Search

BACKGROUND Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of worldwide liver-related morbidity and mortality. The World Health Organization released an integrated strategy targeting HCV-elimination by 2030. This study aims to estimate the required interventions to achieve elimination using updated information for direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment coverage, to compute the total costs (including indirect/societal costs) of the strategy and to identify whether the elimination strategy is cost-effective/cost-saving in Greece. AIM To estimate the required interventions and subsequent costs to achieve HCV elimination in Greece. METHODS A previously validated mathematical model was adapted to the Greek HCVinfected population to compare the outcomes of DAA treatment without the additional implementation of awareness or screening campaigns versus an HCV elimination strategy, which includes a sufficient number of treated patients. We estimated the total costs (direct and indirect costs), the disability-adjusted life years and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using two different price scenarios. RESULTS Without the implementation of awareness or screening campaigns, approximately 20000 patients would be diagnosed and treated with DAAs by 2030. This strategy would result in a 19.6% increase in HCV-related mortality in 2030 compared to 2015. To achieve the elimination goal, 90000 patients need to be treated by 2030. Under the elimination scenario, viremic cases would decrease by 78.8% in 2030 compared to 2015. The cumulative direct costs to eliminate the disease would range from 2.1-2.3 billion euros (€) by 2030, while the indirect costs would be €1.1 billion. The total elimination cost in Greece would range from €3.2- 3.4 billion by 2030. The cost per averted disability-adjusted life year is estimated between €10100 and €13380, indicating that the elimination strategy is very costeffective. Furthermore, HCV elimination strategy would save €560-895 million by 2035. CONCLUSION Without large screening programs, elimination of HCV cannot be achieved. The HCV elimination strategy is feasible and cost-saving despite the uncertainty of the future cost of DAAs in Greece. © The Author(s) 2019.

Background: Aristotle was a seek-test-treat intervention during an outbreak of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Athens, Greece that started in 2011. The aims of this analysis were: (1) to study changes of drug injection-related and sexual behaviors over the course of Aristotle; and (2) to compare the likelihood of risky behaviors among PWID who were aware and unaware of their HIV status. Methods: Aristotle (2012-2013) involved five successive respondent-driven sampling rounds of approximately 1400 PWID each; eligible PWID could participate in multiple rounds. Participants were interviewed using a questionnaire, were tested for HIV, and were classified as HIV-positive aware of their status (AHS), HIV-positive unaware of their status (UHS), and HIV-negative. Piecewise linear generalized estimating equation models were used to regress repeatedly measured binary outcomes (high-risk behaviors) against covariates. Results: Aristotle recruited 3320 PWID (84.5% males, median age 34.2 years). Overall, 7110 interviews and blood samples were collected. The proportion of HIV-positive first-time participants who were aware of their HIV infection increased from 21.8% in round A to 36.4% in the last round. The odds of dividing drugs at least half of the time in the past 12 months with a syringe someone else had already used fell from round A to B by 90% [Odds Ratio (OR) (95% Confidence Interval-CI): 0.10 (0.04, 0.23)] among AHS and by 63% among UHS [OR (95% CI): 0.37 (0.19, 0.72)]. This drop was significantly larger (p = 0.02) among AHS. There were also decreases in frequency of injection and in receptive syringe sharing in the past 12 months but they were not significantly different between AHS (66 and 47%, respectively) and UHS (63 and 33%, respectively). Condom use increased only among male AHS from round B to the last round [OR (95% CI): 1.24 (1.01, 1.52)]. Conclusions: The prevalence of risky behaviors related to drug injection decreased in the context of Aristotle. Knowledge of HIV infection was associated with safer drug injection-related behaviors among PWID. This highlights the need for comprehensive interventions that scale-up HIV testing and help PWID become aware of their HIV status. © 2020 The Author(s).

