Dataset Information

The Netherlands Is on Track to Meet the World Health Organization Hepatitis C Elimination Targets by 2030.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Netherlands strives for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination, in accordance with the World Health Organization targets. An accurate estimate when HCV elimination will be reached is elusive. We have embarked on a nationwide HCV elimination project (CELINE) that allowed us to harvest detailed data on the Dutch HCV epidemic. This study aims to provide a well-supported timeline towards HCV elimination in The Netherlands.

Methods

A previously published Markov model was used, adopting published data and unpublished CELINE project data. Two main scenarios were devised. In the Status Quo scenario, 2020 diagnosis and treatment levels remained constant in subsequent years. In the Gradual Decline scenario, an annual decrease of 10% in both diagnoses and treatments was implemented, starting in 2020. WHO incidence target was disregarded, due to low HCV incidence in The Netherlands (≤5 per 100,000).

Results

Following the Status Quo and Gradual Decline scenarios, The Netherlands would meet WHO's elimination targets by 2027 and 2032, respectively. From 2015 to 2030, liver-related mortality would be reduced by 97% in the Status Quo and 93% in the Gradual Decline scenario. Compared to the Status Quo scenario, the Gradual Decline scenario would result in 12 excess cases of decompensated cirrhosis, 18 excess cases of hepatocellular carcinoma, and 20 excess cases of liver-related death from 2020-2030.

Conclusions

The Netherlands is on track to reach HCV elimination by 2030. However, it is vital that HCV elimination remains high on the agenda to ensure adequate numbers of patients are being diagnosed and treated.

SUBMITTER: van Dijk M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8509638 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAlthough hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection remains a major clinical, economic, and societal burden, the development of curative antiviral therapy may accelerate the path toward elimination. This analysis assessed the progress of United States (US) states towards achieving the World Health Organization's (WHO) 2030 HCV elimination targets for incidence, mortality, diagnosis, and treatment.MethodsA previously published Markov model was used to simulate HCV progression over time to estimate the path to HCV elimination in each state based on prevalence, annual treatment, and diagnosis inputs from two large US laboratory datasets from January 2013 to December 2017. State-specific fibrosis stage restrictions on treatment in 2017 were included. The model estimated the year individual states would meet the WHO targets for diagnosing 90% of the HCV-infected population, treating 80% of the eligible population, reducing new HCV infections by 80%, and reducing HCV-related deaths by 65%. The minimum number of annual treatments needed between 2020 and 2030 to achieve the WHO treatment target was also calculated.ResultsOverall, the USA is projected to achieve HCV elimination by 2037, with individual targets related to mortality, diagnosis, treatment, and incidence being achieved by 2020, 2027, 2033, and 2037, respectively. Three states (Connecticut, South Carolina, and Washington) are on track to meet all four elimination targets by 2030, and 18 states are not expected to meet these targets before 2040. The estimated annual number of treatments required during 2020-2030 nationally to reach the WHO treatment target is 173,514.ConclusionWith the exception of three states, the USA is not on target to meet the WHO 2030 elimination targets and 35% are off track by 10 years or more. Strategies must be implemented to reduce overall prevalence by preventing new infections, increasing rates of screening, improving linkage to care, and implementing unfettered access to curative therapy.

Project description:Evidence documenting the global burden of disease from viral hepatitis was essential for the World Health Assembly to endorse the first Global Health Sector Strategy (GHSS) on viral hepatitis in May 2016. The GHSS on viral hepatitis proposes to eliminate viral hepatitis as a public health threat by 2030. The GHSS on viral hepatitis is in line with targets for HIV infection and tuberculosis as part of the Sustainable Development Goals. As coordination between hepatitis and HIV programs aims to optimize the use of resources, guidance is also needed to align the strategic information components of the 2 programs. The World Health Organization monitoring and evaluation framework for viral hepatitis B and C follows an approach similar to the one of HIV, including components on the following: (1) context (prevalence of infection), (2) input, (3) output and outcome, including the cascade of prevention and treatment, and (4) impact (incidence and mortality). Data systems that are needed to inform this framework include (1) surveillance for acute hepatitis, chronic infections, and sequelae and (2) program data documenting prevention and treatment, which for the latter includes a database of patients. Overall, the commonalities between HIV and hepatitis at the strategic, policy, technical, and implementation levels justify coordination, strategic linkage, or integration, depending on the type of HIV and viral hepatitis epidemics. Strategic information is a critical area of this alignment under the principle of what gets measured gets done. It is facilitated because the monitoring and evaluation frameworks for HIV and viral hepatitis were constructed using a similar approach. However, for areas where elimination of viral hepatitis requires data that cannot be collected through the HIV program, collaborations are needed with immunization, communicable disease control, tuberculosis, and hepatology centers to ensure collection of information for the remaining indicators.

