A cross-sectional study of hepatitis C prevalence and correlates among persons who inject drugs in rural and non-rural communities.

Persons who inject drugs (PWID) have been experiencing a higher burden of new hepatitis C (HCV) due to the opioid epidemic. The greatest increases in injection have been in rural communities. However, less is known about the prevalence of HCV or its risk factors in rural compared to non-rural communities. This study compared HCV infection history, current infection, and associated behavioural and sociodemographic correlates among PWID recruited from rural and non-rural communities from Upstate New York (NY). This cross-sectional study recruited 309 PWID, using respondent-driven sampling. Blood samples were collected through finger stick for HCV antibody and RNA tests. A survey was also self-administered for HCV infection history, sociodemographics and behavioural correlates to compare by setting rurality. HCV seropositivity was significantly higher among PWID from rural than non-rural communities (71.0% vs. 46.8%), as was current infection (41.4% vs. 25.9%). High levels of past year syringe (44.4%) and equipment (62.2%) sharing were reported. Factors associated with infection history include syringe service program utilization, non-Hispanic white race, sharing needles and methamphetamine injection, which was higher in rural vs. non-rural communities (38.5% vs. 15.5%). HCV burden among PWID appears higher in rural than non-rural communities and may be increasing possibly due to greater levels of methamphetamine injection. On-going systematic surveillance of HCV prevalence and correlates is crucial to respond to the changing opioid epidemic landscape. Additionally, improving access to harm reduction services, especially with special focus on stimulants, may be important to reduce HCV prevalence among PWID in rural settings.

Acceptability of supervised injection facilities among persons who inject drugs in upstate New York.

BACKGROUND: Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) provide spaces where persons who inject drugs (PWID) can inject under medical supervision and access harm reduction services. Though SIFs are not currently sanctioned in most of the US, such facilities are being considered for approval in several Upstate New York communities. No data exist from PWID in Upstate New York, and little from outside major US urban centers, on willingness to use SIFs and associated factors. METHODS: This analysis included 285 PWID (mean age = 38.7; 57.7% male; 72.3% non-Hispanic white) recruited for a study on hepatitis C prevalence among PWID in Upstate New York, where participants were recruited from syringe exchange programs (n = 80) and able to refer other PWID from their injection networks (n = 223). Participants completed an electronic questionnaire that included a brief description of SIFs and assessed willingness to use SIFs. We compared sociodemographic characteristics, drug use/harm reduction history, healthcare experience, and stigma between participants who were willing vs. unwilling to use such programs. RESULTS: Overall, 67.4% were willing to use SIFs, 18.3% unwilling, and 14.4% unsure. Among those reporting being willing or unwilling, we found higher willingness among those who were currently homeless (91.8% vs. 74.6%; p = 0.004), who had interacted with police in the past 12 months (85.7% vs. 74.5%; p = 0.04), and who were refused service within a healthcare setting (100% vs. 77.1%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our results support SIF acceptability in several Upstate New York PWID communities, particularly among those reporting feelings of marginalization. A large proportion reported being unsure about usage of SIFs, suggesting room for educating PWID on the potential benefits of this service. Our results support SIF acceptability in Upstate New York and may inform programming for underserved PWID, should SIFs become available.

Estimated cost of comprehensive syringe service program in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost of establishing and operating a comprehensive syringe service program (SSP) free to clients in the United States. METHODS: We identified the major cost components of a comprehensive SSP: (one-time start-up cost, and annual costs associated with personnel, operations, and prevention/medical services) and estimated the anticipated total costs (2016 US dollars) based on program size (number of clients served each year) and geographic location of the service (rural, suburban, and urban). RESULTS: The estimated costs ranged from $0.4 million for a small rural SSP (serving 250 clients) to $1.9 million for a large urban SSP (serving 2,500 clients), of which 1.6% and 0.8% is the start-up cost of a small rural and large urban SSP, respectively. Cost per syringe distributed varied from $3 (small urban SSP) to $1 (large rural SSP), and cost per client per year varied from $2000 (small urban SSP) to $700 (large rural SSP). CONCLUSIONS: Estimates of the cost of SSPs in the United States vary by number of clients served and geographic location of service. Accurate costing can be useful for planning programs, developing policy, allocating funds for establishing and supporting SSPs, and providing data for economic evaluation of SSPs.