Skip to main content

USPSTF Pushes Back on Hepatitis C Virus Mass Screening.

I spend a lot of my time reading, thinking and writing about politics and medicine.  I love the debate.  Three of the five Kirsch progeny engaged in serious school debate programs, and I believe that they received years of training at our dinner table.  I certainly learned a lot from them – and still do – and I hope they picked up a few worthy lessons along the way.

Some time ago, an associate admonished me to avoid dialogue concerning religion or politics, two of my staple conversation themes.  This advice seemed misplaced as I’ve never had an argument in my life discussing a controversial issue.  Indeed, I seek out these opportunities. I don't want the other individual to change the subject; I want this person to change my mind.

Controversy erupted recently when Hepatitis C enthusiasts pushed back against the U.S Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) draft recommendation regarding testing folks for hepatitis C virus (HCV). More turbulence is sure to follow. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had previously issued their guideline advising that all individuals born during 1945-1965 be tested once for HCV.  That would include the Whistleblower who has no risk factors associated with HCV infection. I have not been tested and have no intention of doing so.

Electron Micrograph of HCV

I’ve already posted a vigorous rant explaining why I feel that patients with HCV are overtreated.  As I indicated there, the Food and Drug Administration has approved two new medicines, boceprevir (Victrelis) and telaprevir (Incivek) which have significantly increased treatment efficacy.  HCV patients who opt for treatment are prescribed one of these two medicines along with two others to complete a three drug HCV cocktail.  These are very serious medicines with potential serious toxicities.

I applaud this medical advance and hope that research in the near term will increase efficacy, reduce toxicity and simplify the treatment. 

HCV experts and many physicians advocate treatment to eliminate the virus so that the hepatitis infection will not progress to cirrhosis and liver cancer.  Liver failure from HCV infection is a major cause of liver transplantation.
Indeed, if you were a HCV patient and your doctor advised treatment “to prevent liver failure, cirrhosis or liver cancer”, I suspect you would be inclined to accept the recommendation.  I don't think, however, that many patients are given the fair and balanced context when they are considering how to proceed.  Only an informed patient can provide informed consent. 

Consider the following before pulling the treatment trigger.  
  • The vast majority of HCV patients have no symptoms and have had the disease for decades.
  • Only 10-20% of HCV patients will develop cirrhosis, many of whom will function well.
  • The treatment is toxic and extremely expensive.
  • We have no reliable method to determine which HCV patient is destined for future complications.
  • HCV patients who ‘respond’ to treatment may have lived a normal life without treatment.
Is there a role for treatment in this disease?  Of course, but I suspect that once again, medical practitioners are casting too wide a treatment net ensnaring many folks who should be left alone.

The USPSTF just issued their draft HCV guidelines that were considerably narrower than those of the CDC.  The task force recommends HCV screening only for those who are at high risk of the disease, such as those who used intravenous needles or received blood transfusions prior to 1992.  Unlike the CDC, no mandatory screening of folks born during 1945-1965 is advised.  The task force pointed out the absence of proof that widespread screening for HCV would reduce liver disease and mortality.

When the final guideline emerges, there will be criticism.  Some of it may be based on the medical merits, which is fair game. Other criticism will try to game the system.  There’s a huge and growing HCV testing and treatment industry and gazillions of dollars at stake.  Certain stakeholders will advocate policies that endorse widespread screening for HCV.  Will this be only for medical reasons?  Our track record on this issue isn't encouraging.  Beware of conflicts of interests buried under feigned arguments to protect patients. There are 4 million Americans with HCV.  Treatment with the new 3 drug regimen can cost in excess of $50,000 per patient.   Do the math.  

50,000 x 4,000,000 =

We shouldn't retreat from discussing whether treating HCV makes sense.  After all, it's not religion or politics. 


  1. I would like to communicate directly with you. I have a question about the physician ethical obligation to be truthful with his patient. I want to ask this question because, over the last 2 years I have been repeatedly lied to by doctors, and their staff. The situation is more complex that this minimal path of contact seems to allow. How may I contact you directly?

  2. HCV patients who opt for treatment are prescribed one of these two medicines along with two others to complete a three drug HCV cocktail.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so.  The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals.  In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist.  Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings.  Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape.   Private equity (PE) firms have   been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight.   PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale.   While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier.  There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform.  Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele.  It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance.  For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings?  If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits?  The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform.   Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat.   The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families.   Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR).  I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary.  And it’s not a fair fight.  You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine.   I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient.   You must think I am a magician or a savant.   While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago.   (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary