rates than those in the control group (67% vs. 23%; P < .001).

Once patients initiated treatment, cure rates were the same in both groups (86%), indicating that the major benefit of the accessible care program was in facilitating treatment, rather than increasing adherence to or response to treatment, the researchers noted.

This is reflected in the fact that the percentage of participants who advanced along the care cascade was significantly higher at each step for the accessible care group than the control group, from referral to an HCV clinician (93% vs. 45%), attendance of the initial HCV clinical visit (87% vs. 37%), completion of baseline laboratory testing (87% vs. 31%), and treatment initiation (78% vs. 27%).
 

Getting to the population in need

“The most surprising aspect of the study was how successful we were at recruiting, engaging, and treating people who inject drugs who lived outside the immediate community where the syringe exchange program was located and had no prior connection to the program,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

“We had numerous individuals travel 45-plus minutes on the subway from the South Bronx, passing four major medical centers with robust hepatitis C treatment programs, to seek care for hepatitis C in a small, dark office – but also an office they’d heard can be trusted – without fear of stigma or preconditions,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

Commenting on the study’s findings, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said, “This is another successful example of making therapy accessible to the population who is in need versus trying to move them into a tertiary care model.”

Dr. Reau noted that similar care models exist in the United States but are not always accessible to the population in need.

“The safety and efficacy of current therapy and the simplified care cascade make HCV an appropriate disease for this delivery,” she said, adding that this study “highlights not just the importance of these programs but also the necessity of engaging the medical community, changing policy, and using patient navigators and monetary support/prioritization to provide appropriate HCV management to those who are at high risk for the disease and for transmission.”
 

Accessible care beyond HCV

The coauthors of an accompanying editor’s note point out that the treatment for HCV has improved substantially, but it can be a real challenge to provide treatment to injection drug users because the U.S. health care system is not oriented toward the needs of this population.

“It is not surprising that the accessible care arm achieved a higher rate of viral eradication, as it created a patient-focused experience,” write Asha Choudhury, MD, MPH, with the University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell Katz, MD, with NYC Health and Hospitals. “Creating inviting and engaging environments is particularly important when caring for patients from stigmatized groups. Having more sites that are accessible and inclusive like this for treating patients will likely increase treatment of hepatitis C.”

In their view, the study raises “two dueling questions: Is this model replicable across the U.S.? And, conversely, why isn’t all medical care offered in friendly, nonjudgmental settings with the intention of meeting patient goals?”

They conclude that the study’s lessons extend beyond this particular population and have implications for the field at large.

“The model is replicable to the extent that health care systems are prepared to provide nonjudgmental supportive care for persons who inject drugs,” they write. “However, all patients would benefit from a health care system that provided more patient-centered environments.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Eckhardt reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Gilead during the conduct of the study. Dr. Choudhury, Dr. Katz, and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For injection drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, providing treatment opportunities within a local needle exchange program can provide care to more patients and eventually cure more patients, a new study suggests.

The study’s findings help “counteract the implicit belief within the medical community that people who inject drugs can’t or don’t want to engage in health care,” lead author Benjamin Eckhardt, MD, with NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“By simply focusing on patient accompaniment, limiting stigma, and removing the punitive response for missed appointments, we can effectively engage people who inject drugs in health care and more specifically cure their infection, making significant inroads to HCV elimination,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

The study was published online  in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Nonjudgmental, patient-centered approach

Researchers included 165 injection drug users with HCV (mean age, 42 years; 78% men); 82 were randomly allocated to the accessible care intervention and 83 to a usual care control group.

The accessible care model provides HCV treatment within a community-based needle exchange program in a comfortable, nonjudgmental atmosphere, “without fear of shame or stigma that people who inject drugs often experience in mainstream institutions,” the investigators explain.

Control participants were connected to a patient navigator who facilitated referrals to community direct antigen antiviral therapy programs that were not at a syringe service program.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, those enrolled in the accessible care group achieved sustained viral eradication at 12 months at significantly higher rates than those in the control group (67% vs. 23%; P < .001).

Once patients initiated treatment, cure rates were the same in both groups (86%), indicating that the major benefit of the accessible care program was in facilitating treatment, rather than increasing adherence to or response to treatment, the researchers noted.

This is reflected in the fact that the percentage of participants who advanced along the care cascade was significantly higher at each step for the accessible care group than the control group, from referral to an HCV clinician (93% vs. 45%), attendance of the initial HCV clinical visit (87% vs. 37%), completion of baseline laboratory testing (87% vs. 31%), and treatment initiation (78% vs. 27%).
 

Getting to the population in need

“The most surprising aspect of the study was how successful we were at recruiting, engaging, and treating people who inject drugs who lived outside the immediate community where the syringe exchange program was located and had no prior connection to the program,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

“We had numerous individuals travel 45-plus minutes on the subway from the South Bronx, passing four major medical centers with robust hepatitis C treatment programs, to seek care for hepatitis C in a small, dark office – but also an office they’d heard can be trusted – without fear of stigma or preconditions,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

Commenting on the study’s findings, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said, “This is another successful example of making therapy accessible to the population who is in need versus trying to move them into a tertiary care model.”

Dr. Reau noted that similar care models exist in the United States but are not always accessible to the population in need.

“The safety and efficacy of current therapy and the simplified care cascade make HCV an appropriate disease for this delivery,” she said, adding that this study “highlights not just the importance of these programs but also the necessity of engaging the medical community, changing policy, and using patient navigators and monetary support/prioritization to provide appropriate HCV management to those who are at high risk for the disease and for transmission.”
 

Accessible care beyond HCV

The coauthors of an accompanying editor’s note point out that the treatment for HCV has improved substantially, but it can be a real challenge to provide treatment to injection drug users because the U.S. health care system is not oriented toward the needs of this population.

“It is not surprising that the accessible care arm achieved a higher rate of viral eradication, as it created a patient-focused experience,” write Asha Choudhury, MD, MPH, with the University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell Katz, MD, with NYC Health and Hospitals. “Creating inviting and engaging environments is particularly important when caring for patients from stigmatized groups. Having more sites that are accessible and inclusive like this for treating patients will likely increase treatment of hepatitis C.”

In their view, the study raises “two dueling questions: Is this model replicable across the U.S.? And, conversely, why isn’t all medical care offered in friendly, nonjudgmental settings with the intention of meeting patient goals?”

They conclude that the study’s lessons extend beyond this particular population and have implications for the field at large.

“The model is replicable to the extent that health care systems are prepared to provide nonjudgmental supportive care for persons who inject drugs,” they write. “However, all patients would benefit from a health care system that provided more patient-centered environments.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Eckhardt reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Gilead during the conduct of the study. Dr. Choudhury, Dr. Katz, and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For injection drug users with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, providing treatment opportunities within a local needle exchange program can provide care to more patients and eventually cure more patients, a new study suggests.

The study’s findings help “counteract the implicit belief within the medical community that people who inject drugs can’t or don’t want to engage in health care,” lead author Benjamin Eckhardt, MD, with NYU Grossman School of Medicine, told this news organization.

“By simply focusing on patient accompaniment, limiting stigma, and removing the punitive response for missed appointments, we can effectively engage people who inject drugs in health care and more specifically cure their infection, making significant inroads to HCV elimination,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

The study was published online  in JAMA Internal Medicine.
 

Nonjudgmental, patient-centered approach

Researchers included 165 injection drug users with HCV (mean age, 42 years; 78% men); 82 were randomly allocated to the accessible care intervention and 83 to a usual care control group.

The accessible care model provides HCV treatment within a community-based needle exchange program in a comfortable, nonjudgmental atmosphere, “without fear of shame or stigma that people who inject drugs often experience in mainstream institutions,” the investigators explain.

Control participants were connected to a patient navigator who facilitated referrals to community direct antigen antiviral therapy programs that were not at a syringe service program.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, those enrolled in the accessible care group achieved sustained viral eradication at 12 months at significantly higher rates than those in the control group (67% vs. 23%; P < .001).

Once patients initiated treatment, cure rates were the same in both groups (86%), indicating that the major benefit of the accessible care program was in facilitating treatment, rather than increasing adherence to or response to treatment, the researchers noted.

This is reflected in the fact that the percentage of participants who advanced along the care cascade was significantly higher at each step for the accessible care group than the control group, from referral to an HCV clinician (93% vs. 45%), attendance of the initial HCV clinical visit (87% vs. 37%), completion of baseline laboratory testing (87% vs. 31%), and treatment initiation (78% vs. 27%).
 

Getting to the population in need

“The most surprising aspect of the study was how successful we were at recruiting, engaging, and treating people who inject drugs who lived outside the immediate community where the syringe exchange program was located and had no prior connection to the program,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

“We had numerous individuals travel 45-plus minutes on the subway from the South Bronx, passing four major medical centers with robust hepatitis C treatment programs, to seek care for hepatitis C in a small, dark office – but also an office they’d heard can be trusted – without fear of stigma or preconditions,” Dr. Eckhardt said.

Commenting on the study’s findings, Nancy Reau, MD, section chief of hepatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, said, “This is another successful example of making therapy accessible to the population who is in need versus trying to move them into a tertiary care model.”

Dr. Reau noted that similar care models exist in the United States but are not always accessible to the population in need.

“The safety and efficacy of current therapy and the simplified care cascade make HCV an appropriate disease for this delivery,” she said, adding that this study “highlights not just the importance of these programs but also the necessity of engaging the medical community, changing policy, and using patient navigators and monetary support/prioritization to provide appropriate HCV management to those who are at high risk for the disease and for transmission.”
 

Accessible care beyond HCV

The coauthors of an accompanying editor’s note point out that the treatment for HCV has improved substantially, but it can be a real challenge to provide treatment to injection drug users because the U.S. health care system is not oriented toward the needs of this population.

“It is not surprising that the accessible care arm achieved a higher rate of viral eradication, as it created a patient-focused experience,” write Asha Choudhury, MD, MPH, with the University of California, San Francisco, and Mitchell Katz, MD, with NYC Health and Hospitals. “Creating inviting and engaging environments is particularly important when caring for patients from stigmatized groups. Having more sites that are accessible and inclusive like this for treating patients will likely increase treatment of hepatitis C.”

In their view, the study raises “two dueling questions: Is this model replicable across the U.S.? And, conversely, why isn’t all medical care offered in friendly, nonjudgmental settings with the intention of meeting patient goals?”

They conclude that the study’s lessons extend beyond this particular population and have implications for the field at large.

“The model is replicable to the extent that health care systems are prepared to provide nonjudgmental supportive care for persons who inject drugs,” they write. “However, all patients would benefit from a health care system that provided more patient-centered environments.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Eckhardt reports receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Gilead during the conduct of the study. Dr. Choudhury, Dr. Katz, and Dr. Reau report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Despite the availability of effective direct-acting antivirals, very few a mothers with opioid use disorder (OUD) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) during pregnancy received follow-up care or treatment for the infection within 6 months of giving birth, a retrospective study of Medicaid maternity patients found.

The study pooled data on 23,780 Medicaid-enrolled pregnant women with OUD who had a live or stillbirth during 2016-2019 and were followed for 6 months after delivery. Among these women – drawn from six states in the Medicaid Outcomes Distributed Research Network – the pooled average probability of HCV testing during pregnancy was 70.3% (95% confidence interval, 61.5%-79.1%). Of these, 30.9% (95% CI, 23.8%-38%) tested positive. At 60 days postpartum, just 3.2% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.8%) had a follow-up visit or treatment for HCV. In a subset of patients followed for 6 months, only 5.9% (95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%) had any HCV follow-up visit or medication within 6 months of delivery.