People who inject drugs (PWID) comprise one of the major transmission risk groups for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). In 2011, Athens experienced a large HIV outbreak among PWID. Significant public health interventions were implemented in response to the HIV outbreak. The aims of this study were to estimate the indirect effects of the HIV interventions on HCV infection and to evaluate the concept of the association between HCV and HIV infections in the case of Athens. A dynamic, stochastic, individual-based model was developed to simulate HCV transmission among PWID. We calibrated the model to reproduce the observed HCV prevalence among PWID in Greece. Two years prior to the HIV outbreak, an undetected HCV outbreak has occurred. In 2009, the incidence of HCV infection increased from 640 (495, 842) cases in 2008 to 1260 (1060, 1500). The mean time from initiation of injecting drug use to HCV acquisition decreased from 29 months in 2008 to 13 months in 2009. After HIV interventions, HCV incidence declined by 64.8% in 2012, compared to 2009. The averted HCV incidence cases attributed to the HIV-implemented interventions were 2200 (1950, 2480), during 2012-2015. The cumulative number incident HCV cases in Athens during 2002-2015 was about 9900 (7800, 12 100). Our results highlight that before the 2011 HIV outbreak in Athens, an HCV outbreak occurred in 2009. Prevention measures for HIV that took place in the Athens metropolitan area in 2012 reduced significantly the incidence of HCV. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Background: The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate viral hepatitis by 2030. Although no virological cure exists for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, existing therapies to control viral replication and prophylaxis to minimise mother-to-child transmission make elimination of HBV feasible. We aimed to estimate the national, regional, and global prevalence of HBsAg in the general population and in the population aged 5 years in 2016, as well as coverage of prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment. Methods: In this modelling study, we used a Delphi process that included a literature review in PubMed and Embase, followed by interviews with experts, to quantify the historical epidemiology of HBV infection. We then used a dynamic HBV transmission and progression model to estimate the country-level and regional-level prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 and the effect of prophylaxis and treatment on disease burden. Findings: We developed models for 120 countries, 78 of which were populated with data approved by experts. Using these models, we estimated that the global prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 was 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·4–4·6), corresponding to 291 992 000 (251 513 000–341 114 000) infections. Of these infections, around 29 million (10%) were diagnosed, and only 4·8 million (5%) of 94 million individuals eligible for treatment actually received antiviral therapy. Around 1·8 (1·6–2·2) million infections were in children aged 5 years, with a prevalence of 1·4% (1·2–1·6). We estimated that 87% of infants had received the three-dose HBV vaccination in the first year of life, 46% had received timely birth-dose vaccination, and 13% had received hepatitis B immunoglobulin along with the full vaccination regimen. Less than 1% of mothers with a high viral load had received antiviral therapy to reduce mother-to-child transmission. Interpretation: Our estimate of HBV prevalence in 2016 differs from previous studies, potentially because we took into account the effect of infant prophylaxis and early childhood vaccination, as well as changing prevalence over time. Although some regions are well on their way to meeting prophylaxis and prevalence targets, all regions must substantially scale-up access to diagnosis and treatment to meet the global targets. Funding: John C Martin Foundation. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd

Introduction: Migrants are overrepresented in the European HIV epidemic. We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to HIV testing and current treatment and healthcare needs of migrants living with HIV in Europe. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in 57 HIV clinics in nine countries (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom), July 2013 to July 2015. HIV-positive patients were eligible for inclusion if they were as follows: 18 years or older; foreign-born residents and diagnosed within five years of recruitment. Questionnaires were completed electronically in one of 15 languages and linked to clinical records. Primary outcomes were access to primary care and previous negative HIV test. Data were analysed using random effects logistic regression. Outcomes of interest are presented for women, heterosexual men and gay/bisexual men. Results: A total of 2093 respondents (658 women, 446 heterosexual men and 989 gay/bisexual men) were included. The prevalence of a previous negative HIV test was 46.7%, 43.4% and 82.0% for women, heterosexual and gay/bisexual men respectively. In multivariable analysis previous testing was positively associated with: receipt of post-migration antenatal care among women, permanent residency among heterosexual men and identifying as gay rather than bisexual among gay/bisexual men. Access to primary care was found to be high (>83%) in all groups and was strongly associated with country of residence. Late diagnosis was common for women and heterosexual men (60.8% and 67.1%, respectively) despite utilization of health services prior to diagnosis. Across all groups almost three-quarters of people on antiretrovirals had an HIV viral load

Background The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 2030, which can become a reality with the recent launch of direct acting antiviral therapies. Reliable disease burden estimates are required for national strategies. This analysis estimates the global prevalence of viraemic HCV at the end of 2015, an update of—and expansion on—the 2014 analysis, which reported 80 million (95% CI 64–103) viraemic infections in 2013. Methods We developed country-level disease burden models following a systematic review of HCV prevalence (number of studies, n=6754) and genotype (n=11 342) studies published after 2013. A Delphi process was used to gain country expert consensus and validate inputs. Published estimates alone were used for countries where expert panel meetings could not be scheduled. Global prevalence was estimated using regional averages for countries without data. Findings Models were built for 100 countries, 59 of which were approved by country experts, with the remaining 41 estimated using published data alone. The remaining countries had insufficient data to create a model. The global prevalence of viraemic HCV is estimated to be 1·0% (95% uncertainty interval 0·8–1·1) in 2015, corresponding to 71·1 million (62·5–79·4) viraemic infections. Genotypes 1 and 3 were the most common cause of infections (44% and 25%, respectively). Interpretation The global estimate of viraemic infections is lower than previous estimates, largely due to more recent (lower) prevalence estimates in Africa. Additionally, increased mortality due to liver-related causes and an ageing population may have contributed to a reduction in infections. Funding John C Martin Foundation. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

Objective: We aimed to estimate the proportion of postmigration HIV acquisition among HIV-positive migrants in Europe. Design: To reach HIV-positive migrants, we designed a cross-sectional study performed in HIV clinics. Methods: The study was conducted from July 2013 to July 2015 in 57 clinics (nine European countries), targeting individuals over 18 years diagnosed in the preceding 5 years and born abroad. Electronic questionnaires supplemented with clinical data were completed in any of 15 languages. Postmigration HIV acquisition was estimated through Bayesian approaches combining extensive information on migration and patients' characteristics. CD4+ cell counts and HIV-RNA trajectories from seroconversion were estimated by bivariate linear mixed models fitted to natural history data. Postmigration acquisition risk factors were investigated with weighted logistic regression. Results: Of 2009 participants, 46% were MSM and a third originated from sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America & Caribbean, respectively. Median time in host countries was 8 years. Postmigration HIV acquisition was 63% (95% confidence interval: 57-67%); 72% among MSM, 58 and 51% in heterosexual men and women, respectively. Postmigration HIV acquisition was 71% for Latin America and Caribbean migrants and 45% for people from sub-Saharan Africa. Factors associated with postmigration HIV acquisition among heterosexual women and MSM were age at migration, length of stay in host country and HIV diagnosis year and among heterosexual men, length of stay in host country and HIV diagnosis year. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of HIV-positive migrants living in Europe acquired HIV postmigration. This has important implications for European public health policies. Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Background Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of liver-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. In the European Union (EU), treatment and cure of HCV with direct-acting antiviral therapies began in 2014. WHO targets are to achieve a 65% reduction in liver-related deaths, a 90% reduction of new viral hepatitis infections, and 90% of patients with viral hepatitis infections being diagnosed by 2030. This study assessed the prevalence of HCV in the EU and the level of intervention required to achieve WHO targets for HCV elimination. Methods We populated country Markov models for the 28 EU countries through a literature search of PubMed and Embase between Jan 1, 2000, and March 31, 2016, and a Delphi process to gain expert consensus and validate inputs. We aggregated country models to create a regional EU model. We used the EU model to forecast HCV disease progression (considering the effect of immigration) and developed a strategy to acehive WHO targets. We used weighted average sustained viral response rates and fibrosis restrictions to model the effect of current therapeutic guidelines. We used the EU model to forecast HCV disease progression (considering the effect of immigration) under current screening and therapeutic guidelines. Additionally, we back-calculated the total number of patients needing to be screened and treated to achieve WHO targets. Findings We estimated the number of viraemic HCV infections in 2015 to be 3 238 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 2 106 000–3 795 000) of a total population of 509 868 000 in the EU, equating to a prevalence of viraemic HCV of 0·64% (95% UI 0·41–0·74). We estimated that 1 180 000 (95% UI 1 003 000–1 357 000) people were diagnosed with viraemia (36·4%), 150 000 (12 000–180 000) were treated (4·6% of the total infected population or 12·7% of the diagnosed population), 133 000 (106 000–160 000) were cured (4·1%), and 57 900 (43 900–67 300) were newly infected (1·8%) in 2015. Additionally, 30 400 (26 600–42 500) HCV-positive immigrants entered the EU. To achieve WHO targets, unrestricted treatment needs to increase from 150 000 patients in 2015 to 187 000 patients in 2025 and diagnosis needs to increase from 88 800 new cases annually in 2015 to 180 000 in 2025. Interpretation Given its advanced health-care infrastructure, the EU is uniquely poised to eliminate HCV; however, expansion of screening programmes is essential to increase treatment to achieve the WHO targets. A united effort, grounded in sound epidemiological evidence, will also be necessary. Funding Gilead Sciences. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd

ALOX5AP (5-lipoxygenase) has been recognized as a susceptibility gene for stroke. Using a case-control design, the whole coding and adjoining intronic regions of ALOX5AP were sequenced to study the role of SNPs and their interplay with other risk factors in Greek patients with stroke. Patients (n = 213) were classified by the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). Their mean age of was 58.9 ± 14.64, comprising 145 males. The control group consisted of 210 subjects, ethnicity, sex and age matched, with no stroke history. Risk factors (hyperlipidemia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, migraine, CAD, diabetes, smoking and alcohol consumption) were assessed as confounding factors and comparisons were done using logistic regression analysis. SNPs rs4769055, rs202068154 and rs3803277 located in intronic regions of the gene and according to in silico programs EX_SKIP and HSF possibly affecting splicing of exons 1 and 2 of ALOX5AP, showed significantly different frequencies between patients and controls. The genotype frequencies of rs4769055: AA, of rs202068154: AC and of rs3803277: CA were significantly higher (p. < 0.001, 0.058) in controls than in patients. The results were indicative of a protective role of the three SNPs either in homozygosity or heterozygosity for MAF and more specifically rs3803277: CA/AA genotypes were protective against SVO stroke subtype. © 2014.

