Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Real-world hepatitis C treatment outcomes and reinfections among people who inject drugs at a needle and syringe program in Stockholm, Sweden

Harm Reduction Journal volume 20, Article number: 72 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

People who inject drugs (PWID) represent a population with an increased prevalence of hepatitis C (HCV) infections. HCV treatment among PWID is essential to reach the WHO goal of eliminating HCV as a major public health threat by 2030. Despite better understanding of PWID subgroups and changes in risk behaviors over time, more knowledge about HCV treatment outcomes in different HCV prevalence populations and settings is warranted to enhance the continuum of care.

Methods

All Stockholm Needle and Syringe Program (NSP) participants who initiated HCV treatment between October 2017 and June 2020 were HCV RNA tested at end of treatment and twelve weeks thereafter to confirm cure with a sustained virological response (SVR). All cured participants were prospectively followed from SVR to the last negative HCV RNA test or a subsequent reinfection, until October 31, 2021.

Results

Overall, 409 NSP participants initiated HCV treatment, 162 at the NSP and 247 in another treatment setting. There were a total of 6.4% treatment dropouts (n = 26), 11.7% among participants treated at the NSP and 2.8% among those treated elsewhere (p < 0.001). Stimulant use (p < 0.05) and not being in an opioid agonist treatment program (p < 0.05) was associated with dropout. More participants treated outside the NSP were lost to follow-up between end of treatment and SVR (p < 0.05). During follow-up post-SVR, 43 reinfections occurred, corresponding to a reinfection rate of 9.3/100 PY (95% CI 7.0, 12.3). Factors associated with reinfection were younger age (p < 0.001), treatment while in prison (p < 0.01) and homelessness (p < 0.05).

Discussion

In this high HCV prevalence NSP setting, with a majority of stimulant users, treatment success was high and the level of reinfections manageable. To reach HCV elimination, there is a need to target specific PWID subgroups for HCV treatment, in both harm reduction and adjacent healthcare settings frequented by PWID.

Introduction

An estimated 57 million people worldwide are infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) [1]. Among people who inject drugs (PWID), the HCV prevalence is high and the major route for HCV transmission is sharing of unsterile injection equipment (needles/syringes, cookers and filters) [2, 3]. Among the 15.6 million people worldwide with recent injection drug use (IDU), 6.1 million (39%) are estimated to be HCV infected [4]. In 2016, the World Health Organization (WHO) presented a strategy to eliminate hepatitis B (HBV) and HCV as a major public health threat in the world by 2030 [5]. The HCV elimination targets include a 90% reduction of new cases, 80% of cases treated and a 65% reduction in HCV-related deaths [6]. With current HCV direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment, cure rates > 95% can be achieved with 8–12 weeks of treatment [7]. International guidelines recommend HCV treatment among PWID as a prioritized task, to reduce risk of continued transmission [8,9,10]. However, even though treatment as prevention is a proven effective strategy [11, 12], success in HCV elimination among PWID also relies on high coverage of evidence-based harm reduction services like needle and syringe programs (NSP) and opioid agonist treatment (OAT) [13, 14].

To increase HCV treatment among PWID, continued scale-up of harm reduction programs is needed with an ambition to facilitate HCV diagnosis and linkage to care [15], combined with further understanding of PWID subgroups, to bridge knowledge gaps regarding HCV treatment barriers [16]. Research shows that NSP significantly impacts both injection risk behavior and HCV transmission among PWID, particularly when combined with OAT [17,18,19,20]. Further, a growing body of literature suggests feasibility of HCV treatment among PWID and people on OAT regarding both adherence and treatment outcomes, i.e., sustained virological response (SVR) [21, 22]. However, some healthcare providers still raise concerns regarding compliance and adherence to DAA treatment in PWID, and challenges remain in countries still facing DAA reimbursement restrictions [23,24,25]. As a result, studies from different countries suggest that HCV treatment uptake in PWID globally is low, limited to 1–2% of the population [26,27,28].

Among HCV-treated PWID, a somewhat lower noted SVR rates in treatment studies could be explained by PWID being lost to follow-up (LTFU), rather than treatment failure. However, research also shows that LTFU has been associated with recent IDU risk behaviors, suggesting higher risk of HCV reinfection [29, 30].

In 2019, a report on Sweden’s HCV elimination goals for 2030 was released, pointing to several challenges and knowledge gaps [31]. The report specifically underlined need for HCV treatment scale-up and to reach and retain PWID and subgroups in the continuum of care, i.e., a set of bundled healthcare and harm reduction interventions, and a need for more efficient collaboration between NSP and clinics offering OAT. Growing research on PWID in the Stockholm NSP has found a 55% HCV baseline prevalence and despite significant reduction in injection risk behaviors over time, a high HCV incidence rate around 22/100 person-years (PY) [32, 33].

