Advertisement

BMC Infectious Diseases

, 18:79 | Cite as

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

  • Abby May Falla
  • Sanne Henrietta Ina Hofstraat
  • Erika Duffell
  • Susan Josien Maria Hahné
  • Lara Tavoschi
  • Irene Karen Veldhuijzen
Open Access
Research article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Hepatitis and co-infections

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Hepatitis B Hepatitis C Prevalence Men who have sex with men People who inject drugs Prisoners Higher risk groups Systematic review [publication type] 

Abbreviations

CHB

Chronic Hepatitis B

CHC

Chronic Hepatitis C

CIs

Confidence Intervals

DBS

Dried Blood Spot

ECDC

European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

EMCDDA

European Centre for Drug Dependency and Addiction

EU/EEA

European Union/European Economic Area

HBV

Hepatitis B virus

HCV

Hepatitis C virus

MS

Member State

MSM

Men Who Have Sex With Men

NFP

National Focal Point

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PWID

People Who Inject Drugs

STIs

Sexually Transmitted Infections

HIV

Human Immuno-deficiency Virus

UK

United Kingdom

Background

Chronic infection with the hepatitis B (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a significant cause of liver disease-related morbidity and mortality in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) [1]. Both viruses are transmitted through contact with infected blood, blood products and other bodily fluids. HBV is vaccine preventable which, along with other primary prevention measures including health care infection control and antenatal screening, have led to a decrease in acute and chronic hepatitis B (CHB) incidence in many EU/EEA countries [2]. Health care infection control together with harm reduction programmes among people who inject drugs (PWID) have also led to some decrease in the HCV incidence in many countries [3]. Many EU/EEA countries now face a dichotomy: a declining incidence of new HBV/HCV infections in the general population due to the success of primary prevention [2, 4] alongside a projected increase in liver disease-related morbidity and mortality due to ageing of the chronically infected population [5, 6]. With the availability of antiviral treatment that can effectively halt disease progression in CHB, including progression to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, and new direct acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C (CHC) that report cure rates in more than 90% of cases [7, 8], elimination of chronic viral hepatitis is a possibility. Elimination requires expanded access to screening, efficient linkage to care and retention in treatment among risk populations. Timely, reliable prevalence data are needed to understand which populations are most affected to better target screening and treatment programmes, and to monitor the performance and impact of these activities at a strategic level. Indeed, for screening to have a more favourable cost-effectiveness ratio and lead to an overall net gain in population health, current evidence indicates that it should be targeted to higher prevalence populations including PWID and other risk populations, where the expected case yield would be highest. [9, 10] However, the prevalence threshold above which a favourable cost effectiveness ratio varies considerably between EU/EEA countries.

In terms of key at-risk populations, men who have sex with men (MSM) are considered a high risk population for viral hepatitis due to the efficacy of sexual contact in transmitting HBV and the high prevalence of other sexually transmitted infections especially Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV). Whilst sexual contact was historically considered an ineffective route of HCV transmission, an increased HCV incidence among MSM who have not/do not inject drugs has been reported since the early 2000s. There is increasing evidence of permucosal transmission of HCV, especially among HIV positive MSM, although sexually acquired HCV infection remains rare in HIV negative, non-injecting MSM. [11, 12] Hahné et al. reported Hepatitis B surface Antigen (HBsAg) and anti-HCV (measures of evidence of chronic HBV and chronic or resolved HCV infection respectively) prevalence among MSM in the EU/EEA ranging from < 1% to 4% and from > 1% to 2.9%, respectively [13].

People detained in prison settings are considered a high risk population for blood-borne virus infection due the criminalisation of high transmission risk behaviour such as injecting drug use and sex work, coupled with pre-detention social vulnerability (such as experience of domestic abuse, poverty and homelessness) among many people detained and convicted. Prison-acquired blood-borne virus infections may also occur due to the continuation of transmission risk behaviour, the limited availability of harm reduction services and the lack of adequate infection control practices [14, 15]. Dolan et al. meta-analysed data in Global Burden of Disease regions: in Western Europe, HBsAg and anti-HCV prevalence among people in prison was reported to be 2.4% and 15.5%, respectively, while in Eastern Europe it was 10.4% for HBsAg and 20.2% for anti-HCV [16]. HBsAg and anti-HCV estimates are also available for nine and 13 EU/EEA countries, respectively, although no study quality assessment nor country-level meta-analysis/pooling were performed.

Of the three at-risk populations included in this study, PWID are considered at highest risk due to the efficacy of unsafe injecting behaviour in transmitting HBV and HCV. This together with clustering of social and environmental risk factors in this marginalised population such as a history of incarceration, poverty, homelessness and multi-morbidity compound their vulnerability [17]. Nelson et al. conducted a global review of HBsAg and anti-HCV prevalence among PWID in 2010, and reported prevalence data for 30 EU/EEA countries for anti-HCV and for 26 EU/EEA countries for HBsAg. The prevalence of anti-HCV ranged from 21.1% in Finland to 90.5% in Latvia, whereas HBsAg prevalence ranged from 0.0% in Ireland and Cyprus to 21.3% in Estonia [17]. Wiessing et al. performed a systematic review of various epidemiological measures of the HCV epidemic among PWID in Europe [18]. Although anti-HCV prevalence was not an included outcome, their findings across the cascade of care show that 72% of anti-HCV infected PWID are viraemic; that 49% are unaware of their infection; and that 9.5% of diagnosed cases are reported to be on treatment. A review focused on the EU/EEA in 2009, Hahné et al. reported HBsAg prevalence among PWID to be between 0.0% and 21.3% and anti-HCV prevalence to be between 5.3% and 90% [13]. An updated synthesis of the prevalence in this priority population is required.

Our study is part of a larger project funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) that seeks to provide a timely update on available estimates across a number of low risk populations (the general population, pregnant women and first-time blood donors) and as a comparator/contrast to collate prevalence estimates in high risk populations. We describe the results of the study into chronic viral hepatitis low risk populations and among migrants elsewhere [19, 20]. In the study reported here, we seek to update and expand the work of the previous ECDC systematic review (from 2009) by Hahné et al. [21] of prevalence estimates for markers of hepatitis B (HBsAg) and C (anti-HCV) in three key risk groups: MSM, people who inject drugs and people incarcerated in prison. Our study seeks to contribute to the elimination of viral hepatitis in Europe by providing information to support the design and management of primary and secondary prevention strategies.

