Seroprevalence of HIV, hepatitis b, and hepatitis c among opioid drug users on methadone treatment in the netherlands

Background: Injecting drug users (IDU) remain an important population at risk for blood-borne infections such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV). In the Netherlands, a program is being implemented to offer annual voluntary screening for these infections to opioid drug users (ODUs) screened in methadone care. At two care sites where the program is now operating, our study aimed to estimate the seroprevalence among ODUs screened for HIV, HBV and HCV; to evaluate HBV vaccination coverage; and to assess the feasibility of monitoring seroprevalence trends by using routine annual screening data.Methods: Opioid drug users on methadone treatment are routinely offered voluntary screening for infectious diseases such as HIV, HBV and HCV. Data on uptake and outcome of anti-HIV, anti-HBc, and anti-HCV screening among ODUs receiving methadone were obtained from two regions: Amsterdam from 2004 to 2008 and Heerlen from 2003 to 2009.Findings: Annual screening uptake for HIV, HBV and HCV varied from 34 to 69%, depending on disease and screening site. Of users screened, 2.5% were HIV-positive in Amsterdam and 11% in Heerlen; 26% were HCV-positive in Amsterdam and 61% in Heerlen. Of those screened for HBV, evidence of current or previous infection (anti-HBc) was found among 33% in Amsterdam and 48% in Heerlen. In Amsterdam, 92% were fully vaccinated for HBV versus 45% in Heerlen.Conclusion: Annual screening for infectious diseases in all ODUs in methadone care is not fully implemented in the Netherlands. On average, more than half of the ODUs in methadone care in Heerlen and Amsterdam were screened for HIV, HBV and HCV. In addition, screening data indicate that HBV vaccination uptake was rather high. While the HIV prevalence among these ODUs was relatively low compared to other drug-using populations, the high HCV prevalence among this group underscores the need to expand annual screening and interventions to monitor HIV, HBV and HCV in the opioid drug-using population

A polymorphism in the regulatory region of PRNP is associated with increased risk of sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease

Background: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) is a rare transmissible neurodegenerative disorder. An important determinant for CJD risk and phenotype is the M129V polymorphism of the human prion protein gene (PRNP), but there are also other coding and non-coding polymorphisms inside this gene.Methods: We tested whether three non-coding polymorphism located inside the PRNP regulatory region (C-101G, G310C and T385C) were associated with risk of CJD and with age at onset in a United Kingdom population-based sample of 131 sporadic CJD (sCJD) patients and 194 controls.Results: We found no disease association for either PRNP C-101G or PRNP T385C. Although the crude analysis did not show a significant association between PRNP G310C and sCJD (OR: 1.5; 95%CI = 0.7 to 2.9), after adjusting by PRNP M129V genotype, it resulted that being a C allele carrier at PRNP G310C was significantly (p = 0.03) associated with a 2.4 fold increased risk of developing sCJD (95%CI = 1.1 to 5.4). Additionally, haplotypes carrying PRNP 310C coupled with PRNP 129M were significantly overrepresented in patients (p = 0.02) compared to controls. Cases of sCJD carrying a PRNP 310C allele presented at a younger age (on average 8.9 years younger than those without this allele), which was of statistical significance (p = 0.05). As expected, methionine and valine homozygosity at PRNP M129V increased significantly the risk of sCJD, alone and adjusted by PRNP G310C (OR MM/MV = 7.3; 95%CI 3.9 to 13.5 and OR VV/MV = 4.0; 95%CI 1.7 to 9.3).Conclusions: Our findings support the hypothesis that genetic variations in the PRNP promoter may have a role in the pathogenesis of sCJD

Global prevalence and genotype distribution of hepatitis C virus infection in 2015 : A modelling study

Publisher Copyright: © 2017 Elsevier LtdBackground The 69th World Health Assembly approved the Global Health Sector Strategy to eliminate hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection by 2030, which can become a reality with the recent launch of direct acting antiviral therapies. Reliable disease burden estimates are required for national strategies. This analysis estimates the global prevalence of viraemic HCV at the end of 2015, an update of—and expansion on—the 2014 analysis, which reported 80 million (95% CI 64–103) viraemic infections in 2013. Methods We developed country-level disease burden models following a systematic review of HCV prevalence (number of studies, n=6754) and genotype (n=11 342) studies published after 2013. A Delphi process was used to gain country expert consensus and validate inputs. Published estimates alone were used for countries where expert panel meetings could not be scheduled. Global prevalence was estimated using regional averages for countries without data. Findings Models were built for 100 countries, 59 of which were approved by country experts, with the remaining 41 estimated using published data alone. The remaining countries had insufficient data to create a model. The global prevalence of viraemic HCV is estimated to be 1·0% (95% uncertainty interval 0·8–1·1) in 2015, corresponding to 71·1 million (62·5–79·4) viraemic infections. Genotypes 1 and 3 were the most common cause of infections (44% and 25%, respectively). Interpretation The global estimate of viraemic infections is lower than previous estimates, largely due to more recent (lower) prevalence estimates in Africa. Additionally, increased mortality due to liver-related causes and an ageing population may have contributed to a reduction in infections. Funding John C Martin Foundation.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Mentioning smoking cessation assistance during healthcare consultations matters:findings from Dutch survey research

