A number of organizations have suggested scaling up screening for hepatitis C infections, but experts warn there has been no research determining whether or not this would lead to clinical benefits.
The researchers warn increasing hepatitis C screening could even cause more harm than good, the British Medical Journal reported.
"[Physicians] should resist screening until we have strong evidence that antiviral therapy is clinically effective and the benefits outweigh the harms," said Ronald Koretz, emeritus professor at UCLA School of Medicine.
In 2012, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended screening everybody born between the years of 1945 and 1965 because it has been estimated that about three out of four of all people born during this period are infected with hepatitis C.
Widespread screening is supported by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force and the World Health Organization in hopes of saving lives by preventing end-stages of the disease, which can infect and damage the liver. Despite these recommendations the researchers pointed out many hepatitis C patients will not develop end stage liver disease and will be unnecessarily treated.
The research team questioned the validity of using surrogate markers in drug trials to predict how patients will be affected in the long-term. They also highlighted the idea that the ability of current treatments to prevent end-stage liver disease has never been solidly proven.
"Given the uncertainty about the validity of the surrogate markers, the lack of evidence regarding clinical outcomes of treatment or of screening strategies, and the adverse events caused by the newer regimens, screening may be premature," the researchers wrote. "Physicians should resist screening until we have strong evidence that antiviral therapy is clinically effective and the benefits outweigh the harms."
The findings were published in a recent edition of the British Medical Journal.
