Hostname: page-component-7d684dbfc8-tqxhq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-09-23T06:58:27.060Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false

Identifying newly acquired cases of hepatitis C using surveillance: a literature review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2012

Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia Melbourne School of Population Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
*Author for correspondence: Ms. R. Sacks-Davis, Centre for Population Health, 85 Commercial Rd, Melbourne, Victoria, 3004, Australia. (Email:
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]


Surveillance of newly acquired hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is crucial for understanding the epidemiology of HCV and informing public health practice. However, monitoring such infections via surveillance systems is challenging because they are commonly asymptomatic. A literature review was conducted to identify methodologies used by HCV surveillance systems to identify newly acquired infections; relevant surveillance systems in 15 countries were identified. Surveillance systems used three main strategies to identify newly acquired infections: (1) asking physicians to classify cases; (2) identifying symptomatic cases or cases with elevated alanine aminotransferases; and (3) identifying cases with documented evidence of anti-HCV antibody seroconversion within a specific time-frame. Case-ascertainment methods varied with greater completeness of data in enhanced compared to passive surveillance systems. Automated systems that extract and link testing data from multiple laboratory and clinic databases may provide an opportunity for collecting testing histories for individuals that is less resource intensive than enhanced surveillance.

Review Article
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012


Globally, an estimated 180 million people are infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV), with an estimated 3–4 million new infections each year [1]. In developed countries, the primary at-risk population for HCV infection are people who inject drugs (PWID) [1, Reference Shepard, Finelli and Alter2], with other related factors such as incarceration and homelessness [Reference Galea and Vlahov3] contributing further to HCV risk. Recently, HCV transmissions in Europe, USA, UK, Canada, and Australia have been reported in HIV-infected men who have sex with men who did not report injecting drug use, suggesting that sexual risk practices in this population may make a contribution, albeit small, to HCV transmissions in developed countries [Reference van de Laar4, Reference Gamage5]. In developing countries, in addition to injecting drug use, unsafe medical injections and blood transfusions still account for a significant proportion of newly acquired HCV infections [Reference Shepard, Finelli and Alter2].

In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted a resolution calling for comprehensive prevention and control of viral hepatitis [6]. Surveillance of HCV is recommended by the WHO; however, the chaotic lifestyle of many PWID and non-disclosure of risk practices stemming from stigmatizing attitudes towards PWID mean that this at-risk group are often not tested for HCV, or not tested in a timely fashion [Reference Zickmund711]. Furthermore, newly acquired HCV is symptomatic in only about 15% of cases [Reference Maheshwari, Ray and Thuluvath12]. As a result, very few cases are detected in the early stages, with the majority detected after the patient has either cleared their infection spontaneously or progressed to chronicity [Reference Seeff13]. Furthermore, there is no incidence assay for HCV, making it difficult to identify newly acquired infection unless the patient has symptoms of acute HCV or has previously tested negative for anti-HCV antibodies.

While acknowledging the difficulty of monitoring newly acquired HCV infection and the challenges associated with reaching PWID, robust surveillance of HCV, including the ability to detect newly acquired infection, has major public health implications. Monitoring newly acquired infection is important for identifying changes in transmission rates, identifying patterns of infection, detecting outbreaks, providing the capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of public health interventions, and for developing projections of the burden of disease [Reference Buehler, Rothman and Greenland14, 15]. In addition, recent HCV treatment studies show that patients treated in the early stage of their infection are more likely to attain a sustained virological response than those who are treated in the chronic stages [Reference Kamal16Reference Dore19]. In addition to the potential benefits for individual patients, timely treatment of PWID has potential public health benefits for the prevention of onward transmission [Reference Martin20Reference Vickerman, Martin and Hickman24]. Thus, identifying newly acquired infections has implications for individual case management and for reducing future burden of disease.

In light of the aforementioned challenges, we conducted a literature review of methodologies for identifying newly acquired cases of HCV through HCV surveillance. The aim was to identify reports on existing surveillance systems and surveillance pilots that specify methodologies for monitoring newly acquired cases of HCV; and to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these surveillance methodologies in order to inform and improve surveillance of newly acquired HCV in the future.


Investigators conducted searches between February 2009 and March 2011 using various combinations of the terms; hepatitis C, chronic hepatitis C, acute hepatitis C, hepatitis C virus, population surveillance, sentinel surveillance, enhanced surveillance, disease notification, mandatory reporting, and registries. Searches were conducted using Ovid Medline 1996 to present with daily update ( and ISI Web of Science ( Additional peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature were identified by searching the bibliographies of articles identified in these initial searches, and through searches of government websites. Literature describing methodologies of HCV surveillance systems or pilots for surveillance systems were included in the review if they discussed surveillance methodologies for identifying newly acquired cases of HCV. Pertinent definitions of HCV surveillance and classifications of surveillance methodologies are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Key definitions


Literature were identified describing surveillance methodologies for monitoring newly acquired cases of HCV in 15 countries [Reference Overhage, Grannis and McDonald27Reference Tweed56]. A further 20 surveillance systems operating in these countries, and additional surveillance systems operating in 21 other countries were excluded because they did not distinguish between newly acquired and other cases of HCV [28, Reference Strauss and Bigham57Reference Ximenes79].

