Information acquisition and dissemination among a sample of people who inject drugs in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: This paper examines the acquisition and dissemination of harm reduction information among people who inject drugs, as well as preferred sources of information. METHODS: Data were obtained from 862 people who inject drugs, recruited from Australian capital cities for the 2021 Illicit Drug Reporting System. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess potential factors associated with knowledge sharing. RESULTS: Almost two-fifths (37%) reported that they had received information about how to keep themselves safe when using drugs within the past 6 months. Reporting on their last occasion of receiving information, participants stated that it was commonly about injecting practices (56%), overdose prevention (26%) and injection-related injuries (22%), and was mostly received from an alcohol and other drug worker (54%), followed by other health professional (24%) and social network (18%). Among those who reported receiving information, 50% shared this information with other people, predominantly with their social network: no factors were found to be significantly associated with sharing information. The majority reported that peer workers and/or people with lived experience would be the first person they would talk to for information about a range of topics (e.g., injecting/harm reduction practices, overdose prevention). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Two in five participants had recently obtained information about how to keep themselves safe while using drugs, with half sharing this information with their social network. Peer workers were the preferred source of information, suggesting that the peer educator workforce should be expanded to embrace the capacities and expertise of people who inject drugs.

Examining the cost and impact of dosing fees among clients in opioid agonist treatment: Results from a cross-sectional survey of Australian treatment clients.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid agonist treatment (OAT) clients frequently bear costs associated with their treatment, including dosing fees. This study aimed to explore the financial and social impact of dosing fees upon clients. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of people who use opioids regularly (N = 402) between December 2017 and March 2018, conducted in Australia. Dosing fees were calculated and expressed as percentage of income, by OAT type. Consequences and strategies for difficulties making payments were examined as proportions. RESULTS: A total of N = 360 participants had ever been in OAT and N = 245 participants currently engaged in OAT reported data on dosing fees, of them 53% (n = 129) reported paying dosing fees. Compared to clients with high levels of dosing supervision, those with moderate or low levels of supervision were more likely to pay dosing fees. The median 28-day dosing fee was AUD$110 (interquartile range AUD$80); median 28-day income was AUD$1520 (interquartile range AUD$700). For those who paid dosing fees, the fee comprised <10% of total monthly income for 70% of participants; however, 23% of participants paid fees comprising 10% to <20%, and 7% of participants paid fees comprising 20% or more of monthly income. Among those that had ever been in OAT, 72% experienced difficulties in paying treatment costs; 36% left treatment earlier than intended and 25% had been excluded due to payment difficulties. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Negative consequences of treatment costs to clients, particularly dosing fees, are evident. These costs impact treatment access and retention that may negatively impact clients' physical health, mental health and social wellbeing.

Positive effects of community attachment on internalised stigma and wellbeing among people who inject drugs.

BACKGROUND: Internalised stigma experienced by people who inject drugs (PWID) is known to have negative health consequences. Research has explored factors that may protect or buffer individuals from the negative consequences of internalised stigma. Community attachment, or perceived connection to a community of like people, can have numerous health-related benefits. However, this relationship may be complex for PWID; being part of a social network of PWID may provide opportunity for more frequent drug use and equipment sharing. This study investigated the relationships between community attachment, internalised stigma, and wellbeing among PWID, while also addressing potential health risks associated with PWID community attachment. METHODS: PWID (n=603) were recruited through nine peer-based drug user organisations across Australia with assistance from the peak consumer organisation. Participants completed a survey measuring community attachment, internalised stigma, personal wellbeing, injecting frequency, and equipment sharing. RESULTS: Greater attachment to a PWID community was associated with lower internalised stigma, but also with sharing of injecting equipment and increased frequency of injecting behaviour. The relationship between community attachment and personal wellbeing was mediated by internalised stigma, however this was only the case for PWID who reported no sharing of injecting equipment. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the significance of community attachment for PWID while also noting the complexity of this relationship and the potential negative consequences. It is important to view networks of PWID communities as sources of positive social capital, where norms about health behaviours and harm reduction can be promoted and which can buffer community members from the harms associated with stigma.