While HCV screening and diagnosis rates varied across states, postpartum follow-up rates were universally low. The results suggest a need to improve the cascade of postpartum care for HCV and, ultimately perhaps, introduce antenatal HCV treatment, as is currently given safely for HIV, if current clinical research establishes safety, according to Marian P. Jarlenski, PhD, MPH, an associate professor of public health policy and management at the University of Pittsburgh. The study was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

HCV infection has risen substantially in people of reproductive age in tandem with an increase in OUDs. HCV is transmitted from an infected mother to her baby in about 6% of cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which in 2020 expanded its HCV screening recommendations to include all pregnant women. Currently no treatment for HCV during pregnancy has been approved.

In light of those recent recommendations, Dr. Jarlenski said in an interview that her group was “interested in looking at high-risk screened people and estimating what proportion received follow-up care and treatment for HCV. What is the promise of screening? The promise is that you can treat. Otherwise why screen?”

She acknowledged, however, that the postpartum period is a challenging time for a mother to seek health information or care for herself, whether she’s a new parent or has other children in the home. Nevertheless, the low rate of follow-up and treatment was unexpected. “Even the 70% rate of screening was low – we felt it should have been closer to 100% – but the follow-up rate was surprisingly low,” Dr. Jarlenski said.

Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, medical director of Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, was not surprised at the low follow-up rate. “The cascade of care for hep C is demoralizing,” said Dr. Terplan, who was not involved in the study. “We know that hep C is syndemic with OUD and other opioid crises and we know that screening is effective for identifying hep C and that antiviral medications are now more effective and less toxic than ever before. But despite this, we’re failing pregnant women and their kids at every step along the cascade. We do a better job with initial testing than with the follow-up testing. We do a horrible job with postpartum medication initiation.”

He pointed to the systemic challenges mothers face in getting postpartum HCV care. “They may be transferred to a subspecialist for treatment, and this transfer is compounded by issues of insurance coverage and eligibility.” With the onus on new mothers to submit the paperwork, “the idea that mothers would be able to initiate much less continue postpartum treatment is absurd,” Dr. Terplan said.

He added that the children born to HCV-positive mothers need surveillance as well, but data suggest that the rates of newborn testing are also low. “There’s a preventable public health burden in all of this.”

The obvious way to increase eradicative therapy would be to treat women while they are getting antenatal care. A small phase 1 trial found that all pregnant participants who were HCV positive and given antivirals in their second trimester were safely treated and gave birth to healthy babies.

“If larger trials prove this treatment is safe and effective, then these results should be communicated to care providers and pregnant patients,” Dr. Jarlenski said. Otherwise, the public health potential of universal screening in pregnancy will not be realized.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse and by the Delaware Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance and the University of Delaware, Center for Community Research & Service. Dr. Jarlenski disclosed no competing interests. One coauthor disclosed grant funding through her institution from Gilead Sciences and Organon unrelated to this work. Dr. Terplan reported no relevant competing interests.

Despite the availability of effective direct-acting antivirals, very few a mothers with opioid use disorder (OUD) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) during pregnancy received follow-up care or treatment for the infection within 6 months of giving birth, a retrospective study of Medicaid maternity patients found.

The study pooled data on 23,780 Medicaid-enrolled pregnant women with OUD who had a live or stillbirth during 2016-2019 and were followed for 6 months after delivery. Among these women – drawn from six states in the Medicaid Outcomes Distributed Research Network – the pooled average probability of HCV testing during pregnancy was 70.3% (95% confidence interval, 61.5%-79.1%). Of these, 30.9% (95% CI, 23.8%-38%) tested positive. At 60 days postpartum, just 3.2% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.8%) had a follow-up visit or treatment for HCV. In a subset of patients followed for 6 months, only 5.9% (95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%) had any HCV follow-up visit or medication within 6 months of delivery.

While HCV screening and diagnosis rates varied across states, postpartum follow-up rates were universally low. The results suggest a need to improve the cascade of postpartum care for HCV and, ultimately perhaps, introduce antenatal HCV treatment, as is currently given safely for HIV, if current clinical research establishes safety, according to Marian P. Jarlenski, PhD, MPH, an associate professor of public health policy and management at the University of Pittsburgh. The study was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

HCV infection has risen substantially in people of reproductive age in tandem with an increase in OUDs. HCV is transmitted from an infected mother to her baby in about 6% of cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which in 2020 expanded its HCV screening recommendations to include all pregnant women. Currently no treatment for HCV during pregnancy has been approved.

In light of those recent recommendations, Dr. Jarlenski said in an interview that her group was “interested in looking at high-risk screened people and estimating what proportion received follow-up care and treatment for HCV. What is the promise of screening? The promise is that you can treat. Otherwise why screen?”

She acknowledged, however, that the postpartum period is a challenging time for a mother to seek health information or care for herself, whether she’s a new parent or has other children in the home. Nevertheless, the low rate of follow-up and treatment was unexpected. “Even the 70% rate of screening was low – we felt it should have been closer to 100% – but the follow-up rate was surprisingly low,” Dr. Jarlenski said.

Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, medical director of Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, was not surprised at the low follow-up rate. “The cascade of care for hep C is demoralizing,” said Dr. Terplan, who was not involved in the study. “We know that hep C is syndemic with OUD and other opioid crises and we know that screening is effective for identifying hep C and that antiviral medications are now more effective and less toxic than ever before. But despite this, we’re failing pregnant women and their kids at every step along the cascade. We do a better job with initial testing than with the follow-up testing. We do a horrible job with postpartum medication initiation.”

He pointed to the systemic challenges mothers face in getting postpartum HCV care. “They may be transferred to a subspecialist for treatment, and this transfer is compounded by issues of insurance coverage and eligibility.” With the onus on new mothers to submit the paperwork, “the idea that mothers would be able to initiate much less continue postpartum treatment is absurd,” Dr. Terplan said.

He added that the children born to HCV-positive mothers need surveillance as well, but data suggest that the rates of newborn testing are also low. “There’s a preventable public health burden in all of this.”

The obvious way to increase eradicative therapy would be to treat women while they are getting antenatal care. A small phase 1 trial found that all pregnant participants who were HCV positive and given antivirals in their second trimester were safely treated and gave birth to healthy babies.

“If larger trials prove this treatment is safe and effective, then these results should be communicated to care providers and pregnant patients,” Dr. Jarlenski said. Otherwise, the public health potential of universal screening in pregnancy will not be realized.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse and by the Delaware Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance and the University of Delaware, Center for Community Research & Service. Dr. Jarlenski disclosed no competing interests. One coauthor disclosed grant funding through her institution from Gilead Sciences and Organon unrelated to this work. Dr. Terplan reported no relevant competing interests.

Despite the availability of effective direct-acting antivirals, very few a mothers with opioid use disorder (OUD) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) during pregnancy received follow-up care or treatment for the infection within 6 months of giving birth, a retrospective study of Medicaid maternity patients found.

The study pooled data on 23,780 Medicaid-enrolled pregnant women with OUD who had a live or stillbirth during 2016-2019 and were followed for 6 months after delivery. Among these women – drawn from six states in the Medicaid Outcomes Distributed Research Network – the pooled average probability of HCV testing during pregnancy was 70.3% (95% confidence interval, 61.5%-79.1%). Of these, 30.9% (95% CI, 23.8%-38%) tested positive. At 60 days postpartum, just 3.2% (95% CI, 2.6%-3.8%) had a follow-up visit or treatment for HCV. In a subset of patients followed for 6 months, only 5.9% (95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%) had any HCV follow-up visit or medication within 6 months of delivery.

While HCV screening and diagnosis rates varied across states, postpartum follow-up rates were universally low. The results suggest a need to improve the cascade of postpartum care for HCV and, ultimately perhaps, introduce antenatal HCV treatment, as is currently given safely for HIV, if current clinical research establishes safety, according to Marian P. Jarlenski, PhD, MPH, an associate professor of public health policy and management at the University of Pittsburgh. The study was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

HCV infection has risen substantially in people of reproductive age in tandem with an increase in OUDs. HCV is transmitted from an infected mother to her baby in about 6% of cases, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which in 2020 expanded its HCV screening recommendations to include all pregnant women. Currently no treatment for HCV during pregnancy has been approved.

In light of those recent recommendations, Dr. Jarlenski said in an interview that her group was “interested in looking at high-risk screened people and estimating what proportion received follow-up care and treatment for HCV. What is the promise of screening? The promise is that you can treat. Otherwise why screen?”

She acknowledged, however, that the postpartum period is a challenging time for a mother to seek health information or care for herself, whether she’s a new parent or has other children in the home. Nevertheless, the low rate of follow-up and treatment was unexpected. “Even the 70% rate of screening was low – we felt it should have been closer to 100% – but the follow-up rate was surprisingly low,” Dr. Jarlenski said.

Mishka Terplan, MD, MPH, medical director of Friends Research Institute in Baltimore, was not surprised at the low follow-up rate. “The cascade of care for hep C is demoralizing,” said Dr. Terplan, who was not involved in the study. “We know that hep C is syndemic with OUD and other opioid crises and we know that screening is effective for identifying hep C and that antiviral medications are now more effective and less toxic than ever before. But despite this, we’re failing pregnant women and their kids at every step along the cascade. We do a better job with initial testing than with the follow-up testing. We do a horrible job with postpartum medication initiation.”

He pointed to the systemic challenges mothers face in getting postpartum HCV care. “They may be transferred to a subspecialist for treatment, and this transfer is compounded by issues of insurance coverage and eligibility.” With the onus on new mothers to submit the paperwork, “the idea that mothers would be able to initiate much less continue postpartum treatment is absurd,” Dr. Terplan said.

He added that the children born to HCV-positive mothers need surveillance as well, but data suggest that the rates of newborn testing are also low. “There’s a preventable public health burden in all of this.”

The obvious way to increase eradicative therapy would be to treat women while they are getting antenatal care. A small phase 1 trial found that all pregnant participants who were HCV positive and given antivirals in their second trimester were safely treated and gave birth to healthy babies.

“If larger trials prove this treatment is safe and effective, then these results should be communicated to care providers and pregnant patients,” Dr. Jarlenski said. Otherwise, the public health potential of universal screening in pregnancy will not be realized.

This research was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse and by the Delaware Division of Medicaid and Medical Assistance and the University of Delaware, Center for Community Research & Service. Dr. Jarlenski disclosed no competing interests. One coauthor disclosed grant funding through her institution from Gilead Sciences and Organon unrelated to this work. Dr. Terplan reported no relevant competing interests.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.

The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.

PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.

The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.

The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.

The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.

PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.

The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.

The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) human medicines committee has recommended approval of a hepatitis B vaccine for adults.

The agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) granted a positive opinion for PreHevbri on Feb. 24 for active immunization against hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. PreHevbri (PreHevBrio in the United States and Sci-B-Vac in Israel) received approval from the Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 30, 2021. The vaccine is produced by VBI Vaccines (Delaware) Inc., based in Cambridge, Mass.

The World Health Organization estimates that more than 290 million people globally are infected with HBV. HBV is the leading cause of liver disease, and an estimated 900,000 people die every year from complications from chronic HBV infection, according to a VBI Vaccine press release. A 2019 report from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control found that adults in the European Union aged 35-44 had the highest rates of acute infections with HBV, and people aged 25-34 had the highest rate of chronic HBV infections. Vaccination programs are key interventions in preventing transmission of the virus, the report noted.

PreHevbri is a hepatitis B vaccine composed of three surface antigens of the hepatitis B virus. The vaccine is administered via injection in three doses on a 0-, 1-, and 6-month schedule and is indicated for use in adults aged 18 years and older.

The CHMP recommendation was based on data from a safety and immunogenicity study, which included 1,607 participants aged 18 and older, and a lot-to-lot study, which included 2,838 adults aged 18-45, according the VBI vaccine press release.

The recommendation will now be reviewed by the European Commission. If approved, PreHevbri will be the only three-antigen HBV vaccine for adults approved in the European Union.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it supports the Recommended Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule: United States, 2022.