Treatment uptake of HCV in active PWID has historically been low in Sweden and treatment in the OAT population also limited. Previous data, before the DAA era, showed that the overall lifetime uptake of HCV treatment among PWID on OAT was between 1 and 6% [34,35,36]. However, an observational study with data from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Registers noted an estimated cumulative DAA treatment uptake of 28% among OAT participants between 2014 and 2017 [37].

High HCV prevalence, incidence and injection risk behavior among PWID are strong indicators for prompt scale-up of HCV treatment to reduce overall prevalence [38, 39]. In 2018, all HCV reimbursement restrictions in Sweden were omitted giving universal access to treatment, and in 2020 acute HCV was included in Swedish HCV treatment guidelines [40]. HCV treatment was first introduced at the Stockholm NSP in late 2017 and expanded from 2018.

Despite better understanding of PWID subgroup risk behaviors and change over time, more knowledge about HCV treatment and outcomes in different HCV prevalence populations and settings is warranted to enhance the continuum of care. In this study, we use real-world HCV treatment data from the Stockholm NSP, a setting with a high HCV baseline prevalence and with a majority of stimulant users, to investigate HCV treatment outcomes for participants at the NSP. We aim to investigate socio-demographic and IDU-related differences between NSP participants receiving HCV treatment on site and those who received HCV treatment elsewhere (i.e., outside of the NSP). We also investigate HCV reinfection rates post-SVR among all HCV-treated NSP participants.

Methods

Participants and setting

The Stockholm NSP has previously been described in detail [30, 32, 33, 41]. Briefly, the Stockholm NSP is a multi-center (two fixed sites and one mobile unit) low-threshold program with a multidisciplinary care approach and staffed by physicians, counselors, midwifes and nurses specialized in infectious diseases and substance use. The NSP offers sterile needles/syringes, cookers and filters, infectious disease treatment, overdose prevention, contraceptive counseling and other midwife services, referrals to social services and substance use clinics and outreach activities. At enrollment, all participants answer 34 questions on socio-demographic and drug-related information. All participants are tested for HIV, HBV and HCV. Follow-up interviews and HIV and hepatitis testing are repeated every three to six months, and all data are entered into an electronic quality register database, InfCare NSP. The Stockholm NSP has since the start in 2013 enrolled over 4,400 participants. Yearly, approximately 1800 clients make 20,000 client visits.

Fibrosis evaluation and HCV treatment at the NSP

In this study, all NSP participants that initiated HCV treatment between October 2017 and May 2020 were included. During the study period all participants with HCV were informed about access to HCV treatment through personal information from the staff and digitally through an information screen in the waiting rooms. HCV treatment was mainly nurse-led (i.e., nurses tested for HCV, including liver function tests and genotypes, performed liver stiffness measurement (LSM) with FibroScan, suggested DAA treatment strategy and monitored participant during and after treatment). LSM cutoffs were 7 kPa and ≥ 12.5 kPa for significant liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, respectively [42]. In cases where FibroScan was not accessible, the algorithm; APRI score < 1.0 in combination with < 15 years duration of IDU and an age < 35 years was used to exclude advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis [41].

A physician at the NSP confirmed initial treatment strategy, prescribed DAA and evaluated complicated treatment-related issues, when needed. All HCV diagnosis, evaluation, treatment and follow-up at the NSP were performed in accordance with Swedish HCV guidelines [43]. In most cases, DAA was dispensed on a weekly basis but also during longer intervals on-demand, if a participant was temporarily accommodated at a treatment home or while incarcerated. SVR, with a negative HCV RNA 12 weeks after end of treatment (EOT), defined successful treatment.

NSP participants HCV treated outside the NSP

During the study period (October 2017 and May 2020), we also identified NSP participants who were HCV treated outside the NSP. These participants were identified through self-reported HCV treatment or were actively asked about HCV treatment by NSP staff and had a confirmed positive HCV RNA pre-treatment. Duration of treatment was confirmed through external medical charts and was registered in InfCare NSP. The majority of participants treated outside the NSP were treated at infectious diseases (ID) clinics, at OAT clinics and to a lesser extent in prison. For this study, there were no available data on pre-treatment evaluation, HCV genotype, level of fibrosis or choice of DAA among HCV treated outside the NSP. As a result, comparative analyses between participants treated at the NSP and outside the NSP were focused on demographic data, treatment outcomes and reinfection data.

Follow-up and reinfection post-treatment

All successfully HCV-treated participants were followed from SVR to the last negative HCV RNA test or a subsequent reinfection, until October 31, 2021. With this follow-up time, all participants were followed up for a minimum of 12 months post-SVR. Reinfection was defined as a negative HCV RNA at SVR followed by a positive HCV RNA during follow‐up.

