HEPCARE EUROPE- A case study of a service innovation project aiming at improving the elimination of HCV in vulnerable populations in four European cities.

OBJECTIVES: Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is a significant cause of chronic liver disease. Among at-risk populations, access to diagnosis and treatment is challenging. We describe an integrated model of care, Hepcare Europe, developed to address this challenge. METHODS: Using a case-study approach, we describe the cascade of care outcomes at all sites. Cost analyses estimated the cost per person screened and linked to care. RESULTS: A total of 2608 participants were recruited across 218 clinical sites. HCV antibody test results were obtained for 2568(98•5%); 1074(41•8%) were antibody-positive, 687(60•5%) tested positive for HCV-RNA, 650(60•5%) were linked to care, and 319(43•5%) started treatment. 196(61•4%) of treatment initiates achieved a Sustained Viral Response (SVR) at dataset closure, 108(33•9%) were still on treatment, eight (2•7%) defaulted from treatment, and seven (2•6%) had virologic failure or died. The cost per person screened varied from €194 to €635, while the cost per person linked to care varied from €364 to €2035. CONCLUSIONS: Hepcare enhanced access to HCV treatment and cure, and costs were affordable in all settings, offering a framework for scale-up and reproducibility.

The cost-effectiveness of an HCV outreach intervention for at-risk populations in London, UK.

BACKGROUND: HCV disproportionately affects marginalized communities such as homeless populations and people who inject drugs (PWID), posing a challenge to traditional health services. The HepFriend initiative in London is a model of care utilizing HCV outreach screening and peer support to link vulnerable individuals to HCV treatment in secondary care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the HepFriend initiative from a healthcare provider perspective, compared with standard-of-care pathways (consisting of testing in primary care and other static locations, including drug treatment centres, and linkage to secondary care). METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a dynamic HCV transmission and disease progression model among PWID and those who have ceased injecting, including housing status and drug treatment service contact. The model was parameterized using London-specific surveillance and survey data, and primary intervention cost and effectiveness data (September 2015 to June 2018). Out of 461 individuals screened, 197 were identified as HCV RNA positive, 180 attended secondary care and 89 have commenced treatment to date. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was determined using a 50 year time horizon. RESULTS: For a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20000 per QALY gained, the HepFriend initiative is cost-effective, with a mean ICER of £9408/QALY, and would become cost saving at 27% (£10525 per treatment) of the current drug list price. Results are robust to variations in intervention costs and model assumptions, and if treatment rates are doubled the intervention becomes more cost-effective (£8853/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: New models of care that undertake active case-finding with enhanced peer support to improve testing and treatment uptake amongst marginalized and vulnerable groups could be highly cost-effective and possibly cost saving.

Hepcare Europe - bridging the gap in the treatment of hepatitis C: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C (HCV) infection is highly prevalent among people who inject drugs (PWID). Many PWID are unaware of their infection and few have received HCV treatment. Recent developments in treatment offer cure rates >90%. However, the potential of these treatments will only be realised if HCV identification among PWID with linkage to treatment is optimised. This paper describes the Hepcare Europe project, a collaboration between five institutions across four member states (Ireland, UK, Spain, Romania), to develop, implement and evaluate interventions to improve the identification, evaluation and treatment of HCV among PWID. METHODS: A service innovation project and a mixed-methods, pre-post intervention study, Hepcare will design and deliver interventions in Dublin, London, Seville and Bucharest to enhance PWID engagement and retention in the cascade of HCV care. RESULTS: The feasibility, acceptability, potential efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these interventions to improve care processes and outcomes among PWID will be evaluated. CONCLUSION: Hepcare has the potential to make an important impact on patient care for marginalised populations who might otherwise go undiagnosed and untreated. Lessons learned from the study can be incorporated into national and European guidelines and strategies for HCV.

Using peer advocates to improve access to services among hard-to-reach populations with hepatitis C: a qualitative study of client and provider relationships.

BACKGROUND: Peer support programmes use individuals with specific experiences to improve engagement and outcomes among new clients. However, the skills and techniques used to achieve this engagement have not been mapped. This potentially restricts the development and replication of successful peer advocate models of care. This study explored how a group of peer advocates with experience of homelessness, alcohol and drug misuse made and sustained relationships with their client group. For the purposes of this project, the client group were located among a hepatitis C-positive cohort of people who have a history of injecting drug use and homelessness. METHODS: Five self-selecting advocates gave a narrative interview lasting 40-90 min. These interviews were double transcribed using both thematic analysis and narrative analysis in order to triangulate the data and provide a robust set of findings about the unique skills of peer advocates in creating and sustaining relationships with clients from hard-to-reach populations. RESULTS: Peer advocates build rapport with clients through disclosing personal details about their lives. While this runs counter to assumptions about the need to maintain distance in client-patient relationships, the therapeutic benefits appear to outweigh the potential costs of this engagement. CONCLUSION: We conclude the therapeutic benefits of self-disclosure between peer advocates and their clients offer a moral grounding for self-disclosure as a means of building relationships with key hard-to-reach populations.