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation assistance (SCA) can help smokers to successfully quit smoking. It is unclear to what extent hearing about SCA from a healthcare professional is associated with using SCA during a quit attempt. METHODS: We used pooled survey data from the 2016, 2018 and 2020 ‘Module Substance Use’ survey in the Netherlands (N = 5928). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between having heard about SCA from one or more healthcare professionals in the last year and the use of SCA during the most recent quit attempt in the last year. We used two models: model 1 included any type of assistance; model 2 included assistance typically recommended by treatment guidelines (i.e. counselling and pharmacotherapy). RESULTS: Hearing about any type of SCA from a healthcare professional in the last year was significantly associated with using any type of SCA during the most recent quit attempt [odds ratio (OR) = 2.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16–4.06; P < 0.001]. We found the strongest association between hearing about counselling and/or pharmacotherapy and using counselling and/or pharmacotherapy (OR = 5.40; 95% CI 4.11–11.60; P < 0.001). The odds of using SCA was not significantly higher for smokers who had heard about it from two or more healthcare professionals compared to one healthcare professional (OR = 1.38; 95% CI 0.79–2.42; P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals can play a greater role in stimulating the use of SCA, especially counselling and pharmacotherapy, by mentioning it to smokers during consultations

Mentioning smoking cessation assistance during healthcare consultations matters: findings from Dutch survey research

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation assistance (SCA) can help smokers to successfully quit smoking. It is unclear to what extent hearing about SCA from a healthcare professional is associated with using SCA during a quit attempt. METHODS: We used pooled survey data from the 2016, 2018 and 2020 'Module Substance Use' survey in the Netherlands (N = 5928). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine the association between having heard about SCA from one or more healthcare professionals in the last year and the use of SCA during the most recent quit attempt in the last year. We used two models: model 1 included any type of assistance; model 2 included assistance typically recommended by treatment guidelines (i.e. counselling and pharmacotherapy). RESULTS: Hearing about any type of SCA from a healthcare professional in the last year was significantly associated with using any type of SCA during the most recent quit attempt [odds ratio (OR) = 2.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16-4.06; P < 0.001]. We found the strongest association between hearing about counselling and/or pharmacotherapy and using counselling and/or pharmacotherapy (OR = 5.40; 95% CI 4.11-11.60; P < 0.001). The odds of using SCA was not significantly higher for smokers who had heard about it from two or more healthcare professionals compared to one healthcare professional (OR = 1.38; 95% CI 0.79-2.42; P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals can play a greater role in stimulating the use of SCA, especially counselling and pharmacotherapy, by mentioning it to smokers during consultations

Implementation of ask-advise-connect for smoking cessation in Dutch general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation using the CFIR framework

Abstract Background The Ask-Advise-Connect (AAC) approach can help primary care providers to increase the number of people who attempt to quit smoking and enrol into cessation counselling. We implemented AAC in Dutch general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study we describe how AAC was received in Dutch general practice and assess which factors played a role in the implementation. Methods A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the implementation of AAC. Implementation took place between late 2020 and early 2022 among 106 Dutch primary care providers (general practitioners (GPs), practice nurses and doctor’s assistants). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through four online questionnaires. A descriptive analysis was conducted on the quantitative data. The qualitative data (consisting of answers to open-ended questions) were inductively analysed using axial codes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to structure and interpret findings. Results During the study, most participants felt motivated (84–92%) and able (80–94%) to apply AAC. At the end of the study, most participants reported that the AAC approach is easy to apply (89%) and provides advantages (74%). Routine implementation of the approach was, however, experienced to be difficult. More GPs (30–48%) experienced barriers in the implementation compared to practice nurses and doctor’s assistants (7–9%). The qualitative analysis showed that especially external factors, such as a lack of time or priority to discuss smoking due to the COVID-19 pandemic, negatively influenced implementation of AAC. Conclusions Although AAC was mostly positively received in Dutch general practice, implementation turned out to be challenging, especially for GPs. Lack of time to discuss smoking was a major barrier in the implementation. Future efforts should focus on providing additional implementation support to GPs, for example with the use of e-health

The delivery of Ask-Advise-Connect for smoking cessation in Dutch general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of a pre-post implementation study