In the absence of a specific HCV incidence assay being available, case definitions and case-ascertainment methodologies for monitoring newly acquired HCV differed between surveillance systems. None of the literature explicitly discussed HCV re-infection. Therefore, it is likely that case definitions for newly acquired infection were designed for identifying newly acquired primary HCV infection only. Cases were typically classified as newly acquired using one or more of the following criteria:

  1. (a) physician classified – no formal case definition;

  2. (b) clinical symptoms consistent with newly acquired viral hepatitis combined with laboratory confirmation of anti-HCV antibodies and/or HCV RNA;

  3. (c) clinical symptoms consistent with newly acquired viral hepatitis or elevated liver function test scores, combined with laboratory confirmation of anti-HCV antibodies and/or HCV RNA;

  4. (d) documented anti-HCV antibody seroconversion within a particular time-frame (the time-frames used ranged from 6 months to 2 years).

These criteria are discussed in detail below.

Criterion (a): Physician classified – no formal case definition

Only one published study has evaluated the accuracy of physicians' classifications of newly acquired infections. Physicians who notified HCV cases in the Australian state of New South Wales between August 1996 and August 1997 were asked to classify cases as newly acquired HCV on the basis of either a previous recent negative anti-HCV antibody test or clinical signs of newly acquired HCV. Physicians' classifications were evaluated through medical record review. Forty-two percent of 54 cases that were classified as newly acquired by physicians were found not to be newly acquired during the validation process, underlining the challenging task facing physicians to accurately classify newly acquired HCV infections [Reference Staff33].

Criterion (b): Clinical symptoms consistent with newly acquired viral hepatitis combined with laboratory confirmation of anti-HCV antibodies and/or HCV RNA

Case definitions for surveillance of viral hepatitis recommended by the WHO, and official bodies in the USA and in the European Union until 2008, have traditionally focused exclusively on symptomatic newly acquired HCV [15, 80, 81]. This case definition is still used in a number of surveillance systems operating in jurisdictions in the USA, in European countries such as Denmark, Hungary, Portugal and Spain, as well as some other countries such as Saudi Arabia [Reference Overhage, Grannis and McDonald27, 28, Reference Olmsted34, Reference Sokol35, Reference Spada45Reference Mele47, Reference Memish, Knawy and El-Saed54]. Our literature search found that no formal evaluation of this method has been undertaken; however, this method is likely to underreport newly acquired infection as most newly acquired HCV cases are asymptomatic [Reference Maheshwari, Ray and Thuluvath12]. Furthermore, the subset reported may not be representative of all HCV cases because symptomatic patients may have different transmission routes [Reference Haley and Fischer82] and a different natural history to asymptomatic patients, with clearance of infection being more likely in symptomatic patients [Reference Maheshwari, Ray and Thuluvath12]. Moreover, collecting clinical information is challenging and newly diagnosed chronic cases may be misclassified as newly acquired cases if clinical information is not collected. An investigation of an observed increase in HCV notifications after the introduction of laboratory testing for HCV-specific antibodies in the USA found that about half the jurisdictions accepted cases on the basis of laboratory reports alone, and discrete dates of onset of symptoms were required by only 36% of counties, leading to artificial increases in newly acquired HCV case notifications [Reference Olmsted34].

Criterion (c): Clinical symptoms consistent with newly acquired viral hepatitis or elevated liver function test scores, combined with laboratory confirmation of anti-HCV antibodies and/or HCV RNA

One variation on surveillance of newly acquired symptomatic infection that allows for the inclusion of some asymptomatic cases is adopting a case definition that includes liver function test scores alongside anti-HCV antibody and/or HCV RNA testing. This method defines a laboratory-confirmed case as newly acquired if there are clinical signs or elevated liver function test results. Bulgaria, Greece, The Netherlands, and Egypt utilize the latter case definition in their surveillance systems [28, Reference Talaat29]. This variation allows asymptomatic cases to be reported if there are elevated liver function test results. Although no studies have evaluated the impact of using this case definition, compared to definitions that require cases to be symptomatic for inclusion, it is likely that a greater proportion of true newly acquired cases may be captured using this definition. There is, however, a risk that some people with late-stage chronic HCV may be erroneously included if their liver function is elevated [Reference Pradat83].

