Does sexuality matter? A cross-sectional study of drug use, social injecting, and access to injection-specific care among men who inject drugs in Melbourne, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) are overrepresented in cohorts of people who inject drugs. GBMSM's substance use is usually explored in the context of its contribution to sexual risk. We examined drug use practices, connectedness to other people who inject drugs, peer-to-peer injecting, and access to care among men who inject drugs in Melbourne, Australia. We aim to describe similarities and differences in these parameters for GBMSM and other men. METHODS: Data were drawn from a prospective cohort study of people who inject drugs conducted in Melbourne, Australia, since 2009. This cross-sectional study used data collected between 2016 and 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to assess differences between GBMSM and other men. RESULTS: Of 525 men who injected drugs over the study period, 48 (9%) identified as gay or bisexual, or reported sex with other men in the past 12 months. GBMSM and other men reported similar socio-demographics, drug practices (age of injecting initiation, most injected drug, peer-to-peer injecting, receptive syringe sharing) and access to injecting-specific care (drug treatment, source of needle-syringes). A significantly greater percentage of GBMSM reported past 12-month hepatitis C testing (69% vs. 52%, p = 0.028) and preferring methamphetamine (31% vs. 16%, p = 0.022). A higher percentage of GBMSM reported knowing > 50 other people who inject drugs (46% vs. 37%), but this difference was not statistically significant. Both groups primarily obtained injecting equipment from needle-syringe programs; a minority had accessed injecting-specific primary care. CONCLUSION: Men who injected drugs in this cohort and those who identified as GBMSM reported similar drug and health-seeking practices. The higher prevalence of methamphetamine injecting among GBMSM may warrant different harm reduction support for this group. Health promotion should utilise opportunities to connect men who inject drugs in Melbourne to injecting-specific primary health care.

Constructing a 'target population': A critical analysis of public health discourse on substance use among gay and bisexual men, 2000-2020.

BACKGROUND: Gay and bisexual men (GBM) have higher substance use prevalences than general population samples - often attributed to stigmatisation of sexual minority identities. We examined how influential public health research on substance use among GBM interprets this behaviour and what GBM-specific identities emerge through the discourses employed. METHODS: We searched Web of Science for publications on substance use among GBM, selecting 60 of the most cited papers published during 2000-2020. We studied the language used to describe and interpret drug-using behaviour using critical discourse analysis, focusing on interpretive repertoires and subject positions. RESULTS: Three distinct discursive tendencies were identified. First, in constructing a target population, GBM who use illicit drugs are positioned as deficient, socially irresponsible, and maladapted to dealing with stigmatisation and HIV risks. Second, in shifting the focus beyond the individual, the gay community is conceptualised as offering a safe space for socialisation. Nonetheless, gay community spaces are problematised as promoting substance use among vulnerable GBM through aggravating loneliness and normalising drug use as a form of maladaptive (avoidance) coping. Third, counterdiscursive movements add nuance, context, and comparisons that relativise rather than generalise substance use and focus on pleasure and self-determination. Such discourses centre the need for interventions that disrupt homophobic socio-structures instead of individualising approaches to limit non-conformity. CONCLUSION: 'Expert' assessments of substance use among GBM perpetuate pathologising understandings of this behaviour and promote abject subject positions, contributing to perpetuations of intergroup stigma and social exclusion based on drug and sexual practices. Our findings highlight the need for deliberate and critical engagement with prior research and a conscious effort to disrupt dominant discourses on GBM's substance use.

Randomised controlled trial of active case management to link hepatitis C notifications to treatment in Tasmania, Australia: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: By subsidising access to direct acting antivirals (DAAs) for all people living with hepatitis C (HCV) in 2016, Australia is positioned to eliminate HCV as a public health threat. However, uptake of DAAs has declined over recent years and new initiatives are needed to engage people living with HCV in care. Active follow-up of HCV notifications by the health department to the notifying general practitioner (GP) may increase treatment uptake. In this study, we explore the impact of using hepatitis C notifications systems to engage diagnosing GPs and improve patient access to treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a randomised controlled trial comparing enhanced case management of HCV notifications with standard of care. The intervention includes phone calls from a department of health (DoH) specialist HCV nurse to notifying GPs and offering HCV management support. The level of support requested by the GP was graded in complexity: level 1: HCV information only; level 2: follow-up testing advice; level 3: prescription support including linkage to specialist clinicians and level 4: direct patient contact. The study population includes all GPs in Tasmania who notified HCV diagnosis to the DoH between September 2020 and December 2021. The primary outcome is proportion of HCV cases who initiate DAAs after 12 weeks of HCV notification to the health department. Secondary outcomes are proportion of HCV notifications that complete HCV RNA testing, treatment workup and treatment completion. Multiple logistic regression modelling will explore factors associated with the primary and secondary outcomes. The sample size required to detect a significant difference for the primary outcome is 85 GPs in each arm with a two-sided alpha of 0.05% and 80% power. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by University of Tasmania's Human Research Ethics Committee (Protocol ID: 18418) on 17 December 2019. Results of the project will be presented in scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04510246. TRIAL PROGRESSION: The study commenced recruitment in September 2020 and end of study expected December 2021.

Exploring hepatitis C virus testing and treatment engagement over time in Melbourne, Australia: a study protocol for a longitudinal cohort study (EC-Experience Cohort study).