Statistical analyses

Based on our previous research [30, 32, 33, 41, 44], nine sociodemographic-, drug- and HCV-related determinants were selected (described in detail in Table 1) for analyses. Demographic data are presented as proportions, mean or median levels with ranges and interquartile ranges (IQR). If more than two responses, all other responses were combined to make a dichotomized comparison category. The Chi-square test or Fisher exact two-tailed test was used to test categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous values. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Reinfection rates were defined as number of reinfections (n = x) per 100 person‐years (x/100 PY). Data were analyzed using JMP®, Version 15, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Table 1 Characteristics of HCV-treated NSP participants at NSP and outside of the NSP (n = 409)
Full size table

Results

Participant characteristics

A total of 409 participants were included in the final analyses, of which 162 were treated at the NSP and 247 treated outside the NSP (Table 1). In 2017, 11 treatments were initiated among NSP participants, which increased to 146 and 203 for 2018 and 2019, respectively. During the first five month in 2020, treatment initiations decreased substantially, related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Overall, 77.8% of participants were men and the mean age was 44.8 years. Age was higher among those treated at the NSP compared to those treated outside the NSP, mean age 46.8 years versus (vs.) 43.6 years (p < 0.001). Over half of the participants (56.2%) reported stimulants (amphetamine, cocaine, methylphenidate) as the most frequently used drug, with amphetamine as the predominant drug (91.3%). The second most common drugs used were opioids (37.9%), with heroin as the predominant drug (93.5%). Stimulants was more frequently used among participants treated for HCV at the NSP compared to those treated outside the NSP, 75.9% vs. 43.4% (p < 0.0001). Consequently, participants treated at the NSP reported less use of opioids, 19.8% vs. 49.8% (p < 0.0001) and OAT was more prevalent among those treated outside the NSP 45.3% vs. 8.6% (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, participants with a concomitant HIV infection received HCV treatment to a greater extent outside the NSP, 10.5% vs. 0.6% (p < 0.0001).

During the study period, a total of 4.2% (17/409) participants died. Five participants (1.2%) died before SVR and twelve (2.9%) during follow-up post-SVR.

Pre-treatment evaluation at the NSP

All participants treated at the NSP (n = 162) underwent a pre-treatment evaluation, as depicted in Table 2. The distribution of HCV genotypes was 43.2%, 41.4% and 15.4% for genotype 3a, 1a/1b and 2, respectively. Mean fibrosis score was 7.5 kPa. The majority of participants (57.6%) had absent or mild fibrosis (F0–F1), while 10.8% had advanced fibrosis (F3) and 7.6% a fibrosis score > 12.5, indicating cirrhosis (F4). The overall mean APRI score was 0.51 (range 0.09–2.3).

Table 2 Pre-treatment evaluation among HCV treated at the Stockholm NSP (n = 162)
Full size table

HCV treatment outcomes

Among all HCV treated (n = 409), 93.6% (383/409) reached EOT and 82.9% (339/409) reached SVR. Treatment results and a flow chart for those treated at the NSP (n = 162) and outside the NSP (n = 247) are depicted in Fig. 1a, b. Of those treated at the NSP and outside the NSP, 88.3% and 97.2% (p < 0.001) reached EOT, and 85.8% and 81.0% (p = 0.23) reached SVR, respectively.

Fig. 1
figure 1

a HCV treatment flow chart for participants treated at the NSP. b HCV treatment flow chart for participants treated outside the NSP. HCV hepatitis C virus, EOT end of treatment, SVR sustained virological response, LTFU lost to follow-up

Full size image

Treatment dropouts and lost to follow-up

In total, there were 6.4% (26/409) treatment dropouts, with 11.7% (19/162) dropouts among participants treated at the NSP, compared to 2.8% among those treated elsewhere (p < 0.001). There were no demographic differences between the dropout groups. Among those treated at the NSP, the mean time in treatment before drop-out was 24 days (range 5–58) and for those still reaching SVR (n = 5), the mean number of missed days of DAA was 29 days (range 16–44). Stimulant use was more prevalent among dropouts compared to non-dropouts, 76.9% vs. 55.1% (p < 0.05). Consequently, opioid use and OAT were more prevalent among non-dropouts compared to dropouts, 39.9% vs. 11.5% (p < 0.05) and 32.4% vs. 7.7% (p < 0.01), respectively (data not shown).

Among the 49 participants that reached EOT but not SVR, 53.1% were LTFU at SVR, 36.7% had a relapse/reinfection between EOT and SVR, and 10.2% died. There were more participants LTFU among those who were treated outside the NSP compared to those treated at the NSP (p < 0.05), but there were no demographic differences between the two groups.

Reinfection

A total of 339 participants were prospectively followed post-SVR (n = 139 treated at the NSP, and n = 200 treated outside the NSP). Participants were repeatedly tested every 3–6 months with a median of 84 days since last HCV test in the dataset (IQR 14–194 days). During follow-up there were a total of 43 HCV reinfections post-SVR, 17 among those treated at the NSP and 26 among those treated outside of the NSP, (p = 0.86). The mean time from SVR to reinfection was 291 days (range 34–954). Mean age at reinfection was 38.7 years, and 77.0% were men.

