Lessons learned from global hepatitis C elimination programs.

In 2016, World Health Organization (WHO) introduced global targets for the care and management of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection to eliminate hepatitis C as a public health threat by 2030. Despite significant improvements in testing and treatment, in 2020 only 23% of all persons infected with HCV globally were diagnosed. We explore examples from global hepatitis C programs in Georgia, Rwanda, and Nigeria that have used decentralized and integrated models to increase access to HCV testing. Georgia established the world's first national hepatitis C elimination program in 2015. In 2022, 2.6 million people (80% of the adults) have been screened for antibodies for HCV infection, and 80,000 persons with HCV virus detected were treated. To achieve these results, Georgia implemented HCV core antigen (HCVcAg) testing, utilization of point-of-care HCV RNA, and simplification of HCV viremia detection by qualitative HCV RNA. Rwanda was the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to commit to HCV elimination in 2018, and as of 2022 it has achieved its screening target of 7 million people and initiated approximately 60,000 patients on hepatitis C treatment by rapid decentralization and integration of HCV services. In Nigeria, the integrated near-point-of-care testing approach in Nasarawa state has been effective in expanding access to HCV viremia testing and enabling the possibility of same-day testing and treatment initiation. Examples of decentralization and integration of HCV testing and linkage to care in Georgia, Rwanda and Nigeria could help inform effective strategies to reach 2030 hepatitis C elimination goals in other countries.

Toward reaching hepatitis B goals: hepatitis B epidemiology and the impact of two decades of vaccination, Georgia, 2021.

BackgroundGeorgia has adopted the World Health Organization European Region's and global goals to eliminate viral hepatitis. A nationwide serosurvey among adults in 2015 showed 2.9% prevalence for hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen (HBsAg) and 25.9% for antibodies against HBV core antigen (anti-HBc). HBV infection prevalence among children had previously not been assessed.AimWe aimed to assess HBV infection prevalence among children and update estimates for adults in Georgia.MethodsThis nationwide cross-sectional serosurvey conducted in 2021 among persons aged ≥ 5 years used multi-stage stratified cluster design. Participants aged 5-20 years were eligible for hepatitis B vaccination as infants. Blood samples were tested for anti-HBc and, if positive, for HBsAg. Weighted proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for both markers.ResultsAmong 5-17 year-olds (n = 1,473), 0.03% (95% CI: 0-0.19) were HBsAg-positive and 0.7% (95% CI: 0.3-1.6) were anti-HBc-positive. Among adults (n = 7,237), 2.7% (95% CI: 2.3-3.4) were HBsAg-positive and 21.7% (95% CI: 20.4-23.2) anti-HBc-positive; HBsAg prevalence was lowest (0.2%; 95% CI: 0.0-1.5) among 18-23-year-olds and highest (8.6%; 95% CI: 6.1-12.1) among 35-39-year-olds.ConclusionsHepatitis B vaccination in Georgia had remarkable impact. In 2021, HBsAg prevalence among children was well below the 0.5% hepatitis B control target of the European Region and met the ≤ 0.1% HBsAg seroprevalence target for elimination of mother-to-child transmission of HBV. Chronic HBV infection remains a problem among adults born before vaccine introduction. Screening, treatment and preventive interventions among adults, and sustained high immunisation coverage among children, can help eliminate hepatitis B in Georgia by 2030.

Insights from a national survey in 2021 and from modelling on progress towards hepatitis C virus elimination in the country of Georgia since 2015.

