Intervention Packages to Reduce the Impact of HIV and HCV Infections Among People Who Inject Drugs in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: A Modeling and Cost-effectiveness Study

Abstract Background: We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting hepatitis C virus (HCV) and HIV infections among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Eastern Europe/Central Asia. We specifically considered the needle-syringe program (NSP), opioid substitution therapy (OST), HCV and HIV diagnosis, antiretroviral therapy (ART), and/or new HCV treatment (direct acting antiviral [DAA]) in Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Republic of Moldova, and Tajikistan. Methods: We developed a deterministic dynamic compartmental model and evaluated the number of infections averted, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of interventions. OST decreased frequencies of injecting by 85% and NSP needle sharing rates by 57%; ART was introduced at CD4 <350 and DAA at fibrosis stage ≥F2 at a $2370 to$23 280 cost. Results: Increasing NSP+OST had a high impact on transmissions (infections averted in PWID: 42% in Tajikistan to 55% in Republic of Moldova for HCV; 30% in Belarus to 61% in Kazakhstan for HIV over 20 years). Increasing NSP+OST+ART was very cost-effective in Georgia (ICER = $910/year of life saved [YLS]), and was cost-saving in Kazakhstan and Republic of Moldova. NSP+OST+ART and HIV diagnosis was very cost-effective in Tajikistan (ICER =$210/YLS). Increasing the coverage of all interventions was always the most effective strategy and was cost-effective in Belarus and Kazakhstan (ICER = $12 960 and$21 850/YLS); it became cost-effective/cost-saving in all countries when we decreased DAA costs. Conclusion: Increasing NSP+OST coverage, in addition to ART and HIV diagnosis, had a high impact on both epidemics and was very cost-effective and even cost-saving. When HCV diagnosis was improved, increased DAA averted a high number of new infections if associated with NSP+OST

Home-based hepatitis C self-testing in people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men in Georgia: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction Globally, it is estimated that more than three-quarters of people with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) are unaware of their HCV status. HCV self-testing (HCVST) may improve access and uptake of HCV testing particularly among key populations such as people who inject drugs (PWID) and men who have sex with men (MSM) where HCV prevalence and incidence are high and barriers to accessing health services due to stigma and discrimination are common. Methods and analysis This randomised controlled trial compares an online programme offering oral fluid-based HCVST delivered to the home with referral to standard-of-care HCV testing at HCV testing sites. Eligible participants are adults self-identifying as either MSM or PWID who live in Tbilisi or Batumi, Georgia, and whose current HCV status is unknown. Participants will be recruited through an online platform and randomised to one of three arms for MSM (courier delivery, peer delivery and standard-of-care HCV testing (control)) and two for PWID (peer delivery and standard-of-care HCV testing (control)). Participants in the postal delivery group will receive an HCVST kit delivered by an anonymised courier. Participants in the peer delivery groups will schedule delivery of the HCVST by a peer. Control groups will receive information on how to access standard-of-care testing at a testing site. The primary outcome is the number and proportion of participants who report completion of testing. Secondary outcomes include the number and proportion of participants who (a) receive a positive result and are made aware of their status, (b) are referred to and complete HCV RNA confirmatory testing, and (c) start treatment. Acceptability, feasibility, and attitudes around HCV testing and cost will also be evaluated. The target sample size is 1250 participants (250 per arm)

Hepatitis C core antigen test as an alternative for diagnosing HCV infection: mathematical model and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: The cost and complexity of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test are barriers to diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We investigated the cost-effectiveness of testing strategies using antigen instead of PCR testing. Methods: We developed a mathematical model for HCV to estimate the number of diagnoses and cases of liver disease. We compared the following testing strategies: antibody test followed by PCR in case of positive antibody (baseline strategy); antibody test followed by HCV-antigen test (antibody-antigen); antigen test alone; PCR test alone. We conducted cost-effectiveness analyses considering either the costs of HCV testing of infected and uninfected individuals alone (A1), HCV testing and liver-related complications (A2), or all costs including HCV treatment (A3). The model was parameterized for the country of Georgia. We conducted several sensitivity analyses. Results: The baseline scenario could detect 89% of infected individuals. Antibody-antigen detected 86% and antigen alone 88% of infected individuals. PCR testing alone detected 91% of the infected individuals: the remaining 9% either died or spontaneously recovered before testing. In analysis A1, the baseline strategy was not essentially more expensive than antibody-antigen. In analysis A2, strategies using PCR became cheaper than antigen-based strategies. In analysis A3, antibody-antigen was again the cheapest strategy, followed by the baseline strategy, and PCR testing alone. Conclusions: Antigen testing, either following a positive antibody test or alone, performed almost as well as the current practice of HCV testing. The cost-effectiveness of these strategies depends on the inclusion of treatment costs.</p

Global change in hepatitis C virus prevalence and cascade of care between 2015 and 2020: a modelling study

Background Since the release of the first global hepatitis elimination targets in 2016, and until the COVID-19 pandemic started in early 2020, many countries and territories were making progress toward hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. This study aims to evaluate HCV burden in 2020, and forecast HCV burden by 2030 given current trends. Methods This analysis includes a literature review, Delphi process, and mathematical modelling to estimate HCV prevalence (viraemic infection, defined as HCV RNA-positive cases) and the cascade of care among people of all ages (age ≥0 years from birth) for the period between Jan 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2030. Epidemiological data were collected from published sources and grey literature (including government reports and personal communications) and were validated among country and territory experts. A Markov model was used to forecast disease burden and cascade of care from 1950 to 2050 for countries and territories with data. Model outcomes were extracted from 2015 to 2030 to calculate population-weighted regional averages, which were used for countries or territories without data. Regional and global estimates of HCV prevalence, cascade of care, and disease burden were calculated based on 235 countries and territories. Findings Models were built for 110 countries or territories: 83 were approved by local experts and 27 were based on published data alone. Using data from these models, plus population-weighted regional averages for countries and territories without models (n=125), we estimated a global prevalence of viraemic HCV infection of 0·7% (95% UI 0·7–0·9), corresponding to 56·8 million (95% UI 55·2–67·8) infections, on Jan 1, 2020. This number represents a decrease of 6·8 million viraemic infections from a 2015 (beginning of year) prevalence estimate of 63·6 million (61·8–75·8) infections (0·9% [0·8–1·0] prevalence). By the end of 2020, an estimated 12·9 million (12·5–15·4) people were living with a diagnosed viraemic infection. In 2020, an estimated 641000 (623000–765000) patients initiated treatment. Interpretation At the beginning of 2020, there were an estimated 56·8 million viraemic HCV infections globally. Although this number represents a decrease from 2015, our forecasts suggest we are not currently on track to achieve global elimination targets by 2030. As countries recover from COVID-19, these findings can help refocus efforts aimed at HCV elimination