The overall HCV reinfection rate post-SVR was 9.3/100 PY (95% CI 7.0, 12.3), with follow-up time of 465 PY (mean individual follow-up time of 1.4 PY). The HCV reinfection rate among those treated at the NSP was 8.4/100 PY (95% CI 5.3, 13.2), with follow-up time 203 PY (mean follow-up time 1.5 PY) and among those treated outside the NSP 9.9/100 PY (95% CI 6.9, 14.3), with follow-up time 261 PY (mean follow-up time1.3 PY).

Factors associated with reinfection were younger age (p < 0.001), treatment while in prison (p < 0.01), homelessness (p < 0.05) and shorter duration of IDU (p < 0.0001), also corresponding to higher reinfection rates of 20.6, 65.8, 25.5 and 20.7/100 PY, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3 Reinfection and reinfection rates among participants who reached SVR (n = 339)
Full size table

Discussion

In this study we report real-world HCV treatment baseline characteristics and treatment outcomes among PWID at the Stockholm NSP. Overall, there were 409 HCV treatments, of which 162 were initiated on site at the NSP and 247 treatments initiated outside the NSP. When comparing the two HCV-treated subgroups, participants treated at the NSP were older, predominantly injected stimulants, did not participate in OAT and were less likely to be HIV infected, compared to those treated outside of the NSP. These results indicate the need for a broad HCV treatment approach to reach different subgroups of PWID and that the NSP low-threshold setting specifically could benefit PWID not connected to other health care.

In our study setting, all participants were currently injecting drugs, but the cure rates were still high. Participants treated outside the NSP reached EOT to a higher extent, compared to those treated at the NSP, which was explained by less dropouts in that group. Notably, there were no differences regarding confirmed SVR, as participants treated outside the NSP instead were more likely to be LTFU between EOT and SVR.

Overall, 6.4% of participants were treatment dropouts, and among those treated at the NSP, 11.7% dropped out. This figure is in line with a Scottish study (11.6%), but higher than in a Norwegian study (4.7%), targeting PWID in a low-threshold program [45, 46]. The lower level of dropouts among those treated outside the NSP in our study could not be explained by demographic differences between the dropout groups. A possible explanation might instead be underreported non-successful treatments among those treated outside of the NSP or that treatment at ID clinics and OAT provided a greater incentive to continued healthcare contacts, but this needs to be investigated further.

As reported in other studies, we noted that recent stimulant injecting was associated with non-adherence, which on the other hand was not associated with lower levels of SVR [47, 48]. The median age was slightly higher among participants with HCV treated at the NSP, suggesting that the NSP reaches older PWID. However, this can also be explained by the higher mean age among amphetamine users compared to opioid users.

In a systemic review and meta-analysis of DAA treatment among OAT participants and PWID with recent drug use showed that treatment completion and SVR were 97.4% and 90.7% among OAT participants and 96.9% and 87.4% among PWID, respectively [21]. The somewhat lower SVR rates in these studies, compared to people not using drugs, could be explained by LTFU in these populations. This has raised the question whether SVR is the best indicator for cure among PWID, or rather, if cure could be synonymous with adherence and EOT, with a suggested focus on follow-up for possible reinfections [49]. However, LTFU has also been associated with more active and high-risk IDU, which suggests a higher risk of reinfection [29]. These studies correspond well to levels of EOT (93.6%) and SVR (82.9%) in our data, especially considering that participants in our cohort were PWID with current IDU, predominantly using stimulants, and with non-negligible levels of drop-out and LTFU. Recent studies also confirm setting-dependent levels of SVR with a high level of SVR in a low-threshold program in Norway (90%) and a lower level of SVR at a mobile HCV unit in Madrid (68%), indicating the need to tailor services for different populations and settings [45, 50].

The HCV incidence among PWID outside HCV treatment settings ranges from 5 to 40% per year, with a median incidence rate of 26/100 PY [2, 51,52,53]. Between 2013 and 2016, the overall incidence rate among non-treated PWID at the Stockholm NSP was 22/100 PY with a reinfection rate of 19/100 PY among those with previous HCV exposure [32]. In this study the overall reinfection rate post-SVR was 9.3/100 PY. A possible explanation for this lower reinfection rate could be that this subgroup of HCV-treated PWID constitutes a group with overall lower injection risk behaviors. Other explanations could be an effect of high-coverage NSP, decreasing levels of HCV prevalence among PWID, and more speculative, that HCV treatment itself may be a protective factor for reinfection, although this needs to be studied further.