Hepatitis C virus testing, liver disease assessment and treatment uptake among people who inject drugs pre- and post-universal access to direct-acting antiviral treatment in Australia: The LiveRLife study.

Gaps in hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing, diagnosis, liver disease assessment and treatment uptake among people who inject drugs (PWID) persist. We aimed to describe the cascade of HCV care among PWID in Australia, prior to and following unrestricted access to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. Participants enrolled in an observational cohort study between 2014 and 2018 provided fingerstick whole-blood samples for dried blood spot, Xpert HCV Viral Load and venepuncture samples. Participants underwent transient elastography and clinical assessment by a nurse or general practitioner. Among 839 participants (mean age 43 years), 66% were male (n = 550), 64% (n = 537) injected drugs in the previous month, and 67% (n = 560) reported currently receiving opioid substitution therapy. Overall, 45% (n = 380) had detectable HCV RNA, of whom 23% (n = 86) received HCV treatment within 12 months of enrolment. HCV treatment uptake increased from 2% in the pre-DAA era to 38% in the DAA era. Significant liver fibrosis (F2-F4) was more common in participants with HCV infection (38%) than those without (19%). Age 50 years or older (aOR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.18-7.04) and attending a clinical follow-up with nurse (aOR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.61-6.32) or physician (aOR, 11.83; 95% CI, 4.89-28.59) were associated with HCV treatment uptake. Recent injection drug use and unstable housing were not associated with HCV treatment uptake. HCV treatment uptake among PWID has increased markedly in the DAA era. Evaluation of innovative and simplified models of care is required to further enhance treatment uptake.

Achieving meaningful participation of people who use drugs and their peer organizations in a strategic research partnership.

BACKGROUND: Peer-led programs with people who use drugs (PWUD) have been a key characteristic of the harm reduction in many countries, including their involvement in research. However, peer involvement in research is often limited to recruitment, consultation, and reporting back, rather than a genuine collaboration in the priority setting, design, and conduct of research. PWUD peer organizations face ongoing challenges to demonstrate the depth of their knowledge of current and emerging issues within drug-using networks and the value of their peer insights for effective research and policy. The identification of benefits, barriers, and enablers for meaningful participation of PWUD in research has often been limited to methodological rather than system level factors. METHODS: This paper draws on the experiences and findings of the What Works and Why (W3) Project, a 5-year collaborative study with peer organizations. The study drew on systems thinking methods to develop a framework to demonstrate the role of peer organizations within their community and policy systems. The study required peer staff and researchers to undertake the simultaneous role of drivers, participants, and analysts in the research. To identify the learnings in relation to meaningful participation of PWUD peer organizations in research, we drew together the insights and experiences of peer staff and researchers across the 5 years of the study RESULTS: The W3 Project provided insights into the nuances of community-engaged research practice and the ongoing benefits, barriers, and enablers to the meaningful participation of PWUD and their peer organizations. These included system-level barriers and enablers beyond individual research projects or methodology. The capacity of research and peer organizations to maintain meaningful peer participation in research can be restricted or enhanced by the systems in which they are embedded. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing peer organizations as active participants and drivers within community and policy systems can help clarify their unique and critical role in research. Achieving meaningful collaboration with PWUD peer organizations requires looking beyond good practice methods to the system-level factors with attention to the system-level benefits, barriers, and enablers.

Characterising the policy influence of peer-based drug user organisations in the context of hepatitis C elimination.

BACKGROUND: Achieving hepatitis C (HCV) elimination goals will require major policy and health service reorientation to scale up testing and treatment among people who inject drugs (PWID). To achieve this, a close partnership with peer-based drug user organisations is required. However, peer organisations have historical and ongoing difficulties in articulating the validity of their service delivery and policy advice, leading to some policy and health services resisting partnership and advice from peer-based drug user organisations. METHODS: To develop a deeper understanding of the role of peer-based drug user organisations in the HCV response, we analysed data from the W3 Project which used systems thinking methods to draw together the insights of over 90 peer staff from 10 Australian community and peer organisations in HCV and HIV. The resulting system maps were analysed to identify system dynamics and functions that need to be fulfilled for peer organisations to be influential within their community and policy system. RESULTS: We identified the interactions at a system level which can enhance or constrain the quality and influence of policy advice from peer-based drug user organisations. We found the strength of Peer-based drug user organisations to support the scale up of HCV testing and treatment was their capacity to mediate between, and navigate within, the complex community and policy/health service systems. While peer-based drug user organisations endeavour to demonstrate their capacity and credibility in terms of engagement, alignment, adaptation and influence, policy and service organisations also need recognise their own system role to value and enable peer-based drug user organisations to achieve their potential. CONCLUSION: If the HCV prevention and treatment system is to reach PWID living with HCV and achieve HCV elimination goals, then policy and health services need to invest in strengthening peer-based drug user organisations as well as recognise, value and act on quality policy advice from PWID peer leadership.

