Article
|
|
|
Services
|
|
|
Google Scholar
|
|
|
PubMed
|
|
|
|
REPLY
Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Adults
Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, and
Janet D. Allan, PhD, RN, CS
5 October 2004 | Volume 141 Issue 7 | Page 576
IN RESPONSE:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this thoughtful letter regarding the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's grade I recommendation for screening high-risk individuals for HCV infection. It is important to begin with a correction: A grade I recommendation is not a recommendation against screening, as Drs. Rich, Taylor, and Allen suggest. The Task Force recommends against a service only when it finds at least fair evidence that the service is ineffective or that the harms of providing the service outweigh the benefits (such services are then given a grade D recommendation). Rather, when assigning a grade I recommendation, the Task Force concludes that it cannot recommend for or against routinely offering a service because evidence of the service's effectiveness is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined (1).
Such was the case when the Task Force considered the evidence for screening high-risk individuals for HCV infection. There is evidence that available screening tests can accurately identify HCV infection and that treatment reduces the intermediate outcome of viral load. However, the connection between the treatment of HCV infection detected through screening and the long-term health outcomes is not well substantiated by the evidence. Similarly, there is no direct evidence that behavioral interventions in HCV-positive patients either promote behaviors that reduce the transmission of HCV to others or reduce behaviors that put the patients' own health at risk. Extrapolating from the literature on screening and treatment for other diseases creates the potential for error and serious consequences.
It is essential that the Task Force adhere to its established rules of evidence (1) in making recommendations. There are many compelling reasons to screen high-risk persons for HCV infection (for example, as a public health strategy for conducting surveillance and public awareness programs). However, on the basis of the available evidence, the Task Force could not recommend for or against such screening in the primary care setting because the available evidence does not indicate that it will improve health outcomes.
|
Author and Article Information
|
|---|
From U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Rockville, MD 20852.
1. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20:21-35. [PMID: 11306229].
About Letters
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
Type with double-spacing
Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.
Related articles in Annals:
-
Clinical Guidelines
Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Roger Chou, Elizabeth C. Clark, AND Mark Helfand
- Annals 2004 140: 465-479.
[ABSTRACT][SUMMARY][Full Text]