In a meta-analysis on HCV reinfection after successful treatment among PWID, the reinfection rate was 6.2/100 PY (95% CI 4.3–9.0) among those who recently injected drugs and 3.8/100 PY among OAT participants [54]. Longer follow-up was associated with lower reinfection rate, indicating higher reinfection risk early post-SVR. In a recent Norwegian study, the reinfection rate was 3.7/100 PY (95% CI 1.6–7.4) among those with IDU during follow-up and 9.6/100 PY (95% CI 4.1–18.8) among those who reported mixed heroin/amphetamine injecting [45]. Other studies have reported higher levels of reinfection with reinfection rates of 14.8–18.9/100 PY among recent injectors and 19.9/100 PY among PWID treated at an NSP [46, 50, 55]. The highest reinfection rate in one study, 14.3/100 PY (11.1–18.5), was found among participants treated in prison, a trend which was also noted in our study [56]. Homeless and younger PWID also had higher reinfection rates in our study, indicating a need for further tailored interventions for these subgroups during HCV treatment and follow-up. In a modeling study, persistent treatment rates above 80/1000 (8%) among PWID resulted in an initial increased number of reinfections which then decreased with consistent HCV treatment over time [7]. This was explained by an increased pool of HCV-susceptible individuals after treatment-induced SVR. Thus, reinfections will occur and continuous surveillance and retreatment of reinfected PWID need to be a central part of the HCV elimination strategy [57].

A study by Rosenthal et al. describes the effectiveness of prescribing OAT in combination with HCV treatment among opioid users, with an SVR rate of 82% [58]. However, in an associated correspondence, Bach et al. call for strategies to also reach the increasing PWID population with stimulant use disorder in North America [59]. In Swedish NSP, over 60% of PWID predominantly use amphetamines, adding to the challenge of eliminating HCV as amphetamine use disorder, compared to OAT for opioid use disorder, lack effective pharmacotherapy treatment that retain patients in care [60, 61]. Instead, current treatment options for stimulant use are cognitive behavioral therapy, contingency management programs and psychosocial support. Amphetamine is also associated with high injection and sexual risk behaviors, and thus an increased risk for HCV transmission [62, 63]. Furthermore, a recent Swedish register study also noted a higher crude risk of liver-related death among HCV-infected amphetamine users compared to opioid users, highlighting the need to prioritize HCV treatment among PWID who use amphetamines [64]. In our study, we noted that the NSP is an important setting to treat HCV among people who use amphetamines, as other subgroups such as OAT patients are offered HCV treatment at OAT clinics and HIV patients are offered HCV treatment at ID clinics. To achieve HCV elimination targets, the need to engage people who predominantly inject amphetamine has been highlighted also in a study by Dibbs et al. [65].

Real-world data on HCV treatment and change in prevalence are now emerging. An Australian study examined treatment uptake and the viremic prevalence among PWID attending NSP nationally between 2015 and 2017 [66]. Within the sample population, treatment initiation increased from 10% in 2015 to 41% in 2017 and the HCV viremic prevalence declined from 43% in 2015 to 25% in 2017. In Tayside in Scotland, yearly uptake of treatment among PWID increased from 15 to 43% between 2014 and 2018, resulting in a decline in HCV viremia from 73 to 44% among HCV-antibody positive between 2010 and 2018 [67]. In line with this, cross-sectional data from the Stockholm NSP annual reports suggest that overall HCV prevalence has decreased from 52% in 2018 to 29% in 2021 among NSP participants as an effect of decreased injection risk behaviors and increased uptake of HCV treatment, but this warrants further studies [68, 69].

Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delayed HCV treatments worldwide, which may result in increased HCV-related morbidity and mortality [70]. In Sweden, an overall 55% decrease in treatment initiations was noted during the first ten months of the pandemic [71]. A 30% decrease of HCV treatment initiations was also noted at the Stockholm NSP during the same period [72]. A recent modeling study, also taking the COVID-19 effects into account, concluded that Sweden is on-track to achieve three of the four WHO targets for HCV elimination. However, to reduce new infections, an increased access to harm reduction programs and a scale-up of HCV treatment among PWID is needed [71].

There are several limitations in our study. This was an observational study, at one NSP, which relied on routinely collected data and the results may not be generalizable to other settings. Also, as the majority of those with viral recurrence between EOT and SVR (where we were unable to distinguish viral relapse from reinfection) either had a negative HCV RNA at EOT or were considered compliant during treatment. This indicates a high possibility for cure, rather than relapse, which may have led to an underestimation of reinfections in this study. Furthermore, LTFU and our passive follow-up approach post-EOT and SVR may have resulted in both missed time of continuous negative HCV RNA, overestimating reinfection rates, or events of reinfections, underestimating reinfection rates. However, overall few participants were LTFU, which facilitated long-time follow-up and repeated HCV testing, constituting a major strength of this study. The NSP setting thus provides great opportunities for HCV treatment, follow-up and surveillance for PWID.

Conclusion

In this study, we used real-world data to study HCV treatment outcomes among PWID at the Stockholm NSP. In this high HCV prevalence setting, with a majority of stimulant users, treatment success was high and the level of reinfections manageable. To reach HCV elimination, as proposed by WHO, there is a need to target specific PWID subgroups with HCV treatment, in both harm reduction and adjacent healthcare settings frequented by PWID.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used by the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

APRI:

Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST) to Platelet Ratio Index

CI:

Confidence interval

COVID-19:

Coronavirus disease 2019

EOT:

End of treatment

DAA:

Direct-acting antiviral

HIV:

Human immunodeficiency virus

HBV:

Hepatitis B

HCV:

Hepatitis C

IDU:

Injection drug use

IQR:

Interquartile range

LSM:

Liver stiffness measurement

LTFU:

Lost to follow-up

NSP:

Needle syringe programs

OAT:

Opioid agonist treatment

PWID:

People who inject drugs

PY:

Person-years

RNA:

Ribonucleic acid

SVR:

Sustained virological response

WHO:

World Health Organisation

References

  1. Blach S, Terrault NA, Tacke F, Gamkrelidze I, Craxi A, Tanaka J, Waked I, Dore GJ, Abbas Z, Abdallah AR, Abdulla M. Global change in hepatitis C virus prevalence and cascade of care between 2015 and 2020: a modelling study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7(5):396–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wiessing L, et al. Hepatitis C virus infection epidemiology among people who inject drugs in Europe: a systematic review of data for scaling up treatment and prevention. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(7):e103345.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Palmateer N, et al. Risk of transmission associated with sharing drug injecting paraphernalia: analysis of recent hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection using cross-sectional survey data. J Viral Hepat. 2014;21(1):25–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Grebely J, et al. Global, regional, and country-level estimates of hepatitis C infection among people who have recently injected drugs. Addiction. 2018;114:150–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. WHO. Combating hepatitis B and C to reach elimination to 2030. Geneva: WHO; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  6. WHO. Global Health Sector strategy on viral hepatitis 2016–2021, towards ending viral hepatitis, vol. 2016. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Grebely J, Hajarizadeh B, Dore GJ. Direct-acting antiviral agents for HCV infection affecting people who inject drugs. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14(11):641–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. EASL. EASL recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C 2016. J Hepatol. 2016;66:153–94.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grebely J, et al. Recommendations for the management of hepatitis C virus infection among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(10):1028–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. AASLD-IDSA. Recommendations for testing, managing, and treating hepatitis C. 2016.

  11. ECDC. Technical report—evaluating HIV treatment as prevention in the European context. Solna: ECDC; 2012. p. 103.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Avert. Treatment as prevention (TasP) for HIV. 2020 2020–02–19]; https://www.avert.org/professionals/hiv-programming/prevention/treatment-as-prevention.