Criterion (d): Documented anti-HCV antibody seroconversion within a particular time-frame (the time-frames used ranged from 6 months to 2 years)

Another method of defining newly acquired cases that does not limit case ascertainment to symptomatic cases is to identify cases with evidence of anti-HCV seroconversion. That is, cases are defined as people with a negative anti-HCV antibody test, followed by a subsequent positive anti-HCV antibody test within a specified time period. Australian, Canadian, Swedish and UK surveillance systems have monitored newly acquired infection through collecting evidence of recent seroconversion, where recent was defined as within 6 months (Sweden), 1 year (Canada), 2 years (Australia), or was not defined (UK) [28, Reference Selvey30Reference Staff33, Reference elSaadany, Gully and Giulivi40Reference Zou42, Reference Brant55, Reference Tweed56]. In an Australian enhanced surveillance system, in which cases with demonstrated antibody seroconversion within 2 years were classified as newly acquired, 70% of newly acquired infections identified over an 18-month period were asymptomatic. This is the highest reported proportion of asymptomatic newly acquired infections identified in any surveillance system reviewed here [Reference Maheshwari, Ray and Thuluvath12, Reference Guy32], and underlines the limitations associated with monitoring newly acquired infections using symptomatic diagnostic presentations alone. In some surveillance systems, a combination of case definitions are used to capture symptomatic cases as well as cases with prior negative tests [28].

Case-ascertainment methodologies

While passive surveillance continues to be the dominant method of surveillance in many countries, other methods have also been used, including a range of enhanced and automated methods, to identify newly acquired cases (case-ascertainment methodologies are defined in Table 1). A recent evaluation of newly acquired HCV surveillance in the USA, where cases were defined on the basis of clinical and laboratory data, found that data on clinical symptoms were available for 98% of cases in enhanced surveillance systems compared to 63% of cases in passive surveillance. Where enhanced surveillance systems operated in the same jurisdictions as passive systems, 22% of cases identified by enhanced surveillance were not identified through passive surveillance [51].

In Australia and Canada, the majority of systems that monitored newly acquired HCV were enhanced surveillance systems, in which evidence of prior negative HCV-specific antibody tests or records of clinical newly acquired infection were requested through contact with notifying physicians or laboratories. A number of different enhanced surveillance methods for identifying and/or confirming newly acquired cases with evidence of anti-HCV antibody seroconversion have been implemented or trialled in these countries. These methods include systems that collect additional information on (i) all cases [Reference Selvey30, Reference Wu41, Reference Zou42], (ii) a random subset of cases [Reference Tobin84], and (iii) specific subsets of cases targeted as likely new infections [Reference Guy32]. In the latter surveillance system, cases were targeted for follow-up if they had been nominated as newly acquired by the physician in the original notification, had clinical or laboratory indicators of newly acquired infection, or were aged 16–19 years. Two pilots in the Australian state of Victoria selected similar proportions of all notifications for follow-up; the first used random selection (10% of cases selected), and the second used targeted follow-up (9% of cases selected). A greater proportion of all notified cases were classified as newly acquired using targeted follow-up (3%) compared to follow-up of randomly selected cases (1%), suggesting that the former methodology is more efficient for identifying newly acquired cases. When random selection was used, almost 80% of cases that were followed up could neither be classified as newly acquired nor persistent chronic, based on the available information. A third Australian pilot followed up all notified cases; when all notified cases were followed up, 4% of cases were classified as newly acquired [Reference Guy32, Reference Tobin84]. Similarly, a Canadian surveillance system that followed up all notified cases classified 4% of confirmed cases as newly acquired [Reference Zou42]. The Canadian system, the Australian pilot that followed up all notified cases, and the Australian pilot that selected a targeted group of cases for follow-up, only classified cases as newly acquired or other [Reference Guy32, Reference Zou42, Reference Tobin84].

While enhanced surveillance is useful for collecting detailed clinical and/or prior testing data, this method is expensive. An alternative approach for monitoring newly acquired HCV infection is to use automated systems. A study in the USA found that linking laboratory data from major testing laboratories with medical records captured 96% of unique newly acquired HCV diagnoses where cases were defined using combined clinical and laboratory data [Reference Overhage, Grannis and McDonald27]. Automated systems have also been used for collecting testing history for individual patients and in this way, identifying seroconversions. In British Columbia, Canada, a single laboratory is responsible for all confirmatory HCV testing. As a result, the laboratory database was able to be used to identify individuals with evidence of seroconversion within a specified period (5·6 new infections per 100 000 population were identified in 2005) [Reference Kuo58]. In the UK, a linked-laboratory surveillance system extracted test results from 20 public health and hospital laboratories and linked them using patient clinic number, date of birth, sex and, when available, soundex (the sound of the name). This system was able to identify repeat HCV tests in 14% of the 12 314 individuals who were tested for HCV at sexual health clinics between 2002 and 2007, and in those individuals, 80 anti-HCV seroconversions were confirmed (the testing intervals were not reported). Of the 58 144 individuals who were tested for HCV in four former public health laboratories and four public hospitals between 2002 and 2003, 10% had repeat tests, and in those individuals 23 anti-HCV seroconversions were confirmed (the median test interval was 5 months) [Reference Brant55, Reference Tweed56].