Methods

Data sources

Estimates of the prevalence among the three risk groups included in our study were derived from multiple sources. A systematic literature search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines [22] to retrieve, assess and synthesize available data published in the period 2005–2015 on the prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV infection in MSM and people in prison. Data on the prevalence among PWID were retrieved from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) [23, 24].

Definitions

The key outcome was prevalence, which was defined as the proportion of study subjects with a positive finding of HBsAg or anti-HCV in serum, saliva or dry blood spot samples. MSM were not formally defined beyond the search term/inclusion criterion of ‘MSM’ and in practice this conceptualisation included men participating in studies in MSM-specific venues (e.g. saunas). People in prison were defined as people incarcerated in prison settings including prisons, remand centres, youth detention centres and psychiatric prison hospitals but excluding formerly incarcerated populations and other non-custodial secure institutions (such as secure psychiatric hospitals). PWID were defined by the EMCDDA as any person who has ever in their lifetime injected a drug for non-medical purposes [25].

The prevalence in MSM and people in prison: Systematic review

Search strategy

A systematic search to retrieve original research articles was conducted in PubMed®, Embase® and Cochrane Library bibliographic databases in March 2015. The search strategy (described in the Additional file 1) combined controlled (i.e. MeSH/Emtree terms) and natural vocabulary (i.e. keywords) to define disease-related (HBV or HCV infection), outcome-related (prevalence), and geographic-related search parameters (EU/EEA). To maximise the yield of the search, no population-specific search terms were included. Population relevancy was instead assessed at the title/abstract and full text assessment stages, as described below. The search was limited to records published from 1 January 2005 to 12 March 2015. Articles in all EU/EEA languages were included. The results of the search were shared with ECDC National Focal Points [26] for viral hepatitis in all EU/EEA Member States in May 2015 to review and validate the list of included references for their country. The data extraction, risk of bias assessment and data analysis described below were all performed in Microsoft Excel.

Inclusion/exclusion criteria

Inclusion/exclusion criteria included publication and data collection date ranges, geographical relevancy, the reporting of specific markers of hepatitis B/C infection, population relevancy (as outlined in the definitions section above) and study design. Criteria related to study design included the actual measured presence of viral markers in bodily fluid/dried blood spot samples (and thus the exclusion of self-reported infection) in human subjects, prevalence as an outcome measure, the exclusion of modelled data only, and the exclusion of guidelines, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and commentary/opinion pieces. These criteria were twice piloted and refined by two reviewers (AF/SHIH) on a random sample of 5% of articles in order to reach > 95% concordance. Following this, the title/abstract screening continued separately using Endnote. The full text of all publications included during title/abstract screening were individually assessed for relevance by members of the research team (for articles in Dutch, English, French, German and Italian) or by ECDC reviewers (for any other EU/EEA languages). Reviewers consulted each other in cases of uncertainty about in- or exclusion, and with a third team member (IV) to resolve further disagreement. The full search strategy, the in- and exclusion criteria and the PRISMA checklist are available in the Additional file 1 accompanying this article. See Fig. 1 for the PRISMA flowchart (reasons for full text exclusion are detailed in the Additional file 1).
Fig. 1

PRISMA flowchart for studies retrieved among MSM and people in prison

Data extraction

Data extraction using a pre-defined set of variables was performed simultaneously with full text screening. The unit for data extraction was study, not article. A study was defined as the report of prevalence data on HBsAg or anti-HCV for a defined population group, in a defined country, over a discrete period of time and one article may therefore include more than one study. Studies published in more than one article were extracted only once and the article with the most detail about the study used as reference. For studies retrieved reporting the prevalence in MSM, only data on HIV negative or unknown/unmeasured HIV sero-status MSM were extracted. All results reported in the study relating to MSM are therefore among HIV negative or unknown HIV sero-status MSM.

Risk of bias assessment

For MSM and the prison population each study was evaluated for the risk of selection bias using a specifically developed assessment framework. To account for differences in sources of selection bias, separate assessment frameworks were developed for MSM and people in prison to determine the representativeness of sample for that specific target population and the robustness of the estimates in each study. For studies in MSM, just one domain was included, ‘sampling venue coverage’, where the risk of bias was considered smaller for studies in multiple venues or multiple venue types. For studies in the prison population, the domains of age, gender, proportion of PWID, sampling method and geographical coverage were considered as possible sources of selection bias. Points were awarded in each domain for representativeness or a lower risk of bias, and a total score calculated by summing the values in each domain. This resulted in a score of between zero and two for MSM and between zero and six for the prison population. We refer to the total score as study quality score, since a higher score indicates a lower risk of bias.

Data analysis

We recalculated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all crude and pooled estimates using the Fisher’s Exact method. All prevalence estimates retrieved for MSM, irrespective of the study quality score, are presented in separate (one for hepatitis B and one for hepatitis C) forest plots prepared using Microsoft Excel. HBsAg and anti-HCV prevalence estimates obtained from studies among adults in prison with a high study quality score (≥3) were pooled, when possible, by summing cases and sample size. Pooled or single study-derived high quality estimates retrieved for people in prison are presented in a forest plot, unless a study reported data over time whereby the most recent estimate was selected. Adult and juvenile (as defined by the included studies) estimates for the prison population are shown separately.

The prevalence in PWID: Extraction from the EMCDDA data repository

The EMCDDA systematically retrieves, synthesizes and publishes comprehensive (and often unpublished) data on the prevalence of viral infections among PWID [23, 24]. We opted to draw on this repository due to its extensive scope as well as the potential to retrieve unpublished data that would be unavailable in scientific literature. The full data set retrieved for use in this study included country, year of study, geographical coverage, sample size and prevalence as well as limited information about study design and recruitment method/setting. We included only national level estimates, and where multiple national estimates were available for a country, the most recent estimate was selected. We did not assess the quality of the study beyond these parameters of geographical coverage and recency. Number positive was back calculated using prevalence and sample size, and a 95% CI re-calculated using the Fisher Exact method. Samples in fewer than 10 subjects were excluded and multiple national-level estimates (if available from a specific year for an EU/EEA country) were pooled by summing cases and sample size.