  13. Heffernan A, et al. Scaling up prevention and treatment towards the elimination of hepatitis C: a global mathematical model. Lancet. 2019;393(10178):1319–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Fraser H, et al. Model projections on the impact of HCV treatment in the prevention of HCV transmission among people who inject drugs in Europe. J Hepatol. 2018;68(3):402–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Day E, et al. Hepatitis C elimination among people who inject drugs: challenges and recommendations for action within a health systems framework. Liver Int. 2019;39(1):20–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grebely J, et al. Research priorities to achieve universal access to hepatitis C prevention, management and direct-acting antiviral treatment among people who inject drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;47:51–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. MacArthur GJ, et al. Interventions to prevent HIV and Hepatitis C in people who inject drugs: a review of reviews to assess evidence of effectiveness. Int J Drug Policy. 2014;25(1):34–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Palmateer NE, et al. Rapid decline in HCV incidence among people who inject drugs associated with national scale-up in coverage of a combination of harm reduction interventions. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(8):e104515.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Platt L, et al. Needle syringe programmes and opioid substitution therapy for preventing hepatitis C transmission in people who inject drugs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:Cd012021.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Larney S, et al. Global, regional, and country-level coverage of interventions to prevent and manage HIV and hepatitis C among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(12):e1208–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Hajarizadeh B, et al. Direct-acting antiviral treatment for hepatitis C among people who use or inject drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(11):754–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Graf C, et al. Efficacy of direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C virus infection in people who inject drugs or receive opioid substitution therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;70(11):2355–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Marshall AD, et al. Restrictions for reimbursement of interferon-free direct-acting antiviral drugs for HCV infection in Europe. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;3:125–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barua S, et al. Restrictions for medicaid reimbursement of sofosbuvir for the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(3):215–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ooka K, Connolly JJ, Lim JK. Medicaid reimbursement for oral direct antiviral agents for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(6):828–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Alavi M, et al. Continued low uptake of treatment for hepatitis C virus infection in a large community-based cohort of inner city residents. Liver Int. 2014;34(8):1198–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Midgard H, et al. Hepatitis C treatment uptake among patients who have received opioid substitution treatment: a population-based study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166451.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Iversen J, et al. Uptake of hepatitis C treatment among people who inject drugs attending Needle and Syringe Programs in Australia, 1999–2011. J Viral Hepat. 2014;21(3):198–207.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Alimohammadi A, et al. Real-world efficacy of direct-acting antiviral therapy for HCV infection affecting people who inject drugs delivered in a multidisciplinary setting. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018;5(6):ofy120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Karlsson N, et al. A prospective cohort study of risk behaviours, retention and loss to follow-up over 5 years among women and men in a needle exchange program in Stockholm, Sweden. Int J Drug Policy. 2020;90:103059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Folkhälsomyndigheten [The Public Health Agency of Sweden]. Hälsofrämjande och förebyggande arbete med hepatiter i Sverige - Kunskapsunderlag, analys och bedömningar [Health promotion and prevention work with hepatitis in Sweden - Knowledge, analysis and assessments]. Solna: Folkhälsomyndigheten; 2019. p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kaberg M, et al. Incidence and spontaneous clearance of hepatitis C virus (HCV) in people who inject drugs at the Stockholm Needle Exchange-Importance for HCV elimination. J Viral Hepat. 2018;25:1452–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kåberg M, et al. Significant decrease in injection risk behaviours among participants in a needle exchange programme. Infect Dis (Lond). 2020;52(5):336–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lidman C, et al. Hepatitis C infection among injection drug users in Stockholm Sweden: prevalence and gender. Scand J Infect Dis. 2009;41(9):679–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jerkeman A, et al. Treatment for chronic hepatitis C in a cohort of opiate substitution therapy recipients in three Swedish cities—completion rates and efficacy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;26(5):523–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Jerkeman A, et al. Chronic hepatitis C in Swedish subjects receiving opiate substitution therapy—factors associated with advanced fibrosis. Scand J Infect Dis. 2014;46(5):340–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Aas CF, et al. Uptake and predictors of direct-acting antiviral treatment for hepatitis C among people receiving opioid agonist therapy in Sweden and Norway: a drug utilization study from 2014 to 2017. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2020;15(1):44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Martin NK, et al. Hepatitis C virus treatment for prevention among people who inject drugs: modeling treatment scale-up in the age of direct-acting antivirals. Hepatology. 2013;58(5):1598–609.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Scott N, et al. Eliminating hepatitis C: the importance of frequent testing of people who inject drugs in high-prevalence settings. J Viral Hepat. 2018;25(12):1472–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Referensgruppen för Antiviral Terapi (RAV) [Reference group for Antiretroviral Treatment]. Läkemelsbehandling av hepatit C-virusinfektion hos vuxna och barn – Behandlingsrekommendation [Drug treatment of hepatitis C virus infection in adults and children - Treatment recommendation]. Stockholm: RAV; 2020. p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kaberg M, et al. Hepatitis C virus (HCV) related liver fibrosis in people who inject drugs (PWID) at the Stockholm Needle Exchange—evaluated with liver elasticity. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2019;54(3):319–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Castera L, Forns X, Alberti A. Non-invasive evaluation of liver fibrosis using transient elastography. J Hepatol. 2008;48(5):835–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lagging M, et al. Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection: updated Swedish Guidelines 2016. Infect Dis (Lond). 2017;49(8):561–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Karlsson N, et al. Risk behaviour determinants among people who inject drugs in Stockholm, Sweden over a 10-year period, from 2002 to 2012. Harm Reduct J. 2017;14(1):57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Midgard H, et al. Hepatitis C treatment and reinfection surveillance among people who inject drugs in a low-threshold program in Oslo, Norway. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;96:103165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Byrne CJ, et al. Real-world outcomes of rapid regional hepatitis C virus treatment scale-up among people who inject drugs in Tayside, Scotland. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2022;55(5):568–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cunningham EB, et al. Adherence to sofosbuvir and velpatasvir among people with chronic HCV infection and recent injection drug use: the SIMPLIFY study. Int J Drug Policy. 2018;62:14–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Litwin AH, et al. The PREVAIL study: intensive models of HCV care for people who inject drugs. J Hepatol. 2017;66(1):S72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ovrehus A, Kaberg M. HCV treatment for people with recent drug use: time for new measures of success? Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(11):731–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Valencia J, et al. High rates of early HCV reinfection after DAA treatment in people with recent drug use attended at mobile harm reduction units. Int J Drug Policy. 2019;72:181–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Micallef JM, et al. High incidence of hepatitis C virus reinfection within a cohort of injecting drug users. J Viral Hepat. 2007;14(6):413–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Midgard H, et al. HCV epidemiology in high-risk groups and the risk of reinfection. J Hepatol. 2016;65(1 Suppl):S33-45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Sacks-Davis R, et al. High rates of hepatitis C virus reinfection and spontaneous clearance of reinfection in people who inject drugs: a prospective cohort study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(11):e80216.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Hajarizadeh B, et al. Hepatitis C reinfection after successful antiviral treatment among people who inject drugs: a meta-analysis. J Hepatol. 2020;72(4):643–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Caven M, et al. Hepatitis C reinfection by treatment pathway among people who inject drugs in Tayside, Scotland. J Viral Hepat. 2021;28(12):1744–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Yeung A, et al. Population-level estimates of hepatitis C reinfection post scale-up of direct-acting antivirals among people who inject drugs. J Hepatol. 2022;76(3):549–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Dore GJ. HCV reinfection as a positive indication of high-risk population treatment access. J Viral Hepat. 2019;26:516–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Rosenthal ES, et al. Concurrent initiation of hepatitis C and opioid use disorder treatment in people who inject drugs. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(7):1715–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Bach P, Ti L. Hepatitis C and stimulant use disorder: challenges and opportunities. Clin Infect Dis. 2020;71(11):3009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Bloniecki Kallio V, Guterstam J, Frank J. Substitutionsbehandling prövas mot amfetaminberoende [Substitution treatment is tried against amphetamine addiction]. Läkartidningen. 2016;113(6):51–3.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Farrell M, et al. Responding to global stimulant use: challenges and opportunities. Lancet. 2019;394(10209):1652–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Karlsson N, et al. A prospective cohort study of risk behaviours, retention and loss to follow-up over 5 years among women and men in a needle exchange program in Stockholm, Sweden. Int J Drug Policy. 2021;90: 103059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Cepeda JA, et al. Estimating the contribution of stimulant injection to HIV and HCV epidemics among people who inject drugs and implications for harm reduction: a modeling analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;213:108135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Gahrton C, et al. Mortality among amphetamine users with hepatitis C virus infection: a nationwide study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(6):e0253710.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Gibbs D, et al. Hepatitis C virus cascade of care among people who inject drugs in Australia: factors associated with testing and treatment in a universal healthcare system. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021;228:109050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Iversen J, et al. Association between rapid utilisation of direct hepatitis C antivirals and decline in the prevalence of viremia among people who inject drugs in Australia. J Hepatol. 2019;70(1):33–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Palmateer NE, et al. Reduction in the population prevalence of hepatitis C virus viraemia among people who inject drugs associated with scale-up of direct-acting anti-viral therapy in community drug services: real-world data. Addiction. 2021;116(10):2893–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Verksamhetsberättelse 2017, Sprututbytet i Stockholm [Stockholm NEP, annual report 2017]. Inspektionen för vård och omsorg [The Health and Social Care Inspectorate]. 2018.