Despite the public health importance of monitoring newly acquired cases of HCV using surveillance, there was very little literature in this area. The available literature suggests that a considerable number of developed countries lack surveillance systems with the capacity to detect newly acquired infection and that those surveillance systems that do seek to detect newly acquired infection are limited in their capacity to do so. We identified surveillance systems or pilots for surveillance systems that could identify newly acquired infection in only 15 countries. In the most part, the methods used in these systems provided unreliable estimates of the true incidence of newly acquired HCV. In addition, there were a considerable number of countries without any surveillance systems capable of identifying newly acquired infection. This demonstrates that distinguishing between new cases and chronic cases remains a challenge for HCV surveillance.

Case definitions for surveillance of newly acquired infections remain problematical. The WHO, some European countries, and the USA continue to recommend surveillance of newly acquired symptomatic infection alone despite 85% of infections being asymptomatic. Apart from grossly underestimating the true number of newly acquired cases, the minority of cases that are identified using this approach also fail to represent newly acquired cases in general, as symptomatic cases have been found to differ in their routes of transmission, and natural history [Reference Maheshwari, Ray and Thuluvath12, Reference Haley and Fischer82]. Enhanced surveillance methodologies developed in Canada and Australia that collect information from notifying physicians and laboratories on prior testing histories have been able to identify asymptomatic cases in addition to symptomatic cases. However, these systems rely on the notifying physician providing a HCV testing history for each patient. When cases in an Australian surveillance system were randomly selected for follow-up, a considerable proportion (80%) could not be classified due to lack of available historical testing data. Although the proportion of cases that could be classified as newly acquired increased when cases were targeted for follow-up based on specific criteria, enhanced surveillance continues to be a resource-intensive method for monitoring newly acquired infection [Reference Guy32, Reference Tobin84].

None of the literature reviewed discussed re-infection, so case definitions for newly acquired HCV are likely to have been designed mainly to identify newly acquired primary HCV infection. Indeed, until recently there was little awareness of HCV re-infection [Reference Seeff85]. However, recent studies have shown that re-infection incidence is as high, or potentially higher, than primary infection incidence in PWID [Reference Aitken86Reference Vickerman94]. While criteria for classifying newly acquired infection based on anti-HCV seroconversion [criterion (d) above] exclude newly acquired re-infection, criteria based on clinical symptoms and/or elevated alanine aminotransferases (ALT) [criteria (b) and (c) above] cannot distinguish between newly acquired primary infection and newly acquired re-infection.

Automated laboratory surveillance has been used in a limited capacity in some jurisdictions and appears to be a promising method for identifying newly acquired cases. Using automated laboratory surveillance, anti-HCV antibody testing history can be collated for individual patients, enabling the identification of newly acquired primary infections [Reference Brant55, Reference Tweed56]. Newly acquired primary infection can be confirmed on the basis of an anti-HCV negative test followed by an anti-HCV positive test or on the basis of a single anti-HCV-negative, HCV RNA-positive test [Reference Hope95Reference Turner97]. Single anti-HCV-positive tests with elevated ALT results and exclusion of HBV seroconversion may be classified as possible newly acquired cases if there was no previous anti-HCV test; however, in this case it is not possible to classify participants as having primary infection or re-infection.

Although this has not been implemented, if longitudinal HCV RNA testing for individual HCV-exposed patients were available, this would enable automated laboratory surveillance systems to identify newly acquired re-infections in addition to newly acquired primary infections. In this context, the simplest case definition for a newly acquired re-infection is one anti-HCV-positive, HCV RNA-negative test followed by an HCV RNA-positive test. However, this definition lacks specificity because it cannot distinguish between re-infection and reduction in HCV viral load below the limit of detection followed by an increase in HCV viral load. The specificity could be improved by requiring evidence of either multiple consecutive HCV RNA-negative tests prior to the HCV RNA-positive test or a change in HCV genotype. Similar classification schemes for re-infection have been used in longitudinal studies of HCV re-infection in PWID [Reference Aitken86Reference van de Laar93].

Regardless of the case definitions used, the ability of a linked-laboratory surveillance system to identify newly acquired primary infections, re-infections and/or co-infections will depend on the frequency at which high-risk groups are tested in the community. Currently, there are no Australian, Canadian, or USA HCV guidelines that specify the frequency at which high-risk groups should be tested. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction advise testing PWID for a range of infections including HCV every 6–12 months (although specific laboratory tests are not mentioned) [98]; however, HCV-specific European practice guidelines do not discuss frequency of testing [99Reference Calvaruso and Craxì102]. If HCV testing frequency guidelines were developed, automated laboratory surveillance systems would provide an opportunity to evaluate implementation through monitoring how often at-risk populations are tested for HCV and which tests are performed.

