Hepatitis C prevalence and cascade of care among patients in the decentralised opioid agonist therapy programme of the canton of St Gallen, Switzerland: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To eliminate chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 2030, 90% of those infected must be diagnosed and 80% treated. In Switzerland, >40% of the estimated 32,000 infected people are still undiagnosed. In the canton of St Gallen, HCV prevalence and cascade of care have only been studied in the centralised opioid agonist therapy (OAT) setting (institutions), although about 80% of OAT patients are treated decentrally (general practitioner [GP] or pharmacy). AIM: To describe HCV prevalence and cascade of care among patients in the decentralised OAT programme of the canton of St Gallen, Switzerland, and compare it to contemporaneous data from the centralised setting. METHODS: For each patient receiving his/her OAT from a GP or pharmacy on 1 April 2021, the cantonal medical office sent a questionnaire to the prescribing GP. Patient characteristics, HCV antibody (Ab)/RNA screening uptake, HCV Ab/RNA prevalence and HCV treatment uptake were obtained and compared to those of patients of the Medizinisch-soziale Hilfsstelle 1 in St Gallen (centralised setting). RESULTS: Of the 563 OAT patients under the care of 127 GPs, 107 patients from 41 GPs could be analysed (median age: 48 years [IQR: 40-56]; ongoing intravenous drug use: 25%; OAT provider: 66% GP, 34% pharmacy). HCV Ab screening uptake was 68% (73/107) with an HCV Ab prevalence of 68% (50/73) among those tested. Of the HCV Ab-positive patients, 84% (42/50) were HCV RNA-tested, among whom 57% (24/42) were viraemic. HCV treatment uptake was 83% (20/24), with 95% (19/20) achieving a sustained virological response. Non-uptake of HCV screening and treatment tended to be higher among patients receiving OAT at the pharmacy vs at the GP's office: 37% vs 26% (p = 0.245) for screening and 30% vs 7% (p = 0.139) for treatment. The proportion never HCV Ab-tested and the proportion of HCV Ab-positives never HCV RNA-tested was significantly higher in the decentralised compared to the centralised setting: 32% vs 3% (p <0.001) never Ab-tested and 16% vs 0% (p = 0.002) never RNA-tested. In contrast, HCV treatment uptake (83% vs 78%), sustained virological response rate (95% vs 100%) and residual HCV RNA prevalence among the HCV Ab-positive (12% vs 14%) were comparable for both settings. CONCLUSION: In the decentralised OAT setting of the canton of St Gallen, HCV Ab prevalence is high. Since HCV Ab and RNA screening uptake are markedly lower than in the centralised setting, potentially >40% of patients with chronic HCV are not diagnosed yet. HCV screening in the decentralised setting needs improvement, e.g. by increasing awareness and simplifying testing. High HCV treatment uptake and cure rates are possible in centralised and decentralised settings.

Costs and acceptability of simplified monitoring in HIV-suppressed patients switching to dual therapy: the SIMPL'HIV open-label, factorial randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and laboratory monitoring of patients on antiretroviral therapy is an integral part of HIV care and determines whether treatment needs enhanced adherence or modification of the drug regimen. However, different monitoring and treatment strategies carry different costs and health consequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The SIMPL'HIV study was a randomised trial that assessed the non-inferiority of dual maintenance therapy. The co-primary outcome was a comparison of costs over 48 weeks of dual therapy with standard antiretroviral therapy and the costs associated with a simplified HIV care approach (patient-centred monitoring [PCM]) versus standard, tri-monthly routine monitoring. Costs included outpatient medical consultations (HIV/non-HIV consultations), non-medical consultations, antiretroviral therapy, laboratory tests and hospitalisation costs. PCM participants had restricted immunological and blood safety monitoring at weeks 0 and 48, and they were offered the choice to complete their remaining study visits via a telephone call, have medications delivered to a specified address, and to have blood tests performed at a location of their choice. We analysed the costs of both strategies using invoices for medical consultations issued by the hospital where the patient was followed, as well as those obtained from health insurance companies. Secondary outcomes included differences between monitoring arms for renal function, lipids and glucose values, and weight over 48 weeks. Patient satisfaction with treatment and monitoring was also assessed using visual analogue scales. RESULTS: Of 93 participants randomised to dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and 94 individuals to combination antiretroviral therapy (median nadir CD4 count, 246 cells/mm3; median age, 48 years; female, 17%),patient-centred monitoring generated no substantial reductions or increases in total costs (US$ -421 per year [95% CI -2292 to 1451]; p = 0.658). However, dual therapy was significantly less expensive (US$ -2620.4 [95% CI -2864.3 to -2331.4]) compared to standard triple-drug antiretroviral therapy costs. Approximately 50% of participants selected one monitoring option, one-third chose two, and a few opted for three. The preferred option was telephone calls, followed by drug delivery. The number of additional visits outside the study schedule did not differ by type of monitoring. Patient satisfaction related to treatment and monitoring was high at baseline, with no significant increase at week 48. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centred monitoring did not reduce costs compared to standard monitoring in individuals switching to dual therapy or those continuing combined antiretroviral therapy. In this representative sample of patients with suppressed HIV, antiretroviral therapy was the primary factor driving costs, which may be reduced by using generic drugs to mitigate the high cost of lifelong HIV treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03160105.

SARS-CoV-2 immunity and reasons for non-vaccination among healthcare workers from eastern and northern Switzerland: results from a nested multicentre cross-sectional study.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: We aimed to assess the extent of SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity elicited by previous infections and/or vaccination among healthcare workers, and to identify reasons why healthcare workers decided against vaccination. METHODS: This nested cross-sectional study included volunteer healthcare workers from 14 healthcare institutions in German-speaking Switzerland. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were available for healthcare workers. In May and June 2022, participants answered electronic questionnaires regarding baseline characteristics including SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status (with one or more vaccine doses defined as vaccinated) and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Unvaccinated participants indicated their reasons for non-vaccination. Participants underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (anti-S) and anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies. Antibody prevalence was described across age groups. In addition, we performed multivariable logistic regression to identify baseline characteristics independently associated with non-vaccination and described reasons for non-vaccination. RESULTS: Among 22,438 eligible employees, 3,436 (15%) participated; the median age was 43.7 years (range 16-73), 2,794 (81.3%) were female, and 1,407 (47.7%) identified as nurses; 3,414 (99.4%) underwent serology testing, among whom 3,383 (99.0%) had detectable anti-S (3,357, 98.3%) antibodies, anti-N (2,396, 70.1%) antibodies, or both (2,370, 69.4%). A total of 296 (8.6%) healthcare workers were unvaccinated, whereas 3,140 (91.4%) were vaccinated. In multivariable analysis, age (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), being a physician (aOR 3.22, 95% CI 1.75-5.92) or administrator (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.27-2.80), and having higher education (aOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.09-4.57) were positively associated with vaccine uptake, whereas working in non-acute care (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.97), active smoking (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.91), and taking prophylactic home remedies against SARS-CoV-2 (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.31-0.56) were negatively associated. Important reasons for non-vaccination were a belief that the vaccine might not have long-lasting immunity (267/291, 92.1%) and a preference for gaining naturally acquired instead of vaccine-induced immunity (241/289, 83.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all healthcare workers in our cohort had specific antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from natural infection and/or from vaccination. Young healthcare workers and those working in non-acute settings were less likely to be vaccinated, whereas physicians and administrative staff showed higher vaccination uptake. Presumed ineffectiveness of the vaccine is an important reason for non-vaccination.