ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) prevalence is high in the mental health population. We sought to evaluate testing and treatment uptake for HCV following the implementation of a universal nurse led study in inpatient and outpatient mental health populations. METHODS: From January 2018 to December 2020, we screened mental health inpatients (n = 322) and community mental health patients (n = 615) for HCV with either specialist hepatology nurses or mental health nurses (mental health nurse). RESULTS: 75.5% (464/615) of community patients and 100% (322/322) of inpatients consented to screening, with an HCV antibody-positive prevalence of 12.7% (59/464) in community patients and 19.6% (63/322) in inpatients. RNA detectable prevalence was 4.0% (22/464) and 7.5% (24/322), respectively. Community patients who were screened by specialist hepatology nurses were more likely to consent to screening (94.4% vs. 45.7%, p < 0.001) but had lower proportion of HCV antibody (10.5% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001) and RNA detectable (4.0% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.018) when compared to mental health nurse screening. Engagement with treatment was 27.0% of community mental health patients and 45.8% of mental health inpatients undergoing treatment. All patients undergoing treatment and underwent sustained viral response (SVR) testing achieved SVR. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Universal screening of HCV using a nurse-led model has high rates of success in mental health patients with high proportions undergoing screening, with no reduction in the rates of SVR achieved with DAA therapy compared to the general population. Further work is needed to bridge the gap between identification of HCV and treatment among mental health patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can now be cured with well-tolerated direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy. However, a potential barrier to HCV elimination is the emergence of resistance-associated substitutions (RASs) that reduce the efficacy of antiviral drugs, but real-world studies assessing the clinical impact of RASs are limited. Here, an analysis of the impact of RASs on retreatment outcomes for different salvage regimens in patients nationally who failed first-line DAA therapy is reported. Methods: We collected data from 363 Australian patients who failed first-line DAA therapy, including: age, sex, fibrosis stage, HCV genotype, NS3/NS5A/NS5B RASs, details of failed first-line regimen, subsequent salvage regimens, and treatment outcome. Results: Of 240 patients who were initially retreated as per protocol, 210 (87.5%) achieved sustained virologic response (SVR) and 30 (12.5%) relapsed or did not respond. The SVR rate for salvage regimens that included sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir was 94.3% (n = 140), sofosbuvir/velpatasvir 75.0% (n = 52), elbasvir/grazoprevir 81.6% (n = 38), and glecaprevir/pibrentasvir 84.6% (n = 13). NS5A RASs were present in 71.0% (n = 210) of patients who achieved SVR and in 66.7% (n = 30) of patients who subsequently relapsed. NS3 RASs were detected in 20 patients (20%) in the SVR group and 1 patient in the relapse group. NS5B RASs were observed in only 3 patients. Cirrhosis was a predictor of relapse after retreatment, as was previous treatment with sofosbuvir/velpatasvir. Conclusions: In our cohort, the SVR rate for sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/voxilaprevir was higher than with other salvage regimens. The presence of NS5A, NS5B, or NS3 RASs did not appear to negatively influence retreatment outcomes.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) clinics play a key role in achieving elimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) globally. Previous research has identified barriers to HCV treatment uptake in OAT clinics; however, most studies were conducted prior to the introduction of direct-acting antiviral treatments (DAA). It remains unclear whether progress has been made in responding to barriers and what challenges persist in this setting. METHODS: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with staff (n = 20) and clients (n = 15) in two OAT clinics in Sydney, Australia. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Despite progress in integrating hepatitis C care in the clinics, competing priorities, concerns about side-effects, distrust of staff, health problems and difficulties accessing testing and medication persisted as key reasons why clients had not initiated treatment. Most clients preferred to postpone treatment and focus on other priorities and some highlighted lack of medical evidence for urgent treatment. Pressure on services to achieve elimination targets within set time frames was a primary driver of repeated offers of treatment by staff and the framing of clients' preferences for postponing treatment, as a barrier. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Current timelines for HCV elimination targets may have galvanised services into action but may have also created tensions at the coalface due to disparities between staff and clients' priorities. The involvement of peer workers and mechanisms to ensure continued follow up with clients about DAA treatments is required. Public health timelines for HCV elimination need to be informed by affected communities' priorities.
