Hepatitis B/C in the countries of the EU/EEA: a systematic review of the prevalence among at-risk groups.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the World Health Organisation set a goal to eliminate viral hepatitis by 2030. Robust epidemiological information underpins all efforts to achieve elimination and this systematic review provides estimates of HBsAg and anti-HCV prevalence in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) among three at-risk populations: people in prison, men who have sex with men (MSM), and people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: Estimates of the prevalence among the three risk groups included in our study were derived from multiple sources. A systematic search of literature published during 2005-2015 was conducted without linguistic restrictions to identify studies among people in prison and HIV negative/HIV sero-status unknown MSM. National surveillance focal points were contacted to validate the search results. Studies were assessed for risk of bias and high quality estimates were pooled at country level. PWID data were extracted from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) repository. RESULTS: Despite gaps, we report 68 single study/pooled HBsAg/anti-HCV prevalence estimates covering 23/31 EU/EEA countries, 42 of which were of intermediate/high prevalence using the WHO endemicity threshold (of ≥2%). This includes 20 of the 23 estimates among PWID, 20 of the 28 high quality estimates among people in prison, and four of the 17 estimates among MSM. In general terms, the highest HBsAg prevalence was found among people in prison (range of 0.3% - 25.2%) followed by PWID (0.5% - 6.1%) and MSM (0.0% - 1.4%). The highest prevalence of anti-HCV was also found among people in prison (4.3% - 86.3%) and PWID (13.8% - 84.3%) followed by MSM (0.0% - 4.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest prioritisation of PWID and the prison population as the key populations for HBV/HCV screening and treatment given their dynamic interaction and high prevalence. The findings of this study do not seem to strongly support the continued classification of MSM as a high risk group for chronic hepatitis B infection. However, we still consider MSM a key population for targeted action given the emerging evidence of viral hepatitis transmission within this risk group together with the complex interaction of HBV/HCV and HIV.

Language support for linguistic minority chronic hepatitis B/C patients: an exploratory study of availability and clinicians' perceptions of language barriers in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Language support for linguistic minorities can improve patient safety, clinical outcomes and the quality of health care. Most chronic hepatitis B/C infections in Europe are detected among people born in endemic countries mostly in Africa, Asia and Central/Eastern Europe, groups that may experience language barriers when accessing health care services in their host countries. We investigated availability of interpreters and translated materials for linguistic minority hepatitis B/C patients. We also investigated clinicians' agreement that language barriers are explanations of three scenarios: the low screening uptake of hepatitis B/C screening, the lack of screening in primary care, and why cases do not reach specialist care. METHODS: An online survey was developed, translated and sent to experts in five health care services involved in screening or treating viral hepatitis in six European countries: Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom (UK). The five areas of health care were: general practice/family medicine, antenatal care, health care for asylum seekers, sexual health and specialist secondary care. We measured availability using a three-point ordinal scale ('very common', 'variable or not routine' and 'rarely or never'). We measured agreement using a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: We received 238 responses (23% response rate, N = 1026) from representatives in each health care field in each country. Interpreters are common in the UK, the Netherlands and Spain but variable or rare in Germany, Hungary and Italy. Translated materials are rarely/never available in Hungary, Italy and Spain but commonly or variably available in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. Differing levels of agreement that language barriers explain the three scenarios are seen across the countries. Professionals in countries with most infrequent availability (Hungary and Italy) disagree strongest that language barriers are explanations. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show pronounced differences between countries in availability of interpreters, differences that mirror socio-cultural value systems of 'difference-sensitive' and 'difference-blindness'. Improved language support is needed given the complex natural history of hepatitis B/C, the recognised barriers to screening and care, and the large undiagnosed burden among (potentially) linguistic minority migrant groups.

Limited access to hepatitis B/C treatment among vulnerable risk populations: an expert survey in six European countries.

Background: To investigate access to treatment for chronic hepatitis B/C among six vulnerable patient/population groups at-risk of infection: undocumented migrants, asylum seekers, people without health insurance, people with state insurance, people who inject drugs (PWID) and people abusing alcohol. Methods: An online survey among experts in gastroenterology, hepatology and infectious diseases in 2012 in six EU countries: Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. A four-point ordinal scale measured access to treatment (no, some, significant or complete restriction). Results: From 235 recipients, 64 responses were received (27%). Differences in access between and within countries were reported for all groups except people with state insurance. Most professionals, other than in Spain and Hungary, reported no or few restrictions for PWID. Significant/complete treatment restriction was reported for all groups by the majority in Hungary and Spain, while Italian respondents reported no/few restrictions. Significant/complete restriction was reported for undocumented migrants and people without health insurance in the UK and Spain. Opinion about undocumented migrants in Germany and the Netherlands was divergent. Conclusions: Although effective chronic hepatitis B/C treatment exists, limited access among vulnerable patient populations was seen in all study countries. Discordance of opinion about restrictions within countries is seen, especially for groups for whom the health care system determines treatment access, such as undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and people without health insurance. This suggests low awareness, or lack, of entitlement guidance among clinicians. Expanding treatment access among risk groups will contribute to reducing chronic viral hepatitis-associated avoidable morbidity and mortality.