Results

Literature/database search retrievals

The literature search retrieved 9379 citations, from which 17 citations were included for MSM and 57 for people in prison based on title/abstract. Seventeen MS validated our search results or provided additional references. For people in prison, seven publications were added either through a manual search of retrieved studies or through the national viral hepatitis ECDC focal points. An additional three citations were added for MSM. Whilst all 20 full texts were retrieved for MSM, three of the 64 included for people in prison were unavailable. Following full text screening, 13 articles were included for MSM and 32 for people in prison. The database search of the EMCDDA data repository retrieved seven national level HBsAg and 16 national level anti-HCV prevalence estimates.

The prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV among HIV negative/unknown HIV sero-status MSM

A total of 17 prevalence estimates, six for HBsAg and 11 for anti-HCV, were extracted from the 13 included studies about HIV negative/unknown HIV sero-status MSM. Key study details, including the risk of bias assessment, for all reported estimates among MSM are available in Annex 8 (HBV) and 9 (HCV) in the Additional file 1 for this article.

The six HBsAg prevalence estimates covered four countries: one each from Croatia and France and two each from Estonia and the United Kingdom (UK). HBsAg prevalence ranged from 0.0% - 0.1% in Estonia [27, 28] and the UK to 1.4% in France (Fig. 2). The prevalence in the UK was derived from STI clinics in Scotland in 2001–2003 and ranged from 0.0% [29] to 1.0% [30], with the sample size of the study for the latter estimate considerably larger than the former study (N = 575 vs N = 81). The estimate from France is based on a large (N = 876), multi-centre, multi venue type study from 2009 [31].
Fig. 2

HBsAg Prevalence among HIV negative/unknown HIV sero-status MSM. Y axis - Country, prevalence estimate (95% CI) and sample size (N); X axis: HBsAg prevalence

The 11 anti-HCV estimates covered seven countries and the prevalence ranged from 0.0% in Italy [32] to 4.7% in Estonia (Fig. 3), with eight of the 11 data points ≥ 1%. Single estimates were available for France [31], Italy [32] and Sweden [33] whereas multiple estimates were available for Croatia, Estonia, the Netherlands and the UK. For Estonia, the two anti-HCV estimates range from 4.7% (in 2013) to 1.8% (in 2014–15). [27, 28] The two estimates for Croatia range from 2.5% [34] to 2.9% [35] and cover broadly the same time period (2003–2006) although the former sampled the population of Zagreb only while the latter covered seven cities. The two estimates from the Netherlands range from 0.7% to 1.3% and were derived using different study designs among the MSM population in Amsterdam; men attending a STI clinic opting out of HIV testing in 2007 [36] and a cohort study over the period 1984–2003, respectively [37]. The two estimates for the UK were: 2.2%, found in a multi-centre study between 2008/9 (N = 1121) in London gay bars, clubs and saunas; and 1.6% found among STI clinic attendees in Sheffield in 2009–2011 (N = 3395) [38, 39]. In summary, prevalence among MSM ranged from 0.0% to 1.4% for HBsAg and from 0.0% to 4.7% for anti-HCV.
Fig. 3

Anti-HCV Prevalence among HIV negative/unknown HIV sero-status MSM. Y axis - Country, prevalence estimate (95% CI) and sample size (N); X axis: Anti-HCV prevalence

The prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV among people in prison

Fifteen HBsAg prevalence estimates for 12 countries were extracted from the 32 included articles, only one of which (in Romania) scored < 3 in the study quality assessment. Single estimates of HBsAg prevalence were retrieved for Bulgaria, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain. Multiple (and therefore pooled) estimates were found for Croatia and the UK (Fig. 4). These data show considerable heterogeneity in HBsAg prevalence in the prison population in the EU/EEA from < 1% in the UK, Ireland [40], Finland [41] and France [42] to 6.7% in Italy [43], 7.0% in Luxembourg [44], 10.7% in Portugal [45] and 25.2% in Bulgaria [46]. Two estimates for Croatia obtained over 2004–2006 and 2005–2007 both report a HBsAg prevalence of 1.3% in adult inmates, with a third study from 2005 to 2007 reporting 1.4% among juvenile inmates. Two estimates obtained in the UK, one in a maximum security psychiatric hospital prison (reporting 0.0%) and the other in a general prison in London (reporting 2.0%), were pooled into an estimate of 1.6% (95% CI 0.8–2.9). Whilst diversity in sampling design was seen across the 14 high quality HBsAg prevalence estimates, just one study [44] was biased towards exclusive recruitment of PWID or use of injecting drug use as a sampling criterion. Key study details, including the risk of bias assessment, for all reported estimates among people in prison are available in Annex 10 (HBV) and 11 (HCV) in the Additional file 1 for this article.
Fig. 4

HBsAg prevalence among people (adults unless noted as juveniles) in prison. Y axis - Country, prevalence estimate (95% CI) and sample size (N); X axis: HBsAg prevalence

Forty-five estimates of anti-HCV prevalence were retrieved from the included studies of which 37 estimates for 11 countries were considered high quality (i.e. a study quality score of ≥3). In 17 of the 45 anti-HCV estimates, injecting drug use was a study inclusion criterion or current/former PWID formed the majority of subjects. Figure 5 shows the final 16 single study/pooled high quality estimates included. There is considerable heterogeneity in the (mostly high i.e. ≥8%) prevalence among people in prison across the EU/EEA; all but four estimates (from Croatia (juvenile), France, Germany (juvenile) and Hungary) were above 10%, with an estimate from Luxembourg as high as > 80% prevalence [44]. Multiple high quality (and therefore pooled) estimates were available for Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Spain and the UK. Alongside a pooled estimate of 20.3% [47, 48], consecutive annual estimates report a decrease in anti-HCV prevalence in Spain from 44.9% in 2000 to 25.3% in 2009 [49]. Two multi-centre study-derived estimates from Bulgaria were pooled into an estimate of 26.3% (95% CI 23.5–29.3) [50, 51]. Four estimates from the UK were pooled into an overall prevalence of 17.4% (95% CI 16.4–18.4) [52, 53, 54, 55]. The pooled prevalence of 6.3% for France is derived from seven studies screening more than 68,000 people in prison. The three estimates among juvenile inmates show considerable heterogeneity, from 20.5% prevalence in Bulgaria [46] to 8.6% in Germany [56] and 4.3% in Croatia [57]. To summarise, prevalence extracted (and pooled where possible) from the high quality studies ranged from 0.3% to 25.2% (for HBsAg) and from 4.3% to 86.3% (for anti-HCV).
Fig. 5

