Introduction
The Alberta Prenatal Screening Program routinely tests pregnant patients for select communicable diseases including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), rubella, varicella, and syphilis (
1). Currently, Canadian guidelines recommend risk-based screening for Hepatitis C virus (HCV) during pregnancy (
2). However, there has been recent discussion on shifting towards routine prenatal screening for HCV due to the ongoing opioid crisis, which has resulted in an increased HCV incidence among patients of child-bearing age (
3). During this same time, Alberta has experienced a syphilis outbreak resulting in a surge of congenital syphilis cases not seen in decades (
4).
Alberta implemented a pilot HCV prenatal screening program on February 27, 2020 by amending the Alberta Prenatal Screening Program to include HCV (
5). This brief report summarizes preliminary data on HCV/syphilis coinfections in prenatal patients testing positive for HCV during the pilot program.
Methods
Prenatal screening in Alberta
Communicable disease screening for prenatal patients is typically done during the first trimester of pregnancy and is very robust in Alberta, with >97% of pregnant patients receiving prenatal screening (
6). All routine provincial prenatal screening for HBV, HIV, syphilis, rubella, and varicella, as well as the prenatal pilot HCV screening, is performed centrally at Alberta Precision Laboratories (APL). Data for analyses was provided by the APL surveillance team.
HCV testing
Serum samples are screened for HCV antibodies on the Abbott ARCHITECT i2000SR (Architect Anti-HCV, Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA) and if positive, are reflex tested on the Roche cobas 6800 (cobas HCV, Roche Diagnostics, Indiana, USA) for molecular confirmation. A patient is diagnosed as having an infection if they are reactive for HCV antibodies and have detected HCV RNA. A continuous computational lookback (CCL) code with personal health numbers (PHNs) is utilized to identify whether an HCV infection is a newly reported case, or whether the patient previously tested positive for HCV within the Provincial Public Health Laboratory Information System (ProvLab LIS).
Syphilis testing
Serum samples are screened for syphilis antibodies using an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) (Architect Syphilis TP Microparticles, Abbott Laboratories, Illinois, USA). If positive, a CCL code with PHNs is used to identify newly reported versus previously reported results of syphilis serology in the ProvLab LIS. Patients with newly positive EIA serology receive reflex rapid plasma reagin (RPR) (Macro-Vue RPR kit, Becton Dickinson Microbiology Systems, Ontario, Canada) and Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA) testing (Serodia Treponema Pallidum Particle Agglutination, Fujirebio, Pennsylvania, USA). Those who have a previous reactive TPPA result in the ProvLab LIS receive only reflex RPR testing. Newly reported infections requiring public health follow-up were defined as 1) newly identified cases with newly EIA and TPPA results (regardless of RPR results) or 2) previously identified patients with RPR quantitative titres ≥4-fold increase from previous serological testing.
Evaluating HCV/syphilis coinfections
Prenatal HCV and syphilis testing data were extracted from the ProvLab LIS 21 months after implementing the pilot routine screening program for HCV. A cohort of HCV positive prenatal patients was assessed for syphilis coinfections. Descriptive statistics for HCV/syphilis coinfected patients were analyzed. Geographic region (rural, urban, or metropolitan) and neighbourhood income quintiles were determined using postal code associated data from 2016 Alberta census estimates. Coinfected patients were also assessed for HIV and HBV infections. All data was collated and analyzed in Stata v15.1 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas, USA).
Results
From >50,000 prenatal patients screened via the pilot HCV screening program over 21 months, we identified 87 patients positive for HCV (
Figure 1). Of those, 19 (21.8%) had reactive syphilis EIA results, with 17 (19.5%) confirmed as having syphilis infections (6 with newly reported TPPA results and 11 with at least a 4-fold increase in RPR dilutions). Of the remaining two patients, one did not have serological evidence of a new syphilis infection (no rise in RPR titres) and one had insufficient sample volume to complete testing. Most coinfected patients had previously reported reactive HCV (82.4%) and syphilis (64.6%) serology results in the ProvLab LIS (
Table 1). No coinfected patients were also infected with either HIV or HBV.