BackgroundBetween May 2015 and February 2022, 77,168 hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected people in Georgia have been treated through an HCV elimination programme. To project the programme's long-term impacts, an HCV infection model was initially developed, based on data from surveys among people who inject drugs and a national serosurvey in 2015.AimAccounting for follow-up surveys in 2021, we validate and update projections of HCV infection prevalence and incidence.MethodWe assessed the initial model projections' accuracy for overall prevalence, by age, sex, and among people who ever injected drugs, compared with 2021 serosurvey data. We used 2021 results to weight model fits and to recalculate the national programme's impact leading up to March 2022 on HCV infection incidence rates. Cases and deaths averted were estimated. The impact of reduced treatment rates during the COVID-19 pandemic was assessed.ResultsThe original model overpredicted adult (≥ 18 years old) chronic HCV infection prevalence for 2021 (2.7%; 95% credible interval (CrI): 1.9-3.5%) compared with a 2021 serosurvey (1.8%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3-2.4%). Weighted model projections estimated a 60% decrease in HCV infection incidence by March 2022, with an absolute incidence of 66 (95% CrI: 34-131) per 100,000 person-years (overall population). Between May 2015 and March 2022, 9,186 (95% CrI: 5,396-16,720) infections and 842 (95% CrI: 489-1,324) deaths were averted. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in 13,344 (95% CrI: 13,236-13,437) fewer treatments and 438 (95% CrI: 223-744) fewer averted infections by March 2022.ConclusionResults support the programme's high effectiveness. At current treatment rate (406/month), 90% reductions in prevalence and incidence in Georgia are achievable by 2030.

Nationwide Hepatitis C Serosurvey and Progress Towards Hepatitis C Virus Elimination in the Country of Georgia, 2021.

BACKGROUND: The country of Georgia initiated its hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination program in 2015, at which point a serosurvey showed the adult prevalence of HCV antibody (anti-HCV) and HCV RNA to be 7.7% and 5.4%, respectively. This analysis reports hepatitis C results of a follow-up serosurvey conducted in 2021, and progress towards elimination. METHODS: The serosurvey used a stratified, multistage cluster design with systematic sampling to include adults and children (aged 5-17 years) providing consent (or assent with parental consent). Blood samples were tested for anti-HCV and if positive, HCV RNA. Weighted proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were compared with 2015 age-adjusted estimates. RESULTS: Overall, 7237 adults and 1473 children were surveyed. Among adults, the prevalence of anti-HCV was 6.8% (95% CI, 5.9-7.7). The HCV RNA prevalence was 1.8% (95% CI, 1.3-2.4), representing a 67% reduction since 2015. HCV RNA prevalence decreased among those reporting risk factors of ever injecting drugs (51.1% to 17.8%), and ever receiving a blood transfusion (13.1% to 3.8%; both P < .001). No children tested positive for anti-HCV or HCV RNA. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate substantial progress made in Georgia since 2015. These findings can inform strategies to meet HCV elimination targets.

Barriers of linkage to HCV viremia testing among people who inject drugs in Georgia.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) in Georgia have a high prevalence of hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV). Access to care among PWID could be prioritized to meet the country's hepatitis C elimination goals. This study assesses barriers of linkage to HCV viremia testing among PWID in Georgia. METHODS: Study participants were enrolled from 13 harm reduction (HR) centers throughout Georgia. Anti-HCV positive PWID who were tested for viremia (complete diagnosis [CD]), were compared to those not tested for viremia within 90 days of screening anti-HCV positive (not complete diagnosis [NCD]). Convenience samples of CD and NCD individuals recorded at HR centers using beneficiaries' national ID were drawn from the National HCV Elimination Program database. Participants were interviewed about potential barriers to seeking care. RESULTS: A total of 500 PWID were enrolled, 245 CD and 255 NCD. CD and NCD were similar with respect to gender, age, employment status, education, knowledge of anti-HCV status, and confidence/trust in the elimination program (p > 0.05). More NCD (13.0%) than CD (7.4%) stated they were not sufficiently informed what to do after screening anti-HCV positive (p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, HCV viremia testing was associated with perceived affordability of the elimination program (adjusted prevalence ratio = 8.53; 95% confidence interval: 4.14-17.62). CONCLUSIONS: Post testing counselling and making hepatitis C services affordable could help increase HCV viremia testing among PWID in Georgia.