Anti-HCV prevalence among people (adults unless noted as juveniles) in prison. Y axis - Country, prevalence estimate (95% CI) and sample size (N) (N/R = not reported); X axis: Anti-HCV prevalence

The prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV among PWID

The most recent, national level estimates of HBsAg and anti-HCV prevalence among PWID are presented in Table 1. National estimates of HBsAg prevalence were available for seven countries (Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia and Portugal), four of which were from studies conducted in 2013. The reported national prevalence ranges from 0.5% in Croatia, Hungary and Ireland, to more than 6% in Hungary and Portugal. National estimates of anti-HCV prevalence in the PWID population were available for 16 countries: Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and the UK. Anti-HCV prevalence was ≥30% in 13 of these countries and ≥50% in seven. In sum, the prevalence among PWID ranged from 0.5% to 6.1% (for HBsAg) and from 13.8% to 84.3% (for anti-HCV).
Table 1

HBsAg and anti-HCV prevalence in PWID in the EU/EEA

Country

HBsAg

Anti-HCV

Year

Sample size

Prevalence (95% CI)

Study design

Setting

Year

Sample size

Prevalence (95% CI)

Study design

Setting

Austria

  

2013

48

31.3 (18.7–46.3)

DT

ODD

Croatia

2007

200

0.5 (0.0–2.8)

SP

PRI

2007

200

44 (37.0–51.2)

SP

PRI

Cyprus

2013

82

6.1 (2.0–13.7)

DT

DTC

2013

82

47.6 (36.4–58.9)

DT

DTC

Czech Republic

  

2013

1889

14.6 (13.1–16.3)

DT

NSP

Denmark

  

2008

223

52.5 (45.7–59.2)

SP (UAT)

ODD

Finland

  

2009

682

60.5 (56.8–64.3)

SP (UAT)

NSP

Greece

2013

1337

3.0 (2.2–4.1)

DT

DTC; LTS; OTH; PHL; PRI; STR;

2013

1309

68.1 (65.5–70.6)

DT

DTC; LTS; PHL; PRI; OTH STR;

Hungary

2011

664

0.5 (0.1–1.3)

SP

DTC, NSP

2011

652

24.1 (20.8–27.6)

SP

DTC; NSP

Ireland

2010

200

0.5 (0.0–2.8)

SP

PRI

2010

200

41.5 (34.6–48.7)

SP

PRI

Italy

  

2010

743

60.5 (56.8–64.0)

DT

DTC

Latvia

2013

562

2.1 (1.1–3.7)

DT

DTC

2013

522

70.1 (66.0–74.0)

DT

NSP

Malta

  

2013

109

13.8 (7.9–21.7)

DT

ANT; DTC; HTC; OHC; PHL; STI

Norway

 

  

2013

6342

63.0 (61.8–64.2)

SP

DTC

Portugal

2013

399

6.3 (4.1–9.1)

DT

DTC

2013

414

84.3 (80.4–87.7)

DT

DTC

Slovenia

  

2009

112

32.1 (23.6–41.6)

DT

DTC

United Kingdom

  

2013

3144

49.1 (47.4–50.9)

SP (UAT)

DTC; LTS; OTH; NSP

Acronyms (study design): DT diagnostic testing, SP specific prevalence study, UAT unlinked anonymous testing

Acronyms (setting): ANT Antenatal Clinics, DTC Drug Treatment Centres, HTC HIV Testing Centres, LTS Low Threshold Services, ODD Overdose Deaths, OHC Other Hospitals or Clinics, OTH Other, NSP Needle Exchange Programmes, PHL Public Health Laboratories, PRI Prisons, STI STI clinics, STR Street

Discussion

This is the first review to collate, assess and compare prevalence estimates across these three key at-risk groups in the EU/EEA. Although gaps in evidence exist, this study reports 68 HBsAg/anti-HCV single study/pooled prevalence estimates from 23 of 31 EU/EEA countries, 42 of which are considered as intermediate/high prevalence using the WHO endemicity threshold for HBV/HCV (≥2%) [58]. 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 HIV negative/unknown HIV sero-status MSM. Geographical trends are difficult to determine due to heterogeneity of, and gaps in, evidence, although the reported data here are suggestive of higher prevalence among MSM (for anti-HCV) and among PWID (for both viruses) among countries in eastern and southern Europe.

Limitations in the estimates reported for people in prison and MSM relate to geographical and population coverage, study quality and heterogeneity of the included estimates. To retrieve estimates for people in prison and for MSM, we conducted a very broad search of the published literature with no language or population restrictions, and validated retrievals directly with countries, yet found many geographical gaps in the data. Indeed, only a third of EU/EEA countries are represented among the studies that met the inclusion criteria for people in prison and only seven countries reported estimates among MSM. It is unlikely we failed to identify and include all existing high quality data, and consider it most likely that the data just do not exist or are not published. In the absence of larger, more robust studies from which prevalence can be derived, we consider the data reported here are the best available although there may have been more recent estimates published since the date of our search (March 2015). Significant heterogeneity in study design within and between risk groups hamper the statistical comparison and pooling of prevalence across countries and populations. To control for strong sources of bias in studies among people in prison when pooling data, we developed and applied a study quality assessment. The five domains were considered equally important sources of bias and it is possible that estimates included in the analysis have residual selection biases. Further, our study quality assessment did not consider sample size and there is clearly more uncertainty in the estimates derived from smaller studies.

