Deliberative water governance : theory and practice in the Mekong region

This thesis explores the research question: How can water governance be fairer and more effective in Mekong Region and beyond? In doing so, it examines the theory and practice of deliberative water governance, informed and illustrated in a region that comprises Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and China's Yunnan Province. Water governance can be understood along a spectrum, from a means to achieve pre{u00AD}determined objectives to a social process of dialogue, negotiation and decision-making. This thesis is most interested in the latter conception, in the context of 'the Mekong', where choices are being made about using and sharing transboundary waters. These choices might produce more energy; both increase and decrease food production; sustain or threaten livelihoods; and, maintain or degrade vital ecosystems and their services, upon which societies depend. An introductory chapter (Part A, Chapter 1) contextualises and explains the logic of the research. I next explore contested waterscapes (Part B, Chapters 2-5) focusing on the complex tapestry of Mekong regionalisms and governance, hydropower expansion, and a marginalised Mekong River Commission. The analysis confirmed that significant scope exists for improving water governance, and that deliberation - debate and discussion aimed at producing reasonable, well-informed opinions - has been in short supply. Deliberation deficits observed and reported in Part B provoked exploration of deliberative processes (Part C, Chapters 6-11) as a potential pathway to improving water governance. I examine firstly international practice, including still-topical issues from the World Commission on Dams, and the potential of multi-stakeholder platforms. I then examine Mekong practice and the efficacy of multi-stakeholder platforms as a governance tool; and the politics of deliberation, scales and levels. The final chapter of this section introduces a framework for analysing transboundary water governance complexes and distils suggestions for making water governance more deliberative and as a consequence, fairer and more effective. Part C analyses a range of governance challenges, and provides evidence that deliberative processes, where inserted into political arenas, are making water governance fairer and more effective, by reducing power imbalances among stakeholders and assisting negotiations to be more transparent and informed. In the final section and chapter (Part D, Chapter 12), I summarise and reflect on my practice and exploration of the topics. Drawing together the lessons from my research, I present my aspirational vision of Deliberative Water Governance - a new frontier in the field of deliberative governance: Constructive engagement that enables fairer and more effective water governance through inclusive, deliberative processes that emphasise different perspectives, learning, analysis and institution-building. The vision is inspired by promising examples, from the Mekong Region and elsewhere, examined in the thesis chapters, which demonstrate the need for and added-value provided by deliberation when it is information-rich, flexibly facilitated and actively promotes analysis of different views. In conclusion, I contend that, via its action research and publishing orientation, this thesis has contributed uniquely to both the theory and practice of Deliberative Water Governance in the dynamic Mekong Region and more widely

Prioritization of HCV treatment in the direct-acting antiviral era: an economic evaluation

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We determined the optimal HCV treatment prioritization strategy for interferon-free (IFN-free) HCV direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) by disease stage and risk status incorporating treatment of people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: A dynamic HCV transmission and progression model compared the cost-effectiveness of treating patients early vs. delaying until cirrhosis for patients with mild or moderate fibrosis, where PWID chronic HCV prevalence was 20, 40 or 60%. Treatment duration was 12weeks at £3300/wk, to achieve a 95% sustained viral response and was varied by genotype/stage in alternative scenarios. We estimated long-term health costs (in £UK=€1.3=$1.5) and outcomes as quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained using a £20,000 willingness to pay per QALY threshold. We ranked strategies with net monetary benefit (NMB); negative NMB implies delay treatment. RESULTS: The most cost-effective group to treat were PWID with moderate fibrosis (mean NMB per early treatment £60,640/£23,968 at 20/40% chronic prevalence, respectively), followed by PWID with mild fibrosis (NMB £59,258 and £19,421, respectively) then ex-PWID/non-PWID with moderate fibrosis (NMB £9,404). Treatment of ex-PWID/non-PWID with mild fibrosis could be delayed (NMB -£3,650). In populations with 60% chronic HCV among PWID it was only cost-effective to prioritize DAAs to ex-PWID/non-PWID with moderate fibrosis. For every one PWID in the 20% chronic HCV setting, 2 new HCV infections were averted. One extra HCV-related death was averted per 13 people with moderate disease treated. Rankings were unchanged with reduced drug costs or varied sustained virological response/duration by genotype/fibrosis stage. CONCLUSIONS: Treating PWID with moderate or mild HCV with IFN-free DAAs is cost-effective compared to delay until cirrhosis, except when chronic HCV prevalence and reinfection risk is very high

Incidence of primary hepatitis C infection and risk factors for transmission in an Australian prisoner cohort

Background. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is common in prisoner populations, particularly those with a history of injecting drug use (IDU). Previous studies of HCV incidence have been based on small case numbers and have not distinguished risk event

Quality of Life and Social Functioning during Treatment of Recent Hepatitis C Infection: A Multi-Centre Prospective Cohort

