ABSTRACT
Objetivo: Evaluar cual de las 3 estrategias ensayadas es más efectiva para detectar nuevos casos de infección por virus de la hepatitis C (VHC) en atención primaria. Métodos: Estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico. Se evaluaron 3 estrategias: Estrategia 1: carta explicativa dirigida a personas adultas adscritas a 2 equipos de atención primaria (EAP), invitándoles a realizar un examen serológico. Estrategia 2: colocación en los EAP de pósteres y dípticos explicativos, ofreciendo la posibilidad de realizar un examen analítico. Estrategia 3: revisar el resultado de anti-VHC en los pacientes con hipertransaminasemia detectada en los últimos 2 años mediante la historia electrónica y efectuar determinación del anti-VHC en los casos en quienes no se había determinado. Resultados: Participaron 598 personas (51% mujeres con una media de edad de 50,6±13 años). Con la estrategia 1 se captaron 238 personas (4,1% de participación), con la estrategia 2, 69 personas (0,3%) y con la estrategia 3, 291 pacientes (100%). La detección de VHC oculto fue de un caso en las estrategias 1 y 2, representando una prevalencia del 0,4 y 1,4%, respectivamente, y de 2 casos en la estrategia 3 lo que representa una prevalencia de 0,7%. Conclusiones La búsqueda activa de casos ocultos de infección por VHC ha sido poco efectiva con los métodos ensayados, atendiendo al coste y esfuerzo que comportan (AU)
Objective: To evaluate which of the three studied strategies is the most effective to detect new cases of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in primary care. Methods: This is an observational, prospective, and multicentre study evaluating three strategies. Strategy 1: provide an explanatory letter to adults assigned to two primary care teams (PCTs), inviting them to have a blood test. Strategy 2: place posters and leaflets in PCTs advertising the possibility of laboratory tests. Strategy 3: reexamine HCV antibody test results in patients with hypertransaminasemia diagnosed within the last two years through electronic records, and determine anti-HCV status in undiagnosed cases. Results: There were a total 598 participants (51% female with an average age of 50.6±13 years). There were 238 people (4.1% of letters sent) in Strategy 1, 69 people (0.3% of potential participation) in Strategy 2, and 291 people (100% participation) from Strategy 3. One new case of HCV was found in both Strategy 1 and Strategy 2, representing a prevalence of 0.4 and 1.4%, respectively. Two new cases of HCV were found in Strategy 3, representing a prevalence of 0.7%. Conclusions: The three studied strategies for detecting new cases of HCV infection are ineffective, especially in regards to their cost and effort (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Hepacivirus/isolation & purification , Hepatitis C Antibodies/isolation & purification , Hepatitis C, Chronic/epidemiology , Mass Screening/methods , Strategic Planning , Primary Health Care/methods , Transaminases/analysisABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate which of the three studied strategies is the most effective to detect new cases of Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections in primary care. METHODS: This is an observational, prospective, and multicentre study evaluating three strategies. Strategy 1: provide an explanatory letter to adults assigned to two primary care teams (PCTs), inviting them to have a blood test. Strategy 2: place posters and leaflets in PCTs advertising the possibility of laboratory tests. Strategy 3: reexamine HCV antibody test results in patients with hypertransaminasemia diagnosed within the last two years through electronic records, and determine anti-HCV status in undiagnosed cases. RESULTS: There were a total 598 participants (51% female with an average age of 50.6 ± 13 years). There were 238 people (4.1% of letters sent) in Strategy 1, 69 people (0.3% of potential participation) in Strategy 2, and 291 people (100% participation) from Strategy 3. One new case of HCV was found in both Strategy 1 and Strategy 2, representing a prevalence of 0.4 and 1.4%, respectively. Two new cases of HCV were found in Strategy 3, representing a prevalence of 0.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The three studied strategies for detecting new cases of HCV infection are ineffective, especially in regards to their cost and effort.