For pragmatic reasons, we extracted prevalence estimates for PWID from the data repository coordinated by EMCDDA. With limited methodological information accompanying the EMCDDA data sets, it is possible that this data set is not exhaustive. However, EMCDDA were recently identified by another wide-ranging systematic review as the source of the most routinely collected, European-level data on the viral hepatitis prevalence among PWID [18]. We adopted an algorithmic approach favouring the most recent national level data to select estimates, and found estimates meeting this criteria for just seven MS for HBsAg and 16 MS for anti-HCV. As with the retrievals from the systematic search, there is considerable heterogeneity in study design (intervention-related and observational), sampling method (single and multi-centre sampling methods) and sample size (from < 50 to > 6000 participants) across these 23 estimates. Beyond favouring the geographical and time-frame parameters, we did not systematically assess the quality of these studies and selection biases relating to study setting, population and sample size are likely to exist.

Using 2% prevalence as the endemicity threshold set out in the 2017 WHO HBV and HCV testing guidelines, [58] by comparing risk group prevalence with the general population prevalence (from previously published reviews of the literature [59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64]) and by comparing across risk groups, our findings generally support the continued classification of PWID and people in prison as the key populations for both chronic hepatitis B and C infection. Whilst this study does not seem to support the continued classification of HIV negative/unknown HIV sero-status MSM as a high (> 2%) prevalence population for chronic hepatitis B infection, we are cautious in this conclusion given the wide confidence interval (that sometimes includes the 2% threshold) around the MSM-derived HBV estimates. We therefore still consider MSM a key population for targeted action, given that anti-HCV prevalence in MSM is higher than in the general population, the evidence of the ongoing transmission of viral hepatitis among MSM populations and the complex interaction of viral hepatitis and HIV [11, 12]. Both infection with, and antiretroviral treatment for, HIV are suspected to increase progression to chronicity as well as to accelerate fibrosis [11, 12]. Global anti-HCV prevalence among HIV positive MSM has been estimated as high as 6.4% [65], and end-stage liver disease is a leading key cause of death among co-infected HIV positive patients in some high income countries [66]. A cohort study found an unexpectedly high proportion of MSM (23% compared to the 5–10% chronicity rate expected in the general adult population [67]) develop a chronic hepatitis B infection following HBV exposure regardless of HIV status, with a younger (adult) age at infection significantly associated with an increased risk of developing CHB [68]. It would therefore seem an effective use of health resources to (continue to) offer HCV screening to HIV positive men in addition to MSM-wide HBV vaccination [69]. Specific cost-effectiveness analyses of offering individual or combined blood-borne virus screening in MSM would also greatly aid public health decision making and be a useful addition to the evidence.

Differences in the prevalence among people in prison between countries are related to the differential distribution of risk factors among the prison population together with differences in prison conditions, such as the availability of harm reduction interventions and infection control practices and infrastructure across the EU/EEA countries represented in this study [16]. The high prevalence of HBsAg in the prison population in some countries could be attributable to the incarceration of people born in intermediate or high prevalence countries and consequent over-representation of migrants in the incarcerated population. Recent estimates suggest that the proportion of the prison population that is foreign-born ranges from < 5% in Bulgaria and Hungary, to more than 15% in France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain, and up to 72% in Luxembourg [70]. It is possible that the incarceration of foreign-born migrants is a driver of the high prevalence of chronic hepatitis B and C infection in prisons although as there is no systematic EU-wide data collection on the demographic profile of the incarcerated population, our understanding of the dynamics of migration, incarceration and chronic infection is limited [70].

Our study seeks to contribute to the elimination of viral hepatitis in Europe by providing information to support the design and management of primary and secondary prevention strategies. However, expected prevalence is just one of a number of factors that affects the cost-effectiveness of testing strategies. Programme-related factors such as ease of reaching the target population, uptake of screening, actual (viraemic) prevalence, linkage to care and treatment initiation also playing a key role [9, 10, 3].

We see four key public health implications emerging from our experience in this study. The first is the indication for systematic screening and linkage to care of people in prison given the high prevalence, the overlap with the PWID population, and the possible continuation of risk behaviour. Secondly, we see significant public health benefits of providing treatment as prevention, especially for CHC, among populations that share risk behaviour, in line with national and international clinical and public health guidelines [58]. Analyses have shown that treatment among high-risk dynamically interactive populations such as PWIDs, is cost-effective, especially given the shorter and more tolerable treatment regimens [8]. Thirdly, the need for diagnostic testing and treatment is particularly important for PWID where the prevalence, and therefore risk of intra-population transmission, of hepatitis C is very high. Targeted PWID screening in accessible locations as part of broader harm reduction measures may help break down barriers of stigma and among this vulnerable and high risk population [16, 71]. The criminalisation of drug use has been suggested to be as the single most important determinant of the high blood-borne virus prevalence among people in prison [16]. Finally, the lower prevalence of CHB we found among some risk populations in some countries is likely a direct result of the adoption and implementation of primary prevention measures, especially childhood immunisation, in the general population [72]. This highlights the importance of adequately resourcing primary prevention measures as well as continuing to offer HBV vaccination to risk groups to protect public health.

The limitations of this study also provide ideas for future research, specifically the improvement in the design of studies and greater geographical representation to fill the gaps in evidence. The development and consistent application of an EU/EEA or international standard for the design and quality assessment of seroprevalence studies to inform pooling and/or statistical comparison of data across studies and populations would also greatly improve understanding of prevalence across countries and populations. Finally, and probably most importantly, there is clear and urgent need for more implementation studies to determine the features of screening programmes and strategies among risk populations that effectively reach, diagnose and link to care people infected with chronic viral hepatitis.

