Deimplementation in the provision of opioid agonist treatment to achieve equity of care for people engaged in treatment: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Deimplementation, the removal or reduction of potentially hazardous approaches to care, is key to progressing social equity in health. While the benefits of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are well-evidenced, wide variability in the provision of treatment attenuates positive outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic, OAT services deimplemented aspects of provision which had long been central to treatment in Australia; supervised dosing, urine drug screening, and frequent in-person attendance for review. This analysis explored how providers considered social inequity in health of patients in the deimplementation of restrictive OAT provision during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Between August and December 2020, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 OAT providers in Australia. Codes relating to the social determinants of client retention in OAT were clustered according to how providers considered deimplementation in relation to social inequities. Normalisation Process Theory was then used to analyse the clusters in relation to how providers understood their work during the COVID-19 pandemic as responding to systemic issues that condition OAT access. RESULTS: We explored four overarching themes based on constructs from Normalisation Process Theory: adaptive execution, cognitive participation, normative restructuring, and sustainment. Accounts of adaptive execution demonstrated tensions between providers' conceptions of equity and patient autonomy. Cognitive participation and normative restructuring were integral to the workability of rapid and drastic changes within the OAT services. Key transformative actors included communities of practice and "thought leaders" who had long supported deimplementation for more humane care. At this early stage of the pandemic, providers had already begun to consider how this period could inform sustainment of deimplementation. When considering a future, post-pandemic period, several providers expressed discomfort at operating with "evidence-enough" and called for narrowly defined types of data on adverse events (e.g. overdose) and expert consensus on takeaway doses. CONCLUSIONS: The possibilities for achieving social equity in health are limited by the divergent treatment goals of providers and people receiving OAT. Sustained and equitable deimplementation of obtrusive aspects of OAT provision require co-created treatment goals, patient-centred monitoring and evaluation, and access to a supportive community of practice for providers.

Willingness of people who inject drugs to participate in a randomised controlled trial involving financial incentives to initiate hepatitis C treatment.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the acceptability of contingency management is limited. We investigated the willingness of people who inject drugs to participate in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving financial incentives to initiate HCV treatment. METHODS: ETHOS Engage is an observational cohort study of people with a history of injecting drug use who either injected in the past six months or receive opioid agonist therapy (OAT) in Australia. We assessed willingness to participate in a RCT with financial incentives and factors associated with preference for entire incentive ($60) at first clinic visit versus delayed incentive with logistic regression. RESULTS: 93% (593/635) of eligible participants agreed to participate in an RCT with financial incentives of which 24% were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, 84% had completed secondary school, and 59% injected drugs in the prior month. Willingness to participate in an RCT increased by amount offered: unspecified (72%), $20 (75%), $60 (80%), and $100 (85%). The preferred incentive distribution method over three clinical visits was entire incentive at first clinical visit (32%). Among those with a preferred distribution method (n = 369), factors associated with entire incentive at first clinic visit were being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (aOR 1.75; 95% CI 1.05-2.94), completion of secondary school (aOR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.83) and mainly injected heroin in month prior (aOR 1.82; 95% CI 1.03-3.20). CONCLUSION: Most participants were willing to participate in an RCT involving financial incentives to initiate treatment but differed regarding distribution. Study findings inform implementation of incentives in clinical practice.

Hepatitis C virus testing, liver disease assessment and treatment uptake among people who inject drugs pre- and post-universal access to direct-acting antiviral treatment in Australia: The LiveRLife study.

Gaps in hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing, diagnosis, liver disease assessment and treatment uptake among people who inject drugs (PWID) persist. We aimed to describe the cascade of HCV care among PWID in Australia, prior to and following unrestricted access to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. Participants enrolled in an observational cohort study between 2014 and 2018 provided fingerstick whole-blood samples for dried blood spot, Xpert HCV Viral Load and venepuncture samples. Participants underwent transient elastography and clinical assessment by a nurse or general practitioner. Among 839 participants (mean age 43 years), 66% were male (n = 550), 64% (n = 537) injected drugs in the previous month, and 67% (n = 560) reported currently receiving opioid substitution therapy. Overall, 45% (n = 380) had detectable HCV RNA, of whom 23% (n = 86) received HCV treatment within 12 months of enrolment. HCV treatment uptake increased from 2% in the pre-DAA era to 38% in the DAA era. Significant liver fibrosis (F2-F4) was more common in participants with HCV infection (38%) than those without (19%). Age 50 years or older (aOR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.18-7.04) and attending a clinical follow-up with nurse (aOR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.61-6.32) or physician (aOR, 11.83; 95% CI, 4.89-28.59) were associated with HCV treatment uptake. Recent injection drug use and unstable housing were not associated with HCV treatment uptake. HCV treatment uptake among PWID has increased markedly in the DAA era. Evaluation of innovative and simplified models of care is required to further enhance treatment uptake.

