Systematic review estimates Hepatitis C prevalence at 1.5% among migrants in high-income countries, indicating need for improved health services access.
OP 32: Health Status 1, B210 (FCSH), September 5, 2025, 09:00 - 10:00 Aim This systematic review aimed to estimate Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection prevalence among migrants residing in high-income countries with low or intermediate HCV prevalence. Methods We searched Scopus, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2015 and 2024. Studies from European Economic Area (EEA) countries, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (UK), the United States of America (USA), Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were included. The studies’ quality was assessed using The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tools. A proportional meta-analysis was used to estimate HCV prevalence. Results A total of 1302 studies were screened. Thirty-six studies were included in this review. Most of the studies (n:14) were from Italy. Seventeen studies included both people <18 and ≥18 years old, 16 studies only included people ≥18 years old, and three studies included people aged 18 and younger. Thirty-five studies reported results of anti-HCV and 20 HCV-RNA tests. The pooled prevalence of HCV antibody (anti-HCV) and RNA (HCV-RNA) was 1.5% (95% CI, 1.1-2.0%) and 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4-0.9%), respectively. The prevalence of anti-HCV was higher among males (1.9%) than females (0.6%). Among those aged 18 and older, the prevalence of anti-HCV and HCV-RNA was 1.5% (95% CI: 0.9-2.4%) and 0.5% (95% CI: 0.2-0.8%), respectively. Among refugees and asylum seekers, the prevalence of anti-HCV and HCV-RNA was 1.4% and 0.7%, respectively. Conclusion The prevalence of HCV among migrants is comparable with that among the general population of the destination countries. Given the barriers migrants, especially refugees and asylum seekers, face in accessing health services, their access to HCV information, testing, and treatment should be facilitated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kelly et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: