Underreporting of Hepatitis B and C virus infections - Pennsylvania, 2001-2015.

ContextIn Pennsylvania, reporting of viral hepatitis B (HBV) and viral hepatitis C (HCV) infections to CDC has been mandated since 2002. Underreporting of HBV and HCV infections has long been identified as a problem. Few reports have described the accuracy of state surveillance case registries for recording clinically-confirmed cases of HBV and HCV infections, or the characteristics of populations associated with lower rates of reporting.ObjectiveThe primary objective of the current study is to estimate the proportion of HBV and HCV infections that went unreported to the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PDoH), among patients in the Geisinger Health System of Pennsylvania. As a secondary objective, we study the association between underreporting of HBV and HCV infections to PDoH, and the select patient characteristics of interest: sex, age group, race/ethnicity, rural status, and year of initial diagnosis.DesignPer medical record review, the study population was limited to Geisinger Health System patients, residing in Pennsylvania, who were diagnosed with a chronic HBV and/or HCV infection, between 2001 and 2015. Geisinger Health System patient medical records were matched to surveillance records of confirmed cases reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PDoH). To quantify the extent that underreporting occurred among the Geisinger Health System study participants, we calculated the proportion of study participants that were not reported to PDoH as confirmed cases of HBV or HCV infections. An analysis of adjusted prevalence ratio estimates was conducted to study the association between underreporting of HBV and HCV infections to PDoH, and the select patient characteristics of interest.ResultsGeisinger Health System patients living with HBV were reported to PDoH 88.4% (152 of 172) of the time; patients living with HCV were reported to PDoH 94.6% (2,257 of 2,386) of the time; and patients who were co-infected with both viruses were reported to PDoH 72.0% (18 of 25) of the time. Patients living with HCV had an increased likelihood of being reported if they were: less than or equal to age 30 vs ages 65+ {PR = 1.2, [95%CI, (1.1, 1.3)]}, and if they received their initial diagnosis of HCV during the 2010-2015 time period vs the 1990-1999 time period {PR = 1.08, [95%CI, (1.05, 1.12)]}.ConclusionThe findings in this study are promising, and suggests that PDoH has largely been successful with tracking and monitoring viral hepatitis B and C infections, among persons that were tested for HBV and/or HCV. Additional efforts should be placed on decreasing underreporting rates of HCV infections among seniors (ages 65 and over), and persons who are co-infected with HBV and HCV

Difficulties with invasive risk stratification performed under anesthesia in pediatric Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome

© 2019 Heart Rhythm Society Background: Children with Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome (WPW) are at risk for sudden death. The gold standard for risk stratification in this population is the shortest pre-excited RR interval during atrial fibrillation (SPERRI). Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine how closely measurements made in the electrophysiology laboratory in patients with WPW compared to SPERRI obtained during an episode of clinical pre-excited atrial fibrillation (Clinical-SPERRI). Methods: This was a subgroup analysis of a multicenter study of children with WPW. Subjects in our study (N = 49) were included if they had Clinical-SPERRI measured in addition to 1 or more of 3 surrogate measurements: SPERRI obtained during electrophysiological study (EP-SPERRI), accessory pathway effective refractory period (APERP), or shortest pre-excited paced cycle length with 1:1 conduction (SPPCL). Results: Seventy percent of electrophysiological measurements were made with patients under general anesthesia. Clinical-SPERRI moderately correlated with EP-SPERRI (r = 0.495; P = .012). However, 24% of our patients with Clinical-SPERRI ≤250 ms would have been misclassified as having a low-risk pathway based on EP-SPERRI \u3e250 ms. Clinical-SPERRI did not correlate with APERP or SPPCL (r \u3c 0.3; P \u3e.1). Mean EP-SPERRI, APERP, and SPPCL all were greater than Clinical-SPERRI. Conclusion: Electrophysiology laboratory measurements of pathway characteristics made with patients under general anesthesia do not correlate well with Clinical-SPERRI. Of APERP, SPPCL, and EP-SPERRI, only EP-SPERRI had moderate correlation with Clinical-SPERRI. This study questions the predictive ability of invasive risk stratification with patients under general anesthesia, given that 24% of patients with high-risk Clinical-SPERRI (≤250 ms) had EP-SPERRI that may be considered low risk (\u3e250 ms)