Aim: Despite effective treatment for recent hepatitis C (HCV) infection, side-effects and adherence concerns limit its use among people who inject drugs (PWID). This study evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and social functioning following infection and during recent HCV treatment. Methods: The Australian Trial of Acute Hepatitis C studied the natural history and treatment of recent HCV infection. HRQoL (SF-12v2) and social functioning (Opiate Treatment Index score) were measured over 48 weeks and their impact on treatment uptake, adherence and virological response were assessed. Results: Of 163 participants, 111 received treatment (HCV n = 74, SVR 55%; HCV/HIV n = 37, SVR 74%). 116 (71%) were male, 124 (76%) ever injected drugs, with 55 (36%) injecting recently and 28/55 (51%) reported needle/syringe sharing. At baseline, median physical and mental HRQoL was 54 units (IQR 46-58) and 46 (35-54) (reference median: 50), respectively, and median social functioning score was 11 units (7-17). Higher social function (<10 vs ≥15) predicted increased treatment uptake (AOR 3.43, 95%CI 1.01-11.6, p = 0.048) and higher SVR (AOR 5.11, 95%CI 1.30-20.15, p = 0.020). After adjustment, treated participants had lower physical (-4.90 units, 95%CI -6.33 to -3.48, p<0.001) and mental HRQoL (-3.7 units, 95%CI -5.55 to -1.86, p<0.001) at on-treatment visits, but HRQoL returned to baseline levels during follow-up. Conclusions: Social functioning can predict recent HCV treatment uptake and SVR. Efforts to maximise social stability may improve treatment response. Pegylated-interferon treatment is associated with reduced HRQoL on-treatment in an already vulnerable population of PWID that would be better served by interferon-free regimens particularly in treated target at PWID to prevent transmission.The ATAHC Study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (grant RO1 DA 15999- 01). Roche Pharmaceuticals supplied financial support for pegylated-IFN alfa-2a/ribavirin use in the ATAHC Study. JD, JG, GM, AT, GD, and MH acknowledge fellowship support from the National Health and Medical Research Council. JD, TS and MH acknowledge the contribution to this work of the Victorian Operational Infrastructure Support Program (Department of Health, Victoria, Australia) to the Burnet Institute. The Kirby Institute is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Australian Governmen

The Consensus Hepatitis C Cascade of Care:standardized reporting to monitor progress toward elimination

Cascade-of-care (CoC) monitoring is an important component of the response to the global hepatitis C virus (HCV) epidemic. CoC metrics can be used to communicate, in simple terms, the extent to which national and subnational governments are advancing on key targets, and CoC findings can inform strategic decision-making regarding how to maximize the progression of individuals with HCV to diagnosis, treatment, and cure. The value of reporting would be enhanced if a standardized approach were used for generating CoCs. We have described the Consensus HCV CoC that we developed to address this need and have presented findings from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, where it was piloted. We encourage the uptake of the Consensus HCV CoC as a global instrument for facilitating clear and consistent reporting via the World Health Organization (WHO) viral hepatitis monitoring platform and for ensuring accurate monitoring of progress toward WHO's 2030 hepatitis C elimination targets.</p

Daclatasvir in combination with asunaprevir and beclabuvir for hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection with compensated cirrhosis

Importance Effective and well-tolerated, interferon-free regimens are needed for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and cirrhosis. Objective All-oral therapy with daclatasvir (nonstructural protein 5A [NS5A] inhibitor), asunaprevir (NS3 protease inhibitor), and beclabuvir (nonnucleoside NS5B inhibitor), with or without ribavirin, was evaluated in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection and compensated cirrhosis. Design, Setting, and Participants The UNITY-2 study was conducted between December 2013 and October 2014 at 49 outpatient sites in the United States, Canada, France, and Australia. Patients were treated for 12 weeks, with 24 weeks of follow-up after completion of treatment. Adult patients with cirrhosis were enrolled in 2 cohorts: HCV treatment-naive or HCV treatment-experienced. Statistical analyses were based on historical controls; there were no internal controls. Interventions All patients received twice-daily treatment with the fixed-dose combination of daclatasvir (30 mg), asunaprevir (200 mg), and beclabuvir (75 mg). In addition, patients within each cohort were stratified according to HCV genotype 1 subtype (1a or 1b) and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive double-blinded weight-based ribavirin (1000-1200 mg/d) or matching placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures Sustained virologic response at posttreatment week 12 (SVR12). Results One hundred twelve patients in the treatment-naive group and 90 patients in the treatment-experienced group were treated and included in the analysis. Enrolled patients were 88% white with a median age of 58 years (treatment-naive group) or 60 years (treatment-experienced group); 74% had genotype 1a infection. SVR12 rates were 98% (97.5% CI, 88.9%-100%) for patients in the treatment-naive group and 93% (97.5% CI, 85.0%-100.0%) for those in the treatment-experienced group when ribavirin was included in the regimen. With the fixed-dose combination alone, response rates were 93% (97.5% CI, 85.4%-100.0%) for patients in the treatment-naive group and 87% (97.5% CI, 75.3%-98.0%) for those in the treatment-experienced group. Three serious adverse events were considered to be treatment related and there were 4 adverse event–related discontinuations. Treatment-emergent grade 3 or 4 alanine aminotransferase elevations were observed in 4 patients, of which 1 had concomitant total bilirubin elevation. Conclusions and Relevance In this open-label uncontrolled study, patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection and cirrhosis who received a 12-week oral fixed-dose regimen of daclatasvir, asunaprevir, and beclabuvir, with or without ribavirin, achieved high rates of SVR12