INTRODUCTION: The advent of direct acting antiviral therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV) means the elimination of HCV is possible but requires sustained effort to achieve. Between 2016 and 2019, 44% of those living with HCV were treated in Australia. However, treatment uptake has declined significantly. In Australia, people who inject drugs (PWID) are the population most at risk of HCV acquisition. Eliminating HCV in Australia will require nuanced understanding of the barriers to HCV treatment experienced by PWID and tailored interventions to address these barriers. The EC-Experience Cohort study aims to explore the barriers and enablers reported by PWID to engagement in HCV care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EC-Experience Cohort study is a prospective cohort of PWID, established in Melbourne, Australia in 2018. Participants are assigned into three study groups: (1) those not currently engaged in HCV testing; (2) those diagnosed with HCV but not currently engaged in treatment and (3) those completed treatment. Participants complete a total of four interviews every 6 months across an 18-month study period. Predictors of experience of key outcome events along the HCV care cascade will be explored over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the EC-Experience Cohort study was obtained by the Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee in Melbourne, Australia (Project Number: HREC/16/Alfred/164). All eligible participants are assessed for capacity to consent and partake in a thorough informed consent process. Results from the EC-Experience Cohort study will be disseminated via national and international scientific and public health conferences and peer-reviewed journal publications. Data from the EC-Experience Cohort study will improve the current understanding of the barriers to HCV care for PWID and guide the tailoring of service provision for specific subgroups. Understanding the barriers and how to increase engagement in care of PWID is critical to achieve HCV elimination goals.

Point-of-care Hepatitis C virus testing and linkage to treatment in an Australian inner-city emergency department.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) treatment is declining, despite broad access to direct-acting antiviral medication. People who inject drugs are proportionally over-represented in emergency department presentations. Emergency department assessment of people who have injected drugs for HCV presents an opportunity to engage this marginalised population with treatment. We describe the outcomes of risk-based screening and point-of-care anti-HCV testing for emergency department patients, and linkage to outpatient antiviral treatment. METHODS: During the three-month study period, consecutive adult patients who presented to the emergency department during the study times were screened for risk factors and offered the OraQuick oral HCV antibody test. Those with reactive results were offered venepuncture in the emergency department for confirmatory testing and direct-acting antiviral treatment in clinic. The main outcome measures were the number and proportion of viremic participants that were linked to the hepatitis clinic, commenced treatment and achieved a sustained viral response. Secondary outcome measures were the proportion (%) of presentations screened that were oral antibody reactive, and the prevalence and type of HCV risk factors. RESULTS: During the study period, 2408 of the 3931 (61%) presentations to the emergency department were eligible for screening. Of these 2408 patients, 1122 (47%) participated, 307 (13%) declined participation and 977 (41%) could not be approached during their time in the emergency department. Among the 1122 participants, 378 (34%) reported at least one risk factor. Subsequently, 368 (97%) of the 378 participants underwent OraQuick anti-HCV test, and 50 (14%) had a reactive result. A risk factor of ever having injected drugs was present in 44 (88%) of participants who were sero-positive. Of the 45 that had blood tested, 30 (67%) were HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA) positive. Three participants died. Of the 27 remaining participants, 10 (37%) commenced treatment and 7 of these 10 (70%) obtained a cure. There was a high rate of homelessness (24%) among anti-HCV positive participants. CONCLUSION: Among emergency department participants with a risk factor for HCV, positive serology was common using a rapid point-of-care test. A history of injecting drug use was identified as the risk factor with highest yield for positive HCV serology, and is suitable as a single screening question. However, linkage to care post ED presentation was low in this marginalised population. There is a need for new pathways to improve the care cascade for marginalised individuals living with HCV infection.

A longitudinal cohort study of HIV 'treatment as prevention' in gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men: the Treatment with Antiretrovirals and their Impact on Positive And Negative men (TAIPAN) study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Australia has increased coverage of antiretroviral treatment (ART) over the past decade, reaching 73% uptake in 2014. While ART reduces AIDS-related deaths, accumulating evidence suggests that it could also bolster prevention efforts by reducing the risk of HIV transmission ('treatment as prevention'). While promising, evidence of community-level impact of treatment as prevention on reducing HIV incidence among gay and bisexual men is limited. We describe a study protocol that aims to determine if scale up of testing and treatment for HIV leads to a reduction in community viraemia and, in turn, if this reduction is temporally associated with a reduction in HIV incidence among gay and bisexual men in Australia's two most populous states. METHODS: Over the period 2009 to 2017, we will establish two cohorts making use of clinical and laboratory data electronically extracted retrospectively and prospectively from 73 health services and laboratories in the states of New South Wales and Victoria. The 'positive cohort' will consist of approximately 13,000 gay and bisexual men (>90% of all people living with HIV). The 'negative cohort' will consist of at least 40,000 HIV-negative gay and bisexual men (approximately half of the total population). Within the negative cohort we will use standard repeat-testing methods to calculate annual HIV incidence. Community prevalence of viraemia will be defined as the proportion of men with a viral load ≥200RNA copies/mm3, which will combine viral load data from the positive cohort and viraemia estimates among those with an undiagnosed HIV infection. Using regression analyses and adjusting for behavioural and demographic factors associated with infection, we will assess the temporal association between the community prevalence of viraemia and the incidence of HIV infection. Further analyses will make use of these cohorts to assess incidence and predictors of treatment initiation, repeat HIV testing, and viral suppression. DISCUSSION: This study will provide important information on whether 'treatment as prevention' is associated with a reduction in HIV incidence at a community level among gay and bisexual men.