In a policy statement published online Feb. 17 in Pediatrics, the AAP said the updated recommendations differ little from those released last year by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The only significant change this year was to add the dengue vaccine to the schedule,” Sean T. O’Leary, MD, MPH, vice chair of the AAP’s 2021-2022 Committee on Infectious Diseases and a coauthor of the statement, told this news organization. “But that is really only relevant for children living in endemic areas, primarily Puerto Rico but some other smaller U.S .territories as well.”

Dengue fever also is endemic in American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Notably, a new section has been added on routine recommendations for use of the Dengvaxia vaccine.

The 2022 policy statement addresses regular immunization of children from birth to 18 years and catch-up vaccination for those aged 4 months to 18 years. In addition to the AAP, multiple complementary physician and nurse organizations have approved the updates. The ACIP schedule is revised annually to reflect current recommendations on vaccines licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Most of the other changes this year involve minor updates to clarify language or improve usability. “CDC and AAP are always working to make the schedule as user-friendly as possible, with improvements made every year,” Dr. O’Leary, professor of pediatric infectious diseases at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, said.

In terms of physician acceptance, he added, “I don’t think any of the changes would be considered controversial.”

Among other updates and clarifications:

• For Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccination, the text now includes recommendations for the hexavalent Vaxelis vaccine (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, Hib, and hepatitis B) for both routine and catch-up vaccination.
• For hepatitis A, the relevant note has been updated to clarify the age for routine vaccination.
• For human papillomavirus (HPV), the note now clarifies when an HPV series is complete with no additional dose recommended.
• The special situations section has been amended to specify which persons with immunocompromising conditions such as HIV should receive three doses of HPV vaccine regardless of age at initial vaccination.
• For measles, mumps, and rubella, routine vaccination now includes recommendations on the combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine.
• For meningococcal serogroup A, C, W, and Y vaccines, the augmented text explains when these can be simultaneously administered with serogroup B meningococcal vaccines, preferably at different anatomic sites. The language for the dosing schedule for Menveo vaccination in infants also has been clarified.
• In the catch-up immunization schedule for late-starting children aged 4 months to 18 years, the text on Hib has been changed so that the minimum interval between dose two and dose three now refers to Vaxelis, while reference to the discontinued Comvax (Hib-Hep B) vaccine has been removed.

As in other years, graphic changes have been made to table coloration and layout to improve accessibility. And as before, the 2022 childhood and adolescent immunization schedule has been updated to ensure consistency between its format and that of the 2022 adult immunization schedules.

The AAP committee stressed that clinically significant adverse events after immunization should be reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

The full 2022 schedule can be found on the CDC’s website.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Screening for hepatitis B antibodies and vaccinating pregnant women without immunity appears to be a cost-effective health measure, according to a recent analysis published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

Malavika Prabhu, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of obstetrics and gynecology at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, said in an interview that the impetus to conduct the study came from the idea that hepatitis B is a concern throughout a woman’s life, but not necessarily during pregnancy. While vaccination is not routine during pregnancy, guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists state that at-risk women should be screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B during pregnancy.

“What we thought made more sense just from thinking about other principles of prenatal care was that it would make sense for us to screen, see who’s susceptible, counsel them on the risk of hepatitis B, and then vaccinate them in the course of the pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said.

After writing a commentary arguing in favor of universal screening and vaccination, she and her colleagues noted it was still unclear whether that approach was cost effective, she said. “Health care costs in this country are so expensive at baseline that, as we continue to add more things to health care, we have to make sure that it’s value added.”

Dr. Prabhu and her colleagues evaluated a theoretical cohort of 3.6 million pregnant women in the United States and created a decision-analytic model to determine how universal hepatitis B surface antibody screening and vaccination for hepatitis B affected factors such as cost, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes. They included hepatitis B virus cases as well as long-term problems associated with hepatitis B infection such as hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated cirrhosis, liver transplant, and death. Assumptions of the model were that 84% of the women would undergo the screening, 61% would receive the vaccine, and 90% would seroconvert after the vaccine series, and were based on probabilities from other studies.

The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the total cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) relative to the lifetime of the woman after the index pregnancy, with $50,000 per QALY set as the willingness-to-pay threshold. The researchers also performed an additional analysis and simulations to estimate which variables had the most effect, and an additional model was created to estimate the effect of universal screening and vaccination if at-risk patients were removed.

Dr. Prabhu and colleagues found the universal screening and vaccination program was cost effective, with 1,702 fewer cases of hepatitis B, 11 fewer deaths, 7 fewer decompensated cirrhosis cases, and 4 fewer liver transplants in their model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $1,890 per QALY, and the total increased lifetime cohort cost was $13,841,889. The researchers said the model held up in scenarios where there was a high level of hepatitis B immunity, and when at-risk women were removed from the model.

“While it does increase some costs to the health care system to screen everyone and vaccinate those susceptible; overall, it would cost more to not do that because we’re avoiding all of those long-term devastating health outcomes by vaccinating in pregnancy,” Dr. Prabhu said in an interview.
 

Hepatitis B screening and vaccination for all pregnant women?

Is universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination for pregnant women an upcoming change in prenatal care? In a related editorial, Martina L. Badell, MD, of the division of maternal-fetal medicine and department of gynecology and obstetrics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, emphasized the hepatitis B vaccine’s safety and effectiveness during pregnancy based on prior studies and compared a universal hepatitis B screening and vaccination program for pregnant women to how clinicians screen universally for rubella as standard of care in this group.

“Owing to the success of rubella vaccination campaigns, today there are fewer than 10 cases of rubella in the United States annually, and, since 2012, all of these cases have been in persons infected when living in or traveling to other countries,” she wrote. “Approximately 850,000 people are living with hepatitis B infection in the United States, and approximately 21,900 acute hepatitis B infections occurred in 2015. Despite the very different prevalence in these infections, we currently screen pregnant and nonpregnant patients for rubella immunity but not hepatitis B.”

If real-world studies bear out that a hepatitis B universal screening and vaccination program is cost effective, guidelines on who should be screened and vaccinated might need to be reconsidered, Dr. Prabhu said. Although following women for decades to see whether hepatitis B screening and vaccination is cost effective is impractical, “a lot of medicine has been predicated on risk-based strategies and risk stratifying, and there is a lot of value to approaching patients like that,” she explained.

How an ob.gyn. determines whether a patient is high risk and qualifies for hepatitis B vaccination under current guidelines is made more complicated by the large amount of information covered in a prenatal visit. There is a “laundry list” of risk factors to consider, and “patients are just meeting you for the first time, and so they may not feel comfortable completely sharing what their risk factors may or may not be,” Dr. Prabhu said. In addition, they may not know the risk factors of their partners.

Under guidelines where all pregnant women are screened and vaccinated for hepatitis B regardless of risk, “it doesn’t harm a woman to check one extra blood test when she’s already having this bevy of blood tests at the first prenatal visit,” she said.

Clinicians may be more aware of the need to add hepatitis B screening to prenatal care given that routine hepatitis C screening for pregnant women was recently released by ACOG as a practice advisory. “I think hepatitis is a little bit more on the forefront of the obstetrician or prenatal care provider’s mind as a result of that recent shift,” she said.

“A lot of women only really access care and access consistent care during their pregnancy, either due to insurance reasons or work reasons. People do things for their developing fetus that they might not do for themselves,” Dr. Prabhu said. “It’s a unique opportunity to have the time to build a relationship, build some trust in the health care system and also educate women about their health and what they can do to keep themselves in good health.

“It’s more than just about the next 9 months and keeping you and your baby safe, so I think there’s a real opportunity for us to think about the public health and the long-term health of a woman.”

One author reported receiving funding from UpToDate; the other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Badell reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Liver or kidney transplant recipients who are HIV-positive show outcomes that are similar to those without HIV at 15-years post-transplant, in new research that represents some of the longest follow-up on these patients to date.

The findings further support the inclusion of people with HIV in transplant resource allocation, say the researchers.

“Overall, the excellent outcomes following liver and kidney transplant recipients in HIV-infected recipients justify the utilization of a scarce resource,” senior author Peter G. Stock, MD, PhD, surgical director of the Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program and surgical director of the Pediatric Renal Transplant Program at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

“Many centers still view HIV as a strict contraindication [for transplantation]. This data shows it is not,” he emphasized.

The study, published in JAMA Surgery, involved HIV-positive patients who received kidney or liver transplants between 2000 and 2019 at UCSF, which has unique access to some of the longest-term data on those outcomes.

“UCSF was the first U.S. center to do transplants routinely in people with HIV, and based on the large volume of transplants that are performed, we were able to use propensity matching to address the comparison of HIV-positive and negative liver and kidney transplant recipients at a single center,” Dr. Stock explained.

“To the best of our knowledge, there are no long-term reports [greater than 10 years] on [transplant] outcomes in the HIV-positive population.”

Commenting on the study, David Klassen, MD, chief medical officer of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), noted that the findings “confirm previous research done at UCSF and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine” in 2010. “It extends the previous findings.”

“The take-home message is that these HIV-positive patients can be successfully transplanted with expected good outcomes and will derive substantial benefit from transplantation,” Dr. Klassen said.
 

Kidney transplant patient survival lower, graft survival similar

For the kidney transplant analysis, 119 HIV-positive recipients were propensity matched with 655 recipients who were HIV-negative, with the patients’ mean age about 52 and approximately 70% male.

At 15-years post-transplant, patient survival was 53.6% among the HIV-positive patients versus 79.6% for HIV-negative (P = .03).

Graft survival among the kidney transplant patients was proportionally higher among HIV-positive patients after 15 years (75% vs. 57%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .77).

First author Arya Zarinsefat, MD, of the Department of Surgery at UCSF, speculated that the lower long-term patient survival among HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients may reflect known cardiovascular risks among those patients.

“We postulated that part of this may be due to the fact that HIV-positive patients certainly have additional comorbidities, specifically cardiovascular” ones, he told this news organization.

“When looking at the survival curve, survival was nearly identical at 5 years and only started to diverge at 10 years post-transplant,” he noted.

A further evaluation of patients with HIV who were co-infected with hepatitis C (HCV) showed that those with HIV-HCV co-infection prior to the center’s introduction of anti-HCV direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications in 2014 had the lowest survival rate of all subgroups, at 57.1% at 5 years post-transplant (P = .045 vs. those treated after 2014).
 

Liver transplant patient survival similar

In terms of liver transplant outcomes, among 83 HIV-positive recipients who were propensity-matched with 468 HIV-negative recipients, the mean age was about 53 and about 66% were male.

The patient survival rates at 15 years were not significantly different between the groups, at 70% for HIV-positive and 75.7% for HIV-negative, (P = .12).

Similar to the kidney transplant recipients, the worst survival among all liver transplant subgroups was among HIV-HCV co-infected patients prior to access to HCV direct-acting antivirals in 2014, with a 5-year survival of 59.5% (P = .04).

“Since the advent of HCV direct-acting antivirals, liver transplant outcomes in HCV mono-infected patients are comparable to HCV/HIV co-infected recipients,” Dr. Stock said.
 

Acute rejection rates higher with HIV-positivity versus national averages

The rates of acute rejection at 1 year in the kidney and liver transplant, HIV-positive groups – at about 20% and 30%, respectively – were, however, higher than national average incidence rates of about 10% at 1 year.

Long-term data on those patients showed the acute rejection affected graft survival outcomes with kidney transplant recipients: HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients who had at least one episode of acute rejection had a graft survival of just 52.8% at 15 years post-transplant, compared with 91.8% among recipients without acute rejection.

Such differences were not observed among HIV-positive liver transplant recipients.

The authors note that the increased risk of acute rejection in HIV-positive kidney transplant patients is consistent with previous studies, with causes that may be multifactorial.

Top theories include drug interactions with protease inhibitors, resulting in some centers transitioning HIV-infected patients from those regimens to integrase-based regimens prior to transplant.

