Co-located Heroin Assisted Treatment within primary care: A preliminary analysis of the implications for healthcare access, cost, and treatment delivery in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The UK is experiencing its highest rate of drug related deaths in 25 years. Poor and inconsistent access to healthcare negatively impacts health outcomes for people who use drugs. Innovation in models of care which promote access and availability of physical treatment is fundamental. Heroin Assisted Treatment (HAT) is a treatment modality targeted at the most marginalised people who use drugs, at high risk of mortality and morbidity. The first service-provider initiated HAT service in the UK ran between October 2019 and November 2022 in Middlesbrough, England. The service was co-located within a specialist primary care facility offering acute healthcare treatment alongside injectable diamorphine. METHODS: Analysis of anonymised health records for healthcare costs (not including drug treatment) took place using descriptive statistics prior and during engagement with HAT, at both three (n=15) and six (n=12) months. Primary outcome measures were incidents of wound care, skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs), overdose (OD) events, unplanned overnight stays in hospital, treatment engagement (general and within hospital care settings) and ambulance incidents. Secondary outcome measures were costs associated with these events. RESULTS: A shift in healthcare access for participants during HAT engagement was observed. HAT service attendance appeared to support health promoting preventative care, and reduce reactive reliance on emergency healthcare systems. At three and six months, engagement for preventative wound care and treatment for SSTIs increased at the practice. Unplanned emergency healthcare interactions for ODs, overnight hospital stays, serious SSTIs, and ambulance incidents reduced, and there was an increase in treatment engagement (i.e. a reduction in appointments which were not engaged with). There was a decrease in treatment engagement in hospital settings. Changes in healthcare utilisation during HAT translated to a reduction in healthcare costs of 58% within six months compared to the same timeframe from the period directly prior to commencing HAT. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study highlights the potential for innovative harm reduction interventions such as HAT, co-located with primary care services, to improve healthcare access and engagement for a high-risk population. Increased uptake of primary healthcare services translated to reductions in emergency healthcare use and associated costs. Although costs of HAT provision are substantial, the notable cost-savings in health care should be an important consideration in service implementation planning.

Safe inhalation pipe provision (SIPP): protocol for a mixed-method evaluation of an intervention to improve health outcomes and service engagement among people who use crack cocaine in England.

BACKGROUND: Over 180,000 people use crack cocaine in England, yet provision of smoking equipment to support safer crack use is prohibited under UK law. Pipes used for crack cocaine smoking are often homemade and/or in short supply, leading to pipe sharing and injuries from use of unsafe materials. This increases risk of viral infection and respiratory harm among a marginalised underserved population. International evaluations suggest crack pipe supply leads to sustained reductions in pipe sharing and use of homemade equipment; increased health risk awareness; improved service access; reduction in injecting and crack-related health problems. In this paper, we introduce the protocol for the NIHR-funded SIPP (Safe inhalation pipe provision) project and discuss implications for impact. METHODS: The SIPP study will develop, implement and evaluate a crack smoking equipment and training intervention to be distributed through peer networks and specialist drug services in England. Study components comprise: (1) peer-network capacity building and co-production; (2) a pre- and post-intervention survey at intervention and non-equivalent control sites; (3) a mixed-method process evaluation; and (4) an economic evaluation. Participant eligibility criteria are use of crack within the past 28 days, with a survey sample of ~ 740 for each impact evaluation survey point and ~ 40 for qualitative process evaluation interviews. Our primary outcome measure is pipe sharing within the past 28 days, with secondary outcomes pertaining to use of homemade pipes, service engagement, injecting practice and acute health harms. ANTICIPATED IMPACT: SIPP aims to reduce crack use risk practices and associated health harms; including through increasing crack harm reduction awareness among service providers and peers. Implementation has only been possible with local police approvals. Our goal is to generate an evidence base to inform review of the legislation prohibiting crack pipe supply in the UK. This holds potential to transform harm reduction service provision and engagement nationally. CONCLUSION: People who smoke crack cocaine in England currently have little reason to engage with harm reduction and drug services. Little is known about this growing population. This study will provide insight into population characteristics, unmet need and the case for legislative reform. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12541454  https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12541454.

The Hep-CORE policy score: A European hepatitis C national policy implementation ranking based on patient organization data.