The removal of DAA restrictions in Europe - One step closer to eliminating HCV as a major public health threat.

Of ∼10.2 million people with chronic HCV infection in Europe, 6.7 million live in Eastern Europe, 2.3 million in Western Europe and 1.2 million in Central Europe. HCV transmission continues to occur in parallel with an increasing HCV-related liver disease burden, the result of an ageing population infected during peak HCV epidemics decades earlier. In 2016, the World Health Organization set targets to eliminate HCV infection as a major public health threat by 2030. Across Europe, an estimated 36% of those living with chronic HCV infection have been diagnosed and ∼5% have been treated. A major barrier to enhancing HCV treatment uptake has been restrictions set by payers, including national governments and others, in response to the initially high list prices of direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapies. The aims of this article are to discuss DAA restrictions in Europe, why DAA restrictions are still in place, what has facilitated the removal of DAA restrictions, and what challenges remain as we attempt to eliminate HCV as a major public health threat in the region by 2030.

Restrictions for reimbursement of interferon-free direct-acting antiviral drugs for HCV infection in Europe.

All-oral direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAAs) for hepatitis C virus, which have response rates of 95% or more, represent a major clinical advance. However, the high list price of DAAs has led many governments to restrict their reimbursement. We reviewed the availability of, and national criteria for, interferon-free DAA reimbursement among countries in the European Union and European Economic Area, and Switzerland. Reimbursement documentation was reviewed between Nov 18, 2016, and Aug 1, 2017. Primary outcomes were fibrosis stage, drug or alcohol use, prescriber type, and HIV co-infection restrictions. Among the 35 European countries and jurisdictions included, the most commonly reimbursed DAA was ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir, with dasabuvir, and with or without ribavirin (33 [94%] countries and jurisdictions). 16 (46%) countries and jurisdictions required patients to have fibrosis at stage F2 or higher, 29 (83%) had no listed restrictions based on drug or alcohol use, 33 (94%) required a specialist prescriber, and 34 (97%) had no additional restrictions for people co-infected with HIV and hepatitis C virus. These findings have implications for meeting WHO targets, with evidence of some countries not following the 2016 hepatitis C virus treatment guidelines by the European Association for the Study of Liver.

'I didn't want to let it go too far.' The decisions and experiences of people who inject drugs who received a liver disease assessment as part of a liver health promotion campaign: The LiveRLife study.

BACKGROUND: An open cohort study (LiveRLife) evaluating an intervention integrating non-invasive liver disease assessment via transient elastography (TE) among people who inject drugs (PWID) was conducted in New South Wales, Australia. Participant follow-up occurred 2-16 weeks post-enrolment. It is imperative that PWID understand liver assessment results in order to make informed decisions about their health. The aim of this study was to evaluate the decisions and experiences of participants who received a liver disease assessment, including interpretation of TE score and subsequent health behaviours, using a health literacy framework. METHODS: Participants who had participated in LiveRLife were recruited from two opioid substitution treatment clinics and one medically supervised injecting centre between November 2015 and February 2016. The four recruitment categories were: (a) high TE score (≥9.5kPa)/attended follow-up, n=12; (b) high score/did not attend follow-up, n=2; (c) low score (<9.5kPa)/attended follow-up, n=11; and (d) low score/did not attend follow-up, n=8. Participants were not reminded of their category during recruitment. Inclusion criteria were: participants who received a TE score and informed consent. RESULTS: Of 33 semi-structured interviews, reasons for receiving a TE assessment were varied. Most participants interpreted level of liver disease correctly based on their TE score. Participants with higher TE scores frequently described feeling surprised by their result and also, often incorrectly identified drug use as a cause of advanced liver disease. In contrast, persons with lower TE scores felt encouraged by their result and spoke more to maintenance of healthy behaviours. When applicable, participants spoke of HCV therapy. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight some positive health changes made by PWID following liver disease assessment as well as ongoing misunderstandings of chronic liver disease in relation to illicit drug use. Results will inform strategies for targeted liver health education and 'linkage to care' for PWID with, and at-risk of, advanced liver disease.