The surveillance of newly acquired infection has multiple purposes, including some that are motivated at the individual level (e.g. facilitation of early treatment to prevent HCV progression) and some that are motivated at the public health level (e.g. preventing onward transmission of HCV, predicting future disease burden and health system requirements, identifying changes in transmission rates and patterns of infection, detecting outbreaks, and providing the capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of public health interventions). While the ability of the system to deliver on these functions will be sensitive to the HCV testing frequency in the population, it is worth noting that many of these functions could be achieved with testing frequencies of 1–2 years or longer. Studies of combination pegylated interferon-ribavirin treatment for HCV have shown that cases treated within the first 2 years of infection have high treatment success rates [Reference Kamal16Reference Dore19]; and the introduction of newer, more effective, therapies may mean that this window of opportunity for early treatment will become longer in the future [Reference Chary and Holodniy103, Reference Gane104]. Infections that do not result in spontaneous clearance are responsible for the majority of disease burden, and are also most amenable to treatment interventions, so in order to project future disease burden and health system requirements and facilitate treatment interventions, identifying infections prior to spontaneous clearance is unnecessary. Notably, frequent testing should be targeted to those most at risk of infection and onward transmission. In particular, in order to effectively prevent onward transmission of HCV in PWID, the main consideration is that infections need to be identified while the individual is still injecting, highlighting the importance of regularly testing this group for HCV [Reference Vickerman94].

We acknowledge that the surveillance systems identified are likely to represent only a subset of all HCV surveillance systems operating globally, and that some relevant literature may not have been included due to limiting our review to the English-language literature. Nonetheless, our findings suggests the important field of HCV surveillance has not been sufficiently studied nor communicated, and significant resourcing is required to undertake research into developing surveillance systems that adequately monitor the disease.

Despite the importance of accurately monitoring the extent of HCV transmission in the population through the accurate detection of newly acquired HCV infection, this review found that most HCV surveillance systems are limited in their ability to identify such infections. This finding suggests it is time to rethink how we undertake HCV surveillance. Current case definitions are limited for detecting newly acquired primary infection and do not consider newly acquired re-infection. Passive and enhanced case-ascertainment methods have similarly had limited success in identifying newly acquired infections. Automated extraction of data collected by laboratories is one possible alternative to passive and enhanced surveillance. More research is required to determine whether data-linkage between laboratories can be used to collect longitudinal testing data on individuals who are at risk of acquiring HCV or have already been exposed to HCV, and whether this method can be used to effectively identify new infections, including re-infections. The ability of laboratory surveillance systems to identify newly acquired infections will depend on the testing frequency of at-risk groups; nonetheless, at minimum, automated linked laboratory systems provide an opportunity to investigate and evaluate clinical HCV testing practices.


We thank Hilary Veale for her assistance reading the literature identified in the database search conducted in March 2011. This work was undertaken as part of a project conducted for the Communicable Diseases Branch Health Protection Directorate Division of the Chief Health Officer, Queensland Health. In addition to Queensland Health, the authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution to this work of the Victorian Operational Infrastructure Support Program to the Burnet Institute. Margaret Hellard receives funding from the NHMRC for a Senior Research Fellowship. This work was conducted while Caroline van Gemert was a Master of Applied Epidemiology (MAE) Scholar. The MAE was funded by the Australian Department of Health and Ageing.