Referral of newly diagnosed chronic hepatitis B and C patients in six EU countries: results of the HEPscreen Project.

BACKGROUND: Effective linkage to specialist care following screening is crucial for secondary prevention of chronic viral hepatitis-related consequences. METHODS: To explore the frequency of referral of patients to secondary care from the health services involved in screening and to gather information on the services responsible for the provision of post-test counselling and contact tracing, four online surveys were conducted among general practitioners (GP), and experts working in sexual health services (SHS), antenatal care (ANC) and specialist secondary care in Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and the UK. RESULTS: Overall, 60% of GPs report referring all patients to specialist care. Although 67% of specialists commonly receive patients referred by GPs, specialists in Germany rarely or never receive patients from ANC or from centres testing injecting drug users; and specialists in the Netherlands, Hungary and Germany rarely receive patients from SHS. Gastroenterologists/hepatologists are the professionals mainly responsible for the provision of counselling following a positive diagnosis of viral hepatitis according to two-thirds of specialists, 14% of SHS providers and 11% of ANC providers. Almost half of ANC providers (45%) stated that gynaecologists are the professionals responsible for the provision of counselling to positive pregnant women; among SHS providers, only 14% identified SHS as the services responsible. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest the existence of complex/ineffective referral practices or that opportunities to screen risk groups are missed. Recommendations clarifying the services responsible at each step of the referral pathway are needed in order to increase the success of screening programmes.

Identification of hepatitis B and C screening and patient management guidelines and availability of training for chronic viral hepatitis among health professionals in six European countries: results of a semi-quantitative survey.

BACKGROUND: As part of the EU funded project "HEPscreen", the aim of this study is to identify hepatitis B and C screening and patient management guidelines, to assess the awareness of these among health professionals (HPs) and to explore the availability of hepatitis B/C training programmes for HPs in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the UK, Spain and Hungary. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search through the main scientific databases was performed to retrieve guidelines, following which an online survey was developed and sent to HPs in six areas of health care, including public health, to verify whether HPs are aware of these guidelines, to retrieve additional guidelines and to find out whether specific professional training is available. RESULTS: Twelve national guidelines were identified through the literature search. Of the 268 respondents, 80 % were aware of hepatitis B guidelines and 73 % were aware of hepatitis C guidelines in their country. The national guidelines identified through the literature search were mentioned by 1/3 of HPs in the UK and Germany, 13 % of HPs in the Netherlands, 14 % in Italy and 4 % in Spain. An additional 41 hepatitis B/C related guidance documents were retrieved through the online survey: 15 in the UK, seven in Hungary, six in Italy, five in the Netherlands, four in Germany and four in Spain. Availability of training programmes to improve skills and knowledge in viral hepatitis was most often reported in the Netherlands, with 82 % indicating availability and just 10 % indicating no availability, and least commonly in Italy, with 42 % indicating yes but 40 % indicating no. Availability was also reported by the majority in the UK, Hungary and Spain, while in Germany the majority selected unsure. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the scientific databases are not the most important information source of best clinical practice for many HPs. Implementation of best practices requires that guidelines are specifically designed and actively promoted among those who are to follow them. Training can disseminate these best practice recommendations and raise awareness of guidelines. It is therefore encouraging that diverse training about hepatitis B/C is available to the different professional groups.

The global impact of non-communicable diseases on macro-economic productivity: a systematic review.

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have large economic impact at multiple levels. To systematically review the literature investigating the economic impact of NCDs [including coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), cancer (lung, colon, cervical and breast), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD)] on macro-economic productivity. Systematic search, up to November 6th 2014, of medical databases (Medline, Embase and Google Scholar) without language restrictions. To identify additional publications, we searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted authors in the field. Randomized controlled trials, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, ecological studies and modelling studies carried out in adults (>18 years old) were included. Two independent reviewers performed all abstract and full text selection. Disagreements were resolved through consensus or consulting a third reviewer. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a predesigned data collection form. Main outcome measure was the impact of the selected NCDs on productivity, measured in DALYs, productivity costs, and labor market participation, including unemployment, return to work and sick leave. From 4542 references, 126 studies met the inclusion criteria, many of which focused on the impact of more than one NCD on productivity. Breast cancer was the most common (n = 45), followed by stroke (n = 31), COPD (n = 24), colon cancer (n = 24), DM (n = 22), lung cancer (n = 16), CVD (n = 15), cervical cancer (n = 7) and CKD (n = 2). Four studies were from the WHO African Region, 52 from the European Region, 53 from the Region of the Americas and 16 from the Western Pacific Region, one from the Eastern Mediterranean Region and none from South East Asia. We found large regional differences in DALYs attributable to NCDs but especially for cervical and lung cancer. Productivity losses in the USA ranged from 88 million US dollars (USD) for COPD to 20.9 billion USD for colon cancer. CHD costs the Australian economy 13.2 billion USD per year. People with DM, COPD and survivors of breast and especially lung cancer are at a higher risk of reduced labor market participation. Overall NCDs generate a large impact on macro-economic productivity in most WHO regions irrespective of continent and income. The absolute global impact in terms of dollars and DALYs remains an elusive challenge due to the wide heterogeneity in the included studies as well as limited information from low- and middle-income countries.