Conclusion

Our study highlights the heterogeneity in prevalence across risk groups across Europe. Prevalence generally increases in an Eastern and Southern direction. There are also many countries, especially in the Eastern and Southern part of Europe, that are not represented in our results, highlighting the need to build capacity for and resource the development of robust epidemiological studies among key risk groups. Step One of elimination action planning is to know your epidemic, the ‘who’ and the ‘where’, [73] and both the evidence and the data gaps contained in this review should contribute to this strategic aim.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was funded by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The funding body contributed to the design of the study, data extraction, interpretation of the data and writing of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The full search strategy, the inclusion/exclusion criteria and the PRISMA flowchart are available in the Additional file 1 accompanying the article online. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study including the citations retrieved via the search, the inclusion/exclusion files and the data extraction are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

FAM study concept and design, literature search, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript. HSHI study concept and design, literature search, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. DE study concept and design, literature search, interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, supervised the study, obtained funding. HSJM study concept and design, literature search, interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, supervised the study. TL study concept and design, literature search, acquisition of data, interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, supervised the study, obtained funding. VIK study concept and design, literature search, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content, supervised the study. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary material

12879_2018_2988_MOESM1_ESM.docx (117 kb)
Additional file 1: Methodological details; summary results. Search strategy for studies in PubMed, Embase (Embase.com) and Cochrane Library (CDSR, DARE, HTA, EED); Definitions of subgroups included; Study inclusion and exclusion criteria; PRISMA Checklist; Reasons for exclusion of full text for studies in MSM and people in prison; Risk of bias framework for studies in MSM and among people in prison; Study characteristics for HBsAg/anti-HCV prevalence estimates in MSM and in people in prison. (DOCX 116 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Stanaway JD, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Fitzmaurice C, Vos T, Abubakar I, et al. The global burden of viral hepatitis from 1990 to 2013: findings from the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1081–8. Epub 2016/07/11CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Control ECfDPa. Annual epidemiological report for 2015 – hepatitis B. Stockholm: 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wedemeyer H, Duberg AS, Buti M, Rosenberg WM, Frankova S, Esmat G, et al. Strategies to manage hepatitis C virus (HCV) disease burden. J Viral Hepat. 2014;21(Suppl 1):60–89. Epub 2014/04/10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Annual Epidemiological Report for 2015 - Hepatitis C. Stockholm: 2015.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ott JJ, Stevens GA, Groeger J, Wiersma ST. Global epidemiology of hepatitis B virus infection: new estimates of age-specific HBsAg seroprevalence and endemicity. Vaccine. 2012;30(12):2212–9. Epub 2012/01/26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hatzakis A, Chulanov V, Gadano AC, Bergin C, Ben-Ari Z, Mossong J, et al. The present and future disease burden of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections with today's treatment paradigm - volume 2. J Viral Hepat. 2015;22(Suppl 1):26–45. Epub 2015/01/07CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gane E, Kershenobich D, Seguin-Devaux C, Kristian P, Aho I, Dalgard O, et al. Strategies to manage hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection disease burden - volume 2. J Viral Hepat. 2015;22(Suppl 1):46–73. Epub 2015/01/07CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ermis F, Senocak Tasci E. New treatment strategies for hepatitis C infection. World J Hepatol. 2015;7(17):2100–9. Epub 2015/08/25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coward S, Leggett L, Kaplan GG, Clement F. Cost-effectiveness of screening for hepatitis C virus: a systematic review of economic evaluations. BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e011821. Epub 2016/09/08CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Geue C, Wu O, Xin Y, Heggie R, Hutchinson S, Martin NK, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HBV and HCV screening strategies--a systematic review of existing modelling techniques. PLoS One. 2015;10(12):e0145022. Epub 2015/12/23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chan DP, Sun HY, Wong HT, Lee SS, Hung CC. Sexually acquired hepatitis C virus infection: a review. Int J Infect Dis. 2016;49:47–58. Epub 2016/06/09CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghisla V, Scherrer AU, Nicca D, Braun DL, Fehr JS. Incidence of hepatitis C in HIV positive and negative men who have sex with men 2000-2016: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infection. 2016; Epub 2016/12/23Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hahne SJ, Veldhuijzen IK, Wiessing L, Lim TA, Salminen M, Laar M. Infection with hepatitis B and C virus in Europe: a systematic review of prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:181. Epub 2013/04/20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vescio MF, Longo B, Babudieri S, Starnini G, Carbonara S, Rezza G, et al. Correlates of hepatitis C virus seropositivity in prison inmates: a meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(4):305–13. Epub 2008/03/15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Michel L, Lions C, Van Malderen S, Schiltz J, Vanderplasschen W, Holm K, et al. Insufficient access to harm reduction measures in prisons in 5 countries (PRIDE Europe): a shared European public health concern. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1093. Epub 2015/10/29CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolan K, Wirtz AL, Moazen B, Ndeffo-Mbah M, Galvani A, Kinner SA, et al. Global burden of HIV, viral hepatitis, and tuberculosis in prisoners and detainees. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1089–102. Epub 2016/07/19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nelson PK, Mathers BM, Cowie B, Hagan H, Des Jarlais D, Horyniak D, et al. Global epidemiology of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in people who inject drugs: results of systematic reviews. Lancet. 2011;378(9791):571–83. Epub 2011/08/02CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiessing L, Ferri M, Grady B, Kantzanou M, Sperle I, Cullen KJ, et al. Hepatitis C virus infection epidemiology among people who inject drugs in Europe: a systematic review of data for scaling up treatment and prevention. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103345. Epub 2014/07/30CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hofstraat SHI, Falla AM, Duffell EF, Hahne SJM, Amato-Gauci AJ, Veldhuijzen IK, et al. Current prevalence of chronic hepatitis B and C virus infection in the general population, blood donors and pregnant women in the EU/EEA: a systematic review. Epidemiol Infect. 2017;145(14):2873–85. Epub 2017/09/12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Epidemiological assessment of hepatitis B and C among migrants in the EU/EEA. Stockholm: 2016.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hahne SJM, Veldhuijzen IK, Wiessing L, Lim TA, Salminen M, Laar MVD. Infection with hepatitis B and C virus in Europe: a systematic review of prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13(1)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9. W64. Epub 2009/07/23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    EMCDDA. Infectious diseases - Prevalence - HBV - Table INF-114 w2015. [cited 2015 June 15]; Available from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/stats2015#displayTable:INF-114.