Hepatitis C elimination among people who inject drugs: Challenges and recommendations for action within a health systems framework.

The burden of hepatitis C infection is considerable among people who inject drugs (PWID), with an estimated prevalence of 39%, representing an estimated 6.1 million people who have recently injected drugs living with hepatitis C infection. As such, PWID are a priority population for enhancing prevention, testing, linkage to care, treatment and follow-up care in order to meet World Health Organization (WHO) hepatitis C elimination goals by 2030. There are many barriers to enhancing hepatitis C prevention and care among PWID including poor global coverage of harm reduction services, restrictive drug policies and criminalization of drug use, poor access to health services, low hepatitis C testing, linkage to care and treatment, restrictions for accessing DAA therapy, and the lack of national strategies and government investment to support WHO elimination goals. On 5 September 2017, the International Network of Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU) held a roundtable panel of international experts to discuss remaining challenges and future priorities for action from a health systems perspective. The WHO health systems framework comprises six core components: service delivery, health workforce, health information systems, medical procurement, health systems financing, and leadership and governance. Communication has been proposed as a seventh key element which promotes the central role of affected community engagement. This review paper presents recommended strategies for eliminating hepatitis C as a major public health threat among PWID and outlines future priorities for action within a health systems framework.

Sofosbuvir and velpatasvir for hepatitis C virus infection in people with recent injection drug use (SIMPLIFY): an open-label, single-arm, phase 4, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite revised guidelines that no longer exclude people who inject drugs (PWID) from treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, many clinicians are reluctant to treat recent PWID. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of sofosbuvir and velpatasvir therapy in people with chronic HCV infection and recent injection drug use. METHODS: In this open-label, single-arm phase 4 trial (SIMPLIFY), we recruited participants with recent injection drug use (past 6 months) and chronic HCV genotype 1-6 infection from seven countries (19 sites). Participants received oral sofosbuvir (400 mg) and velpatasvir (100 mg) once daily for 12 weeks. Therapy was given in 1-week electronic blister packs to record the time and date of each dose. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained virological response 12 weeks after completion of treatment (SVR12; defined as HCV RNA <12 IU/mL), analysed in all patients who received at least one dose. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02336139, and follow-up is ongoing to evaluate the secondary endpoint of HCV reinfection. FINDINGS: Between March 29, and Oct 31, 2016, we enrolled 103 participants; 29 (28%) of whom were female, nine (9%) had cirrhosis, 36 (35%) had HCV genotype 1, five (5%) had genotype 2, 60 (58%) had genotype 3, and two (2%) had genotype 4. 61 (59%) participants were receiving opioid substitution therapy during the study, 76 (74%) injected in the past month, and 27 (26%) injected at least daily in the past month. 100 (97%) of 103 participants completed treatment; two people were lost to follow-up and one person died from an overdose. There were no virological failures. 97 (94%, 95% CI 88-98) of 103 people achieved SVR12. Three participants with an end-of-treatment response did not have a SVR; two were lost to follow-up and one had reinfection. Drug use before and during treatment did not affect SVR12. Treatment-related adverse events were seen in 48 (47%) patients (one grade 3, no grade 4). Seven (7%) patients had at least one serious adverse event; only one such event (rhabdomyolysis, resolved) was possibly related to the therapy. One case of HCV reinfection was observed. INTERPRETATION: HCV treatment should be offered to PWID, irrespective of ongoing drug use. Recent injection drug use should not be used as a reason to withhold reimbursement of HCV therapy. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Research priorities to achieve universal access to hepatitis C prevention, management and direct-acting antiviral treatment among people who inject drugs.