Among coinfected patients, the majority (41.2%) were aged 26–30 years and resided in the Edmonton health zone (58.8%;
Table 1). No coinfected patients resided in the Calgary or South health zones. Rural regions had the lowest proportion of coinfections (11.8%). Patients residing in neighbourhoods from the lowest income quintile (Q1) comprised the largest percentage of coinfected patients (47.1%).
Discussion
The Alberta Prenatal Screening Program is an effective way to test patients for communicable diseases during pregnancy. After piloting routine screening for HCV, we discovered that 19.5% of our prenatal HCV cohort was coinfected with syphilis. This is significantly higher than syphilis coinfections in our HIV and HBV prenatal cohorts (0.00% and 0.93%; data not shown), suggesting an overlapping population at high-risk for acquiring both HCV and syphilis. Although we were unable to map specific risk factors to patients in our cohort, a recent publication from Alberta showed that among women with infectious syphilis, 56.6% were aged 25–40 (child-bearing age), 26.2% had a history of injection drug use, 13.6% were involved in sex work, 22.4% had a history of correctional involvement, and 66.2% self-reported Métis or First Nations ethnicity (
7). Because these are also overlapping risk factors and populations more likely to be positive for HCV, it is highly probable the coinfected patients in our cohort represent a range of these factors.
As current national screening guidelines for prenatal HCV are based on risk-factors (
2), history of syphilis infection could be considered in future HCV risk-based screening guideline discussions. Although populations infected with HCV and syphilis share risk factors that are already considered for HCV risk-based screening (eg, high-risk sexual behaviours and drug use), studies have shown people are less likely to disclose their involvement in behaviours that are stigmatized (
8), and therefore may be overlooked for HCV screening with current guidelines. Incorporating history of syphilis infection, which is routinely screened for during pregnancy in Canada (
9), as a risk factor could identify a higher proportion of prenatal patients infected with HCV, particularly given that time and resources are required for guidelines to shift entirely to routine HCV screening.
The literature on HCV and syphilis coinfection is generally limited to men who have sex with men, and essentially non-existent among prenatal populations (
10). Given the high prevalence of coinfection in our study and that both HCV and syphilis can lead to congenital infections (
11), our data also warrants further research into ways of engaging at-risk populations to testing and treatment for both syphilis and HCV prior to conception to prevent congenital outcomes. This is highlighted by our results, which show that the majority of HCV and syphilis infections were identified in patients who had tested positive prior to prenatal screening. Patients were still testing positive for these infections during pregnancy, suggesting a lack of treatment before conceiving or incidence of reinfection. Until outcomes can be improved before pregnancy through holistic care in women of child-bearing age, screening for sexually transmitted and bloodborne infections should continue to remain a priority during the prenatal period.
One limitation of our data is that a syphilis outbreak was declared in Alberta in 2019 (
12), likely contributing to our high prevalence of coinfection, especially in the Edmonton area. However, syphilis outbreaks have recently been declared in eight other provinces and territories, suggesting our outcomes may be applicable across Canada where other syphilis outbreaks are occurring. Another limitation is that without clinical data, it is difficult to determine source of infections, which infections may have been previously reported or treated outside of Alberta, and whether HCV or syphilis was acquired first. Regardless, our data shows a high prevalence of HCV/syphilis coinfection in our HCV positive cohort. Although the overall number of coinfected patients over our study period was low and none were identified in some regions of the province, these patients represent those at high risk for perinatal and congenital outcomes, emphasizing the importance of screening and monitoring during pregnancy. Additionally, pregnancy represents an ideal period where patients can be engaged into health care services for their infections, which could be particularly beneficial for those who might otherwise be overlooked. Further research from other provinces and territories is ultimately imperative to identify the extent of HCV/syphilis coinfections among prenatal populations in the country and to identify the cost-effectiveness of incorporating a history of syphilis infection into HCV risk-based screening guidelines.