Priorities and recommended actions for how researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and the affected community can work together to improve access to hepatitis C care for people who use drugs.

It is estimated that 6.1 million people with recent injecting drug use (PWID) are living with hepatitis C virus (HCV). Although HCV-related morbidity and mortality among PWID continues to increase, the advent of direct acting antiviral (DAA) HCV regimens with cure rates >95% provides an opportunity to reverse the rising burden of disease. Additionally, given evidence that opioid substitution therapy and high-coverage needle and syringe programs can reduce HCV incidence by up to 80%, there is an opportunity to reduce HCV transmission with increased coverage of harm reduction services. However, there are significant patient, provider, health system, structural, and societal barriers that impede access to HCV prevention and care for PWID. The International Network on Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU), in collaboration with the Australasian Society for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, Sexual Health Medicine (ASHM), Harm Reduction International, the Canadian Network on Hepatitis C, Canadian Research Initiative in Substance Misuse, the National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable, Médecins du Monde and CATIE, held a roundtable discussion prior to the Harm Reduction Conference in Montreal, Canada on 13th May 2017 to discuss how to improve HCV prevention and care for PWID. Over 100 international researchers, practitioners, policy makers, advocates, and affected community members came together to discuss shared priorities for action, develop actionable next steps and to create partnerships to enable application of priorities. This paper highlights the key priority areas identified by participants including: enhancing global coverage of harm reduction services; addressing punitive drug policies; ensuring access to affordable HCV diagnostics and treatment; improving the evidence-base for HCV prevention, testing, linkage to care and treatment; implementing integrated HCV programs; advancing peer-based models of HCV care; and tackling social determinants of health inequalities for PWID. This paper also highlights the recommended actions for each priority identified by the participants from this roundtable.

Latent class analysis of acceptability and willingness to pay for self-HIV testing in a United States urban neighbourhood with high rates of HIV infection.

INTRODUCTION: Acceptability and willingness to both take and pay for HIV self-tests (HIVSTs) in US neighbourhoods with high rates of HIV infection are not well understood. METHODS: We surveyed 1,535 individuals about acceptability and willingness to take and pay for an HIVST in a predominately African American neighbourhood with 3% HIV seroprevalence. We recruited individuals presenting for HIV screening services in a community-based programme. Latent class analysis (LCA) grouped individuals with similar patterns of HIV-risk behaviours and determined which groups would be most willing to use and buy HIVSTs. RESULTS: Nearly 90% of respondents were willing to use an HIVST; 55% were willing to buy HIVSTs, but only 23% were willing to pay the market price of US $40. Four distinct groups emerged and were characterized by risk behaviours: (1) low risk (N = 324); (2) concurrent partnerships (N = 346); (3) incarceration and substance use (N = 293); and (4) condomless sex/multiple partners (N = 538). Individuals in the low-risk class were less willing to self-test compared to concurrent sexual partners (OR = 0.39, p = .003) and incarceration and substance use (OR = 0.46, p = .011) classes. There were no significant differences across classes in the amount individuals were willing to pay for an HIVST. CONCLUSION: HIVSTs were overwhelmingly acceptable but cost prohibitive; most participants were unwilling to pay the market rate of US $40. Subsidizing and implementing HIVST programmes in communities with high rates of infection present a public health opportunity, particularly among individuals reporting condomless sex with multiple partners, concurrent sexual partnerships and those with incarceration and substance use histories.

Routine HIV Screening in an Urban Community Health Center: Results from a Geographically Focused Implementation Science Program.

OBJECTIVE: CDC has recommended routine HIV screening since 2006. However, few community health centers (CHCs) routinely offer HIV screening. Research is needed to understand how to implement routine HIV screening programs, particularly in medically underserved neighborhoods with high rates of HIV infection. A routine HIV screening program was implemented and evaluated in a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, neighborhood with high rates of HIV infection. METHODS: Implementation science is the study of methods to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into health-care policy and practice. Using an implementation science approach, the results of the program were evaluated by measuring acceptability, adoption, and penetration of routine HIV screening. RESULTS: A total of 5,878 individuals were screened during the program. HIV screening was highly accepted among clinic patients. In an initial needs assessment of 516 patients, 362 (70.2%) patients reported that they would accept testing if offered. Routine screening policies were adopted clinic-wide. Staff trainings, new electronic medical records that prompted staff members to offer screening and evaluate screening rates, and other continuing quality-improvement policies helped promote screenings. HIV screening offer rates improved from an estimated 5.0% of eligible patients at baseline in March 2012 to an estimated 59.3% of eligible patients in December 2014. However, only 5,878 of 13,827 (42.5%) patients who were offered screening accepted it, culminating in a 25.2% overall screening rate. Seventeen of the 5,878 patients tested positive, for a seropositivity rate of 0.3%. CONCLUSION: Routine HIV screening at CHCs in neighborhoods with high rates of HIV infection is feasible. Routine screening is an important tool to improve HIV care continuum outcomes and to address racial and geographic disparities in HIV infection.

