Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBil, Janneke P
dc.contributor.authorSchrooders, Peter Ag
dc.contributor.authorPrins, Maria
dc.contributor.authorKouw, Peter M
dc.contributor.authorKlomp, Judith He
dc.contributor.authorScholing, Maarten
dc.contributor.authorHuijbregts, Lutje Phm
dc.contributor.authorSonder, Gerard Jb
dc.contributor.authorWaegemaekers, Toos Chfm
dc.contributor.authorde Vries, Henry Jc
dc.contributor.authorMeijer, Wieneke
dc.contributor.authorZuure, Freke R
dc.contributor.authorTostmann, Alma
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-29T11:02:01Z
dc.date.available2018-03-29T11:02:01Z
dc.date.issued2018-03
dc.identifier.citationIntegrating hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV screening into tuberculosis entry screening for migrants in the Netherlands, 2013 to 2015. 2018, 23 (11) Euro Surveill.en
dc.identifier.issn1560-7917
dc.identifier.pmid29560855
dc.identifier.doi10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.11.17-00491
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10029/621714
dc.description.abstractWe evaluated uptake and diagnostic outcomes of voluntary hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) screening offered during routine tuberculosis entry screening to migrants in Gelderland and Amsterdam, the Netherlands, between 2013 and 2015. In Amsterdam, HIV screening was also offered. Overall, 54% (461/859) accepted screening. Prevalence of chronic HBV infection (HBsAg-positive) and HCV exposure (anti-HCV-positive) in Gelderland was 4.48% (9/201; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.37-8.29) and 0.99% (2/203; 95% CI: 0.27-3.52), respectively, all infections were newly diagnosed. Prevalence of chronic HBV infection, HCV exposure and chronic HCV infection (HCV RNA-positive) in Amsterdam was 0.39% (1/256; 95% CI: 0.07-2.18), 1.17% (3/256; 95% CI: 0.40-3.39) and 0.39% (1/256; 95% CI: 0.07-2.18), respectively, with all chronic HBV/HCV infections previously diagnosed. No HIV infections were found. In univariate analyses, newly diagnosed chronic HBV infection was more likely in participants migrating for reasons other than work or study (4.35% vs 0.83%; odds ratio (OR) = 5.45; 95% CI: 1.12-26.60) and was less likely in participants in Amsterdam than Gelderland (0.00% vs 4.48%; OR = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.00-0.69). Regional differences in HBV prevalence might be explained by differences in the populations entering compulsory tuberculosis screening. Prescreening selection of migrants based on risk factors merits further exploration.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletinen
dc.titleIntegrating hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV screening into tuberculosis entry screening for migrants in the Netherlands, 2013 to 2015.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.journalEuro Surveill 2018; 23(11)en
html.description.abstractWe evaluated uptake and diagnostic outcomes of voluntary hepatitis B (HBV) and C virus (HCV) screening offered during routine tuberculosis entry screening to migrants in Gelderland and Amsterdam, the Netherlands, between 2013 and 2015. In Amsterdam, HIV screening was also offered. Overall, 54% (461/859) accepted screening. Prevalence of chronic HBV infection (HBsAg-positive) and HCV exposure (anti-HCV-positive) in Gelderland was 4.48% (9/201; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.37-8.29) and 0.99% (2/203; 95% CI: 0.27-3.52), respectively, all infections were newly diagnosed. Prevalence of chronic HBV infection, HCV exposure and chronic HCV infection (HCV RNA-positive) in Amsterdam was 0.39% (1/256; 95% CI: 0.07-2.18), 1.17% (3/256; 95% CI: 0.40-3.39) and 0.39% (1/256; 95% CI: 0.07-2.18), respectively, with all chronic HBV/HCV infections previously diagnosed. No HIV infections were found. In univariate analyses, newly diagnosed chronic HBV infection was more likely in participants migrating for reasons other than work or study (4.35% vs 0.83%; odds ratio (OR) = 5.45; 95% CI: 1.12-26.60) and was less likely in participants in Amsterdam than Gelderland (0.00% vs 4.48%; OR = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.00-0.69). Regional differences in HBV prevalence might be explained by differences in the populations entering compulsory tuberculosis screening. Prescreening selection of migrants based on risk factors merits further exploration.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record