“The management and prevention of acute rejection in HIV-positive kidney transplant [patients] will therefore continue to be a key component in the care of these patients,” the authors note in their study.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and Dr. Klassen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Liver or kidney transplant recipients who are HIV-positive show outcomes that are similar to those without HIV at 15-years post-transplant, in new research that represents some of the longest follow-up on these patients to date.

The findings further support the inclusion of people with HIV in transplant resource allocation, say the researchers.

“Overall, the excellent outcomes following liver and kidney transplant recipients in HIV-infected recipients justify the utilization of a scarce resource,” senior author Peter G. Stock, MD, PhD, surgical director of the Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program and surgical director of the Pediatric Renal Transplant Program at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

“Many centers still view HIV as a strict contraindication [for transplantation]. This data shows it is not,” he emphasized.

The study, published in JAMA Surgery, involved HIV-positive patients who received kidney or liver transplants between 2000 and 2019 at UCSF, which has unique access to some of the longest-term data on those outcomes.

“UCSF was the first U.S. center to do transplants routinely in people with HIV, and based on the large volume of transplants that are performed, we were able to use propensity matching to address the comparison of HIV-positive and negative liver and kidney transplant recipients at a single center,” Dr. Stock explained.

“To the best of our knowledge, there are no long-term reports [greater than 10 years] on [transplant] outcomes in the HIV-positive population.”

Commenting on the study, David Klassen, MD, chief medical officer of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), noted that the findings “confirm previous research done at UCSF and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine” in 2010. “It extends the previous findings.”

“The take-home message is that these HIV-positive patients can be successfully transplanted with expected good outcomes and will derive substantial benefit from transplantation,” Dr. Klassen said.
 

Kidney transplant patient survival lower, graft survival similar

For the kidney transplant analysis, 119 HIV-positive recipients were propensity matched with 655 recipients who were HIV-negative, with the patients’ mean age about 52 and approximately 70% male.

At 15-years post-transplant, patient survival was 53.6% among the HIV-positive patients versus 79.6% for HIV-negative (P = .03).

Graft survival among the kidney transplant patients was proportionally higher among HIV-positive patients after 15 years (75% vs. 57%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .77).

First author Arya Zarinsefat, MD, of the Department of Surgery at UCSF, speculated that the lower long-term patient survival among HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients may reflect known cardiovascular risks among those patients.

“We postulated that part of this may be due to the fact that HIV-positive patients certainly have additional comorbidities, specifically cardiovascular” ones, he told this news organization.

“When looking at the survival curve, survival was nearly identical at 5 years and only started to diverge at 10 years post-transplant,” he noted.

A further evaluation of patients with HIV who were co-infected with hepatitis C (HCV) showed that those with HIV-HCV co-infection prior to the center’s introduction of anti-HCV direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications in 2014 had the lowest survival rate of all subgroups, at 57.1% at 5 years post-transplant (P = .045 vs. those treated after 2014).
 

Liver transplant patient survival similar

In terms of liver transplant outcomes, among 83 HIV-positive recipients who were propensity-matched with 468 HIV-negative recipients, the mean age was about 53 and about 66% were male.

The patient survival rates at 15 years were not significantly different between the groups, at 70% for HIV-positive and 75.7% for HIV-negative, (P = .12).

Similar to the kidney transplant recipients, the worst survival among all liver transplant subgroups was among HIV-HCV co-infected patients prior to access to HCV direct-acting antivirals in 2014, with a 5-year survival of 59.5% (P = .04).

“Since the advent of HCV direct-acting antivirals, liver transplant outcomes in HCV mono-infected patients are comparable to HCV/HIV co-infected recipients,” Dr. Stock said.
 

Acute rejection rates higher with HIV-positivity versus national averages

The rates of acute rejection at 1 year in the kidney and liver transplant, HIV-positive groups – at about 20% and 30%, respectively – were, however, higher than national average incidence rates of about 10% at 1 year.

Long-term data on those patients showed the acute rejection affected graft survival outcomes with kidney transplant recipients: HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients who had at least one episode of acute rejection had a graft survival of just 52.8% at 15 years post-transplant, compared with 91.8% among recipients without acute rejection.

Such differences were not observed among HIV-positive liver transplant recipients.

The authors note that the increased risk of acute rejection in HIV-positive kidney transplant patients is consistent with previous studies, with causes that may be multifactorial.

Top theories include drug interactions with protease inhibitors, resulting in some centers transitioning HIV-infected patients from those regimens to integrase-based regimens prior to transplant.

“The management and prevention of acute rejection in HIV-positive kidney transplant [patients] will therefore continue to be a key component in the care of these patients,” the authors note in their study.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and Dr. Klassen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Liver or kidney transplant recipients who are HIV-positive show outcomes that are similar to those without HIV at 15-years post-transplant, in new research that represents some of the longest follow-up on these patients to date.

The findings further support the inclusion of people with HIV in transplant resource allocation, say the researchers.

“Overall, the excellent outcomes following liver and kidney transplant recipients in HIV-infected recipients justify the utilization of a scarce resource,” senior author Peter G. Stock, MD, PhD, surgical director of the Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Program and surgical director of the Pediatric Renal Transplant Program at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), said in an interview.

“Many centers still view HIV as a strict contraindication [for transplantation]. This data shows it is not,” he emphasized.

The study, published in JAMA Surgery, involved HIV-positive patients who received kidney or liver transplants between 2000 and 2019 at UCSF, which has unique access to some of the longest-term data on those outcomes.

“UCSF was the first U.S. center to do transplants routinely in people with HIV, and based on the large volume of transplants that are performed, we were able to use propensity matching to address the comparison of HIV-positive and negative liver and kidney transplant recipients at a single center,” Dr. Stock explained.

“To the best of our knowledge, there are no long-term reports [greater than 10 years] on [transplant] outcomes in the HIV-positive population.”

Commenting on the study, David Klassen, MD, chief medical officer of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), noted that the findings “confirm previous research done at UCSF and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine” in 2010. “It extends the previous findings.”

“The take-home message is that these HIV-positive patients can be successfully transplanted with expected good outcomes and will derive substantial benefit from transplantation,” Dr. Klassen said.
 

Kidney transplant patient survival lower, graft survival similar

For the kidney transplant analysis, 119 HIV-positive recipients were propensity matched with 655 recipients who were HIV-negative, with the patients’ mean age about 52 and approximately 70% male.

At 15-years post-transplant, patient survival was 53.6% among the HIV-positive patients versus 79.6% for HIV-negative (P = .03).

Graft survival among the kidney transplant patients was proportionally higher among HIV-positive patients after 15 years (75% vs. 57%); however, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .77).

First author Arya Zarinsefat, MD, of the Department of Surgery at UCSF, speculated that the lower long-term patient survival among HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients may reflect known cardiovascular risks among those patients.

“We postulated that part of this may be due to the fact that HIV-positive patients certainly have additional comorbidities, specifically cardiovascular” ones, he told this news organization.

“When looking at the survival curve, survival was nearly identical at 5 years and only started to diverge at 10 years post-transplant,” he noted.

A further evaluation of patients with HIV who were co-infected with hepatitis C (HCV) showed that those with HIV-HCV co-infection prior to the center’s introduction of anti-HCV direct-acting antiviral (DAA) medications in 2014 had the lowest survival rate of all subgroups, at 57.1% at 5 years post-transplant (P = .045 vs. those treated after 2014).
 

Liver transplant patient survival similar

In terms of liver transplant outcomes, among 83 HIV-positive recipients who were propensity-matched with 468 HIV-negative recipients, the mean age was about 53 and about 66% were male.

The patient survival rates at 15 years were not significantly different between the groups, at 70% for HIV-positive and 75.7% for HIV-negative, (P = .12).

Similar to the kidney transplant recipients, the worst survival among all liver transplant subgroups was among HIV-HCV co-infected patients prior to access to HCV direct-acting antivirals in 2014, with a 5-year survival of 59.5% (P = .04).

“Since the advent of HCV direct-acting antivirals, liver transplant outcomes in HCV mono-infected patients are comparable to HCV/HIV co-infected recipients,” Dr. Stock said.
 

Acute rejection rates higher with HIV-positivity versus national averages

The rates of acute rejection at 1 year in the kidney and liver transplant, HIV-positive groups – at about 20% and 30%, respectively – were, however, higher than national average incidence rates of about 10% at 1 year.

Long-term data on those patients showed the acute rejection affected graft survival outcomes with kidney transplant recipients: HIV-positive kidney transplant recipients who had at least one episode of acute rejection had a graft survival of just 52.8% at 15 years post-transplant, compared with 91.8% among recipients without acute rejection.

Such differences were not observed among HIV-positive liver transplant recipients.

The authors note that the increased risk of acute rejection in HIV-positive kidney transplant patients is consistent with previous studies, with causes that may be multifactorial.

Top theories include drug interactions with protease inhibitors, resulting in some centers transitioning HIV-infected patients from those regimens to integrase-based regimens prior to transplant.

“The management and prevention of acute rejection in HIV-positive kidney transplant [patients] will therefore continue to be a key component in the care of these patients,” the authors note in their study.

The study was supported in part by the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and Dr. Klassen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An updated recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) calling for universal hepatitis B vaccination of all adults aged 59 and younger has boosted the call to improve clinicians’ awareness of the increasing infection and low vaccination rates – and raise the issue with patients.

“This new recommendation from [the] ACIP will be instrumental [in] raising adult hepatitis B vaccination rates in the U.S. to levels that will allow us to finally eliminate hepatitis B in this country,” said Rita K. Kuwahara, MD, a primary care internal medicine physician and health policy fellow at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C., in addressing the issue at the U.S. Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) this month.

“We have the tools to prevent hepatitis B, and since we have such safe and highly effective vaccines to protect against community [spread], we should not have a single new infection in our nation,” she asserted.

The unanimously approved updated ACIP recommendation was issued in November and still requires adoption by the CDC director. The ACIP specifically recommends that adults aged 19 to 59 and those 60 years and older with risk factors for infection “should” receive the hepatitis B vaccine, and it further stipulates that those 60 years and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B “may” receive the vaccine.

The recommendation was previously only for adults at risk for hepatitis B infection due to a variety of factors, including sexual exposure, percutaneous or mucosal exposure to blood, hepatitis C infection, chronic liver disease, end-stage renal disease, and HIV infection.

“The number of risk factors was long, and for a busy primary care provider to have to go through a lengthy risk-based protocol like that, it may not happen,” Dr. Kuwahara told this news organization.

“Now we have a really helpful new recommendation that is simply age based, and clinicians can just tell patients that if they were born before this certain period, a hepatitis B vaccination is recommended.”

The change comes amid a troubling trajectory of hepatitis B, with up to 2.4 million individuals currently having chronic hepatitis B in the U.S. and infection rates soaring by 100% to more than 400% in states with high opioid use, such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maine, Dr. Kuwahara said.

Notably, hepatitis B is the leading cause of liver disease, and one in four individuals with unmanaged chronic hepatitis B goes on to develop liver failure and/or cirrhosis or liver cancer, which has a 5-year survival rate of only 18%.

Despite the rising infection rates, only 25%-30% of adults in the U.S. are reported to be currently vaccinated for hepatitis B, even though safe and highly effective vaccines are available, notably including a new two-dose vaccine (Heplisav-B) that can be provided over just a month (vs. other hepatitis B vaccines requiring 3 doses over 6 months).
 

Clinician awareness of low vaccination rates lacking

Dr. Kuwahara noted that awareness among clinicians of the issues surrounding hepatitis B appears low, with one small survey that she and her colleagues conducted of 30 primary care physicians showing that not one of the respondents was aware of the low vaccination rate.

Dr. Kuwahara says a key reason for the low awareness to discuss the hepatitis B vaccination with adults is the common impression that the responsibility for the vaccination lies in the hands of pediatricians.

But that’s only half correct – universal vaccination for hepatitis B in all infants and children is indeed currently the policy in the U.S. – but that was not implemented in all states until the mid-to-late ‘90s, meaning the millions of adults over the age of about 25 to 30, born before that period, are likely not fully vaccinated against hepatitis B.