Access to Costly New Hepatitis C Drugs: Medicine, Money, and Advocacy.

Hepatitis C affects >3 million people in the United States, and often leads to end-stage liver disease or death. In 2014, several new drugs to treat hepatitic C virus received US Food and Drug Administration approval, with remarkable cure rates exceeding 90%. Medicaid, however, is rationing these drugs, and other insurers have restricted coverage due to their exorbitant costs and the large size of the population in need. These access barriers and disparities have resulted in national patient advocacy mobilization, US congressional inquiry, and legal challenges. The US Department of Health and Human Services has been urged to intervene. We propose the establishment of a federal program, analogous to AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, to reduce access barriers and facilitate focused price negotiations. The federal government may further undertake a nonvoluntary acquisition of the pharmaceutical patents pursuant to federal statutory authority and principles of eminent domain. Projections indicate this proposal could lower costs by 90% and eliminate rationing.

Results from a Geographically Focused, Community-Based HCV Screening, Linkage-to-Care and Patient Navigation Program.

BACKGROUND: Many of the five million Americans chronically infected with hepatitis C (HCV) are unaware of their infection and are not in care. OBJECTIVE: We implemented and evaluated HCV screening and linkage-to-care interventions in a community setting. DESIGN: We developed a comprehensive, community-based HCV screening and linkage-to-care program in a medically underserved neighborhood with high rates of HCV infection in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We provided patient navigation services to enroll uninsured patients in insurance programs, facilitate referrals from primary care physicians and link patients to an HCV infectious disease specialist with intention to treat and cure. PATIENTS: Philadelphia residents were recruited through street outreach. MAIN MEASURES: We measured anti-HCV seroprevalence and diagnosis, linkage and retention in care outcomes for chronically infected patients. KEY RESULTS: We screened 1,301 participants for HCV; anti-HCV seroprevalence was 3.9 % and 2.8% of all patients were chronically infected. Half of chronically infected patients were newly diagnosed; the remaining patients were aware of infection but not in care. We provided confirmatory RNA testing and results, assisted patients with attaining insurance and linked most chronically infected patients to a primary care provider. The biggest barrier to retaining patients in care was obtaining referrals for subspecialty providers; however, we obtained referrals for 64% of chronically infected participants and have retained most in subspecialty HCV care. Several have commenced treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Non-clinical screening programs with patient navigator services are an effective means to diagnose, link, retain and re-engage patients in HCV care. Eliminating referral requirements for subspecialty care might further enhance retention in care for patients chronically infected with HCV.

Hepatitis C risk assessment, testing and referral for treatment in urban primary care: role of race and ethnicity.

AIM: To determine rates of hepatitis C (HCV) risk factor ascertainment, testing, and referral in urban primary care practices, with particular attention to the effect of race and ethnicity. METHODS: Retrospective chart review from four primary care sites in Philadelphia; two academic primary care practices and two community clinics was performed. Demographics, HCV risk factors, and other risk exposure information were collected. RESULTS: Four thousand four hundred and seven charts were reviewed. Providers documented histories of injection drug use (IDU) and transfusion for less than 20% and 5% of patients, respectively. Only 55% of patients who admitted IDU were tested for HCV. Overall, minorities were more likely to have information regarding a risk factor documented than their white counterparts (79% vs 68%, P < 0.0001). Hispanics were less likely to have a risk factor history documented, compared to blacks and whites (P < 0.0001). Overall, minorities were less likely to be tested for HCV than whites in the presence of a known risk factor (23% vs 35%, P = 0.004). Among patients without documentation of risk factors, blacks and Hispanics were more likely to be tested than whites (20% and 24%, vs 13%, P < 0.005, respectively). CONCLUSION: (1) Documentation of an HCV risk factor history in urban primary care is uncommon, (2) Racial differences exist with respect to HCV risk factor ascertainment and testing, (3) Minority patients, positive for HCV, are less likely to be referred for subspecialty care and treatment. Overall, minorities are less likely to be tested for HCV than whites in the presence of a known risk factor.