The global impact of non-communicable diseases on healthcare spending and national income: a systematic review.

The impact of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in populations extends beyond ill-health and mortality with large financial consequences. To systematically review and meta-analyze studies evaluating the impact of NCDs (including coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cancer (lung, colon, cervical and breast), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic kidney disease) at the macro-economic level: healthcare spending and national income. Medical databases (Medline, Embase and Google Scholar) up to November 6th 2014. For further identification of suitable studies, we searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field. We included randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional, modeling and ecological studies carried out in adults assessing the economic consequences of NCDs on healthcare spending and national income without language restrictions. All abstracts and full text selection was done by two independent reviewers. Any disagreements were resolved through consensus or consultation of a third reviewer. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers using a pre-designed data collection form. Studies evaluating the impact of at least one of the selected NCDs on at least one of the following outcome measures: healthcare expenditure, national income, hospital spending, gross domestic product (GDP), gross national product, net national income, adjusted national income, total costs, direct costs, indirect costs, inpatient costs, outpatient costs, per capita healthcare spending, aggregate economic outcome, capital loss in production levels in a country, economic growth, GDP per capita (per capita income), percentage change in GDP, intensive growth, extensive growth, employment, direct governmental expenditure and non-governmental expenditure. From 4,364 references, 153 studies met our inclusion criteria. Most of the studies were focused on healthcare related costs of NCDs. 30 studies reported the economic impact of NCDs on healthcare budgets and 13 on national income. Healthcare expenditure for cardiovascular disease (12-16.5 %) was the highest; other NCDs ranged between 0.7 and 7.4 %. NCD-related health costs vary across the countries, regions, and according to type of NCD. Additionally, there is an increase in costs with increased severity and years lived with the disease. Low- and middle-income (LMI) countries were the focus of just 16 papers, which suggests an information shortage concerning the true economic burden of NCDs in these countries. NCDs pose a significant financial burden on healthcare budgets and nations' welfare, which is likely to increase over time. However further work is required to standardize more consistently the methods available to assess the economic impact of NCDs and to involve (hitherto under-addressed) LMI populations across the globe.

The global impact of non-communicable diseases on households and impoverishment: a systematic review.

The global economic impact of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) on household expenditures and poverty indicators remains less well understood. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature evaluating the global economic impact of six NCDs [including coronary heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), cancer (lung, colon, cervical and breast), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD)] on households and impoverishment. Medline, Embase and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to November 6th 2014. To identify additional publications, reference lists of retrieved studies were searched. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, cohorts, case-control, cross-sectional, modeling and ecological studies carried out in adults and assessing the economic consequences of NCDs on households and impoverishment. No language restrictions. All abstract and full text selection was done by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers and checked by a third independent reviewer. Studies were included evaluating the impact of at least one of the selected NCDs and on at least one of the following measures: expenditure on medication, transport, co-morbidities, out-of-pocket (OOP) payments or other indirect costs; impoverishment, poverty line and catastrophic spending; household or individual financial cost. From 3,241 references, 64 studies met the inclusion criteria, 75% of which originated from the Americas and Western Pacific WHO region. Breast cancer and DM were the most studied NCDs (42 in total); CKD and COPD were the least represented (five and three studies respectively). OOP payments and financial catastrophe, mostly defined as OOP exceeding a certain proportion of household income, were the most studied outcomes. OOP expenditure as a proportion of family income, ranged between 2 and 158% across the different NCDs and countries. Financial catastrophe due to the selected NCDs was seen in all countries and at all income levels, and occurred in 6-84% of the households depending on the chosen catastrophe threshold. In 16 low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), 6-11% of the total population would be impoverished at a 1.25 US dollar/day poverty line if they would have to purchase lowest price generic diabetes medication. NCDs impose a large and growing global impact on households and impoverishment, in all continents and levels of income. The true extent, however, remains difficult to determine due to the heterogeneity across existing studies in terms of populations studied, outcomes reported and measures employed. The impact that NCDs exert on households and impoverishment is likely to be underestimated since important economic domains, such as coping strategies and the inclusion of marginalized and vulnerable people who do not seek health care due to financial reasons, are overlooked in literature. Given the scarcity of information on specific regions, further research to estimate impact of NCDs on households and impoverishment in LMIC, especially the Middle Eastern, African and Latin American regions is required.