Hepatitis C Virus Reinfection Among People Who Inject Drugs: Long-Term Follow-Up of the HERO Study.

IMPORTANCE: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection after curative treatment remains a concern for people who inject drugs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of HCV reinfection and associated risk factors. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial that was conducted across opioid treatment programs and community health centers in the US between September 2016 and August 2018. The current analyses were performed in March 2022. People who inject drugs who achieved sustained virologic response (SVR) were followed for up to 42 months. Exposure: Patients were randomly assigned to receive modified directly observed therapy or patient navigation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was rate of HCV reinfection. Change in reinfection rates over time was assessed using a Poisson regression model. RESULTS: A total of 415 participants (mean [SD] age, 44.7 [11.5] years; 302 male [72.8%]) achieved a SVR and had 1 or more post-SVR assessments for HCV RNA. Overall, 302 (72.8%) reported recent injection drug use, 192 (46.3%) were living in unstable housing, and 313 (75.4%) had received recent methadone or buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. The overall reinfection rate was 11.4 per 100 person-years at risk (95% CI, 8.7-14.7 per 100 person-years at risk) over 518 person-years of follow-up. Reinfection rates varied significantly across sites, ranging from 2.9 per 100 person-years at risk (95% CI, 0.1-16.3 per 100 person-years) to 25.2 per 100 person-years at risk (95% CI, 15.6-38.5 per 100 person-years at risk) (P = .006). There was a significant decrease in incident reinfection with increasing post-SVR follow-up (weeks 0-24, 15.5 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 10.3-22.3 per 100 person-years; weeks 73-144, 4.3 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.9-12.5 per 100 person-years; P = .008). Reinfection rates were lower for participants aged 40 years or older than for younger participants (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.57) and for participants for whom methamphetamine was not detected in urinary drug screening compared with participants for whom methamphetamine was detected (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21-0.82). Participants who reported injection drug use within the preceding 3 months had higher risk of reinfection than those who did not have recent injection drug use (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.86-5.97). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort study of people who injected drugs and were treated for HCV infection in community settings, reinfection was high in the period immediately after SVR but decreased significantly over time. These findings highlight the importance of early intervention to prevent reinfection. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02824640.

The experience of re-infection among people who inject drugs successfully treated for hepatitis C.

INTRODUCTION: Highly effective direct-acting antiviral (DAA) agents have changed the landscape of hepatitis C virus infection (HCV) treatment and have become more available to people who inject drugs (PWID) over the past several years. Although many achieve a sustained virologic response (SVR), a small proportion will become re-infected. This study examined experiences of re-infection among participants in Project HERO, a large multi-site treatment trial designed to test alternative treatment delivery models for DAAs. METHODS: Study staff conducted qualitative interviews with twenty-three HERO participants who experienced reinfection following successful treatment for HCV. Interviews focused on life circumstances and experiences with treatment/re-infection. We conducted a thematic analysis, followed by a narrative analysis. RESULTS: Participants described challenging life circumstances. The initial experience of cure was joyful, leading participants to feel that they had escaped a defiled, stigmatized identity. Re-infection was very painful. Feelings of shame were common. Participants with fully developed narratives of re-infection described both a strong emotional response as well as a plan for avoiding re-infection during retreatment. Participants who lack such stories showed signs of hopelessness and apathy. CONCLUSION: Though the promise of personal transformation through SVR may be motivating for patients, clinicians should be cautious about how they describe the "cure" when educating patients about HCV treatment. Patients should be encouraged to avoid stigmatizing, dichotomizing language of the self, including terms such as "dirty" and "clean." In acknowledging the benefits of HCV cure, clinicians should emphasize that re-infection does not mean failed treatment; and that current treatment guidelines support retreatment of re-infected PWID.

