Prevalence of hepatitis C infection among the general population and high-risk groups in the EU/EEA: a systematic review update

Abstract

Background Although significant improvement in efficacy measured by a sustained virological response, the high acquisition costs of direct-acting antivirals limit the access for patients and influence the costs of healthcare resource utilisation in hepatitis C. It is important to have the latest estimates of prevalence, especially in high-risk groups, for cost of illness, cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies. Methods Original studies on the estimates of the prevalence among general and high-risk groups in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) were retrieved from Medline and Embase for the period from 2015 to 2018. All included studies were evaluated for risk of selection bias and summarised together in a narrative form. Results from previous reviews and updated searches were compared per country among different populations, respectively. Results Among the 3871 studies identified, 46 studies were included: 20 studies were used for the estimate of the general population; 3 for men who have sex with men (MSM); 6 for prisoners; and 17 for people who inject drugs (PWID). Compared with the results reported in previous systematic reviews, the updated estimates were lower than previously in most available countries. Anti-HCV general population prevalence estimates ranged from 0.54 to 1.50% by country. The highest prevalence of anti-HCV was found among PWID (range of 7.90–82.00%), followed by prisoners (7.00–41.00%), HIV-positive MSM (1.80–7.10%), HIV-negative MSM (0.20–1.80%), pregnant women (0.10–1.32%) and first-time blood donors (0.03–0.09%). Conclusions Our study highlights the heterogeneity in anti-HCV prevalence across different population groups in EU/EEA. The prevalence also varies widely between European countries. There are many countries that are not represented in our results, highlighting the need for the development of robust epidemiological studies. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-019-4284-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Prevalence of HCV Infection and Risk Factors in a Hospital- Based Population Screening, a First Step to the Micro-Elimination of HCV Infection in Medical Institutions from Romania - Results of the HepC ALERT Study

“…The global estimated viremic HCV prevalence is around 1%, corresponding to a number of 71 million persons w it h p o s it ive HC V R NA worldwide. The mean prevalence in Europe is 0.65%, and Romania occupies the first place with 2.5% HCV prevalence, corresponding to 550,000 patients with positive viral loads [1,2]. Due to the asymptomatic character of the infection, most people (>80%) are unaware of HCV positivity, are not tested, diagnosed and treated on time, in this way spreading the virus and discovering their condition when in advanced stages of liver disease [3].…”

Potential interactions between pangenotypic direct-acting antivirals and concomitant cardiovascular therapies in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection

“…Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is a worldwide public health problem with an estimated prevalence of 1% to 2% among the general population. 1 – 4 Research into viral replication mechanisms has identified potential therapeutic targets. 5 The development of new direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) against HCV was a great step forward in the treatment of this infection.…”

Clinical, Epidemiological, and Geospatial Characteristics of Patients Infected with Hepatitis C Virus Treated with Second-Generation Direct-Action Antivirals in a Reference Center in a Mesoregion of São Paulo State, Brazil

“…This rate is about 10-fold lower than the 6.7 cases per 100,000 inhabitants found in Brazil between 2001 and 2012, and 45-fold lower than the incidence rates found countrywide in 2017 (11.9 cases per 100,000 inhabitants) [33]. The incidence rates found in Brazil are much lower than in developed countries such as Canada and the United States and countries in Europe, which have much more developed and efficient screening and notification systems [34,35]. The reasons why the incidence levels were lower countrywide and worldwide than in the western region are not well established.…”