NS5A Resistance-Associated Substitutions in Patients with Genotype 1 Hepatitis C Virus:Prevalence and Effect on Treatment Outcome

Background & Aims The efficacy of NS5A inhibitors for the treatment of patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be affected by the presence of NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RASs). We analyzed data from 35 phase I, II, and III studies in 22 countries to determine the pretreatment prevalence of various NS5A RASs, and their effect on outcomes of treatment with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir in patients with genotype 1 HCV. Methods NS5A gene deep sequencing analysis was performed on samples from 5397 patients in Gilead clinical trials. The effect of baseline RASs on sustained virologic response (SVR) rates was assessed in the 1765 patients treated with regimens containing ledipasvir-sofosbuvir. Results Using a 15% cut-off, pretreatment NS5A and ledipasvir-specific RASs were detected in 13% and 8% of genotype 1a patients, respectively, and in 18% and 16% of patients with genotype 1b. Among genotype 1a treatment-naïve patients, SVR rates were 91% (42/46) vs. 99% (539/546) for those with and without ledipasvir-specific RASs, respectively. Among treatment-experienced genotype 1a patients, SVR rates were 76% (22/29) vs. 97% (409/420) for those with and without ledipasvir-specific RASs, respectively. Among treatment-naïve genotype 1b patients, SVR rates were 99% for both those with and without ledipasvir-specific RASs (71/72 vs. 331/334), and among treatment-experienced genotype 1b patients, SVR rates were 89% (41/46) vs. 98% (267/272) for those with and without ledipasvir-specific RASs, respectively. Conclusions Pretreatment ledipasvir-specific RASs that were present in 8–16% of patients have an impact on treatment outcome in some patient groups, particularly treatment-experienced patients with genotype 1a HCV. Lay summary The efficacy of treatments using NS5A inhibitors for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can be affected by the presence of NS5A resistance-associated substitutions (RASs). We reviewed results from 35 clinical trials where patients with genotype 1 HCV infection received treatments that included ledipasvir-sofosbuvir to determine how prevalent NS5A RASs are in patients at baseline, and found that ledipasvir-specific RASs were present in 8–16% of patients prior to treatment and had a negative impact on treatment outcome in subset of patient groups, particularly treatment-experienced patients with genotype 1a HCV

Adherence to once-daily and twice-daily direct acting antiviral therapy for hepatitis C infection among people with recent injection drug use or current opioid agonist therapy

BACKGROUND This study investigated adherence and associated factors among people with recent injection drug use (IDU) or current opioid agonist therapy (OAT) and compared once-daily to twice-daily hepatitis C virus (HCV) direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy. METHODS SIMPLIFY and D3FEAT are international, multicenter studies that recruited participants with recent IDU (previous 6 months; SIMPLIFY, D3FEAT) or current OAT (D3FEAT) between March 2016 and February 2017 in 8 countries. Participants received sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (once daily; SIMPLIFY) or paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir, dasabuvir (twice daily) ± ribavirin (D3FEAT) for 12 weeks administered in electronic blister packs. We evaluated overall adherence (proportion of prescribed doses taken) and nonadherence (<90% adherent) between dosing patterns. RESULTS Of 190 participants, 184 (97%) completed treatment. Median adherence was 92%, with higher adherence among those receiving once-daily vs twice-daily therapy (94% vs 87%, P = .005). Overall, 40% of participants (n = 76) were nonadherent (<90% adherent). Recent stimulant injecting (odds ratio [OR], 2.48 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.28-4.82]), unstable housing (OR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.01-4.70]), and twice-daily dosing (OR, 2.81 [95% CI, 1.47-5.36]) were associated with nonadherence. Adherence decreased during therapy. Sustained virologic response was high in nonadherent (89%) and adherent populations (95%, P = .174), with no difference in SVR between those who did and did not miss 7 consecutive doses (92% vs 93%, P = .897). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated high adherence to once- and twice-daily DAA therapy among people with recent IDU or currently receiving OAT. Nonadherence described did not impact treatment outcomes, suggesting forgiveness to nonadherence