Abstract Background The Ask-Advise-Connect approach can help primary care providers to increase the number of smokers that attempt to quit smoking and enrol into cessation counselling. The approach has not yet been implemented in general practice in the Netherlands. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of a comprehensive implementation strategy on the delivery of Ask-Advise-Connect for smoking cessation within Dutch general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A pre-post study was conducted between late 2020 and early 2022, and included 106 Dutch primary care providers (GPs, practice nurses and doctor’s assistants). Participation lasted nine months: during the first three months participants delivered smoking cessation care as usual (pre-intervention); the implementation strategy came into effect after three months and participants were followed up for another six months (post-intervention). The implementation strategy consisted of two meetings in which participants were educated about Ask-Advise-Connect, made agreements on the implementation of Ask-Advise-Connect and reflected on these agreements. Participants also received online educational materials and a desk card as reminder. The changes in the proportions of ‘Ask’ and ‘Advise’ over time were modelled using linear mixed effects models. A descriptive analysis was conducted with regard to referrals to cessation counselling. Results Participants provided consultations to 29,112 patients (both smokers and non-smokers). Results of the linear mixed effects model show that the proportion of patients that were asked about smoking (‘Ask’) significantly decreased in the first three months (pre-intervention), but slightly increased again after the implementation strategy came into effect (post-intervention). No significant change over time was found with regard to the proportion of patients advised to quit smoking (‘Advise’). Descriptive statistics suggested that more participants proactively (vs. passively) referred patients to cessation counselling post-intervention (‘Connect’). Conclusions The findings indicate that a comprehensive implementation strategy can support primary care providers in offering smoking cessation care to patients, even under stressful COVID-19 conditions. Additional implementation efforts are needed to increase the proportion of patients that receive a quit advice and proactive referral

Proactive referral to behavioral smoking cessation programs by healthcare staff: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Behavioral smoking cessation programs are an effective tool for quitting smoking, yet remain underused by smokers. Proactive referral may be a promising strategy for healthcare staff to connect smokers to such programs. The aim of this study was to gain insight into the effectiveness and implementability of proactive referral of smokers to behavioral smoking cessation programs by healthcare staff. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using five databases. Effectiveness of proactive referral was defined as the proportion of referred smokers who enrolled in a behavioral smoking cessation program. To determine the implementability of proactive referral, measures of feasibility, acceptability, adoption and referral rates were included as variables of interest. Out of 6,686 screened records, 34 articles were eligible for review. A narrative synthesis approach was used. RESULTS: The majority of the included studies investigated proactive referral within an e-referral system, combined with one or more intervention components which enhance implementation. Overall, proactive referral resulted in higher enrolment rates, especially among low-income smokers, and was found to be feasible, adoptable, and acceptable to healthcare staff. E-referral systems performed better in terms of implementability compared to fax referral systems. About half of the studies were of good quality. Many studies lacked information which resulted in lower quality scores. CONCLUSIONS: The literature provides evidence that the proactive referral of smokers to behavioral smoking cessation programs by healthcare staff is effective and implementable across different settings. Based on the results, e-referral systems may be preferable to fax referral systems in terms of implementability. IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review demonstrated that proactive referral has the potential to increase the reach of smoking cessation programs and reduce inequalities in the access to such programs. In the selection and implementation of behavioral smoking cessation programs with a proactive referral component, stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, healthcare funders, and healthcare professionals) may benefit from taking different aspects of proactive referral systems into account, such as the type of proactive referral system used and additional strategies which can enhance the implementability of the system

The referral of patients to smoking cessation counselling: perceptions and experiences of healthcare providers in general practice

Abstract Background Few European smokers receive professional counselling when attempting to quit smoking, resulting in suboptimal success rates and poor health outcomes. Healthcare providers in general practice play an important role in referring smokers to smoking cessation counselling. We chose the Netherlands as a case study to qualitatively explore which factors play a role among healthcare providers in general practice with regard to referral for smoking cessation counselling organised both inside and outside general practice. Methods We conducted four focus groups and 18 telephone interviews, with a total of 31 healthcare providers who work in general practice. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify relevant factors related to referral behaviours, and each factor was linked to one of the three main components of the COM-B behaviour model (i.e., capability, opportunity and motivation) as well as the six sub-components of the model. Results Dutch healthcare providers in general practice typically refer smokers who want to quit to counselling inside their own general practice without actively discussing other counselling options, indicating a lack of shared decision making. The analysis showed that factors linked to the COM-B main components ‘capability’ and ‘opportunity’, such as healthcare providers’ skills and patients’ preferences, play a role in whether patients are referred to counselling inside general practice. Factors linked to all three COM-B components were found to play a role in referrals to counselling outside general practice. These included (knowledge of) the availability and quality of counselling in the region, patients’ requests, reimbursement, and sense of urgency to refer. The identified factors can both act as barriers and facilitators. Conclusions The findings of this research suggest that more smokers can be reached with smoking cessation counselling if implementation interventions focus on: (i) equipping healthcare providers with the knowledge and skills needed to refer patients; (ii) creating more opportunities for healthcare providers to refer patients (e.g., by improving the availability and reimbursement of counselling options); and (iii) motivating healthcare providers to discuss different counselling options with patients