Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30482265›Full record

ArticleEuro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin2018

A comparison of two biological markers of recent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection: implications for the monitoring of interventions and strategies to reduce HCV transmission among people who inject drugs.

Vivian D Hope, Ross J Harris, Peter Vickerman, Lucy Platt, Justin Shute, Katelyn J Cullen, Samreen Ijaz, Sema Mandal, Fortune Ncube, Monica Desai and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vivian D HopePublic Health Institute, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Ross J HarrisNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Peter VickermanUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Lucy PlattFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Justin ShuteNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Katelyn J CullenNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Samreen IjazNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Sema MandalNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Fortune NcubeNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Monica DesaiNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
John V ParryNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Public Health England · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health 12/3070/13
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BackgroundMonitoring hepatitis C virus (HCV) incidence is important for assessing intervention impact. Longitudinal studies of people who inject drugs (PWID), using repeated biological tests, are costly; alternatively, incidence can be estimated using biological markers of recent infection in cross-sectional studies.AimWe aimed to compare incidence estimates obtained from two different biological markers of recent infection in a cross-sectional study to inform monitoring approaches for HCV elimination strategies.MethodSamples from an unlinked anonymous bio-behavioural survey of PWID were tested for two recent infection markers: HCV RNA with anti-HCV negative ('RNA') and low-avidity anti-HCV with HCV RNA present ('avidity'). These two markers were used separately and in combination to estimate HCV incidence.ResultsBetween 2011 and 2013, 2,816 anti-HIV-negative PWID (25% female) who had injected during the preceding year were either HCV-negative or had one of the two markers of recent infection: 57 (2.0%) had the RNA marker and 90 (3.2%) the avidity marker. The two markers had similar distributions of risk and demographic factors. Pooled estimated incidence was 12.3 per 100 person-years (pyrs) (95% credible interval: 8.8-17.0) and not significantly different to avidity-only (p = 0.865) and RNA-only (p = 0.691) estimates. However, the RNA marker is limited by its short duration before anti-HCV seroconversion and the avidity marker by uncertainty around its duration.ConclusionBoth markers have utility in monitoring HCV incidence among PWID. When HCV transmission is high, one marker may provide an accurate estimate of incidence; when it is low or decreasing, a combination may be required.

Indexed as

AdultBiomarkersCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHepacivirusHepatitis CHepatitis C AntibodiesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedNorthern IrelandPrevalenceRNA, ViralSubstance Abuse, IntravenousBiomarkersHepatitis C AntibodiesRNA, Viralhepatitis Cincidenceintervention impactmonitoringpeople who inject drugs

Identifiers

PMID30482265
PMCPMC6341939
OpenAlexW2900909338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.