A Colocalized Hepatitis C Virus Clinic in a Primary Care Practice Improves Linkage to Care in a High Prevalence Population

Socio-economic factors associated with loss to follow-up among individuals with HCV: A Dutch nationwide cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The path to hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination is complicated by individuals who become lost to follow-up (LTFU) during care, particularly before receiving effective HCV treatment. We aimed to determine factors contributing to LTFU and whether LTFU is associated with mortality.

METHODS

In this secondary analysis, we constructed a database including individuals with HCV who were either LTFU (data from the nationwide HCV retrieval project, CELINE) or treated with directly acting antivirals (DAA) (data from Statistics Netherlands) between 2012 and 2019. This database was linked to mortality data from Statistics Netherlands. Determinants associated with being LTFU versus DAA-treated were assessed using logistic regression, and mortality rates were compared between groups using exponential survival models. These analyses were additionally stratified on calendar periods: 2012-2014, 2015-2017 and 2018-2019.

RESULTS

About 254 individuals, LTFU and 5547 DAA-treated were included. Being institutionalized (OR = 5.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.29-7.65), household income below the social minimum (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.25-3.06), receiving benefits (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.20-2.52) and psychiatric comorbidity (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.09-2.10) were associated with LTFU. Mortality rates were significantly higher in individuals LTFU compared to those DAA-treated (2.99 vs. 1.15/100 person-years (PY), p < .0001), while in those DAA-treated, mortality rates slowly increased between 2012-2014 (.22/100PY) and 2018-2019 (2.25/100PY).

CONCLUSION

In the Netherlands, individuals who are incarcerated/institutionalized, with low household income, or with psychiatric comorbidities are prone to being LTFU, which is associated with higher mortality. HCV care needs to be adapted for these vulnerable individuals.

Expanded or Risk Factor-Based Annual Screening for Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) Among Persons With HIV: Which Is the Best Approach?

Introduction. Universal one-time screening for hepatitis C virus (HCV) is recommended for all adults. For persons with HIV (PWH), guidelines recommend HCV screening at entry into care and annually in men who have unprotected sex with other men (MSM) and persons who inject drugs (PWID). Public health experts recommend expanded annual screening in all PWH given concerns for undiagnosed new HCV diagnoses when risk factors are not assessed. Electronic medical record (EMR) with clinical decision support using a Best Practice Advisory (BPA) tool can aid HCV risk factor assessment. We conducted a prospective study among three HIV clinics to compare the two screening approaches. Methods. Two clinics implemented the EMR-triggered risk factor-based screening; one clinic used the expanded screening approach. We evaluated BPA uptake and compared HCV testing and positivity rates from August 12, 2019 to March 12, 2020. Results. In the risk factor-based screening clinics, of 1,343 PWH, 239 tests were performed with 139 attributed to the BPA (testing rate 10%). At the expanded screening site, among 434 patients, 237 HCV tests were performed (testing rate 55%). The risk factor-based screening sites were less likely to test for HCV (odds ratio [OR] = 0.0884, p < .01) and identify positive cases (OR = 0.55, p = .025). Conclusions. An EMR-based clinical-decision support tool was successfully implemented for HCV risk factor-based screening resulting in a lower HCV annual screening rate compared with an expanded approach. Although in this group of HIV clinics with limited longitudinal follow-up, no previously undiagnosed HCV cases were detected, additional work is needed to guide the design of the best approach.

Characterizing Persons With HIV/HCV Coinfection Who Remain Untreated for Hepatitis C at Four HIV Clinics in Connecticut (CT): Role of Multiple Overlapping Barriers at the Individual and Clinic System Levels

Introduction. Direct-acting antiviral medications have made hepatitis C virus (HCV) cure possible for >95% of persons with chronic HCV infection, including those coinfected with HIV. Achieving strategic HCV elimination targets requires an understanding of system, provider, and patient-level barriers to treatment. We explored such barriers among persons with HIV/HCV coinfection who remained untreated for HCV. Methods. Among four primary care HIV clinics in CT with high rates of HCV cure, 25 patients with HIV/HCV coinfection were eligible (no HCV treatment as of March 31, 2021). We conducted retrospective chart reviews of demographics, clinical practice patterns, patient-specific issues such as housing, transportation, food security, and presence of mental health and substance use problems. Results. Among untreated patients, 13 (51%) were female; 17 (68%) were Black; median age was 62 years old. The majority (84%) had injecting drug use (IDU) as HIV transmission risk factor; 14 (56%) were prescribed medication-assisted treatment. Median time since HIV and HCV diagnosis was 25 and 19 years, respectively. Clinic-level barriers were noted in 19 (76%) and included lack of evaluation, treatment not recommended or implemented. Concomitant structural barriers included unstable housing for 11 (44%) and lack of transportation for eight (32%). Most patients had history of illicit substance use (84%) and mental health issues (68%). Many (76%) had multiple potential barriers. Conclusions. Multiple overlapping barriers spanning clinic and patient level domains including social determinants of health were the norm in persons with long-standing HIV/HCV coinfection who have not received HCV treatment. Interventions will require innovative, multi-disciplinary and personalized approaches.

