Ned Calonge, MD, MPH; Gurvaneet Randhawa, MD, MPH
Disclaimer: The authors of this article are responsible for its contents, including any clinical or treatment recommendations. No statement in this article should be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest: None disclosed.
Requests for Single Reprints: Reprints are available from the USPSTF Web site (www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov) and in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (800-358-9295).
Current Author Addresses: Dr. Calonge: Chair, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, c/o Program Director, USPSTF, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850.
Dr. Randhawa: Center for Outcomes and Evidence, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) formulates evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. These recommendations are communicated by letter grades that reflect the quality of evidence and the magnitude of net health benefit expected from delivering the preventive service. When the USPSTF finds insufficient evidence to determine the balance of health benefits or harms of delivering a preventive service, because of a lack of studies, poor-quality studies, or good-quality studies with conflicting results, the USPSTF assigns the service an I letter grade. The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening for hepatitis C virus infection in high-risk individuals (I letter grade). This recommendation reflects the need for further research that would provide adequate evidence to assess the net health benefit for persons screened for hepatitis C virus infection.
The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.
Amy L. Webb
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
December 15, 2004
Importance of Screening High-Risk Patients for HCV
To the Editor:
I disagree with the USPSTF Grade I recommendation on screening high- risk patients for hepatitis C (HCV). They were based on lack of research studies, not lack of evidence (trials with unfavorable results). I agree with Alter et al and other respected members of the foremost hepatology society, and offer two additional points.
First, the morbidity and mortality of HCV were underestimated. At least 20% of HCV-infected patients develop cirrhosis after 20 years (not 10-20% after 20-30 years) with the median patient developing cirrhosis after 38 years and HIV-coinfected after 28 years. The incidence of HCC is already increasing . The mortality from HCV will increase in less than a decade and thereafter decline. Before the results of long-term prospective trials are compiled, many patients will succumb or have serious disease ineligible for treatment. Without systematic identification of asymptomatic infected patients for treatment, the future disease burden will remain high.
The second point likens HCV to HIV. Prior to HAART, the prognosis of HIV was poor. There were no recommendations against screening because of lack of treatment or profound social consequences. Had restrictions in HIV screening existed, perhaps therapeutic developments would have been hampered. In contrast, HCV screening is scrutinized at a time when short- term RCTs demonstrate cure in most patients and prospective treatment data are nearing completion (HALT-C and COPILOT). Discouraging HCV screening may adversely affect research and allow undiagnosed patients to act as reservoirs of infection. Recognizing this, the VA and Red Cross routinely screen for HCV with beneficial results.
I urge practitioners to screen high-risk patients. The opinion that a diagnosis of HCV may cause "anxiety and labeling" is not supported by the literature. A change in society's view similar to that of the HIV movement in the 1990's could remedy discrimination. A transformation of physicians' stance, from passive to proactive in the management of HCV, should lead this movement.
Amy Webb, MD University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio San Antonio, TX 78229
Calonge N, Randhawa G. The Meaning of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grade I Recommendation: Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection. Ann Intern Med. ;141:718–719. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-9-200411020-00014
Download citation file:
Published: Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(9):718-719.
Infectious Disease, Prevention/Screening.
Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.
Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704
Conditions of Use