Cargando…

Feasibility, effectiveness and cost of a decentralized HCV care model among the general population in Delhi, India

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: India has a significant burden of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and has committed to achieving national elimination by 2030. This will require a substantial scale‐up in testing and treatment. The “HEAD‐Start Project Delhi” aimed to enhance HCV diagnosis and treatment pathway...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Markby, Jessica, Gupta, Ekta, Soni, Divya, Sarin, Sanjay, Murya, Mugil, Katapur, Preetishirin, Tewatia, Navneet, Ramachandran, Babu Entoor, Ruiz, Ryan Jose, Gaeddert, Mary, Tyshkovskiy, Alexander, Adee, Madeline, Chhatwal, Jagpreet, Miglani, Sundeep, Easterbrook, Philippa, Sarin, Shiv K., Shilton, Sonjelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299915/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34817928
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/liv.15112
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND AIMS: India has a significant burden of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and has committed to achieving national elimination by 2030. This will require a substantial scale‐up in testing and treatment. The “HEAD‐Start Project Delhi” aimed to enhance HCV diagnosis and treatment pathways among the general population. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at 5 district hospitals (Arm 1: one‐stop shop), 15 polyclinics (Arm 2: referral for viral load (VL) testing and treatment) and 62 screening camps (Arm 3: referral for treatment). HCV prevalence, retention in the HCV care cascade, and turn‐around time were measured. RESULTS: Between January and September 2019, 37 425 participants were screened for HCV. The median (IQR) age of participants was 35 (26‐48) years, with 50.4% male and 49.6% female. A significantly higher proportion of participants in Arm 1 (93.7%) and Arm 3 (90.3%) received a VL test compared with Arm 2 (52.5%, P < .001). Of those confirmed positive, treatment was initiated at significantly higher rates for participants in both Arms 1 (85.6%) and 2 (73.7%) compared to Arm 3 (41.8%, P < .001). Arm 1 was found to be a cost‐saving strategy compared to Arm 2, Arm 3, and no action. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of all services at a single site (district hospitals) resulted in a higher yield of HCV seropositive cases and retention compared with sites where participants were referred elsewhere for VL testing and/or treatment. The highest level of retention in the care cascade was also associated with the shortest turn‐around times.