  24. 24.
    EMCDDA. Infectious diseases - Prevalence - HCV - Table INF-111 2015. [cited 2015 June 15]; Available from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/data/stats2015#displayTable:INF-111.
  25. 25.
    European Centre for Drug Dependency and Addiction (EMCDDA). Drug-related Infectious Diseases: Methods and Definitions. 2007; Available from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats07/INF/methods.
  26. 26.
    European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Coordinating Competent Bodies: structures, interactions and terms of reference. 2012; Available from: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/aboutus/governance/competent-bodies/Documents/coordinating-competent-bodies-structures-terms-of-reference-and-interactions-w-Annexes.pdf
  27. 27.
    Ruutel K. Meestega seksivatele meestele suunatud internetipõhine seksuaalsel teel levivate infektsioonide testimise teenus. Tallinn: Tervise Arengu Instituut; 2015.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ruutel K, Lohmus L, Janes J. Internet-based recruitment system for HIV and STI screening for men who have sex with men in Estonia, 2013: analysis of preliminary outcomes. Eur Commun Dis Bull. 2015;20:15. Epub 2015/05/09Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    McMillan A. The changing prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection among men who have sex with men who attended a sexually transmitted infections clinic in Edinburgh, Scotland between 1989 and 2003. Int J STD AIDS. 2006;17(8):539–42. Epub 2006/08/24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roy KM, Goldberg DJ, Wilson K, Cameron SO. Vaccination induced immunity to the hepatitis B virus among high-risk groups in Glasgow 1993-2001: evaluating the effectiveness of the United Kingdom's selective immunisation policy. Scott Med J. 2008;53(4):13–7. Epub 2008/12/05CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sauvage C, Pascal X, Weill-Barillet L, Molinier M, Pillonel J, Léon L, et al. [Prévalence de l’antigène HBs dans deux populations exposées: les usagers de drogues (ANRS-Coquelicot 2011–2013) et les hommes ayant des relations sexuelles avec des hommes (Prevagay 2009) à Paris, France.] PREVALENCE OF HEPATITIS B SURFACE ANTIGEN IN TWO EXPOSED POPULATIONS: DRUG USERS (ANRS-COQUELICOT 2011–2013) AND MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN (PREVAGAY 2009) IN PARIS, FRANCE. Bull Epidémiol Hebd. 2015;19(20):353–9.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Di Benedetto MA, Di Piazza F, Amodio E, Taormina S, Romano N, Firenze A. Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections and enteric protozoa among homosexual men in western Sicily (south Italy). J Prev Med Hyg. 2012;53(4):181–5. Epub 2013/03/09PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Blaxhult A, Samuelson A, Ask R, Hokeberg I. Limited spread of hepatitis C among HIV-negative men who have sex with men in Stockholm, Sweden. Int J STD AIDS. 2013;25(7):493–5. Epub 2013/12/20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bozicevic I, Rode OD, Lepej SZ, Johnston LG, Stulhofer A, Dominkovic Z, et al. Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men in Zagreb. Croatia AIDS Behav. 2009;13(2):303–9. Epub 2008/08/12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cavlek TV, Margan IG, Lepej SZ, Kolaric B, Vince A. Seroprevalence, risk factors, and hepatitis C virus genotypes in groups with high-risk sexual behavior in Croatia. J Med Virol. 2009;81(8):1348–53. Epub 2009/06/25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Rooijen MS, Heijman T, De Vrieze NHN, Urbanus A, Speksnijder AGCL, Van Leeuwen P, et al. Earlier HCV diagnosis by the introduction of routine HCV testing for HIV positive MSM and MSM opting out for HIV in a large STI outpatient clinic. Sex Transm Infect. 2013;89Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van de Laar TJ, van der Bij AK, Prins M, Bruisten SM, Brinkman K, Ruys TA, et al. Increase in HCV incidence among men who have sex with men in Amsterdam most likely caused by sexual transmission. J Infect Dis. 2007;196(2):230–8. Epub 2007/06/16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Price H, Gilson R, Mercey D, Copas A, Parry J, Nardone A, et al. Hepatitis C in men who have sex with men in London--a community survey. HIV Med. 2013;14(9):578–80. Epub 2013/06/21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Donson H, Rogstad KE, Campbell L, Raza M, Cope A. Sexual Health services have a key role in the diagnosis and initial assessment of hepatitis C. Sex Transm Infect. 2012;88Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drummond A, Codd M, Donnelly N, McCausland D, Mehegan J, Daly L, et al. Study on the prevalence of drug use, including intravenous drug use, and blood-borne viruses among the Irish prisoner population. Dublin: National Advisory Committee on drugs and Alcohol; 2014.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Viitanen P, Vartiainen H, Aarnio J, von Gruenewaldt V, Hakamaki S, Lintonen T, et al. Hepatitis a, B, C and HIV infections among Finnish female prisoners--young females a risk group. J Infect. 2011;62(1):59–66. Epub 2010/11/23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Abergel A, Bonny C, Dydymski S, Henquell C, Jacomet C, Lenat-Guyot A, et al. Promotion du dépistage des hépatites virales et du diagnostic de la fibrose hépatique d’origine virale et/ou toxique dans les prisons du Puy-de-Dôme, Journées Francophones d’Hépato-gastroentérologie et d’Oncologie Digestive (JHOD); 2015. p. P398.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Babudieri S, Longo B, Sarmati L, Starnini G, Dori L, Suligoi B, et al. Correlates of HIV, HBV, and HCV infections in a prison inmate population: results from a multicentre study in Italy. J Med Virol. 2005;76(3):311–7. Epub 2005/05/20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Removille N, Origer A, Couffignal S, Vaillant M, Schmit JC, Lair ML. A hepatitis a, B, C and HIV prevalence and risk factor study in ever injecting and non-injecting drug users in Luxembourg associated with HAV and HBV immunisations. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:351. Epub 2011/05/21CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Marques NM, Margalho R, Melo MJ, Cunha JG, Melico-Silvestre AA. Seroepidemiological survey of transmissible infectious diseases in a portuguese prison establishment. Braz J Infect Dis. 2011;15(3):272–5. Epub 2011/06/15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Popov GT, Plochev KS, Chervenyakova TP. Prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection among juvenile prisoners. J Hepatol. 