Search

Introduction: Studies of health utilities among people who use opioids have mostly been based on in‐treatment populations. We aim to report utility‐based quality of life by participants' socio‐demographic, drug and treatment characteristics, and to examine the determinants of health utility among people who use opioids regularly. Methods: Cross‐sectional study of participants who used opioids regularly, recruited across New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania in 2018–2019. Differences in European Quality of Life (EQ‐5D‐5L) heath utility scores between socio‐demographic and clinical subgroups were assessed using non‐parametric Kruskal–Wallis test by rank. To address the unique distribution of EQ‐5D‐5L health utility scores in the current sample, a two‐part model was applied to assess factors associated with health utility. Results: Among 402 participants enrolled in the study, 385 (96%) completed the EQ‐5D‐5L questionnaire. The mean health utility of the total sample was 0.63 (SD 0.29). Participants who previously received opioid agonist treatment [OAT] (adj marginal effect (ME) −0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.20 to −0.02) and those currently in OAT (adj ME −0.13; 95% CI −0.22 to −0.06) reported lower health utility than those who had never received OAT. Participants who used both pharmaceutical opioids and benzodiazepines had lower health utility compared to no pharmaceutical opioids and no benzodiazepines use (adj ME −0.17; 95% CI −0.28 to −0.07). Discussion and Conclusions: Findings provide important health utility data for economic evaluations, useful for guiding allocation of resources for treatment strategies among people who use opioids. Lower health utilities among those using benzodiazepines and pharmaceutical opioids suggests interventions targeting these subgroups may be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Simplified diagnostic strategies are needed increase hepatitis C virus (HCV) testing to determine active infection and link people into treatment. Collection methods such as dried blood spots (DBS) have advantages over standard phlebotomy, especially within marginalized populations.Methods: We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Aptima HCV Quant assay for the quantification and detection of HCV RNA from paired DBS and venepuncture samples. Specimens were collected from participants enrolled in an Australian observational study. We compared HCV RNA detection from DBS against venepuncture samples (gold standard).Results: One hundred sixty-four participants had paired samples and HCV RNA was detected in 45 (27% [95% confidence interval, 21%-35%]) by the Aptima assay in venepuncture samples. Sensitivity of the Aptima assay for HCV RNA quantification from DBS (≥10 IU/mL in plasma) was 100% and specificity was 100%. Sensitivity for HCV RNA detection from DBS was 95.6% and specificity was 94.1%. A small bias in plasma over DBS was observed with good agreement (R2 = 0.96).Conclusions: The Aptima HCV Quant assay detects active infection from DBS samples with acceptable diagnostic performance and is clinically comparable to plasma. These data will strengthen the case for the registration of a DBS kit insert claim, enabling future clinical utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Point-of-care hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA testing is advantageous, enabling diagnosis of active infection in a single visit. This study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert HCV Viral Load Finger-Stick assay (Xpert HCV VL FS) for HCV RNA detection (finger-stick) and the Xpert HCV Viral Load assay (plasma) compared with the Abbott RealTime HCV Viral Load assay by venepuncture. Plasma and finger-stick capillary whole-blood samples were collected from participants in an observational cohort in Australia. Of 223 participants enrolled, HCV RNA was detected in 40% of participants (85 of 210) with available Xpert HCV Viral Load testing. Participants receiving HCV therapy were excluded from subsequent analyses (n = 16). Sensitivity of the Xpert HCV Viral Load assay for HCV RNA quantification in plasma collected by venepuncture was 100.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.9%-100.0%) and specificity was 100.0% (95% CI, 94.4%-100.0%). Sensitivity of the Xpert HCV VL FS assay for HCV RNA quantification in samples collected by finger-stick was 100.0% (95% CI, 93.9%-100.0%) and specificity was 100.0% (95% CI, 96.6%-100.0%). The Xpert HCV VL FS test can accurately detect active infection from a finger-stick sample in 1 hour allowing single-visit HCV diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]