“When I was in medical school, there wasn’t a lot of discussion of how low the hepatitis B vaccination rate was because everyone knew there was universal childhood vaccination, and I think there was an assumption that it had been going on for a long time,” Dr. Kuwahara said. “So I think it’s clearly a misconception, and it’s really important to improve clinician awareness around the issue.”
 

Opioid use a key factor in rising infection rates

Importantly, a large proportion of opioid users are among the population of patients born before the mid-’90s – and those adults have a particularly high risk of transmission, with data indicating that 36% of new hepatitis B infections are the result of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Kuwahara noted.

“In the opioid epidemic, we have seen some of the greatest increases in acute hepatitis B presenting in adults aged 30 to 49 years old, as most adults in this age range would not have been vaccinated as children in the U.S.,” she said.

Approximately two-thirds of individuals with chronic hepatitis B are reportedly not even aware of their infection status due to ineffective prevention and vaccination programs, adding to the spread of infection, Dr. Kuwahara said.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 has only exacerbated the problem, with record-high instances of overdoses and overdose-related deaths during the pandemic, she explained.

However, the pandemic, and specifically the sweeping innovations that have been implemented in desperate efforts to bring COVID-19 vaccines to the public, could in fact represent a critical opportunity for hepatitis B prevention, Dr. Kuwahara said.

“Significant resources and federal funding have already been invested to develop a robust infrastructure for multi-dose COVID-19 vaccine administration during the pandemic, which has resulted in millions of people across the U.S. receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in easily accessible settings within their communities,” she said.

“It is essential that we expand the infrastructure development ... so that we may use this infrastructure to administer other vaccines such as the hepatitis B vaccine to adults throughout the nation and prevent additional outbreaks.”
 

Implementation of vaccine recommendations key

Dr. Kuwahara outlined key measures that will be important in implementing the hepatitis B vaccine recommendations:

• Awareness of the hepatitis B vaccination recommendations at the primary care level: “The first step in implementing universal [guidelines] will be to ensure that health care providers, particularly in primary care, are aware of the new ACIP guidelines so that they can speak with their patients about this and appropriately order hepatitis B testing and vaccination,” she said.
• Availability of vaccines: In addition to making sure primary care clinics are well stocked with hepatitis B vaccines, the vaccines should also be available in pharmacies and other convenient nonclinical settings through community outreach, similar to COVID-19 vaccines.
• Follow-up: Systems should be established to remind patients to receive follow-up doses.
• Public funding for vaccines: Policy changes will need to occur to allocate appropriate Section 317 funding to provide hepatitis B vaccines to adults without health insurance coverage, Dr. Kuwahara said, underscoring concerns about health equity in vaccination.
• Track vaccinations: Communication should be established between places administering vaccines and primary care providers to make sure that vaccination status can be documented in a reliable setting.

Dr. Kuwahara also noted that a federal immunization information system will be essential to track vaccines across a lifespan, providing one integrated vaccine record that can be accessed even when patients travel or move to different states.

Commenting on the issue, Frank Hood, manager of hepatitis advocacy for The AIDS Institute in Washington, D.C., added that, in addition to simplifying the process, the new age-based recommendation removes the issue of perceived judgement from the advice.

“The previous recommendations were more risk based, and patients may tend to say ‘oh, I don’t have any of those behaviors,’ and there can be some stigma,” he said. “But having something that says everyone in these age groups should be or may be vaccinated just makes it much easier and covers a greater number of individuals.”

Mr. Hood further underscored the need for continued diligence in improving measures to prevent and eradicate HBV as well as other infectious diseases.

“It is imperative that the systems being built now to respond to future infectious disease outbreaks are done so in a way to equitably support the efforts and end goal of eliminating current infectious disease epidemics like viral hepatitis and HIV,” he emphasized.“Elimination can’t be achieved if we leave people behind.”

Dr. Kuwahara and Mr. Hood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An updated recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) calling for universal hepatitis B vaccination of all adults aged 59 and younger has boosted the call to improve clinicians’ awareness of the increasing infection and low vaccination rates – and raise the issue with patients.

“This new recommendation from [the] ACIP will be instrumental [in] raising adult hepatitis B vaccination rates in the U.S. to levels that will allow us to finally eliminate hepatitis B in this country,” said Rita K. Kuwahara, MD, a primary care internal medicine physician and health policy fellow at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C., in addressing the issue at the U.S. Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) this month.

“We have the tools to prevent hepatitis B, and since we have such safe and highly effective vaccines to protect against community [spread], we should not have a single new infection in our nation,” she asserted.

The unanimously approved updated ACIP recommendation was issued in November and still requires adoption by the CDC director. The ACIP specifically recommends that adults aged 19 to 59 and those 60 years and older with risk factors for infection “should” receive the hepatitis B vaccine, and it further stipulates that those 60 years and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B “may” receive the vaccine.

The recommendation was previously only for adults at risk for hepatitis B infection due to a variety of factors, including sexual exposure, percutaneous or mucosal exposure to blood, hepatitis C infection, chronic liver disease, end-stage renal disease, and HIV infection.

“The number of risk factors was long, and for a busy primary care provider to have to go through a lengthy risk-based protocol like that, it may not happen,” Dr. Kuwahara told this news organization.

“Now we have a really helpful new recommendation that is simply age based, and clinicians can just tell patients that if they were born before this certain period, a hepatitis B vaccination is recommended.”

The change comes amid a troubling trajectory of hepatitis B, with up to 2.4 million individuals currently having chronic hepatitis B in the U.S. and infection rates soaring by 100% to more than 400% in states with high opioid use, such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maine, Dr. Kuwahara said.

Notably, hepatitis B is the leading cause of liver disease, and one in four individuals with unmanaged chronic hepatitis B goes on to develop liver failure and/or cirrhosis or liver cancer, which has a 5-year survival rate of only 18%.

Despite the rising infection rates, only 25%-30% of adults in the U.S. are reported to be currently vaccinated for hepatitis B, even though safe and highly effective vaccines are available, notably including a new two-dose vaccine (Heplisav-B) that can be provided over just a month (vs. other hepatitis B vaccines requiring 3 doses over 6 months).
 

Clinician awareness of low vaccination rates lacking

Dr. Kuwahara noted that awareness among clinicians of the issues surrounding hepatitis B appears low, with one small survey that she and her colleagues conducted of 30 primary care physicians showing that not one of the respondents was aware of the low vaccination rate.

Dr. Kuwahara says a key reason for the low awareness to discuss the hepatitis B vaccination with adults is the common impression that the responsibility for the vaccination lies in the hands of pediatricians.

But that’s only half correct – universal vaccination for hepatitis B in all infants and children is indeed currently the policy in the U.S. – but that was not implemented in all states until the mid-to-late ‘90s, meaning the millions of adults over the age of about 25 to 30, born before that period, are likely not fully vaccinated against hepatitis B.

“When I was in medical school, there wasn’t a lot of discussion of how low the hepatitis B vaccination rate was because everyone knew there was universal childhood vaccination, and I think there was an assumption that it had been going on for a long time,” Dr. Kuwahara said. “So I think it’s clearly a misconception, and it’s really important to improve clinician awareness around the issue.”
 

Opioid use a key factor in rising infection rates

Importantly, a large proportion of opioid users are among the population of patients born before the mid-’90s – and those adults have a particularly high risk of transmission, with data indicating that 36% of new hepatitis B infections are the result of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Kuwahara noted.

“In the opioid epidemic, we have seen some of the greatest increases in acute hepatitis B presenting in adults aged 30 to 49 years old, as most adults in this age range would not have been vaccinated as children in the U.S.,” she said.

Approximately two-thirds of individuals with chronic hepatitis B are reportedly not even aware of their infection status due to ineffective prevention and vaccination programs, adding to the spread of infection, Dr. Kuwahara said.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 has only exacerbated the problem, with record-high instances of overdoses and overdose-related deaths during the pandemic, she explained.

However, the pandemic, and specifically the sweeping innovations that have been implemented in desperate efforts to bring COVID-19 vaccines to the public, could in fact represent a critical opportunity for hepatitis B prevention, Dr. Kuwahara said.

“Significant resources and federal funding have already been invested to develop a robust infrastructure for multi-dose COVID-19 vaccine administration during the pandemic, which has resulted in millions of people across the U.S. receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in easily accessible settings within their communities,” she said.

“It is essential that we expand the infrastructure development ... so that we may use this infrastructure to administer other vaccines such as the hepatitis B vaccine to adults throughout the nation and prevent additional outbreaks.”
 

Implementation of vaccine recommendations key

Dr. Kuwahara outlined key measures that will be important in implementing the hepatitis B vaccine recommendations:

• Awareness of the hepatitis B vaccination recommendations at the primary care level: “The first step in implementing universal [guidelines] will be to ensure that health care providers, particularly in primary care, are aware of the new ACIP guidelines so that they can speak with their patients about this and appropriately order hepatitis B testing and vaccination,” she said.
• Availability of vaccines: In addition to making sure primary care clinics are well stocked with hepatitis B vaccines, the vaccines should also be available in pharmacies and other convenient nonclinical settings through community outreach, similar to COVID-19 vaccines.
• Follow-up: Systems should be established to remind patients to receive follow-up doses.
• Public funding for vaccines: Policy changes will need to occur to allocate appropriate Section 317 funding to provide hepatitis B vaccines to adults without health insurance coverage, Dr. Kuwahara said, underscoring concerns about health equity in vaccination.
• Track vaccinations: Communication should be established between places administering vaccines and primary care providers to make sure that vaccination status can be documented in a reliable setting.

Dr. Kuwahara also noted that a federal immunization information system will be essential to track vaccines across a lifespan, providing one integrated vaccine record that can be accessed even when patients travel or move to different states.

Commenting on the issue, Frank Hood, manager of hepatitis advocacy for The AIDS Institute in Washington, D.C., added that, in addition to simplifying the process, the new age-based recommendation removes the issue of perceived judgement from the advice.

“The previous recommendations were more risk based, and patients may tend to say ‘oh, I don’t have any of those behaviors,’ and there can be some stigma,” he said. “But having something that says everyone in these age groups should be or may be vaccinated just makes it much easier and covers a greater number of individuals.”

Mr. Hood further underscored the need for continued diligence in improving measures to prevent and eradicate HBV as well as other infectious diseases.

“It is imperative that the systems being built now to respond to future infectious disease outbreaks are done so in a way to equitably support the efforts and end goal of eliminating current infectious disease epidemics like viral hepatitis and HIV,” he emphasized.“Elimination can’t be achieved if we leave people behind.”

Dr. Kuwahara and Mr. Hood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An updated recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) calling for universal hepatitis B vaccination of all adults aged 59 and younger has boosted the call to improve clinicians’ awareness of the increasing infection and low vaccination rates – and raise the issue with patients.

“This new recommendation from [the] ACIP will be instrumental [in] raising adult hepatitis B vaccination rates in the U.S. to levels that will allow us to finally eliminate hepatitis B in this country,” said Rita K. Kuwahara, MD, a primary care internal medicine physician and health policy fellow at Georgetown University, in Washington, D.C., in addressing the issue at the U.S. Conference on HIV/AIDS (USCHA) this month.

“We have the tools to prevent hepatitis B, and since we have such safe and highly effective vaccines to protect against community [spread], we should not have a single new infection in our nation,” she asserted.

The unanimously approved updated ACIP recommendation was issued in November and still requires adoption by the CDC director. The ACIP specifically recommends that adults aged 19 to 59 and those 60 years and older with risk factors for infection “should” receive the hepatitis B vaccine, and it further stipulates that those 60 years and older without known risk factors for hepatitis B “may” receive the vaccine.

The recommendation was previously only for adults at risk for hepatitis B infection due to a variety of factors, including sexual exposure, percutaneous or mucosal exposure to blood, hepatitis C infection, chronic liver disease, end-stage renal disease, and HIV infection.