Feasibility and effectiveness of HCV viraemia testing at harm reduction sites in Georgia: A prospective three-arm study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In 2015, Georgia began a hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination programme. Although screening programmes have been decentralized for high-risk groups, viraemic testing remains a bottleneck for people who inject drugs. Here, we describe two models of viraemic testing that aimed to address this gap. METHODS: We assigned eight harm reduction sites (HRS) to one of three arms (2,1:1): Xpert HCV viral load testing on-site, blood draw on-site with centralized HCV core antigen testing (HCVcAg), or standard-of-care (SOC) referral with viremia testing performed at treatment centres. RESULTS: 1671 HCV-seropositive participants were enrolled (Xpert, 37.1%; HCVcAg, 29.1%; referral, 33.8%). Participants were predominantly male (95.4%), mean age (IQR) 43 (37, 50) years and 1290 (77.2%) were currently injecting drugs. Significantly higher proportions of participants in the Xpert (100%) and HCVcAg (99.8%) arms received viraemia testing compared with the referral arm (91.3%) (Xpert vs referral, p < 0.0001; HCVcAg vs referral, p < 0.0001). Among viraemic participants, treatment uptake was similar (Xpert, 84.0%; HCVcAg, 79.5%; referral, 88.4%). The time between screening and sample collection for viraemia testing was significantly longer in the referral arm compared with both Xpert and HCVcAg arms (median 1 day compared with 0 days respectively), and the overall time between screening to treatment initiation was longer for the referral arm (median 67 days) compared with both Xpert and HCVcAg arms (median 57 and 50 days respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care viraemia testing and blood drawn on-site for HCVcAg testing yielded more HCV-seropositive patients receiving viraemic testing within a shorter timeframe compared with referrals.

Hepatitis C core antigen test as an alternative for diagnosing HCV infection: mathematical model and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost and complexity of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test are barriers to diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of testing strategies using antigen instead of PCR testing. METHODS: We developed a mathematical model for HCV to estimate the number of diagnoses and cases of liver disease. We compared the following testing strategies: antibody test followed by PCR in case of positive antibody (baseline strategy); antibody test followed by HCV-antigen test (antibody-antigen); antigen test alone; PCR test alone. We conducted cost-effectiveness analyses considering either the costs of HCV testing of infected and uninfected individuals alone (A1), HCV testing and liver-related complications (A2), or all costs including HCV treatment (A3). The model was parameterized for the country of Georgia. We conducted several sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The baseline scenario could detect 89% of infected individuals. Antibody-antigen detected 86% and antigen alone 88% of infected individuals. PCR testing alone detected 91% of the infected individuals: the remaining 9% either died or spontaneously recovered before testing. In analysis A1, the baseline strategy was not essentially more expensive than antibody-antigen. In analysis A2, strategies using PCR became cheaper than antigen-based strategies. In analysis A3, antibody-antigen was again the cheapest strategy, followed by the baseline strategy, and PCR testing alone. CONCLUSIONS: Antigen testing, either following a positive antibody test or alone, performed almost as well as the current practice of HCV testing. The cost-effectiveness of these strategies depends on the inclusion of treatment costs.

Hepatitis C treatment uptake among patients who have received methadone substitution treatment in the Republic of Georgia.

OBJECTIVES: There is a dearth of research on hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment uptake among people who inject drugs (PWIDs) and receive methadone substitution treatment (MST) in Eastern Europe and Central Asia countries. This study contributed to addressing that gap. We examined and identified factors that may affect HCV treatment uptake among PWID who received MST in the Republic of Georgia. STUDY DESIGN: The design of the study is retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We conducted HCV care cascade analysis by matching the data from the web-based national hepatitis C program registry (ELIM C) and the MST treatment database between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Using the World Health Organization's (WHO) Consensus HCV cascade of care (CoC) global instrument, we assessed the progress made toward the country's 2020 and WHO's 2030 hepatitis C elimination targets for the subpopulation of MST patients. RESULTS: Overall, 10,498 individuals have been dispensed methadone during the study period. A total of 6828 MST beneficiaries had HCV screening, of whom 5843 (85.6%) tested positive; 5476 (93.7%) were tested for HCV viremia, and 5275 (96.3%) were confirmed with chronic HCV infection. More than 75% (n = 4000) of HCV-infected MST patients initiated HCV treatment, and 3772 (94.3%) completed the treatment. Of those eligible for sustained virologic response assessment, 71.0% (2641/3715) were evaluated, and the reported cure rate was 96.1% (2537). The study found the odds of patients starting HCV treatment differed by the type of facility they were screened at and whether they were registered as PWID at the screening sites. The patients screened at centers with integrated HCV treatment services had higher treatment uptake rates than those screened at other centers. CONCLUSIONS: As the cumulative HCV treatment uptake and cure rates among MST patients with HCV infection are high (75.8% and 96.1%, respectively), the MST patients might become the first microelimination target population in which hepatitis C elimination will be achieved in Georgia. The study found the type of screening facility and whether MST patients registered themselves as PWID or not had significant effects on MST patients starting HCV treatment. At the same time, the study did not find gender and age to be significant predictors of MST patients starting HCV treatment. MST patients used different types of health facilities to get screened for HIV. Many of them did not register themselves as PWID when screened for HIV. The existence of only a few harm reduction sites with integrated HCV treatment services, a high level of stigma, and the criminalization of drug use might have incentivized MST patients to self-navigate across the HCV care continuum with the rest of the population. The implementation of focused, harm reduction, integrated HCV treatment with good peer and professional adherence support at treatment sites could help reach the hepatitis C elimination goals among MST patients.

