Incarceration history and opioid use among adults living with HIV and chronic pain: a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adults living with HIV have disproportionately high chronic pain, prescription opioid use, history of substance use, and incarceration. While incarceration can have long-lasting health impacts, prior studies have not examined whether distant (>1 year prior) incarceration is associated with opioid use for chronic pain, or with opioid misuse or opioid use disorder among people living with HIV and chronic pain. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of adults living with HIV and chronic pain. The independent variables were any distant incarceration and drug-related distant incarceration (both dichotomous). Dependent variables were current long-term opioid therapy, current opioid misuse, and current opioid use disorder. A series of multivariate logistic regression models were conducted, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: In a cohort of 148 participants, neither distant incarceration nor drug-related incarceration history were associated with current long-term opioid therapy. Distant incarceration was associated with current opioid misuse (AOR 3.28; 95% CI: 1.41-7.61) and current opioid use disorder (AOR 4.40; 95% CI: 1.54-12.56). Drug-related incarceration history was also associated with current opioid misuse (AOR 4.31; 95% CI: 1.53-12.17) and current opioid use disorder (AOR 7.28; 95% CI: 2.06-25.71). CONCLUSIONS: The positive associations of distant incarceration with current opioid misuse and current opioid use disorder could indicate a persistent relationship between incarceration and substance use in people living with HIV and chronic pain. Additional research on opioid use among formerly incarcerated individuals in chronic pain treatment is needed.

Safety and tolerability of elbasvir/grazoprevir in chronic hepatitis C virus therapy: Integrated analysis from clinical trials.

Direct-acting antiviral treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are generally safe; however, understanding the safety profile of each regimen is essential for their continued use. Safety data were pooled from 12 clinical trials of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) that enrolled adult participants with HCV infection. Pooled analyses are presented for participants receiving EBR/GZR for 12 weeks and those receiving EBR/GZR plus ribavirin (RBV) for 16-18 weeks. Safety data are also presented for participants with comorbidities receiving EBR/GZR for 12 weeks in individual clinical trials (chronic kidney disease [CKD] stage 4/5, inherited blood disorders [IBLD] or receiving opioid agonist therapy [OAT]). Among 1743 participants receiving EBR/GZR for 12 weeks, 1068 (61.3%) reported ≥1 adverse event (AE) and 491 had AEs (28.2%) considered drug-related. The most frequent AEs were headache (10.6%), fatigue (8.7%), nasopharyngitis (5.8%), nausea (5.1%) and diarrhoea (5.0%). Serious AEs were reported by 37 participants (2.1%), and 12 (0.7%) discontinued treatment due to an AE. In populations with CKD 4/5 or IBLD or receiving OAT, safety was similar in participants receiving EBR/GZR for 12 weeks and those receiving placebo. Some AEs occurred at higher frequencies in participants receiving RBV compared with those receiving EBR/GZR alone: fatigue (32.7% vs 8.7%); headache (21.6% vs 10.6%); and nausea (15.8% vs 5.1%). Safety was similar in participants with and those without cirrhosis. Grade 3/4 alanine aminotransferase elevations were reported in 0.7% participants. EBR/GZR is a safe treatment option for individuals with HCV genotype (GT) 1 or GT4 infections, even those with challenging comorbidities such as CKD or IBLD and those receiving OAT.

Hospitalized Women With Cirrhosis Have More Nonhepatic Comorbidities and Associated Complications Than Men.

Gender differences in the natural history of chronic liver disease have been well-described. Women have lower rates of chronic liver disease and slower fibrosis progression, yet higher rates of waitlist mortality.1,2 Although previous studies have identified several clinical factors including height and creatinine that explain some of this transplant disparity, most have used data from administrative records, which are limited in their ability to identify clinically relevant differences and opportunities for intervention to reduce disparities.3-5 Additionally, most studies have focused on the period between waitlist and transplant, failing to capture gender differences in access to transplant.3,6 In the present study, we took advantage of a multicenter inpatient cohort with granular clinical data to characterize how women and men with cirrhosis differ, to stimulate future research aimed at reducing the well-established gender disparity in liver transplantation.

Strategy and Efficacy of Generic and Pan-genotypic Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir in Chronic Hepatitis C Virus: A Myanmar Experience.

BACKGROUND: In resource-constrained areas, generic direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) have considerably reduced the cost of hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapy while there remain significant costs related to the baseline and follow-up virologic assays. AIM: The aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of HCV therapy in Myanmar with pan-genotypic generic DAA sofosbuvir/velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) and with and without the baseline genotype testing, while the duration of treatment and use of ribavirin (RBV) was dictated by cirrhosis and prior treatment failure. METHODS: Between September 2016 and June 2017, data from the 359 participants who completed treatment with SOF/VEL (± RBV) for 12-24 weeks were analyzed. Two hundred one patients did not have the baseline HCV genotype tested. RESULTS: Regimens included SOF/VEL for 12 weeks (n = 43), SOF/VEL/RBV for 12 weeks (n = 275), or SOF/VEL/RBV for 24 weeks (n = 41). The mean age was 52 years, 44% were men (n = 159), 41 (11.4%) had a history of previous DAA therapy, 7 (1.9%) had a history of hepatocellular carcinoma, and 55 (15.3%) had cirrhosis. Overall, the sustained viral response (SVR)12 rate was 98.6% (354/359) and with a good adverse event profile. SVR rates were similar to those with and without baseline genotype testing and also across all genotypes in those who had genotype tested. CONCLUSIONS: In Myanmar, generic and pan-genotypic SOF/VEL ± RBV is a highly effective and safe treatment for HCV, regardless of the HCV genotype, and therefore, the requirement for the baseline genotype can be eliminated. Future strategies should include elimination of treatment and end of treatment HCV RNA testing to enhance treatment uptake and further reduce cost.

