Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a leading cause of chronic liver disease, end-stage cirrhosis, and liver cancer, but little is known about the burden of disease caused by the virus. We summarised burden of disease data presently available for Europe, compared the data to current expert estimates, and identified areas in which better data are needed. Methods: Literature and international health databases were systematically searched for HCV-specific burden of disease data, including incidence, prevalence, mortality, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and liver transplantation. Data were collected for the WHO European region with emphasis on 22 countries. If HCV-specific data were unavailable, these were calculated via HCV-attributable fractions. Results: HCV-specific burden of disease data for Europe are scarce. Incidence data provided by national surveillance are not fully comparable and need to be standardised. HCV prevalence data are often inconclusive. According to available data, an estimated 7.3–8.8 million people (1.1–1.3%) are infected in our 22 focus countries. HCV-specific mortality, DALY, and transplantation data are unavailable. Estimations via HCV-attributable fractions indicate that HCV caused more than 86000 deaths and 1.2 million DALYs in the WHO European region in 2002. Most of the DALYs (95%) were accumulated by patients in preventable disease stages. About one-quarter of the liver transplants performed in 25 European countries in 2004 were attributable to HCV. Conclusion: Our results indicate that hepatitis C is a major health problem and highlight the importance of timely antiviral treatment. However, data on the burden of disease of hepatitis C in Europe are scarce, outdated or inconclusive, which indicates that hepatitis C is still a neglected disease in many countries. What is needed are public awareness, co-ordinated action plans, and better data. European physicians should be aware that many infections are still undetected, provide timely testing and antiviral treatment, and avoid iatrogenic transmission.

Background: Knowing the number of undetected cases of COVID-19 is important for a better understanding of the spread of the disease. This study analyses the temporal dynamic of detected vs. undetected cases to provide guidance for the interpretation of prevalence studies performed with PCR or antibody tests to estimate the detection rate. Methods: We used an agent-based model to evaluate assumptions on the detection probability ranging from 0.1 to 0.9. For each general detection probability, we derived age-dependent detection probabilities and calibrated the model to reproduce the epidemic wave of COVID-19 in Austria from March 2020 to June 2020. We categorized infected individuals into presymptomatic, symptomatic unconfirmed, confirmed and never detected to observe the simulated dynamic of the detected and undetected cases. Results: The calculation of the age-dependent detection probability ruled values lower than 0.4 as most likely. Furthermore, the proportion of undetected cases depends strongly on the dynamic of the epidemic wave: during the initial upswing, the undetected cases account for a major part of all infected individuals, whereas their share decreases around the peak of the confirmed cases. Conclusions: The results of prevalence studies performed to determine the detection rate of COVID-19 patients should always be interpreted with regard to the current dynamic of the epidemic wave. Applying the method proposed in our analysis, the prevalence study performed in Austria in April 2020 could indicate a detection rate of 0.13, instead of the prevalent ratio of 0.29 between detected and estimated undetected cases at that time.

(1) Background: The Austrian supply of COVID-19 vaccine is limited for now. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance to the authorities in order to minimize COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths in Austria. (2) Methods: We used a dynamic agent-based population model to compare different vaccination strategies targeted to the elderly (65 ≥ years), middle aged (45–64 years), younger (15–44 years), vulnerable (risk of severe disease due to comorbidities), and healthcare workers (HCW). First, outcomes were optimized for an initially available vaccine batch for 200,000 individuals. Second, stepwise optimization was performed deriving a prioritization sequence for 2.45 million individuals, maximizing the reduction in total hospitalizations and deaths compared to no vaccination. We considered sterilizing and non-sterilizing immunity, assuming a 70% effectiveness. (3) Results: Maximum reduction of hospitalizations and deaths was achieved by starting vaccination with the elderly and vulnerable followed by middle-aged, HCW, and younger individuals. Optimizations for vaccinating 2.45 million individuals yielded the same prioritization and avoided approximately one third of deaths and hospitalizations. Starting vaccination with HCW leads to slightly smaller reductions but maximizes occupational safety. (4) Conclusion: To minimize COVID-19-related hospitalizations and deaths, our study shows that elderly and vulnerable persons should be prioritized for vaccination until further vaccines are available.

Background: Clear evidence on the benefit-harm balance and cost effectiveness of population-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is missing. We aim to systematically evaluate the long-term effectiveness, harms and cost effectiveness of different organized CRC screening strategies in Austria. Methods: A decision-analytic cohort simulation model for colorectal adenoma and cancer with a lifelong time horizon was developed, calibrated to the Austrian epidemiological setting and validated against observed data. We compared four strategies: 1) No Screening, 2) FIT: annual immunochemical fecal occult blood test age 40–75 years, 3) gFOBT: annual guaiac-based fecal occult blood test age 40–75 years, and 4) COL: 10-yearly colonoscopy age 50–70 years. Predicted outcomes included: benefits expressed as life-years gained [LYG], CRC-related deaths avoided and CRC cases avoided; harms as additional complications due to colonoscopy (physical harm) and positive test results (psychological harm); and lifetime costs. Tradeoffs were expressed as incremental harm-benefit ratios (IHBR, incremental positive test results per LYG) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICER]. The perspective of the Austrian public health care system was adopted. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess uncertainty. Results: The most effective strategies were FIT and COL. gFOBT was less effective and more costly than FIT. Moving from COL to FIT results in an incremental unintended psychological harm of 16 additional positive test results to gain one life-year. COL was cost saving compared to No Screening. Moving from COL to FIT has an ICER of 15,000 EUR per LYG. Conclusions: Organized CRC-screening with annual FIT or 10-yearly colonoscopy is most effective. The choice between these two options depends on the individual preferences and benefit-harm tradeoffs of screening candidates.

Purpose of review: Migrant and ethnic minority (MEM) outdoor workers might be at increased risk for heat-related illnesses (HRI), due to environmental exposures, heavy physical work, limited control over workplace conditions and language and cultural barriers. This review aims to synthesize the literature on health impacts of occupational heat exposure among MEM outdoor workers, including risk factors, heat-related perception and behaviour and healthcare utilization. Recent findings: Seventy-six publications were included. Most were conducted in the US, where the weighted prevalence for at least one HRI symptom was 48.8%. These numbers were higher in most non-US countries. On average, in the US, 60.9% reported being concerned about heat and 60.4% having had HRI training. Many workers reported drinking more water when hot (91.7%) and feeling comfortable taking water breaks (92%) while fewer reported acclimatizing at the start of the season (43.7%) or changing working hours (34%) or activities (32.2%) due to heat. Qualitative studies reported reasons for working faster with less breaks, including fear of losing work and earning more when getting paid by the piece. Data on access to healthcare was limited. Summary: While research advances on MEM workers´ heat-related vulnerability, risk factors and healthcare utilization, there is a need to strengthen prevention efforts to reduce the burden of heat in this population.