World Health Organization. Viral cancers ( Geneva: World Health Organization. Accessed 5 January 2009.Google Scholar
Shepard, CW, Finelli, L, Alter, MJ. Global epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection. Lancet Infectious Diseases 2005; 5: 558567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galea, S, Vlahov, D. Social determinants and the health of drug users: socioeconomic status, homelessness, and incarceration. Public Health Reports 2002; 117: S135 145.Google Scholar
van de Laar, TJ, et al. Acute hepatitis C in HIV-infected men who have sex with men: an emerging sexually transmitted infection. AIDS 2010; 24: 17991812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamage, DG, et al. Incidence of hepatitis-C among HIV infected men who have sex with men (MSM) attending a sexual health service: a cohort study. BMC Infectious Diseases 2011; 11: 39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. Sixty-third World Health Assembly: agenda item 11.12 (, 2010. Accessed April 2011.Google Scholar
Zickmund, S, et al. ‘They treated me like a leper’. Stigmatization and the quality of life of patients with hepatitis C. Journal of General Internal Medicine 2003; 18: 835844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edlin, BR. Hepatitis C prevention and treatment for substance users in the United States: acknowledging the elephant in the living room. International Journal of Drug Policy 2004; 15: 8191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N, et al. Why physicians are unprepared to treat patients who have alcohol- and drug-related disorders. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2001; 76: 410418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stoove, M, Gifford, S, Dore, G. The impact of injecting drug use status on hepatitis C-related referral and treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2005; 77: 8186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Applied Economics. Economic evaluation of hepatitis C in Australia. Sydney: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2005.Google ScholarPubMed
Maheshwari, A, Ray, S, Thuluvath, PJ. Acute hepatitis C. Lancet 2008; 372: 321332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seeff, L. Natural history of chronic hepatitis C. Hepatology 2002; 36: S3546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buehler, J. Surveillance. In: Rothman, KJ, Greenland, S, eds. Modern Epidemiology, 2nd edn. Philedelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1998.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for viral hepatitis surveillance and case management. Atlanta, GA, 2005.Google Scholar
Kamal, SM. Acute hepatitis C: prospects and challenges. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2007; 13: 64556457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamal, SM, et al. Peginterferon alfa-2b therapy in acute hepatitis C: impact of onset of therapy on sustained virologic response. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 632638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeckel, E, et al. Treatment of acute hepatitis C with interferon alfa-2b. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 345: 14521457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dore, GJ, et al. Effective treatment of injecting drug users with recently acquired hepatitis C virus infection. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 123135.e122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, NK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of hepatitis C virus antiviral treatment for injection drug user populations. Hepatology 2012; 55: 4957.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, NK, et al. Optimal control of hepatitis C antiviral treatment programme delivery for prevention amongst a population of injecting drug users. PLoS One 2011; 6: e22309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, NK, Vickerman, P, Hickman, M. Mathematical modelling of hepatitis C treatment for injecting drug users. Journal of Theoretical Biology 2011; 274: 5866.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, NK, et al. Can antiviral therapy for hepatitis C reduce the prevalence of HCV among injecting drug user populations? A modeling analysis of its prevention utility. Journal of Hepatology 2011; 54: 11371144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickerman, P, Martin, N, Hickman, M. Can hepatitis C virus treatment be used as a prevention strategy? Additional model projections for Australia and elsewhere. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2011; 113: 8385; discussion 8687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. Protocol for the assessment of national communicable disease surveillance and response systems. World Health Organisation Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response, 2001.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated guidelines for evaluating public health surveillance systems: recommendations from the guidelines working group. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2001; 50.Google ScholarPubMed
Overhage, JM, Grannis, S, McDonald, CJ. A comparison of the completeness and timeliness of automated electronic laboratory reporting and spontaneous reporting of notifiable conditions. American Journal of Public Health 2008; 98: 344350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Surveillance and prevention of hepatitis B and C in Europe. Stockholm: ECDC, 2010.Google Scholar
Talaat, M, et al. Sentinel surveillance for patients with acute hepatitis in Egypt, 2001–04. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal 2010; 16: 134140.Google Scholar
Selvey, LA, et al. Investigation of notifications of hepatitis C in 1994: the experience of three health departments. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 1996; 20: 525529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robotin, MC, et al. Surveillance for newly acquired hepatitis C in Australia [see comment]. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2004; 19: 283288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, R, et al. Enhanced case detection for newly acquired hepatitis C infection: epidemiological findings and health service implications. Communicable Diseases Intelligence 2008; 32: 250256.Google Scholar
Staff, MP, et al. Public health surveillance of hepatitis C: can it identify incident cases? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2000; 24: 198200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olmsted, RN. Is the recent increase in the reported cases of hepatitis C/NANB a real increase? American Journal of Infection Control 1996; 24: 415416.Google ScholarPubMed
Sokol, TM, et al. Hepatitis C infection in Louisiana. Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society 2005; 157: 98102.Google Scholar
Ruf, M, et al. Setting up an enhanced surveillance of newly acquired hepatitis C infection in men who have sex with men: a pilot in London and South East region of England. Eurosurveillance 2008; 13: pii=19042.Google Scholar