BACKGROUND: New hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatments spurred the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2016 to adopt a strategy to eliminate HCV as a public health threat by 2030. To achieve this, key policies must be implemented. In the absence of monitoring mechanisms, this study aims to assess the extent of policy implementation from the perspective of liver patient groups. METHODS: Thirty liver patient organisations, each representing a country, were surveyed in October 2018 to assess implementation of HCV policies in practice. Respondents received two sets of questions based on: 1) WHO recommendations; and 2) validated data sources verifying an existing policy in their country. Academic experts selected key variables from each set for inclusion into policy scores. The similarity scores were calculated for each set with a multiple joint correspondence analysis. Proxy reference countries were included as the baseline to contextualize results. We extracted scores for each country and standardized them from 0 to 10 (best). RESULTS: Twenty-five countries responded. For the score based on WHO recommendations, Bulgaria had the lowest score whereas five countries (Cyprus, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, and Sweden) had the highest scores. For the verified policy score, a two-dimensional solution was identified; first dimension scores pertained to whether verified policies were in place and second dimension scores pertained to the proportion of verified policies in-place that were implemented. Spain, UK, and Sweden had high scores for both dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Patient groups reported that the European region is not on track to meet WHO 2030 HCV goals. More action should be taken to implement and monitor HCV policies.

Incidence and treatment costs of severe bacterial infections among people who inject heroin: A cohort study in South London, England.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs often get bacterial infections. Few longitudinal studies have reported the incidence and treatment costs of these infections. METHODS: For a cohort of 2335 people who inject heroin entering treatment for drug dependence between 2006 and 2017 in London, England, we reported the rates of hospitalisation or death with primary causes of cutaneous abscess, cellulitis, phlebitis, septicaemia, osteomyelitis, septic arthritis, endocarditis, or necrotising fasciitis. We compared these rates to the general population. We also used NHS reference costs to calculate the cost of admissions. RESULTS: During a median of 8.0 years of follow-up, 24 % of patients (570/2335) had a severe bacterial infection, most commonly presenting with cutaneous abscesses or cellulitis. Bacterial infections accounted for 13 % of all hospital admissions. The rate was 73 per 1000 person-years (95 % CI 69-77); 50 times the general population, and the rate remained high throughout follow-up. The rate of severe bacterial infections for women was 1.50 (95 % CI 1.32-1.69) times the rate for men. The mean cost per admission was £4980, and we estimate that the annual cost of hospital treatment for people who inject heroin in London is £4.5 million. CONCLUSIONS: People who inject heroin have extreme and long-term risk of severe bacterial infections.

Evaluating the population impact of hepatitis C direct acting antiviral treatment as prevention for people who inject drugs (EPIToPe) - a natural experiment (protocol).

INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is the second largest contributor to liver disease in the UK, with injecting drug use as the main risk factor among the estimated 200 000 people currently infected. Despite effective prevention interventions, chronic HCV prevalence remains around 40% among people who inject drugs (PWID). New direct-acting antiviral (DAA) HCV therapies combine high cure rates (>90%) and short treatment duration (8 to 12 weeks). Theoretical mathematical modelling evidence suggests HCV treatment scale-up can prevent transmission and substantially reduce HCV prevalence/incidence among PWID. Our primary aim is to generate empirical evidence on the effectiveness of HCV 'Treatment as Prevention' (TasP) in PWID. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to establish a natural experiment with Tayside, Scotland, as a single intervention site where HCV care pathways are being expanded (including specialist drug treatment clinics, needle and syringe programmes (NSPs), pharmacies and prison) and HCV treatment for PWID is being rapidly scaled-up. Other sites in Scotland and England will act as potential controls. Over 2 years from 2017/2018, at least 500 PWID will be treated in Tayside, which simulation studies project will reduce chronic HCV prevalence among PWID by 62% (from 26% to 10%) and HCV incidence will fall by approximately 2/3 (from 4.2 per 100 person-years (p100py) to 1.4 p100py). Treatment response and re-infection rates will be monitored. We will conduct focus groups and interviews with service providers and patients that accept and decline treatment to identify barriers and facilitators in implementing TasP. We will conduct longitudinal interviews with up to 40 PWID to assess whether successful HCV treatment alters their perspectives on and engagement with drug treatment and recovery. Trained peer researchers will be involved in data collection and dissemination. The primary outcome - chronic HCV prevalence in PWID - is measured using information from the Needle Exchange Surveillance Initiative survey in Scotland and the Unlinked Anonymous Monitoring Programme in England, conducted at least four times before and three times during and after the intervention. We will adapt Bayesian synthetic control methods (specifically the Causal Impact Method) to generate the cumulative impact of the intervention on chronic HCV prevalence and incidence. We will use a dynamic HCV transmission and economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the HCV TasP intervention, and to estimate the contribution of the scale-up in HCV treatment to observe changes in HCV prevalence. Through the qualitative data we will systematically explore key mechanisms of TasP real world implementation from provider and patient perspectives to develop a manual for scaling up HCV treatment in other settings. We will compare qualitative accounts of drug treatment and recovery with a 'virtual cohort' of PWID linking information on HCV treatment with Scottish Drug treatment databases to test whether DAA treatment improves drug treatment outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Extending HCV community care pathways is covered by ethics (ERADICATE C, ISRCTN27564683, Super DOT C Trial clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02706223). Ethical approval for extra data collection from patients including health utilities and qualitative interviews has been granted (REC ref: 18/ES/0128) and ISCRCTN registration has been completed (ISRCTN72038467). Our findings will have direct National Health Service and patient relevance; informing prioritisation given to early HCV treatment for PWID. We will present findings to practitioners and policymakers, and support design of an evaluation of HCV TasP in England.

A qualitative assessment of the acceptability of hepatitis C remote self-testing and self-sampling amongst people who use drugs in London, UK.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C (HCV) diagnosis and care is a major challenge for people who use illicit drugs, and is characterised by low rates of testing and treatment engagement globally. New approaches to fostering engagement are needed. We explored the acceptability of remote forms of HCV testing including self-testing and self-sampling among people who use drugs in London, UK. METHODS: A qualitative rapid assessment was undertaken with people who use drugs and stakeholders in London, UK. Focus groups were held with men who have sex with men engaged in drug use, people who currently inject drugs and people who formerly injected drugs (22 participants across the 3 focus groups). Stakeholders participated in semi-structured interviews (n = 5). We used a thematic analysis to report significant themes in participants' responses. RESULTS: We report an overarching theme of 'tension' in how participants responded to the acceptability of remote testing. This tension is evident across four separate sub-themes we explore. First, choice and control, with some valuing the autonomy and privacy remote testing could support. Second, the ease of use of self testing linked to its immediate result and saliva sample was preferred over the delayed result from a self administered blood sample tested in a laboratory. Third, many respondents described the need to embed remote testing within a supportive care pathway. Fourth, were concerns over managing a positive result, and its different meanings, in isolation. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of remote HCV testing is acceptable to some people who use drugs in London, although tensions with lived experience of drug use and health system access limit its relevance. Future development of remote testing must respond to concerns raised in order for acceptable implementation to take place.

Hep-CORE: a cross-sectional study of the viral hepatitis policy environment reported by patient groups in 25 European countries in 2016 and 2017.

INTRODUCTION: The first World Health Organization (WHO) global health sector strategy on hepatitis B and C viruses (HBV and HCV) has called for the elimination of viral hepatitis as a major public health threat by 2030. This study assesses policies and programmes in support of elimination efforts as reported by patient groups in Europe. METHODS: In 2016 and 2017, hepatitis patient groups in 25 European countries participated in a cross-sectional survey about their countries' policy responses to HBV and HCV. The English-language survey addressed overall national response; public awareness/engagement; disease monitoring; prevention; testing/diagnosis; clinical assessment; and treatment. We performed a descriptive analysis of data and compared 2016 and 2017 findings. RESULTS: In 2017, 72% and 52% of the 25 European study countries were reported to not have national HBV and HCV strategies respectively. The number of respondents indicating that their governments collaborated with civil society on viral hepatitis control increased from 13 in 2016 to 18 in 2017. In both 2016 and 2017, patient groups reported that 9 countries (36%) have disease registers for HBV and 11 (44%) have disease registers for HCV. The number of countries reported to have needle and syringe exchange programmes available in all parts of the country dropped from 10 (40%) in 2016 to 8 in 2017 (32%). In both 2016 and 2017, patient groups in 5 countries (20%) reported that HCV treatment is available in non-hospital settings. From 2016 to 2017, the reported number of countries with no restrictions on access to direct-acting antivirals for HCV increased from 3 (12%) to 7 (28%), and 5 fewer countries were reported to refuse treatment to people who are currently injecting drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-led Hep-CORE study offers a unique perspective on the readiness of study countries to undertake comprehensive viral hepatitis elimination efforts. Viral hepatitis monitoring should be expanded to address policy issues more comprehensively and to incorporate civil society perspectives, as is the case with global HIV monitoring. Policy components should also be explicitly added to the WHO framework for monitoring country-level progress against viral hepatitis.