“The number of risk factors was long, and for a busy primary care provider to have to go through a lengthy risk-based protocol like that, it may not happen,” Dr. Kuwahara told this news organization.

“Now we have a really helpful new recommendation that is simply age based, and clinicians can just tell patients that if they were born before this certain period, a hepatitis B vaccination is recommended.”

The change comes amid a troubling trajectory of hepatitis B, with up to 2.4 million individuals currently having chronic hepatitis B in the U.S. and infection rates soaring by 100% to more than 400% in states with high opioid use, such as West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Maine, Dr. Kuwahara said.

Notably, hepatitis B is the leading cause of liver disease, and one in four individuals with unmanaged chronic hepatitis B goes on to develop liver failure and/or cirrhosis or liver cancer, which has a 5-year survival rate of only 18%.

Despite the rising infection rates, only 25%-30% of adults in the U.S. are reported to be currently vaccinated for hepatitis B, even though safe and highly effective vaccines are available, notably including a new two-dose vaccine (Heplisav-B) that can be provided over just a month (vs. other hepatitis B vaccines requiring 3 doses over 6 months).
 

Clinician awareness of low vaccination rates lacking

Dr. Kuwahara noted that awareness among clinicians of the issues surrounding hepatitis B appears low, with one small survey that she and her colleagues conducted of 30 primary care physicians showing that not one of the respondents was aware of the low vaccination rate.

Dr. Kuwahara says a key reason for the low awareness to discuss the hepatitis B vaccination with adults is the common impression that the responsibility for the vaccination lies in the hands of pediatricians.

But that’s only half correct – universal vaccination for hepatitis B in all infants and children is indeed currently the policy in the U.S. – but that was not implemented in all states until the mid-to-late ‘90s, meaning the millions of adults over the age of about 25 to 30, born before that period, are likely not fully vaccinated against hepatitis B.

“When I was in medical school, there wasn’t a lot of discussion of how low the hepatitis B vaccination rate was because everyone knew there was universal childhood vaccination, and I think there was an assumption that it had been going on for a long time,” Dr. Kuwahara said. “So I think it’s clearly a misconception, and it’s really important to improve clinician awareness around the issue.”
 

Opioid use a key factor in rising infection rates

Importantly, a large proportion of opioid users are among the population of patients born before the mid-’90s – and those adults have a particularly high risk of transmission, with data indicating that 36% of new hepatitis B infections are the result of the opioid epidemic, Dr. Kuwahara noted.

“In the opioid epidemic, we have seen some of the greatest increases in acute hepatitis B presenting in adults aged 30 to 49 years old, as most adults in this age range would not have been vaccinated as children in the U.S.,” she said.

Approximately two-thirds of individuals with chronic hepatitis B are reportedly not even aware of their infection status due to ineffective prevention and vaccination programs, adding to the spread of infection, Dr. Kuwahara said.

Meanwhile, COVID-19 has only exacerbated the problem, with record-high instances of overdoses and overdose-related deaths during the pandemic, she explained.

However, the pandemic, and specifically the sweeping innovations that have been implemented in desperate efforts to bring COVID-19 vaccines to the public, could in fact represent a critical opportunity for hepatitis B prevention, Dr. Kuwahara said.

“Significant resources and federal funding have already been invested to develop a robust infrastructure for multi-dose COVID-19 vaccine administration during the pandemic, which has resulted in millions of people across the U.S. receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in easily accessible settings within their communities,” she said.

“It is essential that we expand the infrastructure development ... so that we may use this infrastructure to administer other vaccines such as the hepatitis B vaccine to adults throughout the nation and prevent additional outbreaks.”
 

Implementation of vaccine recommendations key

Dr. Kuwahara outlined key measures that will be important in implementing the hepatitis B vaccine recommendations:

• Awareness of the hepatitis B vaccination recommendations at the primary care level: “The first step in implementing universal [guidelines] will be to ensure that health care providers, particularly in primary care, are aware of the new ACIP guidelines so that they can speak with their patients about this and appropriately order hepatitis B testing and vaccination,” she said.
• Availability of vaccines: In addition to making sure primary care clinics are well stocked with hepatitis B vaccines, the vaccines should also be available in pharmacies and other convenient nonclinical settings through community outreach, similar to COVID-19 vaccines.
• Follow-up: Systems should be established to remind patients to receive follow-up doses.
• Public funding for vaccines: Policy changes will need to occur to allocate appropriate Section 317 funding to provide hepatitis B vaccines to adults without health insurance coverage, Dr. Kuwahara said, underscoring concerns about health equity in vaccination.
• Track vaccinations: Communication should be established between places administering vaccines and primary care providers to make sure that vaccination status can be documented in a reliable setting.

Dr. Kuwahara also noted that a federal immunization information system will be essential to track vaccines across a lifespan, providing one integrated vaccine record that can be accessed even when patients travel or move to different states.

Commenting on the issue, Frank Hood, manager of hepatitis advocacy for The AIDS Institute in Washington, D.C., added that, in addition to simplifying the process, the new age-based recommendation removes the issue of perceived judgement from the advice.

“The previous recommendations were more risk based, and patients may tend to say ‘oh, I don’t have any of those behaviors,’ and there can be some stigma,” he said. “But having something that says everyone in these age groups should be or may be vaccinated just makes it much easier and covers a greater number of individuals.”

Mr. Hood further underscored the need for continued diligence in improving measures to prevent and eradicate HBV as well as other infectious diseases.

“It is imperative that the systems being built now to respond to future infectious disease outbreaks are done so in a way to equitably support the efforts and end goal of eliminating current infectious disease epidemics like viral hepatitis and HIV,” he emphasized.“Elimination can’t be achieved if we leave people behind.”

Dr. Kuwahara and Mr. Hood had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although the risk for liver cancer diminishes for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections for whom the virus is eliminated with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs, these patients are not out of the woods, and those who do not have a sustained viral response (SVR) are at substantially higher risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), results of a large study show.

Among the patients with liver cirrhosis from HCV infections treated at 30 centers in Italy, a large percentage had an SVR after treatment with DAA drugs. Only a small percentage of this group subsequently developed HCC.

In contrast, not having an SVR was associated with a more than sevenfold higher risk for liver cancer, said Loreta A. Kondili, MD, PhD, from the Center for Global Health at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, during a presentation of the findings at The Liver Meeting 2021: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), held online.

“Failure to achieve SVR after DAA treatment is strongly associated with the probability of HCC development. Older age, [HCV] genotype 3, and low platelet counts and albumin levels are independent factors of HCC development despite viral eradication,” she said.
 

Cohort study

The study findings come from the PITER Cohort Study, a prospective, multicenter observational study of a representative sample of patients with HCV.

Dr. Kondili and colleagues assessed the medium- and long-term effects of DAA therapy on HCC rates among patients with HCV-induced liver cirrhosis. Patients who had undergone a liver transplant or who had been previously diagnosed with HCC were excluded.

The investigators identified a total of 2,214 DAA-treated patients, of whom 149 (6.7%) developed de novo HCC after a median follow-up of 30 months.

From the total group, 2,064 (93%) patients had an SVR, 119 of whom (5.8%) developed HCC. Of these patients who developed HCC, 80% were diagnosed with stage B or C disease in accordance with the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system.

For the remaining 150 patients who did not have an SVR, 30 (20%) developed de novo HCC, a difference that translated into an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for HCC of 7.38 (P < .01).

The time from the end of DAA therapy to a diagnosis of HCC was shorter for patients who did not have an SVR. For these patients, the 2-year HCC-free survival rate was 81%, compared with 98% for patients who had an SVR (P < .001).

As reported by Dr. Kondili, among patients who achieved an SVR, the variables significantly associated with HCC risk included older age (aHR, 1.06), platelet counts greater than the reference limit of 150,000 μL (aHR, 2.43), albumin levels >3.5 g/dL (aHR, 2.36), and diabetes (aHR, 1.53; all these variables were significant by confidence intervals).

In all, 26% of these patients died during the follow-up period, and 7.6% underwent liver transplant.

Of the patients still alive at the end of the follow-up period, 38% had active HCC.
 

Long-term follow-up required

“It’s useful to think of hepatitis C as a viral infection on one hand [and] a liver disease on the other,” commented Raymond T. Chung, MD, director of the Hepatology and Liver Center and vice chief of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In terms of thinking of elimination, we can eradicate the virus in most patients with virtually 100% success with antivirals. This has given us a false sense of comfort that it’s a ‘one and done’ process, and patients can more or less enjoy the rest of their lives free of hepatitis C,” he said.

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the study, emphasized that despite the elimination of the virus, patients may still have significant liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. It is imperative that these patients be monitored for signs of cancer, he said.

“This is what’s important about staging patients and understanding how severe their liver disease is, because if there is advanced fibrosis, bridging fibrosis, or cirrhosis, these are patients who are going to require long-term oncology care. Their infectious disease is eliminated, but the liver disease remains,” he said.

Dr. Chung also noted that rates of liver cancer, decompensation, and liver failure are higher among patients with untreated HCV than among patients whose HCV has been eradicated or suppressed with drug treatment. In addition, patients with untreated HCV are at greater risk of requiring transplant than are patients with HCV that was treated, and there remains a residual cancer risk for patients who become HCV seronegative.

The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Kondili has financial relationships with Gilead Science and AbbVie. Dr. Chung reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although the risk for liver cancer diminishes for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections for whom the virus is eliminated with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs, these patients are not out of the woods, and those who do not have a sustained viral response (SVR) are at substantially higher risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), results of a large study show.

Among the patients with liver cirrhosis from HCV infections treated at 30 centers in Italy, a large percentage had an SVR after treatment with DAA drugs. Only a small percentage of this group subsequently developed HCC.

In contrast, not having an SVR was associated with a more than sevenfold higher risk for liver cancer, said Loreta A. Kondili, MD, PhD, from the Center for Global Health at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, during a presentation of the findings at The Liver Meeting 2021: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), held online.

“Failure to achieve SVR after DAA treatment is strongly associated with the probability of HCC development. Older age, [HCV] genotype 3, and low platelet counts and albumin levels are independent factors of HCC development despite viral eradication,” she said.
 

Cohort study

The study findings come from the PITER Cohort Study, a prospective, multicenter observational study of a representative sample of patients with HCV.

Dr. Kondili and colleagues assessed the medium- and long-term effects of DAA therapy on HCC rates among patients with HCV-induced liver cirrhosis. Patients who had undergone a liver transplant or who had been previously diagnosed with HCC were excluded.

The investigators identified a total of 2,214 DAA-treated patients, of whom 149 (6.7%) developed de novo HCC after a median follow-up of 30 months.

From the total group, 2,064 (93%) patients had an SVR, 119 of whom (5.8%) developed HCC. Of these patients who developed HCC, 80% were diagnosed with stage B or C disease in accordance with the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system.

For the remaining 150 patients who did not have an SVR, 30 (20%) developed de novo HCC, a difference that translated into an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for HCC of 7.38 (P < .01).

The time from the end of DAA therapy to a diagnosis of HCC was shorter for patients who did not have an SVR. For these patients, the 2-year HCC-free survival rate was 81%, compared with 98% for patients who had an SVR (P < .001).

As reported by Dr. Kondili, among patients who achieved an SVR, the variables significantly associated with HCC risk included older age (aHR, 1.06), platelet counts greater than the reference limit of 150,000 μL (aHR, 2.43), albumin levels >3.5 g/dL (aHR, 2.36), and diabetes (aHR, 1.53; all these variables were significant by confidence intervals).

In all, 26% of these patients died during the follow-up period, and 7.6% underwent liver transplant.

Of the patients still alive at the end of the follow-up period, 38% had active HCC.
 