Risk factors for loss to follow-up after the start of direct-acting antiviral treatment for hepatitis C virus infection

Background and Aim

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have recently been developed to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Additionally, interferon-free DAA treatment has improved liver function and reduced the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following HCV eradication. Previous studies on HCV have focused mainly on the treatment rate and the risk of developing HCC, and less attention has been given to loss to follow-up (LTFU) after DAA treatment. Therefore, the present study aimed to identify the definitive risk factors for LTFU after the start of DAA treatment.

Methods

Between September 2017 and March 2022, 296 patients receiving glecaprevir and pibrentasvir for HCV infection were enrolled in this study. The incidence of LTFU following DAA treatment and the risk factors contributing to LTFU were identified using the patients' clinical characteristics.

Results

In the present study, 75 patients (25.3%) interrupted their follow-up visits. Multivariate logistic analysis revealed a history of injection drug use (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; P = 0.017), treatment duration (8 weeks) (HR, 3.51; P = 0.0033), and age <70 years (HR, 1.9; P = 0.0422) as independent factors associated with LTFU after the start of DAA treatment.

Conclusion

Young patients and those with injection drug use are likely to discontinue their follow-up visits after the start of DAA treatment for HCV infection. Therefore, these patients require strict supervision.

Interventions to enhance testing, linkage to care, and treatment initiation for hepatitis C virus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the goal set by WHO to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a public health threat, uptake of HCV testing and treatment remains low. To achieve this target, evidence-based interventions are needed to address the barriers to care for people with, or at risk of, HCV infection. We aimed to assess the efficacy of interventions to improve HCV antibody testing, HCV RNA testing, linkage to HCV care, and treatment initiation.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO without language restrictions for reports published between database inception and July 21, 2020, assessing the following primary outcomes: HCV antibody testing; HCV RNA testing; linkage to HCV care; and direct-acting antiviral treatment initiation. We also searched key conference abstracts. We included randomised and non-randomised studies assessing non-pharmaceutical interventions that included a comparator or control group. Studies were excluded if they enrolled only paediatric populations (aged <18 years) or if they conducted the intervention in a different health-care setting to that of the control or comparator. Authors were contacted to clarify study details and to obtain additional population-level data. Data were extracted from the records identified into a pre-piloted and standardised data extraction form and a random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the effects of the interventions on study outcomes. This study is registered in PROSPERO, CRD42020178035.

FINDINGS

Of 15 342 unique records identified, 142 were included, which reported on 148 unique studies (47 randomised controlled trials and 101 non-randomised studies). Medical chart reminders, provider education, and point-of-care antibody testing significantly improved at least three study outcomes compared with a comparator or control. Interventions that simplified HCV testing, including dried blood spot testing, point-of-care antibody testing, reflex RNA testing, and opt-out screening, significantly improved testing outcomes compared with a comparator or control. Enhanced patient and provider support through patient education, provider care coordination, and provider education also significantly improved testing outcomes compared with a comparator or control. Integrated care and patient navigation or care coordination significantly improved linkage to care and the uptake of direct-acting antiviral treatment compared with a comparator or control.

INTERPRETATION

Several interventions to improve HCV care that address several key barriers to HCV care were identified. New models of HCV care must be designed and implemented to address the barriers faced by the population of interest. Further high-quality research, including rigorously designed randomised studies, is still needed in key populations.

FUNDING

None.

