Feasibility and effectiveness of HCV viraemia testing at harm reduction sites in Georgia: A prospective three‐arm study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In 2015, Georgia began a hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination programme. Although screening programmes have been decentralized for high‐risk groups, viraemic testing remains a bottleneck for people who inject drugs. Here, we describe two models of viraemic testing that aimed to address this gap. METHODS: We assigned eight harm reduction sites (HRS) to one of three arms (2,1:1): Xpert HCV viral load testing on‐site, blood draw on‐site with centralized HCV core antigen testing (HCVcAg), or standard‐of‐care (SOC) referral with viremia testing performed at treatment centres. RESULTS: 1671 HCV‐seropositive participants were enrolled (Xpert, 37.1%; HCVcAg, 29.1%; referral, 33.8%). Participants were predominantly male (95.4%), mean age (IQR) 43 (37, 50) years and 1290 (77.2%) were currently injecting drugs. Significantly higher proportions of participants in the Xpert (100%) and HCVcAg (99.8%) arms received viraemia testing compared with the referral arm (91.3%) (Xpert vs referral, p < 0.0001; HCVcAg vs referral, p < 0.0001). Among viraemic participants, treatment uptake was similar (Xpert, 84.0%; HCVcAg, 79.5%; referral, 88.4%). The time between screening and sample collection for viraemia testing was significantly longer in the referral arm compared with both Xpert and HCVcAg arms (median 1 day compared with 0 days respectively), and the overall time between screening to treatment initiation was longer for the referral arm (median 67 days) compared with both Xpert and HCVcAg arms (median 57 and 50 days respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Point‐of‐care viraemia testing and blood drawn on‐site for HCVcAg testing yielded more HCV‐seropositive patients receiving viraemic testing within a shorter timeframe compared with referrals.