Globally, it is estimated that 71.1 million people have chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, including an estimated 7.5 million people who have recently injected drugs (PWID). There is an additional large, but unquantified, burden among those PWID who have ceased injecting. The incidence of HCV infection among current PWID also remains high in many settings. Morbidity and mortality due to liver disease among PWID with HCV infection continues to increase, despite the advent of well-tolerated, simple interferon-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) HCV regimens with cure rates >95%. As a result of this important clinical breakthrough, there is potential to reverse the rising burden of advanced liver disease with increased treatment and strive for HCV elimination among PWID. Unfortunately, there are many gaps in knowledge that represent barriers to effective prevention and management of HCV among PWID. The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney and the International Network on Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU) established an expert round table panel to assess current research gaps and establish future research priorities for the prevention and management of HCV among PWID. This round table consisted of a one-day workshop held on 6 September, 2016, in Oslo, Norway, prior to the International Symposium on Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU 2016). International experts in drug and alcohol, infectious diseases, and hepatology were brought together to discuss the available scientific evidence, gaps in research, and develop research priorities. Topics for discussion included the epidemiology of injecting drug use, HCV, and HIV among PWID, HCV prevention, HCV testing, linkage to HCV care and treatment, DAA treatment for HCV infection, and reinfection following successful treatment. This paper highlights the outcomes of the roundtable discussion focused on future research priorities for enhancing HCV prevention, testing, linkage to care and DAA treatment for PWID as we strive for global elimination of HCV infection.

Recommendations for the management of hepatitis C virus infection among people who inject drugs.

In high income countries, the majority of new and existing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections occur among people who inject drugs (PWID). In many low and middle income countries large HCV epidemics have also emerged among PWID populations. The burden of HCV-related liver disease among PWID is increasing, but treatment uptake remains extremely low. There are a number of barriers to care which should be considered and systematically addressed, but should not exclude PWID from HCV treatment. The rapid development of interferon-free direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy for HCV infection has brought considerable optimism to the HCV sector, with the realistic hope that therapeutic intervention will soon provide near optimal efficacy with well-tolerated, short duration, all oral regimens. Further, it has been clearly demonstrated that HCV treatment is safe and effective across a broad range of multidisciplinary healthcare settings. Given the burden of HCV-related disease among PWID, strategies to enhance HCV assessment and treatment in this group are urgently needed. These recommendations demonstrate that treatment among PWID is feasible and provide a framework for HCV assessment and care. Further research is needed to evaluate strategies to enhance testing, linkage to care, treatment, adherence, viral cure, and prevent HCV reinfection among PWID, particularly as new interferon-free DAA treatments for HCV infection become available.

Qualitative accounts of needle and syringe cleaning techniques among people who inject drugs in Sydney, Australia.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Cleaning needles/syringes is an important second-line harm reduction strategy, yet there is limited information on practices employed by people who inject drugs in Australia. This study attempts to identify and assess cleaning practices in terms of the techniques involved and the social contexts in which cleaning takes place. DESIGN AND METHODS: As part of an exploratory qualitative study in south-west Sydney, in-depth interviews and simulated cleaning exercises were conducted with 12 people who inject drugs. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Open coding was used to inductively classify data into themes, and data were examined for patterns and variations in the relationships within and between themes. RESULTS: Data indicate that cleaning and reuse of needles/syringes was common in this small sample. The most frequently utilised reagent was cool water. While all participants reported cleaning and reusing only their own equipment, none of the techniques demonstrated would have been sufficient to deactivate human immunodeficiency virus or hepatitis C virus. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that even where cleaning of needles and syringes is widespread, people who inject drugs may not engage in efficacious cleaning. The combination of the complexity of current cleaning messages and a lack of accurate information about efficacious techniques are likely to contribute to poor cleaning practice. Australia could benefit from the development of a nationally consistent cleaning message; however, the evidence would suggest that this would need to be accompanied by strategies designed to simplify and disseminate this information in order to increase the uptake of efficacious cleaning methods by people who inject drugs.