Hepatitis C: Problems to extinction and residual hepatic and extrahepatic lesions after sustained virological response

Loss of follow-up or reinfections hinder the expectations of hepatitis C eradication despite the existence of highly effective treatments. Moreover, the elimination of the infection does not imply the reversion of those chronic alterations derived from the previous infection by hepatitis C virus (HCV). This review analyzes the risk factors associated with loss to follow-up in diagnosis or treatment, and the possibility of reinfection. Likewise, it assesses the residual alterations induced by chronic HCV infection considering the liver alterations (inflammation, fibrosis, risk of decompensation, hepatocellular carcinoma, liver transplantation) and, on the other hand, the comorbidities and extrahepatic manifestations (cryoglobulinemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, peripheral insulin resistance, and lipid, bone and cognitive alterations). Peculiarities present in subjects coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus are analyzed in each section.

Impact of an Accelerated Pretreatment Evaluation on Linkage-to-Care for Hepatitis C-infected Persons Who Inject Drugs

Background:

Historically, hepatitis C virus (HCV) pretreatment evaluation has required multiple visits, frequently resulting in loss to follow-up and a delayed initiation of treatment. New technologies can accelerate this process. We investigated the feasibility of a single-day evaluation program and its impact on evaluation completion, treatment eligibility awareness, and treatment initiation among people who inject drugs (PWIDs).

Methods:

HCV-infected PWID who were unaware if they were eligible for treatment were recruited in a prospective evaluation of an accelerated model of care between 2017 and 2019 and compared to a historical cohort. The patients underwent a medical evaluation, rapid HCV viral load testing, and transient elastography during a single visit, at the end of which they were informed whether they were eligible for treatment. A historical cohort of patients fulfilling the same inclusion criteria and evaluated with the usual standard of care spanning several visits who were examined at the addiction medicine clinic from 2014 to 2016 served as the comparison group.

Results:

The accelerated and historical cohorts included 99 and 76 patients, respectively. The cohorts did not differ significantly by age and gender, but more patients in the historical cohort were undergoing opioid agonist therapy, while more patients in the accelerated cohort injected drugs in the last month. An accelerated evaluation resulted in a higher rate of evaluation completion (100% vs 67.1%; P < .001). Among those eligible for treatment, the proportion of those initiating treatment was similar between the groups (51/64 (79.7%) vs. 26/37 (70.3%); P = .28). The delay in the initiation of treatment was shorter in the accelerated cohort than in the historical cohort (69 (IQR: 49-106) days vs. 219 (IQR: 141-416) days; P < .001).

Conclusions:

Accelerated evaluation enhanced the awareness of eligibility and reduced the time to initiation among eligible patients.

Trial Registration:

This study is registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02755402).

From Screening to Therapy: Anti-HCV Screening and Linkage to Care in a Network of General Practitioners and a Private Gastroenterology Practice

(1) Background: Low rates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) diagnosis and sub-optimal linkage to care constitute barriers toward eliminating the infection. In 2012/2013, we showed that HCV screening in primary care detects unknown cases. However, hepatitis C patients may not receive further diagnostics and therapy because they drop out during the referral pathway to secondary care. Thus, we used an existing network of primary care physicians and a practice of gastroenterology to investigate the pathway from screening to therapy. (2) Methods: HCV screening was prospectively included in a routine check-up of primary care physicians who cooperated regularly with a private gastroenterology practice. Anti-HCV-positive patients were referred for further specialized diagnostics and treatment if indicated. (3) Results: Seventeen primary care practices screened 1875 patients. Twelve individuals were anti-HCV-positive (0.6%), six of them reported previous antiviral HCV therapy, and one untreated patient was HCV-RNA-positive (0.05% of the population). None of the 12 anti-HCV-positive cases showed up at the private gastroenterology practice. Further clinical details of the pathway from screening to therapy could not be analyzed. (4) Conclusions: The linkage between primary and secondary care appears to be problematic in the HCV setting even among cooperating partners, but robust conclusions require larger datasets.

Training to Cure-Implementing a Hepatitis C Clinic Curriculum in Primary Care Residency Training

BACKGROUND

Residents lack exposure to chronic hepatitis C (HCV) infection management, limiting the pipeline of providers able to alleviate the treatment bottleneck.

ACTIVITY

We surveyed 34 residents rotating through a new HCV curriculum comprised of a clinic primer, didactics, and supervised patient care. Outcome measures were knowledge and self-efficacy regarding HCV management.

RESULTS

HCV knowledge scores improved significantly from 58% pre-clinic to 76% immediately post (p < 0.001)- and 66% 3-month post-clinic (p = 0.006). Residents felt more confident managing HCV after the clinic rotation.

DISCUSSION

Our clinic curriculum is feasible, improves knowledge regarding HCV, and is a unique approach to preparing physicians to cure HCV.