No Differences in Achieving Hepatitis C Virus Care Milestones Between Patients Identified by Birth Cohort or Risk-Based Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: National hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening guidelines recommended 1-time testing of persons born between 1945 and 1965. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study to compare care milestones achieved by HCV-infected patients identified by birth cohort versus risk-based screens. RESULTS: We determined the proportions of patients newly identified with HCV infection who met care milestones (viral load, referral to and evaluation by a specialist, offer of treatment, initiation of treatment, and sustained viral response) and the time it took to reach them. We found no differences in HCV care milestones for patients identified via birth cohort testing versus risk-based screening. Overall, only 43% of HCV antibody-positive patients were referred to care, and less than 4% started treatment. The time to each care milestone was lengthy and varied greatly; treatment was initiated in a median of 308 days. CONCLUSIONS: Although birth cohort testing will likely increase identification of patients with HCV infection, it does not seem to increase the number of patients that meet management milestones. New methods are needed to increase access to care and establish efficient models of health care delivery.

A Birth-cohort testing intervention identified hepatitis c virus infection among patients with few identified risks: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines and U.S. guidelines prior to 2012 only recommended testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection among patients at risk, but adherence to guidelines is poor, and the majority of those infected remain undiagnosed. A strategy to perform one-time testing of all patients born during 1945-1965, birth cohort testing, may diagnose HCV infection among patients whose risk remains unknown. We sought to determine if a birth-cohort testing intervention for HCV antibody positivity helped identify patients with fewer documented risk factors or medical indications than a pre-intervention, risk-based testing strategy. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design with retrospective electronic medical record review to examine patients identified with HCV antibody positivity (Ab+) during a pre-intervention (risk-based) phase, the standard of care at the time, vs. a birth-cohort testing intervention phase. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics and HCV risk-associated factors among patients whose HCV Ab + was identified during the pre-intervention (risk-based testing) vs. post birth-cohort intervention phases. Study subjects were patients identified as HCV-Ab + in the baseline (risk-based) and birth-cohort testing phases of the Hepatitis C Assessment and Testing (HepCAT) Project. RESULTS: Compared to the risk-based phase, patients newly diagnosed with HCV Ab + after the birth-cohort intervention were significantly less likely to have a history of any substance abuse (30.5% vs. 49.5%, p = 0.02), elevated alanine transaminase levels of > 40 U/L (22.0% vs. 46.7%, p = 0.002), or the composite any risk-associated factor (55.9% vs. 79.0%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Birth-cohort testing is an useful strategy for identifying previously undiagnosed HCV Ab + because it does not require providers ask risk-based questions, or patients to disclose risk behaviors, and appears to identify HCV Ab + in patients who would not have been identified using a risk-based testing strategy.

High HCV cure rates for people who use drugs treated with direct acting antiviral therapy at an urban primary care clinic.

BACKGROUND: Though direct acting antivirals (DAAs) promise high cure rates, many providers and payers remain concerned about successful treatment for people who use drugs (PWUD), even among those engaged in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). The efficacy of DAAs among PWUD in real-world settings is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of patients initiating HCV treatment between January 2014 and August 2015 (n=89) at a primary care clinic in the Bronx, NY. Onsite HCV treatment with DAAs was performed by an HCV specialist, with support from a care coordinator funded by the NYC Department of Health. We identified four categories of drug use and drug treatment: (1) no active drug use/not receiving OAT (defined as non-PWUD); (2) no active drug use/receiving OAT; (3) active drug use/not receiving OAT; and (4) active drug use/receiving OAT. The primary outcome was SVR at 12 weeks post-treatment. RESULTS: Overall SVR rates were 95% (n=41/43) for non-PWUD and 96% (n=44/46) for patients actively using drugs and/or receiving OAT [p=0.95]. There were no differences in SVR rates by drug use or drug treatment category. Compared to non-PWUD, those with no active drug use/receiving OAT had 100% SVR (n=15/15; p=1.0), those actively using drugs/not receiving OAT had 90% SVR (n=9/10; p=0.47), and those actively using drugs/receiving OAT had 95% SVR (20/21; p=1.0). CONCLUSION: Regardless of active drug use or OAT, patients who received DAA therapy at an urban primary care clinic achieved high HCV cure rates. We found no clinical evidence to justify restricting access to HCV treatment for patients actively using drugs and/or receiving OAT.