Patient-centred models of hepatitis C treatment for people who inject drugs: a multicentre, pragmatic randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: To achieve WHO targets for the elimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a public threat, an increased uptake of HCV treatment among people who inject drugs (PWID) is urgently needed. Optimal HCV co-located treatment models for PWID have not yet been identified. We aimed to compare two patient-centred models of HCV care in PWID with active drug use. METHODS: We did a pragmatic randomised controlled trial at eight US cities in eight opioid treatment programmes and 15 community health centres. PWID actively injecting within 90 days of study entry were randomly assigned (1:1) to either patient navigation or modified directly observed therapy (mDOT) using computer-generated variable block sizes of 2-6 stratified by city, clinical settings, and cirrhosis status. The randomisation code was concealed, in a centralised REDCap database platform, from all investigators and research staff except for an authorised data manager at the data coordinating centre. All participants received a fixed-dose combination tablet (sofosbuvir 400 mg plus velpatasvir 100 mg) orally once daily for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was sustained virological response (SVR; determined by chart review between 70 days and 365 days after end of treatment and if unavailable, by study blood draws), and secondary outcomes were treatment initiation, adherence (measured by electronic blister packs), and treatment completion. Analyses were conducted within the modified intention-to-treat (mITT; all who initiated treatment), intention-to-treat (all who were randomised), and per-protocol populations. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02824640. FINDINGS: Between Sept 15, 2016, and Aug 14, 2018, 1891 individuals were screened and 1136 were excluded (213 declined to participate and 923 did not meet the eligibility criteria). We randomly assigned 755 participants to patient navigation (n=379) or mDOT (n=376). In the mITT sample of participants who were randomised and initiated treatment (n=623), 226 (74% [95% CI 69-79]) of 306 participants in the mDOT group and 236 (76% [69-79]) of 317 in the patient navigation group had an SVR, with no significant difference between the groups (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 0·97 [95% CI 0·66-1·42]; p=0·35). In the ITT sample (n=755), 226 (60% [95% CI 55-65]) of 376 participants in the mDOT group and 236 (62% [57-67]) of 379 in the patient navigation group had an SVR (AOR 0·92 [0·68-1·25]; p=0·61) and in the per-protocol sample (n=501), 226 (91% [87-94]) of 248 participants in the mDOT group and 235 (93% [89-96]) of 253 in the patient navigation group had an SVR (AOR 0·79 [0·41-1·55]; p=0·44). 306 (81%) of 376 participants in the mDOT group and 317 (84%) of 379 participants in the patient navigation group initiated treatment (AOR 0·86 [0·58-1·26]; p=0·44) and, among those, 251 (82%) participants in the mDOT group and 264 (83%) participants in the patient navigation group completed treatment (AOR 0·90 [0·58-1·39]; p=0·63). Mean daily adherence was higher in the mDOT group (78% [95% CI 75-81]) versus the patient navigation group (73% [70-77]), with a difference of 4·7% ([1·9-7·4]; p=0·0010). 421 serious adverse events were reported (217 in the mDOT group and 204 in the patient navigation group), with the most common being hospital admission (176 in the mDOT group vs 161 in the patient navigation group). INTERPRETATION: In this trial of active PWID, both models resulted in high SVR. Although adherence was significantly higher in the mDOT group versus the patient navigation group, there was no significant difference in SVR between the groups. Increases in adherence and treatment completion were associated with an increased likelihood of SVR. These results suggest that active PWID can reach high SVRs in diverse settings with either mDOT or patient navigation support. FUNDING: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Gilead Sciences, Quest Diagnostics, Monogram Biosciences, and OraSure Technologies.

Clinician-delivered contingency management increases engagement and attendance in drug and alcohol treatment.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the impact of a low-cost contingency management (CM) delivered by program clinicians on treatment attendance and utilization for patients enrolled in outpatient psychosocial substance abuse treatment. METHODS: The study used a pre-posttest design to compare substance abuse patients who received Reinforcement-Based Treatment (RBT) plus low cost CM (n=130; RBT+CM) to patients who received RBT only (n=132, RBT). RBT+CM participants received a $10 incentive for returning to treatment the day following intake assessment (day one), and a $15 incentive for attending treatment on day five following admission. RBT clients received standard care intervention without the addition of the CM procedures. Groups were compared on proportion of participants who returned to treatment on day one, mean days of treatment attendance, individual sessions attended, and treatment utilization during the first week and the first month following treatment admission. RESULTS: Both the RBT+CM and RBT group participants returned to the clinic on day one at high rates (95% versus 89%, respectively). However, the RBT group participants were more likely to attend the intake assessment only (i.e., never return to treatment) compared to the RBT+CM participants. Additionally, the RBT+CM participants attended significantly more treatment days, attended more individual counseling sessions, and had higher rates of overall treatment utilization compared to the RBT participants during the one week and one month following treatment admission. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the feasibility and effectiveness of a CM intervention delivered by clinicians for increasing treatment attendance and utilization in a community substance abuse program.