Long-term follow-up required

“It’s useful to think of hepatitis C as a viral infection on one hand [and] a liver disease on the other,” commented Raymond T. Chung, MD, director of the Hepatology and Liver Center and vice chief of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In terms of thinking of elimination, we can eradicate the virus in most patients with virtually 100% success with antivirals. This has given us a false sense of comfort that it’s a ‘one and done’ process, and patients can more or less enjoy the rest of their lives free of hepatitis C,” he said.

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the study, emphasized that despite the elimination of the virus, patients may still have significant liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. It is imperative that these patients be monitored for signs of cancer, he said.

“This is what’s important about staging patients and understanding how severe their liver disease is, because if there is advanced fibrosis, bridging fibrosis, or cirrhosis, these are patients who are going to require long-term oncology care. Their infectious disease is eliminated, but the liver disease remains,” he said.

Dr. Chung also noted that rates of liver cancer, decompensation, and liver failure are higher among patients with untreated HCV than among patients whose HCV has been eradicated or suppressed with drug treatment. In addition, patients with untreated HCV are at greater risk of requiring transplant than are patients with HCV that was treated, and there remains a residual cancer risk for patients who become HCV seronegative.

The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Kondili has financial relationships with Gilead Science and AbbVie. Dr. Chung reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Although the risk for liver cancer diminishes for patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections for whom the virus is eliminated with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) drugs, these patients are not out of the woods, and those who do not have a sustained viral response (SVR) are at substantially higher risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), results of a large study show.

Among the patients with liver cirrhosis from HCV infections treated at 30 centers in Italy, a large percentage had an SVR after treatment with DAA drugs. Only a small percentage of this group subsequently developed HCC.

In contrast, not having an SVR was associated with a more than sevenfold higher risk for liver cancer, said Loreta A. Kondili, MD, PhD, from the Center for Global Health at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, during a presentation of the findings at The Liver Meeting 2021: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), held online.

“Failure to achieve SVR after DAA treatment is strongly associated with the probability of HCC development. Older age, [HCV] genotype 3, and low platelet counts and albumin levels are independent factors of HCC development despite viral eradication,” she said.
 

Cohort study

The study findings come from the PITER Cohort Study, a prospective, multicenter observational study of a representative sample of patients with HCV.

Dr. Kondili and colleagues assessed the medium- and long-term effects of DAA therapy on HCC rates among patients with HCV-induced liver cirrhosis. Patients who had undergone a liver transplant or who had been previously diagnosed with HCC were excluded.

The investigators identified a total of 2,214 DAA-treated patients, of whom 149 (6.7%) developed de novo HCC after a median follow-up of 30 months.

From the total group, 2,064 (93%) patients had an SVR, 119 of whom (5.8%) developed HCC. Of these patients who developed HCC, 80% were diagnosed with stage B or C disease in accordance with the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system.

For the remaining 150 patients who did not have an SVR, 30 (20%) developed de novo HCC, a difference that translated into an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for HCC of 7.38 (P < .01).

The time from the end of DAA therapy to a diagnosis of HCC was shorter for patients who did not have an SVR. For these patients, the 2-year HCC-free survival rate was 81%, compared with 98% for patients who had an SVR (P < .001).

As reported by Dr. Kondili, among patients who achieved an SVR, the variables significantly associated with HCC risk included older age (aHR, 1.06), platelet counts greater than the reference limit of 150,000 μL (aHR, 2.43), albumin levels >3.5 g/dL (aHR, 2.36), and diabetes (aHR, 1.53; all these variables were significant by confidence intervals).

In all, 26% of these patients died during the follow-up period, and 7.6% underwent liver transplant.

Of the patients still alive at the end of the follow-up period, 38% had active HCC.
 

Long-term follow-up required

“It’s useful to think of hepatitis C as a viral infection on one hand [and] a liver disease on the other,” commented Raymond T. Chung, MD, director of the Hepatology and Liver Center and vice chief of gastroenterology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

“In terms of thinking of elimination, we can eradicate the virus in most patients with virtually 100% success with antivirals. This has given us a false sense of comfort that it’s a ‘one and done’ process, and patients can more or less enjoy the rest of their lives free of hepatitis C,” he said.

Dr. Chung, who was not involved in the study, emphasized that despite the elimination of the virus, patients may still have significant liver fibrosis or cirrhosis. It is imperative that these patients be monitored for signs of cancer, he said.

“This is what’s important about staging patients and understanding how severe their liver disease is, because if there is advanced fibrosis, bridging fibrosis, or cirrhosis, these are patients who are going to require long-term oncology care. Their infectious disease is eliminated, but the liver disease remains,” he said.

Dr. Chung also noted that rates of liver cancer, decompensation, and liver failure are higher among patients with untreated HCV than among patients whose HCV has been eradicated or suppressed with drug treatment. In addition, patients with untreated HCV are at greater risk of requiring transplant than are patients with HCV that was treated, and there remains a residual cancer risk for patients who become HCV seronegative.

The study was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health. Dr. Kondili has financial relationships with Gilead Science and AbbVie. Dr. Chung reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A real-world analysis of bulevirtide found a safety and efficacy profile similar to what was seen in earlier clinical trials in the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection.

HDV can only infect patients already carrying hepatitis B virus (HBV), but it causes the most severe form of viral hepatitis as it can progress to cirrhosis within 5 years and to hepatocellular carcinoma within 10 years.

Bulevirtide is a first-in-class medication that mimics the hepatitis B surface antigen, binding to its receptor on hepatocytes and preventing HDV viral particles from binding to it. The drug received conditional marketing approval by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and has received a breakthrough therapy designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases by Victor De Ledinghen, PhD, who is a professor of hepatology and head of the hepatology and liver transplantation unit at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital.

The early-access program launched after the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products approved bulevirtide in 2019. It was made available to patients with compensated cirrhosis or severe liver fibrosis (F3) or patients with F2 fibrosis and alanine amino transferase levels more than twice the upper limit of normal for 6 months or more. Patients received bulevirtide alone (n = 77) or in combination with peg-interferon (n = 68), as determined by their physician.

The researchers defined virologic efficacy as HDV RNA levels being undetectable, or decreased by at least 2 log₁₀ from baseline. They defined biochemical efficacy as ALT levels below 40 IU/L.

A per-protocol analysis included all patients in the bulevirtide group, but excluded 12 from the combination group who discontinued peg-interferon (n = 56). Nineteen patients in bulevirtide group had a treatment modification, and seven discontinued treatment. Five in the combination group had a treatment modification, and 14 stopped treatment. At 12 months, there was a greater decline in median log10 IU/mL in the combination group (–5.65 versus –3.64), though the study was not powered to compare the two. At 12 months, the combination group had 93.9% virologic efficacy, compared with 68.3% in the bulevirtide group.

The two groups had similar mean ALT levels at 12 months (48.91 and 48.03 IU/mL, respectively), with more patients in the bulevirtide group having normal ALT levels (<40 IU/L; 48.8% versus 36.4%). At 12 months, 39.0% of the bulevirtide group and 30.3% of the combination group had a combined response, defined as either undetectable HDV RNA or ≥2 log10 from baseline plus normal ALT levels.

Twenty-nine patients in the bulevirtide group had an adverse event, compared with 43 in the combination group. The two groups were similar in the frequency of grade 3-4 adverse events (7 versus 6), discontinuation due to adverse events (2 versus 3), deaths (0 in both), injection-site reactions (2 in both), liver-related adverse events (4 versus 2), and elevated bile acid (76 versus 68).

During the Q&A period following the presentation, Dr. De Ledinghen was asked if he has a preferred regimen for HDV patients. “I think it depends on the tolerance of peg-interferon because of all the side effects with this drug. I think we need to have predictive factors of virological response with or without interferon. At this time, I don’t have a preference, but I think at this time we need to work on predictive factors associated with virologic response,” he said.

The EMA’s conditional bulevirtide approval hinged on results from phase 2 clinical trials, while the phase 3 clinical studies are ongoing. “This was a very unusual step for the EMA to provide what is similar to emergency use approval while the phase 3 clinical trials are still ongoing,” said Anna Lok, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Lok is a professor of internal medicine, director of clinical hepatology, and assistant dean for clinical research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She noted that the phase 2 studies indicated that the combination with peg-interferon seems to have an additive effect on HDV suppression, while monotherapy with bulevirtide has a greater effect on normalizing ALT levels. The real-world experience confirms these findings.

But the real-world data revealed some concerns. “What really worried me is the large number of patients who required dose modifications or discontinuations, and that seems to be the case in both treatment groups. They didn’t really go into a lot of details [about] why patients needed treatment modifications, but one has to assume that this is due to side effects,” said Dr. Lok.

She also noted that the per-protocol analysis, instead of an intention-to-treat analysis, is a weakness of the study. Additionally, over time, the number of patients analyzed decreased – as many as 40% of patients didn’t have test results at month 12. “It makes you wonder what happened to those patients. Many probably didn’t respond, in which case your overall response rate will be far lower,” said Dr. Lok.

The study was funded by Gilead. Dr. De Ledinghen has financial relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Echosens, Hologic, Intercept Pharma, Tillotts, Orphalan, Alfasigma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Siemens Healthineers. Dr. Lok has no relevant financial disclosures.

A real-world analysis of bulevirtide found a safety and efficacy profile similar to what was seen in earlier clinical trials in the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection.

HDV can only infect patients already carrying hepatitis B virus (HBV), but it causes the most severe form of viral hepatitis as it can progress to cirrhosis within 5 years and to hepatocellular carcinoma within 10 years.

Bulevirtide is a first-in-class medication that mimics the hepatitis B surface antigen, binding to its receptor on hepatocytes and preventing HDV viral particles from binding to it. The drug received conditional marketing approval by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and has received a breakthrough therapy designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases by Victor De Ledinghen, PhD, who is a professor of hepatology and head of the hepatology and liver transplantation unit at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital.

The early-access program launched after the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products approved bulevirtide in 2019. It was made available to patients with compensated cirrhosis or severe liver fibrosis (F3) or patients with F2 fibrosis and alanine amino transferase levels more than twice the upper limit of normal for 6 months or more. Patients received bulevirtide alone (n = 77) or in combination with peg-interferon (n = 68), as determined by their physician.

The researchers defined virologic efficacy as HDV RNA levels being undetectable, or decreased by at least 2 log₁₀ from baseline. They defined biochemical efficacy as ALT levels below 40 IU/L.

A per-protocol analysis included all patients in the bulevirtide group, but excluded 12 from the combination group who discontinued peg-interferon (n = 56). Nineteen patients in bulevirtide group had a treatment modification, and seven discontinued treatment. Five in the combination group had a treatment modification, and 14 stopped treatment. At 12 months, there was a greater decline in median log10 IU/mL in the combination group (–5.65 versus –3.64), though the study was not powered to compare the two. At 12 months, the combination group had 93.9% virologic efficacy, compared with 68.3% in the bulevirtide group.

The two groups had similar mean ALT levels at 12 months (48.91 and 48.03 IU/mL, respectively), with more patients in the bulevirtide group having normal ALT levels (<40 IU/L; 48.8% versus 36.4%). At 12 months, 39.0% of the bulevirtide group and 30.3% of the combination group had a combined response, defined as either undetectable HDV RNA or ≥2 log10 from baseline plus normal ALT levels.

Twenty-nine patients in the bulevirtide group had an adverse event, compared with 43 in the combination group. The two groups were similar in the frequency of grade 3-4 adverse events (7 versus 6), discontinuation due to adverse events (2 versus 3), deaths (0 in both), injection-site reactions (2 in both), liver-related adverse events (4 versus 2), and elevated bile acid (76 versus 68).

During the Q&A period following the presentation, Dr. De Ledinghen was asked if he has a preferred regimen for HDV patients. “I think it depends on the tolerance of peg-interferon because of all the side effects with this drug. I think we need to have predictive factors of virological response with or without interferon. At this time, I don’t have a preference, but I think at this time we need to work on predictive factors associated with virologic response,” he said.

