Point-of-care HCV RNA testing improves hepatitis C testing rates and allows rapid treatment initiation among people who inject drugs attending a medically supervised injecting facility.

BACKGROUND: To achieve hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination targets, simplified care engaging people who inject drugs is required. We evaluated whether fingerstick HCV RNA point-of-care testing (PoCT) increased the proportion of clients attending a supervised injecting facility who were tested for hepatitis C. METHODS: Prospective single-arm study with recruitment between 9 November 2020 and 28 January 2021 and follow-up to 31 July 2021. Clients attending the supervised injecting facility were offered HCV RNA testing using the Xpert® HCV Viral Load Fingerstick (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA) PoCT. Participants with a positive HCV RNA test were prescribed direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of clients who engaged in HCV RNA PoCT, compared to a historical comparator group when venepuncture-based hepatitis C testing was standard of care. RESULTS: Among 1618 clients who attended the supervised injecting facility during the study period, 228 (14%) engaged in PoCT. This was significantly higher than that observed in the historical comparator group (61/1,775, 3%; p < 0.001). Sixty-five (28%) participants were HCV RNA positive, with 40/65 (62%) receiving their result on the same day as testing. Sixty-one (94%) HCV RNA positive participants were commenced on DAA therapy; 14/61 (23%) started treatment on the same day as diagnosis. There was no difference in the proportion of HCV RNA positive participants commenced on treatment with DAA therapy when compared to the historical comparator group (61/65, 94% vs 22/26, 85%; p = 0.153). However, the median time to treatment initiation was significantly shorter in the PoCT cohort (2 days (IQR 1-20) vs 41 days (IQR 22-76), p < 0.001). Among participants who commenced treatment and had complete follow-up data available, 27/36 (75%) achieved hepatitis C cure. CONCLUSIONS: HCV RNA PoCT led to a significantly higher proportion of clients attending a supervised injecting facility engaging in hepatitis C testing, whilst also reducing the time to treatment initiation.

Eliminating hepatitis C in Australia: a novel model of hepatitis C testing and treatment for people who inject drugs at a medically supervised injecting facility.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of testing and treating people who inject drugs at a supervised injecting facility for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: People who inject drugs who attended the Melbourne supervised injecting facility, 30 June 2018 - 30 June 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of people tested for hepatitis C; proportions of people positive for anti-HCV antibody and HCV RNA, and of eligible people prescribed direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment; sustained virological response twelve weeks or more after treatment completion. RESULTS: Of 4649 people who attended the supervised injecting facility during 2018-20, 321 were tested for hepatitis C (7%); 279 were anti-HCV antibody-positive (87%), of whom 143 (51%) were also HCV RNA-positive. Sixty-four of 321 had previously been treated for hepatitis C (20%), 21 had clinically identified cirrhosis (7%), eight had hepatitis B infections (2%), and four had human immunodeficiency virus infections (1%). In multivariate analyses, people tested for hepatitis C were more likely than untested clients to report psychiatric illness (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.26-12.8), not have a fixed address (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.18-2.14), and to report significant alcohol use (aOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.06-2.32). The median number of injecting facility visits was larger for those tested for hepatitis C (101; interquartile range [IQR], 31-236) than for those not tested (20; IQR, 3-90). DAA treatment was prescribed for 126 of 143 HCV RNA-positive clients (88%); 41 of 54 with complete follow-up data were cured (76%). CONCLUSIONS: People who attend supervised injecting facilities can be tested and treated for hepatitis C on site. Models that provide streamlined, convenient hepatitis C care promote engagement with treatment in a group in which the prevalence of hepatitis C is high.

The onset and severity of acute opioid toxicity in heroin overdose cases: a retrospective cohort study at a supervised injecting facility in Melbourne, Australia.

AIM: To differentiate the severity of acute opioid toxicity and describe both the clinical and physiological features associated with heroin overdose in a cohort of witnessed overdose cases. METHODS: Witnessed heroin overdose cases over a 12-month period (30 June 2018 - 30 June 2019) at the Medically Supervised Injecting Room (MSIR) in Melbourne, Australia were examined. The severity of acute opioid toxicity was classified according to the level of clinical intervention required to manage the overdose cases where an escalating level of care was provided. Heroin overdose cases were classified into one of three graded severity categories and a fourth complicated heroin overdose category. RESULTS: A total of 1218 heroin overdose cases were identified from 60,693 supervised injecting visits over the study period. On the spectrum of toxicity, 78% (n = 955) of overdose cases were classified as Grade 1 severity, 7% (n = 83) as Grade 2 severity, and 13% (n = 161) as Grade 3 acute opioid toxicity severity cases, as well as 2% (n = 19) classified as complicated heroin overdose cases. The median onset time for heroin overdose cases was 17 min (IQR 11-28 min) from the time the individual was ready to prepare and inject heroin until clinical intervention was initiated. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that heroin overdose is a dynamic illness and cases differ in the severity of acute opioid toxicity. The risk of airway occlusion including positional asphyxia was an early and consistent feature across all levels of toxicity, while exaggerated respiratory depression together with exaggerated depression of consciousness was increasingly observed with greater levels of toxicity. We also demonstrated the importance of early intervention in overdose cases, where in a large cohort of heroin overdose cases there were no fatal outcomes, a very low hospitalisation rate and most cases were able to be managed to clinical resolution on-site.

Validity of unplanned admission to an intensive care unit as a measure of patient safety in surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: An unplanned admission to the intensive care unit within 24 h of a procedure (UIA) is a recommended clinical indicator in surgical patients. Often regarded as a surrogate marker of adverse events, it has potential as a direct measure of patient safety. Its true validity for such use is currently unknown. METHODS: The authors validated UIA as an indicator of safety in surgical patients in a prospective cohort study of 44,130 patients admitted to their hospital. They assessed the association of UIA with intraoperative incidents and near misses, increased hospital length of stay, and 30-day mortality as three constructs of patient safety. RESULTS: The authors identified 201 patients with a UIA; 104 (52.2%) had at least one incident or near miss. After adjusting for confounders, these incidents were significantly associated with UIA in all categories of surgical procedures analyzed; odds ratios were 12.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.33-23.58), 4.06 (95% CI, 2.74-6.03), and 2.13 (95% CI, 1.02-4.42), respectively. The 30-day mortality for patients with UIA was 10.9%, compared with 1.1% in non-UIA patients. After risk adjustment, UIA was associated with excess mortality in several types of surgical procedures (odds ratio, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.14-7.04). The median length of stay was increased if UIA occurred: 16 days (interquartile range, 10-31) versus 2 days (interquartile range, 0.5-9) (P < 0.001). For patients with a UIA, the likelihood of discharge from hospital was significantly decreased in most surgical categories analyzed, with adjusted hazard ratios of 0.41 (95% CI, 0.23-0.77) to 0.58 (95% CI, 0.37-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide strong support for the construct validity of UIA as a measure of patient safety.