Managing expense and expectation in a treatment revolution: Problematizing prioritisation through an exploration of hepatitis C treatment 'benefit'.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have transformed the hepatitis C (HCV) treatment landscape. These highly effective drugs are, however, not available to all. In a context of DAA rationing, clinicians are advised to "manage patient expectations" about the benefits of a HCV cure. This directive particularly pertains to people with minimal liver damage and those who have ceased injecting: populations negated in contemporary prioritisation debates. METHODS: This paper engages with the assumptions underpinning HCV treatment prioritisation discourses to explore the concept of treatment 'benefit' from patient perspectives. Data are from a qualitative longitudinal study exploring treatment transitions and decision-making from 2012-2015. Participants comprised 28 people living with HCV, ten treatment providers and eight stakeholders, based in London, United Kingdom (UK). One hundred hours of clinic observations were conducted at two HCV treatment hospitals. Thematic analyses pertaining to treatment expectation and outcome inform this paper. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants commenced treatment. The majority who were unable to access DAAs chose to commence interferon-based treatment immediately rather than wait. Participants accounted for treatment urgency in relation to three interrelated narratives of hope and expectation. HCV treatment promised: social reconnection; social redemption and a return to 'normality'. For many with successful treatment outcomes, these benefits appeared to be realised. CONCLUSION: The DAA era heralds a discursive shift: from 'managing [interferon] risk and difficulty' to 'managing [DAA] expense and expectation'. Calls to 'manage patient expectations' about the benefits of HCV cure are predicated on clinical benefits only, negating the social impacts of living with HCV. The public health priorities commonly articulated in treatment prioritisation debates are not consistent with those of people managing illness in their daily lives. During this 'treatment revolution' there is a need to be cognisant of the multiple publics living with the virus and the treatment needs of those who do not fit population-health scenarios.

One size fits all? The discursive framing of cultural difference in health professional accounts of providing cancer care to Aboriginal people.

OBJECTIVES: Cancer is the second biggest killer of Aboriginal Australians. For some cancers, the mortality rate is more than three times higher in Aboriginal people than for non-Aboriginal people. The Aboriginal Patterns of Cancer Care Study explored barriers to and facilitators of cancer diagnosis and treatment among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in New South Wales. DESIGN: Our team--which includes both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal researchers--conducted in-depth interviews between 2009 and 2010 with Aboriginal people with cancer, their carers and health professionals who care for them. In this paper, we identify recurrent patterns of 'discursive framing' in the 16 interviews with health care professionals. We are particularly interested in how these frames assisted participants in constructing a professional position on what 'cultural difference' means for the design and delivery of cancer care services to Aboriginal people. RESULTS: Despite geographical, organisational, disciplinary and cultural diversity, these interview participants consistently drew upon six discursive frames, which we have interpreted as either eliding a discussion of difference ('everyone is the same' and 'everyone is different') or facilitating that discussion ('different priorities,' 'different practices' and 'making difference safe'). An additional strategy appeared to actively resist either of these positions but then tended to ultimately prioritise the eliding frames. CONCLUSIONS: While none of our participants were dismissive of the idea that cultural identity might matter to Aboriginal people, their reliance upon familiar narratives about what that means for cancer care services has the potential to both symbolically and practically exclude the voices of a group of people who may already feel disenfranchised from the mainstream health care system. Critically unpacking the 'taken for granted' assumptions behind how health care professionals make sense of cultural difference can enrich our understanding of and response to the care needs of indigenous people affected by cancer.