Project description:BackgroundResearch in 2007 showed that World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations were largely based on expert opinion, rarely used systematic evidence-based methods, and did not follow the organization's own "Guidelines for Guidelines". In response, the WHO established a "Guidelines Review Committee" (GRC) to implement and oversee internationally recognized standards. We examined the impact of these changes on WHO guideline documents and explored senior staff's perceptions of the new procedures.Methods and findingsWe used the AGREE II guideline appraisal tool to appraise ten GRC-approved guidelines from nine WHO departments, and ten pre-GRC guidelines matched by department and topic. We interviewed 20 senior staff across 16 departments and analyzed the transcripts using the framework approach. Average AGREE II scores for GRC-approved guidelines were higher across all six AGREE domains compared with pre-GRC guidelines. The biggest changes were noted for "Rigour of Development" (up 37.6%, from 30.7% to 68.3%) and "Editorial Independence" (up 52.7%, from 20.9% to 73.6%). Four main themes emerged from the interviews: (1) high standards were widely recognized as essential for WHO credibility, particularly with regard to conflicts of interest; (2) views were mixed on whether WHO needed a single quality assurance mechanism, with some departments purposefully bypassing the procedures; (3) staff expressed some uncertainties in applying the GRADE approach, with departmental staff concentrating on technicalities while the GRC remained concerned the underlying principles were not fully institutionalized; (4) the capacity to implement the new standards varied widely, with many departments looking to an overstretched GRC for technical support.ConclusionsSince 2007, WHO guideline development methods have become more systematic and transparent. However, some departments are bypassing the procedures, and as yet neither the GRC, nor the quality assurance standards they have set, are fully embedded within the organization.

Project description:BackgroundTo examine cross-national patterns and correlates of lifetime and 12-month comorbid DSM-IV anxiety disorders among people with lifetime and 12-month DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD).MethodNationally or regionally representative epidemiological interviews were administered to 74 045 adults in 27 surveys across 24 countries in the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys. DSM-IV MDD, a wide range of comorbid DSM-IV anxiety disorders, and a number of correlates were assessed with the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI).Results45.7% of respondents with lifetime MDD (32.0-46.5% inter-quartile range (IQR) across surveys) had one of more lifetime anxiety disorders. A slightly higher proportion of respondents with 12-month MDD had lifetime anxiety disorders (51.7%, 37.8-54.0% IQR) and only slightly lower proportions of respondents with 12-month MDD had 12-month anxiety disorders (41.6%, 29.9-47.2% IQR). Two-thirds (68%) of respondents with lifetime comorbid anxiety disorders and MDD reported an earlier age-of-onset (AOO) of their first anxiety disorder than their MDD, while 13.5% reported an earlier AOO of MDD and the remaining 18.5% reported the same AOO of both disorders. Women and previously married people had consistently elevated rates of lifetime and 12-month MDD as well as comorbid anxiety disorders. Consistently higher proportions of respondents with 12-month anxious than non-anxious MDD reported severe role impairment (64.4 v. 46.0%; χ 2 1 = 187.0, p < 0.001) and suicide ideation (19.5 v. 8.9%; χ 2 1 = 71.6, p < 0.001). Significantly more respondents with 12-month anxious than non-anxious MDD received treatment for their depression in the 12 months before interview, but this difference was more pronounced in high-income countries (68.8 v. 45.4%; χ 2 1 = 108.8, p < 0.001) than low/middle-income countries (30.3 v. 20.6%; χ 2 1 = 11.7, p < 0.001).ConclusionsPatterns and correlates of comorbid DSM-IV anxiety disorders among people with DSM-IV MDD are similar across WMH countries. The narrow IQR of the proportion of respondents with temporally prior AOO of anxiety disorders than comorbid MDD (69.6-74.7%) is especially noteworthy. However, the fact that these proportions are not higher among respondents with 12-month than lifetime comorbidity means that temporal priority between lifetime anxiety disorders and MDD is not related to MDD persistence among people with anxious MDD. This, in turn, raises complex questions about the relative importance of temporally primary anxiety disorders as risk markers v. causal risk factors for subsequent MDD onset and persistence, including the possibility that anxiety disorders might primarily be risk markers for MDD onset and causal risk factors for MDD persistence.