Finelli, L, et al. National surveillance of dialysis-associated diseases in the United States, 2002. Seminars in Dialysis 2005; 18: 5261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokars, JI, et al. National surveillance of dialysis associated diseases in the United States, 1995. ASAIO Journal 1998; 44: 98107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tokars, JI, et al. National surveillance of dialysis-associated diseases in the United States, 1997. Seminars in Dialysis 2000; 13: 7585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
elSaadany, S, Gully, P, Giulivi, A. Hepatitis A, B, and C in Canada. Results from the National Sentinel Health Unit Surveillance System, 1993–1995. Canadian Journal of Public Health 2002; 93: 435438.Google ScholarPubMed
Wu, H-X, et al. Enhanced surveillance of newly acquired hepatitis C virus infection in Canada, 1998 to 2004. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases 2006; 38: 482489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zou, S, et al. Enhanced surveillance of acute hepatitis B and C in four health regions in Canada, 1998 to 1999. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases 2001; 12: 357363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alter, M, et al. Risk factors for acute non-A, non-B hepatitis in the United States and association with hepatitis C virus infection. Journal of the American Medical Association 1990; 264: 22312235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alter, M, et al. The natural history of community-acquired hepatitis C in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 1992; 327: 18991905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spada, E, et al. Changing epidemiology of parenterally transmitted viral hepatitis: results from the hepatitis surveillance system in Italy. Digestive and Liver Disease 2001; 33: 778784.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mele, A, et al. Integrated epidemiological system for acute viral hepatitis in Italy (SEIEVA): description and preliminary results. European Journal of Epidemiology 1986; 2: 300304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mele, A, et al. Heterosexual transmission of hepatitis C in Italy. Journal of Medical Virology 1999; 57: 111113.3.0.CO;2-C>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tosti, ME, et al. Incidence of parenterally transmitted acute viral hepatitis among healthcare workers in Italy. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology 2007; 28: 629632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stroffolini, T, et al. Incidence of non-A, non-B and HCV positive hepatitis in healthcare workers in Italy. Journal of Hospital Infection 1996; 33: 131137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianco, E, et al. Case fatality rate of acute viral hepatitis in Italy: 1995–2000. An update. Digestive and Liver Disease 2003; 35: 404408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Evaluation of acute hepatitis C infection surveillance – United States, 2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2010; 59: 14071410.Google Scholar
Daniels, D, et al. Surveillance for acute viral hepatitis – United States, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries 2009; 58: 127.Google Scholar
Gidding, HF, et al. The epidemiology of hepatitis C in Australia: notifications, treatment uptake and liver transplantations, 1997–2006. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2009; 24: 16481654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Memish, ZA, Knawy, BA, El-Saed, A. Incidence trends of viral hepatitis A, B, and C seropositivity over eight years of surveillance in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2010; 14: e115120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brant, LJ, et al. Sentinel laboratory surveillance of hepatitis C antibody testing in England: understanding the epidemiology of HCV infection. Epidemiology and Infection 2007; 135: 417426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tweed, E, et al. Hepatitis C testing in sexual health services in England, 2002–7: results from sentinel surveillance. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2010; 86: 126130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, B, Bigham, M. Hepatitis C surveillance – are we doing enough? British Columbia, 2001. Canada Communicable Disease Report 2002; 28: 149156.Google ScholarPubMed
Kuo, M, et al. Newly acquired hepatitis C virus infection in British Columbia, 1992–2005. Canadian Digestive Diseases Week (CDDW), the annual scientific conference of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG). Montreal: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and The Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver, 2008.Google Scholar
Public Health Agency of Canada. Enhanced surveillance of risk behaviours among people who inject drugs. Phase I Report, August 2006. Ottawa: Surveillance and Risk Assessment Division, Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control, Public Health Agency of Canada, 2006.Google Scholar
Fleming, DT, et al. Surveillance programs for chronic viral hepatitis in three health departments. Public Health Reports 2006; 121: 2335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fong, F. An epidemiologic summary of the hepatitis C epidemic in Minnesota. Minnesota Medicine 2003; 86: 4651.Google ScholarPubMed
Gasiorowicz, M, et al. Epidemiologic trends in infection, mortality, and transplants related to hepatitis C in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Medical Journal 2006; 105: 3439.Google Scholar
Gungabissoon, U, Balogun, MA, Ramsay, ME. Hepatitis C virus: laboratory surveillance in England and Wales, 1992–2004. Epidemiology and Infection 2007; 135: 541548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Meara, M, Barry, J, Mullen, L. Epidemiology of hepatitis C infection, ERHA/HSE Eastern region. Irish Medical Journal 2007; 100: 365366.Google Scholar
Shaw, L, et al. Establishment of a database of diagnosed HCV-infected persons in Scotland. Communicable Disease and Public Health 2003; 6: 305310.Google ScholarPubMed
Chaves, S, Widdowson, MA, Bosman, A. Surveillance of HCV infection in the Netherlands [see comment]. Eurosurveillance 2003; 8: 108113.Google Scholar
Duberg, A, et al. The epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection in Sweden. Eurosurveillance 2008; 13.Google Scholar
Lim, M, et al. Hepatitis C sentinel surveillance in Victoria. In: Australasian Viral Hepatitis Conference. Brisbane, 2008.Google Scholar
National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research. Australian needle and syringe program survey national data report 2004–2008. Sydney: National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, The University of New South Wales, 2009.Google Scholar