Use of HCV-infected organs in solid organ transplantation: An ethical challenge but plausible option.

Due to the unfortunate epidemic of opioid overdose deaths among people who inject drugs (PWID) in North America, there has been an increase in the availability of hepatitis C (HCV)-positive organs for transplantation and consequently the potential to decrease waiting times for solid organ transplantation if an HCV-uninfected recipient is willing to accept an HCV-positive donor. The confidence in this potential new strategy comes as a result of the advent of safe and highly effective pan-genotypic direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). This promising strategy has been the most widely studied in kidney transplantation. Liver transplantation has positive results preliminarily, but has even less available data because viable HCV-infected donor livers are typically transplanted into HCV-infected individuals. Further, while HCV-infected heart and lung transplantation, which face additional post-transplant issues, have shown encouraging results, these studies are small scale and are limited by short-term follow-up. Thus, it would be premature to implement this strategy as standard of care without large scale clinical and real-world trials and longer-term follow-up studies. Further, the ethics of this practice need to be considered. While some transplant professionals argue that more harm will be done by not utilizing HCV-infected organs, others contend that cautiously conducted multi-centre studies involving extensive post-transplant follow-up are paramount prior to endorsing widespread implementation of this strategy. The ethical permissibility of this practice hinges on whether access to DAA therapy can be secured in advance, and prospective recipients understand and accept all the risks associated with acquiring HCV.

High sustained virologic response in genotypes 3 and 6 with generic NS5A inhibitor and sofosbuvir regimens in chronic HCV in myanmar.

Exclusive HCV therapy clinical trials with genotype 6 patients in high prevalence areas have been sparse. We analysed the safety and efficacy of two generic, pangenotypic NS5A/NS5B combination oral DAA regimens, primarily in genotypes 3 and 6, in a real-world setting: (a) daclatasvir/sofosbuvir (DCV/SOF) ± ribavirin (RBV) and (b) Velpatasvir/sofosbuvir (VEL/SOF ± RBV). Between December 2015 and November 2017, data from 522 patients were analysed, 311 of whom were treated with DCV/SOF ± RBV for 12/24 weeks (genotype 3: n = 193, genotype 6: n = 89) and 211 were treated with VEL/SOF ± RBV for 12/24 weeks (genotype 3: n = 83, genotype 6: n = 77). Overall SVR rates were high for both DCV/SOF ± RBV (96.1%, n = 299/311) and VEL/SOF ± RBV (95.3%, n = 201/211), and there was a good adverse event profile. Treatment naïve status and inclusion of RBV (in advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis) were significant independent predictors of achieving SVR12, while type of DAA regimen was not predictive. In this large cohort of genotypes 3 (n = 276) and 6 (n = 166; n = 127 unique subtype of 6c-l), high SVR rates of 94.9% (n = 262/276) and 95.2% (n = 158/166), respectively, were noted. In conclusion, generic and pangenotypic DCV/SOF and VEL/SOF ± RBV regimens were highly effective and safe, in genotypes 3 and 6 chronic HCV in Myanmar. These efficacious pangenotypic regimens suggest that baseline genotype testing can be eliminated moving forward. While RBV may still be needed for those with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis, in a global elimination strategy it would not be practical even if it does compromise SVR in a minority with difficult to treat characteristics.

Non-participants in policy efforts to promote evidence-based practices in a large behavioral health system.

BACKGROUND: System-wide training initiatives to support and implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) in behavioral health systems have become increasingly widespread. Understanding more about organizations who do not participate in EBP training initiatives is a critical piece of the dissemination and implementation puzzle if we endeavor to increase access in community settings. METHODS: We conducted 30 1-h semi-structured interviews with leaders in non-participating agencies who did not formally participate in system-wide training initiatives to implement EBPs in the City of Philadelphia, with the goal to understand why they did not participate. RESULTS: We found that despite not participating in training initiatives, most agencies were adopting (and self-financing) some EBP implementation. Leadership from agencies that were implementing EBPs reported relying on previously trained staff to implement EBPs and acknowledged a lack of emphasis on fidelity. Most leaders at agencies not adopting EBPs did not have a clear understanding of what EBP is. Those familiar with EBPs in agencies not adopting EBPs reported philosophical objections to EBPs. When asked about quality assurance and treatment selection, leaders reported being guided by system audits. CONCLUSIONS: While it is highly encouraging that many agencies are adopting EBPs on their own, significant questions about fidelity and implementation success more broadly remain.