  69. Verksamhetsberättelse 2021, Sprututbytet i Stockholm [Stockholm NEP, annual report 2021]. Inspektionen för vård och omsorg [The Health and Social Care Inspectorate]. 2022.

  70. Blach S, et al. Impact of COVID-19 on global HCV elimination efforts. J Hepatol. 2021;74(1):31–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Blach S, et al. Hepatitis C elimination in Sweden: progress, challenges and opportunities for growth in the time of COVID-19. Liver Int. 2021;41(9):2024–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Lindqvist K, et al. Health literacy and changes in pattern of drug use among participants at the Stockholm Needle Exchange Program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Harm Reduct J. 2021;18(1):52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Stockholm NSP staff for devoted HCV work during the study. 

Funding

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. This study was partly funded by grants from Gilead Nordic Fellowship, Gilead. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. K. Lindqvist and Z. Thorin have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stockholm Centre for Dependency Disorders, Stockholm Needle Syringe Program, Stockholm, Sweden

    K. Lindqvist, Z. Thorin & M. Kåberg

  2. Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Sprututbytet, S:t Görans Sjukhus, Akutvägen 29, 112 81, Stockholm, Sweden

    M. Kåberg

Authors
  1. K. Lindqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Z. Thorin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Kåberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MK conceived the study. KL, ZT and MK collected data and drafted the paper. All authors interpreted results, edited and approved the final draft of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Kåberg.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by The Regional Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (Dnr: 2013/495-31/3, 2015/1374-32 and 2020-03325). Participants consented to that data collected in the quality register InfCare NSP were used for research purposes.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

KL and ZT have no conflict of interest. MK has received honoraria for lectures/consultancy from AbbVie, Gilead, MSD and has received research grants from Gilead.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lindqvist, K., Thorin, Z. & Kåberg, M. Real-world hepatitis C treatment outcomes and reinfections among people who inject drugs at a needle and syringe program in Stockholm, Sweden. Harm Reduct J 20, 72 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00801-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-023-00801-1

Keywords

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517