PubMed: 29599078, 2-s2.0-85044540918, Background: The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate viral hepatitis by 2030. Although no virological cure exists for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, existing therapies to control viral replication and prophylaxis to minimise mother-to-child transmission make elimination of HBV feasible. We aimed to estimate the national, regional, and global prevalence of HBsAg in the general population and in the population aged 5 years in 2016, as well as coverage of prophylaxis, diagnosis, and treatment. Methods: In this modelling study, we used a Delphi process that included a literature review in PubMed and Embase, followed by interviews with experts, to quantify the historical epidemiology of HBV infection. We then used a dynamic HBV transmission and progression model to estimate the country-level and regional-level prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 and the effect of prophylaxis and treatment on disease burden. Findings: We developed models for 120 countries, 78 of which were populated with data approved by experts. Using these models, we estimated that the global prevalence of HBsAg in 2016 was 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·4–4·6), corresponding to 291 992 000 (251 513 000–341 114 000) infections. Of these infections, around 29 million (10%) were diagnosed, and only 4·8 million (5%) of 94 million individuals eligible for treatment actually received antiviral therapy. Around 1·8 (1·6–2·2) million infections were in children aged 5 years, with a prevalence of 1·4% (1·2–1·6). We estimated that 87% of infants had received the three-dose HBV vaccination in the first year of life, 46% had received timely birth-dose vaccination, and 13% had received hepatitis B immunoglobulin along with the full vaccination regimen. Less than 1% of mothers with a high viral load had received antiviral therapy to reduce mother-to-child transmission. Interpretation: Our estimate of HBV prevalence in 2016 differs from previous studies, potentially because we took into account the effect of infant prophylaxis and early childhood vaccination, as well as changing prevalence over time. Although some regions are well on their way to meeting prophylaxis and prevalence targets, all regions must substantially scale-up access to diagnosis and treatment to meet the global targets. Funding: John C Martin Foundation. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, H28-kansei-ippan-001 National Academy of Sciences, NAS Novartis Roche World Health Organization, WHO Gilead Sciences Alnylam Pharmaceuticals AbbVie Meso Scale Diagnostics, MSD British Microcirculation Society, BMS Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, JSPS: 17H03589 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, MHLW Vetenskapsrådet, VR Siemens Universiteit Antwerpen OLL-683801, DR-S, IGa, SB, SMB, CE, KM, HMN, KP, KR-S, SR, JDS, and HR report grants from John C Martin Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, WHO, National Academy of Sciences, Intercept Pharmaceuticals, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. MHN reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Gilead Sciences, and Janssen, and personal fees from Novartis, Anylam, and Dynavax, outside the submitted work. PVD acts as chief and principal investigator for vaccine trials done on behalf of the University of Antwerp, Belgium, for which the University obtains research grants from vaccine manufacturers; speaker's fees for presentations on vaccines are paid directly to an educational fund held by the University of Antwerp, and PVD receives no personal remuneration for this work. ACA reports personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. JEA reports fees paid to his hospital for participation on the advisory boards of Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, BMS, Janssen, and AbbVie, and grants from BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), AbbVie, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. TB reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences; grants and personal fees from BMS, Janssen, Roche, MSD, and Sequana Medical; and personal fees from Bayer, Vertex, Tibotec, Intercept, Sirtex, and Alexion, outside the submitted work. PB reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. MBr reports personal fees from BMS, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen, and grants from BMS, outside the submitted work. HLYC reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, BMS, AbbVie, Roche, MedImmune, and Intellia, outside the submitted work. PBC reports grants from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. VC reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, and grants from BMS, outside the submitted work. MCor reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biogen Idec, Falk Foundation, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Roche Pharma, and Siemens, outside the submitted work. SD and PJ report personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie and Gilead Sciences, and personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work. MHE-S is an advisory board member for Perspectum Diagnostics, and reports grants and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, and non-financial support from AbbVie and Quadri Pharma, outside the submitted work. RF reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Roche and Gilead Sciences, and personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. GBG reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. JG-S reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, and personal fees from MSD, Abbvie, Janssen, and BMS, outside the submitted work. JGer reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, BMS, and ViiV Healthcare, outside the submitted work. RG reports grants from New South Wales Ministry of Health and provided project advice regarding viral hepatitis treatment to Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work. AHa reports unrestricted grants from AbbVie, MSD, Gilead Sciences, BMS, and Novartis, and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, outside the submitted work; he was also on advisory boards for AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS. CH reports personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, and MSD, outside the submitted work. JJ reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences and AbbVie, and personal fees from Roche and BMS, outside the submitted work. MK reports grants from Roche, Siemens, Hologic, and Boerhinger Ingleheim, outside the submitted work. JVL reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from Cepheid, outside the submitted work. MMan reports personal fees from Roche, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Aevi Genomic Medicine, ENYO Pharma, and CureVac, and grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and Novartis, outside the submitted work. SMau reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences and BMS, outside the submitted work. CM reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS; personal fees from MSD; and grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. BM reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from AbbVie, MSD, BMS, Bayer, Intercept, and Sigma-Tau, during the conduct of the study. FN reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, during the conduct of the study. AR reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead, and MSD, and personal fees form BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Intercept, and Lupin, outside the submitted work. HWR reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, ENYO Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, PRA Health Sciences, Regulus, and Roche; personal fees from Alnylam and R-Pharm; and grants from Replicor, outside the submitted work. LRR reports grants from the Center for Clinical and Translational Science and the Swedish Research Council (Ghana), during the conduct of the study. LRR also reports grants from Gilead Sciences, BTG, Ariad, and Wako, outside the submitted work, and was a consultant and advisory board member for Wako, Medscape, Axis, OncLive, Bayer, Tavec, and Grail. SDR has served as an advisory board member and speaker for Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and MSD. OS has served as a consultant and on advisory boards for MSD; received research grants from AbbVie, BMS, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, R-Pharm, and Hepatera; and served as a speaker for Abbott, AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, MSD, and R-Pharm. JFS-A reports personal fees from AbbVie and grants from Gilead Sciences and Janssen, outside the submitted work. CSa reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences and BMS, outside the submitted work. PS reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and BMS, and personal fees from Intercept, outside the submitted work. CSt has consulted with and served on advisory boards for Gilead Sciences, AbbVie, and MSD. VSy reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie, and personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. KT reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and BMS; personal fees from MSD and Alfa Wasserman; and grants from Janssen, outside the submitted work. AJvdM reports grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences and personal fees from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. IW reports personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Marcyrl, Mylan, Onxio, and Pharco, outside the submitted work. NW reports personal fees paid to her department from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, outside the submitted work. VWW reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, BMS, and MSD, outside the submitted work. M-FY was a speaker or advisory board member for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead Sciences, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Fujirebio, Biocartis, and MSD, outside the submitted work. SZ reports consultancy and lecture fees from AbbVie, Gilead Sciences, and MSD, and consultancy fees from Intercept, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., This study was funded by the John C Martin Foundation through the Polaris Observatory. We thank the Research on Hepatitis group (H28-kansei-ippan-001 and H25-kanen-ippan-010; led by JT), funded by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan, for their provision of country-level data for Japan, and Örebro County Council for providing ALF grants (OLL-683801) to A-SD, which allowed collection of country-level data for Sweden.

WOS: 000426979400014, PubMed ID: 28404132, Background The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 2030, which can become a reality with the recent launch of direct acting antiviral therapies. Reliable disease burden estimates are required for national strategies. This analysis estimates the global prevalence of viraemic HCV at the end of 2015, an update of-and expansion on-the 2014 analysis, which reported 80 million (95% CI 64-103) viraemic infections in 2013. Methods We developed country-level disease burden models following a systematic review of HCV prevalence (number of studies, n=6754) and genotype (n=11 342) studies published after 2013. A Delphi process was used to gain country expert consensus and validate inputs. Published estimates alone were used for countries where expert panel meetings could not be scheduled. Global prevalence was estimated using regional averages for countries without data. Findings Models were built for 100 countries, 59 of which were approved by country experts, with the remaining 41 estimated using published data alone. The remaining countries had insufficient data to create a model. The global prevalence of viraemic HCV is estimated to be 1.0% (95% uncertainty interval 0.8-1.1) in 2015, corresponding to 71.1 million (62.5-79.4) viraemic infections. Genotypes 1 and 3 were the most common cause of infections (44% and 25%, respectively). Interpretation The global estimate of viraemic infections is lower than previous estimates, largely due to more recent (lower) prevalence estimates in Africa. Additionally, increased mortality due to liver-related causes and an ageing population may have contributed to a reduction in infections., John C Martin Foundation, John C Martin Foundation.