2012;56:S546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Murcia J, Portilla J, Bedia M, Palazon JM, Sanchez-Paya J, Saiz de la Hoya P, et al. chronic hepatitis C virus infection and associated liver disease among the inmates of a Spanish prison. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2009;27(4):206–12. Epub 2009/02/28. Infeccion cronica por el virus de la hepatitis C y enfermedad hepatica asociada en una prision espanola.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Abad-Perez I, Carbonell-Franco E, Navarro-Garcia D, Roig-Sena FJ, Salazar A. Evolution of the main diagnoses of hospital discharges amongst the prison population in Valencia, 2000-2009. Rev Esp Sanid Penit. 2011;13(2):38–43. Epub 2011/07/14. Evolucion de los principales diagnosticos al alta hospitalaria de la poblacion penitenciaria de la provincia de Valencia, 2000–2009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hernandez-Fernandez T, Arroyo-Cobo JM. results of the Spanish experience: a comprehensive approach to HIV and HCV in prisons. Rev Esp Sanid Penit. 2010;12(3):86–90. Epub 2010/02/01. Resultados de la experiencia espanola: una aproximacion global al VIH y al VHC en prisionesCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Popov G, Plochev K, Pekova L, Pishmisheva M, Popov T, Tchervenyakova T. Prevalence of viral hepatitis, human immunodeficiency virus and syphilis among inmates of Bulgarian prisons. J Hepatol. 2013;58:S406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Popov G, Plochev K, Ramshev K, Ramsheva Z. Prevalence of viral hepatitis among inmates of Bulgarian prisons. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16:S313.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Samuel I, Ritchie D, McDonald C, Brady M, Taylor C. Should we be testing all inmates in young offender institutes for hepatitis C? Int J STD AIDS. 2013;24:46.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Duncan S, Sherrard J. Experience of screening for hepatitis C in a prison setting. International Journal of STD and AIDS. 2013;24:29–30.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mortlock AM, Mirowska L, Garcia V, Cohen A, Sengupta S. Blood-borne Virus testing in a maximum secure psychiatric hospital. Eur Psychiatry. 2013;28(Supplement 1):1.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fernandez L, Folch C, Majo X, Gasulla L, Casabona J. Pilot study for the implementation of rapid HCV and HIV tests in harm reduction programmes for intravenous drug users in Catalonia. Suchtmedizin in Forschung und Praxis. 2013;15(4):258.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Meyer MF, Wedemeyer H, Monazahian M, Dreesman J, Manns MP, Lehmann M. Prevalence of hepatitis C in a German prison for young men in relation to country of birth. Epidemiol Infect. 2007;135(2):274–80. Epub 2006/07/11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Burek V, Horvat J, Butorac K, Mikulic R. Viral hepatitis B, C and HIV infection in Croatian prisons. Epidemiol Infect. 2010;138(11):1610–20. Epub 2010/03/06CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    World Health Organisation (WHO). WHO guidelines on hepatitis B and C testing. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schweitzer A, Horn J, Mikolajczyk RT, Krause G, Ott JJ. Estimations of worldwide prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus infection: a systematic review of data published between 1965 and 2013. Lancet. 2015;386(10003):1546–55. Epub 2015/08/02CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Esteban JI, Sauleda S, Quer J. The changing epidemiology of hepatitis C virus infection in Europe. J Hepatol. 2008;48(1):148–62. Epub 2007/11/21CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gower E, Estes C, Blach S, Razavi-Shearer K, Razavi H. Global epidemiology and genotype distribution of the hepatitis C virus infection. J Hepatol. 2014;61(Supplement 1):S45-57.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bruggmann P, Berg T, Ovrehus AL, Moreno C, Brandao Mello CE, Roudot-Thoraval F, et al. Historical epidemiology of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in selected countries. J Viral Hepat. 2014;21(Suppl 1):5–33. Epub 2014/04/10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cornberg M, Razavi HA, Alberti A, Bernasconi E, Buti M, Cooper C, et al. A systematic review of hepatitis C virus epidemiology in Europe, Canada and Israel. Liver Int. 2011;31(SUPPL. 2):30–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kowdley KV, Wang CC, Welch S, Roberts H, Brosgart CL. Prevalence of chronic hepatitis B among foreign-born persons living in the United States by country of origin. Hepatology. 2012;56(2):422–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Platt L, Easterbrook P, Gower E, McDonald B, Sabin K, McGowan C, et al. Prevalence and burden of HCV co-infection in people living with HIV: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2016;16(7):797–808. Epub 2016/02/29CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Joshi D, O'Grady J, Dieterich D, Gazzard B, Agarwal K. Increasing burden of liver disease in patients with HIV infection. Lancet. 2011;377(9772):1198–209. Epub 2011/04/05CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Edmunds WJ, Medley GF, Nokes DJ, Hall AJ, Whittle HC. The influence of age on the development of the hepatitis B carrier state. Proc Biol Sci. 1993;253(1337):197–201. Epub 1993/08/23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    van Houdt R, Bruisten SM, Speksnijder AG, Prins M. Unexpectedly high proportion of drug users and men having sex with men who develop chronic hepatitis B infection. J Hepatol. 2012;57(3):529–33. Epub 2012/05/23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    van Santen DK, van der Helm JJ, Del Amo J, Meyer L, D'Arminio Monforte A, Price M, et al. Lack of decline in hepatitis C virus incidence among HIV-positive men who have sex with men during 1990-2014. J Hepatol. 2017;67(2):255-62.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Aebi MF, Delgrande N. SPACE I – Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Prison populations. Survey 2013. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2015.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Kamarulzaman A, Reid SE, Schwitters A, Wiessing L, El-Bassel N, Dolan K, et al. Prevention of transmission of HIV, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and tuberculosis in prisoners. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1115–26. Epub 2016/07/19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Komatsu H. Hepatitis B virus: where do we stand and what is the next step for eradication? World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(27):8998–9016. Epub 2014/08/02PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    World Health Organisation (WHO). Action plan for the health sector response to viral hepatitis in the WHO European Region. 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Infectious Disease Control, Municipal Public Health Service Rotterdam-RijnmondRotterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Public Health, Erasmus MCUniversity Medical Centre RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Centre for Infectious Disease ControlBilthoventhe Netherlands
  4. 4.European Centre for Disease Prevention and ControlSolnaSweden

Personalised recommendations