The EMA’s conditional bulevirtide approval hinged on results from phase 2 clinical trials, while the phase 3 clinical studies are ongoing. “This was a very unusual step for the EMA to provide what is similar to emergency use approval while the phase 3 clinical trials are still ongoing,” said Anna Lok, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Lok is a professor of internal medicine, director of clinical hepatology, and assistant dean for clinical research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She noted that the phase 2 studies indicated that the combination with peg-interferon seems to have an additive effect on HDV suppression, while monotherapy with bulevirtide has a greater effect on normalizing ALT levels. The real-world experience confirms these findings.

But the real-world data revealed some concerns. “What really worried me is the large number of patients who required dose modifications or discontinuations, and that seems to be the case in both treatment groups. They didn’t really go into a lot of details [about] why patients needed treatment modifications, but one has to assume that this is due to side effects,” said Dr. Lok.

She also noted that the per-protocol analysis, instead of an intention-to-treat analysis, is a weakness of the study. Additionally, over time, the number of patients analyzed decreased – as many as 40% of patients didn’t have test results at month 12. “It makes you wonder what happened to those patients. Many probably didn’t respond, in which case your overall response rate will be far lower,” said Dr. Lok.

The study was funded by Gilead. Dr. De Ledinghen has financial relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Echosens, Hologic, Intercept Pharma, Tillotts, Orphalan, Alfasigma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Siemens Healthineers. Dr. Lok has no relevant financial disclosures.

A real-world analysis of bulevirtide found a safety and efficacy profile similar to what was seen in earlier clinical trials in the treatment of hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection.

HDV can only infect patients already carrying hepatitis B virus (HBV), but it causes the most severe form of viral hepatitis as it can progress to cirrhosis within 5 years and to hepatocellular carcinoma within 10 years.

Bulevirtide is a first-in-class medication that mimics the hepatitis B surface antigen, binding to its receptor on hepatocytes and preventing HDV viral particles from binding to it. The drug received conditional marketing approval by the European Medicines Agency in 2020 and has received a breakthrough therapy designation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases by Victor De Ledinghen, PhD, who is a professor of hepatology and head of the hepatology and liver transplantation unit at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital.

The early-access program launched after the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products approved bulevirtide in 2019. It was made available to patients with compensated cirrhosis or severe liver fibrosis (F3) or patients with F2 fibrosis and alanine amino transferase levels more than twice the upper limit of normal for 6 months or more. Patients received bulevirtide alone (n = 77) or in combination with peg-interferon (n = 68), as determined by their physician.

The researchers defined virologic efficacy as HDV RNA levels being undetectable, or decreased by at least 2 log₁₀ from baseline. They defined biochemical efficacy as ALT levels below 40 IU/L.

A per-protocol analysis included all patients in the bulevirtide group, but excluded 12 from the combination group who discontinued peg-interferon (n = 56). Nineteen patients in bulevirtide group had a treatment modification, and seven discontinued treatment. Five in the combination group had a treatment modification, and 14 stopped treatment. At 12 months, there was a greater decline in median log10 IU/mL in the combination group (–5.65 versus –3.64), though the study was not powered to compare the two. At 12 months, the combination group had 93.9% virologic efficacy, compared with 68.3% in the bulevirtide group.

The two groups had similar mean ALT levels at 12 months (48.91 and 48.03 IU/mL, respectively), with more patients in the bulevirtide group having normal ALT levels (<40 IU/L; 48.8% versus 36.4%). At 12 months, 39.0% of the bulevirtide group and 30.3% of the combination group had a combined response, defined as either undetectable HDV RNA or ≥2 log10 from baseline plus normal ALT levels.

Twenty-nine patients in the bulevirtide group had an adverse event, compared with 43 in the combination group. The two groups were similar in the frequency of grade 3-4 adverse events (7 versus 6), discontinuation due to adverse events (2 versus 3), deaths (0 in both), injection-site reactions (2 in both), liver-related adverse events (4 versus 2), and elevated bile acid (76 versus 68).

During the Q&A period following the presentation, Dr. De Ledinghen was asked if he has a preferred regimen for HDV patients. “I think it depends on the tolerance of peg-interferon because of all the side effects with this drug. I think we need to have predictive factors of virological response with or without interferon. At this time, I don’t have a preference, but I think at this time we need to work on predictive factors associated with virologic response,” he said.

The EMA’s conditional bulevirtide approval hinged on results from phase 2 clinical trials, while the phase 3 clinical studies are ongoing. “This was a very unusual step for the EMA to provide what is similar to emergency use approval while the phase 3 clinical trials are still ongoing,” said Anna Lok, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Lok is a professor of internal medicine, director of clinical hepatology, and assistant dean for clinical research at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She noted that the phase 2 studies indicated that the combination with peg-interferon seems to have an additive effect on HDV suppression, while monotherapy with bulevirtide has a greater effect on normalizing ALT levels. The real-world experience confirms these findings.

But the real-world data revealed some concerns. “What really worried me is the large number of patients who required dose modifications or discontinuations, and that seems to be the case in both treatment groups. They didn’t really go into a lot of details [about] why patients needed treatment modifications, but one has to assume that this is due to side effects,” said Dr. Lok.

She also noted that the per-protocol analysis, instead of an intention-to-treat analysis, is a weakness of the study. Additionally, over time, the number of patients analyzed decreased – as many as 40% of patients didn’t have test results at month 12. “It makes you wonder what happened to those patients. Many probably didn’t respond, in which case your overall response rate will be far lower,” said Dr. Lok.

The study was funded by Gilead. Dr. De Ledinghen has financial relationships with Gilead, AbbVie, Echosens, Hologic, Intercept Pharma, Tillotts, Orphalan, Alfasigma, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Siemens Healthineers. Dr. Lok has no relevant financial disclosures.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Because hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is typically asymptomatic, its presence can easily be overlooked without appropriate screening efforts. For those screening efforts to be effective, they must keep pace with the changing demographic face of this increasingly prevalent but treatable disease.

Perhaps the most dramatic shift in HCV demographics in recent years has been the increase of infections among those born after 1965, a trend primarily driven by the opioid epidemic. In addition, data from the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System show that cases of diagnosed HCV doubled among women of childbearing age from 2006 to 2014, with new infections in younger women surpassing those in older age groups.

With such trends in mind, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention broadened their recommendations regarding HCV in 2020 to include one-time testing in all adults aged 18 years and older and screening of all pregnant women during each pregnancy, except where the prevalence of infection is less than 0.1%, a threshold that no state has yet achieved.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) subsequently followed suit in their own recommendations.

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases/Infectious Diseases Society of America have long advocated for extensive expansion in their screening recommendations for HCV, including pregnancy.

Although the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine did not immediately adopt these recommendations, they have since endorsed them in May 2021 and June 2021, respectively.
 

The hepatologist perspective

As a practicing hepatologist, this seems like an uncontroversial recommendation. Obstetricians already screen for hepatitis B virus in each pregnancy. It should be easy to add HCV testing to the same lab testing.

Risk-based screening has repeatedly been demonstrated to be ineffective. It should be easier to test all women than to ask prying questions about high-risk behaviors.

Given the increase of injection drug use and resultant HCV infections in women of childbearing age, this seems like a perfect opportunity to identify chronically infected women and counsel them on transmission and cure. And pregnancy is also unique in that it is a time of near-universal health coverage.

Let’s address some of the operational issues.

The diagnostic cascade for HCV can be made very easy. HCV antibody testing is our standard screening test and, when positive, can automatically reflex to HCV polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the diagnostic test. Thus, with one blood sample, you can both screen for and diagnose infection.

Current guidelines do not recommend treating HCV during pregnancy, although therapy can be considered on an individual basis. Linkage to a knowledgeable provider who can discuss transmission and treatment, as well as assess the stage of liver injury, should decrease the burden on the ob.gyn.

The impact on pregnancy is marginal. HCV should not change either the mode of delivery or the decision to breastfeed. The AASLD/IDSA guidance outlines only four recommendations for monitoring during pregnancy:

• Obtain HCV RNA to see whether the infection is active and assess liver function at initiation of prenatal care.
• Prenatal care should be tailored to the pregnancy. There is no modification recommended to decrease mother-to-child transmission (MTCT).
• Be aware that intrahepatic is more common with HCV.
• Women with have a higher rate of adverse outcomes and should be linked to a high-risk obstetrics specialist.

But of course, what seems easy to one specialist may not be true of another. With that in mind, let’s hear the ob.gyn. perspective on these updated screening recommendations.
 

The ob.gyn. perspective

Recent guidelines from the CDC, ACOG, and SMFM recommend universal screening for HCV in all pregnant women. The increased availability of highly effective antiviral regimens makes universal screening a logical strategy, especially to identify candidates for this curative treatment. What is questionable, however, is the recommended timing by which this screening should take place.

HCV screening during pregnancy, as currently recommended, provides no immediate benefit for the pregnant woman or the fetus/neonate, given that antiviral treatments have not been approved during gestation, and there are no known measures that decrease MTCT or change routine perinatal care.

We also must not forget that a significant proportion of women in the United States, particularly those with limited resources, do not receive prenatal care at all. Most of them, however, will present to a hospital for delivery. Consequently, compliance with screening might be higher if performed at the time of delivery rather than antepartum.

Deferring screening until the intrapartum or immediate postpartum period, at least until antiviral treatment during pregnancy becomes a reality, was discussed. The rationale was that this approach might obviate the need to deal with the unintended consequences and burden of testing for HCV during pregnancy. Ultimately, ACOG and SMFM fell in line with the CDC recommendations.

Despite the lack of robust evidence regarding the risk for MTCT associated with commonly performed obstetric procedures (for example, genetic amniocentesis, artificial rupture of the membranes during labor, placement of an intrauterine pressure catheter), clinicians may be reluctant to perform them in HCV-infected women, resulting in potential deviations from the obstetric standard of care.

Similarly, it is likely that patients may choose to have a cesarean delivery for the sole purpose of decreasing MTCT, despite the lack of evidence for this. Such ill-advised patient-driven decisions are increasingly likely in the current environment, where social media can rapidly disseminate misinformation.
 

Implications for pediatric patients

One cannot isolate HCV screening in pregnancy from the consequences that may potentially occur as part of the infant’s transition to the care of a pediatrician.

Even though MTCT is estimated to occur in just 5%-15% of cases, all children born to HCV viremic mothers should be screened for HCV.

Traditionally, screening for HCV antibodies occurred after 18 months of age. In those who test positive, HCV PCR testing is recommended at 3 years. However, this algorithm is being called into question because only approximately one-third of infants are successfully screened.

HCV RNA testing in the first year after birth has been suggested. However, even proponents of this approach concur that all management decisions should be deferred until after the age of 3 years, when medications are approved for pediatric use.

In addition, HCV testing would be required again before considering therapy because children have higher rates of spontaneous clearance.
 

Seeking consensus beyond the controversy

Controversy remains surrounding the most recent update to the HCV screening guidelines. The current recommendation to screen during pregnancy cannot modify the risk for MTCT, has no impact on decisions regarding mode of delivery or breastfeeding, and could potentially cause harm by making obstetricians defer necessary invasive procedures even though there are no data linking them to an increase in MTCT.

Yet after extensive debate, the CDC, USPSTF, AASLD/IDSA, ACOG, and SMFM all developed their current recommendations to initiate HCV screening during pregnancy. To make this successful, screening algorithms need to be simple and consistent across all society recommendations.

HCV antibody testing should always reflex to the diagnostic test (HCV PCR) to allow confirmation in those who test positive without requiring an additional blood test. Viremic mothers (those who are HCV positive on PCR) should be linked to a provider who can discuss prognosis, transmission, and treatment. The importance of screening the infant also must be communicated to the parents and pediatrician alike.

Dr. Reau has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for AbbVie, Gilead, Arbutus, Intercept, and Salix; received research grants from AbbVie and Gilead; and received income from AASLD. Dr. Pacheco disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.