Backus, LI, et al. Clinical case registries: simultaneous local and national disease registries for population quality management. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009; 16: 775783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, ZB, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for Hepatitis C and HIV-1 infections among pregnant women in Central Brazil. BMC Infectious Diseases 2009; 9: 116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craine, N, et al. Incidence of hepatitis C in drug injectors: the role of homelessness, opiate substitution treatment, equipment sharing, and community size. Epidemiology and Infection 2009; 137: 12551265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khattab, MA, et al. Seroprevalence of hepatitis C and B among blood donors in Egypt: Minya Governorate, 2000–2008. American Journal of Infection Control 2010; 38: 640641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klevens, RM, et al. Population-based surveillance for hepatitis C virus, United States, 2006–2007. Emerging Infectious Diseases 2009; 15: 14991502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McQuillian, GM, et al. Viral hepatitis. National Center for Health Statistics data brief 2010: 18.Google ScholarPubMed
Madani, TA. Hepatitis C virus infections reported over 11 years of surveillance in Saudi Arabia. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 2009; 103: 132136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platt, L, et al. Measuring risk of HIV and HCV among injecting drug users in the Russian Federation. European Journal of Public Health 2009; 19: 428433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sofair, AN, et al. Use of fax-back surveillance to determine epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with hepatitis C in Waterbury, Connecticut. Connecticut Medicine 2009; 73: 593595.Google ScholarPubMed
Ximenes, RAdA, et al. Methodology of a nationwide cross-sectional survey of prevalence and epidemiological patterns of hepatitis A, B and C infection in Brazil. Cadernos de saúde pública 2010; 26: 16931704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Health Organization. WHO recommended surveillance standards: second edition. Geneva: World Health Organisation Department of Communicable Disease Surveillance and Response, 1999 October.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities. Commission decision of 19 March 2002 laying down case definitions for reporting communicable diseases to the community network under Decision No. 2119/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Communities 2002; L86: 4462.Google Scholar
Haley, RW, Fischer, RP. The tattooing paradox – are studies of acute hepatitis adequate to identify routes of transmission of subclinical hepatitis C infection? 129th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association. Atlanta, Georgia: American Medical Association, 2001, 1095.Google Scholar
Pradat, P, et al. Predictive value of ALT levels for histologic findings in chronic hepatitis C: A European collaborative study. Hepatology 2002; 36: 973977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobin, S. Hepatitis C: enhancing routine surveillance in Victoria. Victorian Infectious Diseases Bulletin 2001; 4: 1719.Google Scholar
Seeff, LB. The history of the ‘natural history’ of hepatitis C (1968–2009). Liver International 2009; 29: 8999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aitken, CK, et al. High incidence of hepatitis C virus reinfection in a cohort of injecting drug users. Hepatology 2008; 48: 17461752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grebely, J, et al. Hepatitis C virus reinfection in injection drug users [see comment]. Hepatology 2006; 44: 11391145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehta, SH, et al. Protection against persistence of hepatitis C. Lancet 2002; 359: 14781483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Micallef, JM, et al. High incidence of hepatitis C virus reinfection within a cohort of injecting drug users. Journal of Viral Hepatitis 2007; 14: 413418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osburn, WO, et al. Spontaneous control of primary hepatitis C virus infection and immunity against persistent reinfection. Gastroenterology 2010; 138: 315324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Page, K, et al. Acute hepatitis C virus infection in young adult injection drug users: a prospective study of incident infection, resolution, and reinfection. Journal of Infectious Diseases 2009; 200: 12161226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pham, ST, et al. Frequent multiple hepatitis C virus infections among injection drug users in a prison setting. Hepatology 2010; 52: 15641572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Laar, TJW, et al. Frequent HCV reinfection and superinfection in a cohort of injecting drug users in Amsterdam [see comment]. Journal of Hepatology 2009; 51: 667674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickerman, P, et al. The more you look the more you find – effects of hepatitis C virus testing interval on re-infection incidence and clearance: implications for future vaccine study design. Journal of Infectious Diseases 205: 13421350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hope, VD, et al. Measuring the incidence, prevalence and genetic relatedness of hepatitis C infections among a community recruited sample of injecting drug users, using dried blood spots. Journal of Viral Hepatitis 2011; 18: 262270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page-Shafer, K, et al. Testing strategy to identify cases of acute hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and to project HCV incidence rates. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 2008; 46: 499506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, KME, et al. The impact of needle and syringe provision and opiate substitution therapy on the incidence of hepatitis C virus in injecting drug users: pooling of UK evidence. Addiction 2011; 106: 19781988.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Guidelines for testing HIV, viral hepatitis and other infections in injecting drug users. EMCDDA Manuals, Lisbon, 2010.Google ScholarPubMed
European Association for the Study of Liver Disease. International Consensus Conference on Hepatitis C Paris, 26–28 February 1999: Consensus statement. Journal of Hepatology 1999; 30: 956961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Hepatitis B and C in the EU neighbourhood: prevalence, burden of disease and screening policies. Stockholm: ECDC, 2010.Google Scholar
Hatzakis, A, et al. The state of hepatitis B and C in Europe: report from the hepatitis B and C summit conference. Journal of Viral Hepatitis 2011; 18: 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvaruso, V, Craxì, A. 2011 European Association of the Study of the Liver hepatitis C virus clinical practice guidelines. Liver International 2012; 32: 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chary, A, Holodniy, M. Recent advances in hepatitis C virus treatment: review of HCV protease inhibitor clinical trials. Reviews on Recent Clinical Trials 2010.Google Scholar
Gane, E. Future hepatitis C virus treatment: interferon-sparing combinations. Liver International 2011; 31: 6267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Key definitions