This analysis produced state-level estimates of adult Hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence for 48 US states and the District of Columbia covering 2017–2020. Because population prevalence cannot be directly observed, the authors estimated prevalence by integrating multiple indirect HCV-related outcomes into a single statistical framework.
The combined result for the study area was an average prevalence of 1.32% (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.94%–1.80%), corresponding to an estimated 3.33 million adults with HCV infection (95% CrI: 2.37–4.65 million). State-specific prevalence estimates ranged from 0.74% (North Dakota) to 2.22% (Oklahoma), with a median state-specific prevalence of 1.27%.
The authors adapted a Bayesian spatial integrated abundance model to estimate HCV prevalence at the state level. This modeling approach combines information from multiple, imperfect data sources and explicitly accounts for uncertainty around each source. The model also incorporated geographic correlation to allow estimates in neighboring jurisdictions to inform one another where appropriate.
The analytic framework was anchored to an existing national prevalence estimate; the authors reported that the model accounted for selection biases specific to each data source, heterogeneity in HCV risk factors across states, and spatial dependence in HCV burden.
Six HCV-related outcomes were integrated into the model:
These diverse inputs provided complementary perspectives on HCV burden but were subject to differing selection mechanisms and coverage, which the model explicitly attempted to adjust for.
Estimates were anchored to a national prevalence estimate so that state-level results were consistent with the broader national context. The model included parameters to adjust for data source–specific selection and for variability in risk factors across states. Geospatial correlation was modeled to capture spatial clustering of HCV prevalence.
The authors emphasize that integrating multiple data streams and accounting for these biases is necessary because no single source fully captures total population prevalence.
The authors reported that ten states accounted for 56% of estimated infections, indicating a concentration of burden in a subset of jurisdictions.
The geographic distribution of estimated prevalence showed higher HCV prevalence concentrated in South Central states, Appalachia, and the West. Lower estimated prevalence occurred in the upper Midwest, Southeast, and New England. This heterogeneity suggests that resource needs for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention will vary substantially by jurisdiction.
The investigators conducted sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of state estimates. They reported that estimates were stable across sensitivity analyses, with most differences under one percentage point, indicating the model produced reasonably consistent prevalence estimates despite analytic variations.
These state-level estimates provide a baseline of HCV burden prior to the 2021 federal expansion of HCV surveillance funding, according to the authors. As such, the results can be used to inform allocation of resources and to monitor progress toward HCV elimination goals at the state level. The observed geographic variation highlights that jurisdictional resource needs will differ and that targeted strategies may be required where prevalence is highest.
The Institutional Review Board of Emory University determined the study does not constitute human subjects research because it used secondary analysis of de-identified data and therefore did not require IRB review. The authors declared no competing interests and stated compliance with relevant ethical and reporting guidelines.
Regarding data availability, inputs from Merative MarketScan and Medicaid cannot be shared by the authors due to data use agreements; these data are available by request to the respective data holders. Remaining data sources used in the analysis are publicly available and are referenced in the study's eAppendix.
Limitations explicitly noted by the study include the indirect nature of all data sources used to infer prevalence; the modeling approach attempted to adjust for selection and heterogeneity, but inherent limitations in input data and assumptions remain. The paper positions these estimates as a pre-2021 baseline useful for monitoring elimination progress rather than definitive counts of every infected individual.