Screening and linkage to care for hepatitis C among inpatients in Georgia's national hospital screening program.

The country of Georgia initiated an ambitious national hepatitis C elimination program. To facilitate elimination, a national hospital hepatitis C screening program was launched in November 2016, offering all inpatients screening for HCV infection. This analysis assesses the effectiveness of the first year of the screening program to identify HCV-infected persons and link them to care. Data from Georgia's electronic Health Management Information System and ELIMINATION-C treatment database were analyzed for patients aged ≥18 years hospitalized from November 1, 2016 to October 31, 2017. We described patient characteristics and screening results and compared linked-to-care patients to those not linked to care, defined as having a test for viremia following an HCV antibody (anti-HCV) positive hospital screening. Of 291,975 adult inpatients, 252,848 (86.6%) were screened. Of them, 4.9% tested positive, with a high of 17.4% among males aged 40-49. Overall, 19.8% of anti-HCV+ patients were linked to care, which differed by sex (20.6% for males vs. 18.4% for females; p = .019), age (23.9% for age 50-59 years vs. 10.7% for age ≥ 70 years; p < .0001), and length of hospitalization (21.8% among patients hospitalized for 1 day vs. 16.1% for those hospitalized 11+ days; p = .023). Redundant screening is a challenge; 15.6% of patients were screened multiple times and 27.6% of anti-HCV+ patients had a prior viremia test. This evaluation demonstrates that hospital-based screening programs can identify large numbers of anti-HCV+ persons, supporting hepatitis C elimination. However, low linkage-to-care rates underscore the need for screening programs to be coupled with effective linkage strategies.

Intervention Packages to Reduce the Impact of HIV and HCV Infections Among People Who Inject Drugs in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A Modeling and Cost-effectiveness Study.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV infections among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Eastern Europe/Central Asia. We specifically considered the needle-syringe program (NSP), opioid substitution therapy (OST), HCV and HIV diagnosis, antiretroviral therapy (ART), and/or new HCV treatment (direct acting antiviral [DAA]) in Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova, and Tajikistan. METHODS: We developed a deterministic dynamic compartmental model and evaluated the number of infections averted, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of interventions. OST decreased frequencies of injecting by 85% and NSP needle sharing rates by 57%; ART was introduced at CD4 <350 and DAA at fibrosis stage ≥F2 at a $2370 to $23 280 cost. RESULTS: Increasing NSP+OST had a high impact on transmissions (infections averted in PWID: 42% in Tajikistan to 55% in Republic of Moldova for HCV; 30% in Belarus to 61% in Kazakhstan for HIV over 20 years). Increasing NSP+OST+ART was very cost-effective in Georgia (ICER = $910/year of life saved [YLS]), and was cost-saving in Kazakhstan and Republic of Moldova. NSP+OST+ART and HIV diagnosis was very cost-effective in Tajikistan (ICER = $210/YLS). Increasing the coverage of all interventions was always the most effective strategy and was cost-effective in Belarus and Kazakhstan (ICER = $12 960 and $21 850/YLS); it became cost-effective/cost-saving in all countries when we decreased DAA costs. CONCLUSION: Increasing NSP+OST coverage, in addition to ART and HIV diagnosis, had a high impact on both epidemics and was very cost-effective and even cost-saving. When HCV diagnosis was improved, increased DAA averted a high number of new infections if associated with NSP+OST.