Increased Uptake of HCV Testing through a Community-Based Educational Intervention in Difficult-to-Reach People Who Inject Drugs: Results from the ANRS-AERLI Study.

AIMS: The community-based AERLI intervention provided training and education to people who inject drugs (PWID) about HIV and HCV transmission risk reduction, with a focus on drug injecting practices, other injection-related complications, and access to HIV and HCV testing and care. We hypothesized that in such a population where HCV prevalence is very high and where few know their HCV serostatus, AERLI would lead to increased HCV testing. METHODS: The national multisite intervention study ANRS-AERLI consisted in assessing the impact of an injection-centered face-to-face educational session offered in volunteer harm reduction (HR) centers ("with intervention") compared with standard HR centers ("without intervention"). The study included 271 PWID interviewed on three occasions: enrolment, 6 and 12 months. Participants in the intervention group received at least one face-to-face educational session during the first 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of this analysis was reporting to have been tested for HCV during the previous 6 months. Statistical analyses used a two-step Heckman approach to account for bias arising from the non-randomized clustering design. This approach identified factors associated with HCV testing during the previous 6 months. FINDINGS: Of the 271 participants, 127 and 144 were enrolled in the control and intervention groups, respectively. Of the latter, 113 received at least one educational session. For the present analysis, we selected 114 and 88 participants eligible for HCV testing in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the intervention group, 44% of participants reported having being tested for HCV during the previous 6 months at enrolment and 85% at 6 months or 12 months. In the control group, these percentages were 51% at enrolment and 78% at 12 months. Multivariable analyses showed that participants who received at least one educational session during follow-up were more likely to report HCV testing, compared with those who did not receive any intervention (95%[CI] = 4.13[1.03;16.60]). CONCLUSION: The educational intervention AERLI had already shown efficiency in reducing HCV at-risk practices and associated cutaneous complications and also seems to have a positive impact in increasing HCV testing in PWID.

Innovative community-based educational face-to-face intervention to reduce HIV, hepatitis C virus and other blood-borne infectious risks in difficult-to-reach people who inject drugs: results from the ANRS-AERLI intervention study.

AIMS: To study the effectiveness of an educational intervention on risks associated with drug injection, comparing primary [unsafe HIV-hepatitis C virus (HCV) practices] and secondary (local complications at injecting site) end-points in harm reduction (HR) programmes offering this intervention versus HR programmes not offering it. DESIGN: This non-random clustered intervention study was conducted in nine intervention groups (programmes offering the intervention) and eight control groups (programmes not offering it). Each participant was followed-up through a telephone interview at enrolment and at 6 and 12 months. SETTING: The study took place in 17 cities throughout France. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 271 participants, 144 were enrolled into the intervention group and 127 in the control group. Of the latter, 113 received at least one educational session. INTERVENTION: A series of participant-centred face-to-face educational sessions. Each session included direct observation by trained non-governmental organization (NGO) staff or volunteers of participants' self-injecting the psychoactive product they used habitually; analysis by the trained NGO staff or volunteers of the participant's injecting practices, identification of injection-related risks and explanation of safer injecting practices; and an educational exchange on the individual participant's injection practices and the questions he or she asked. MEASUREMENTS: Primary and secondary outcomes were 'at least one unsafe HIV-HCV practice' and at least one injection-related complication (derived from a checklist). FINDINGS: The proportion of participants with at least one unsafe HIV-HCV practice in the intervention group decreased significantly, from 44% at M0 to 25% at M6, as well as complications at the injection site (from 66 to 39% at M12), while in the control group it remained mainly stable. Multivariate probit analyses showed that the intervention group experienced a significant reduction in unsafe HIV-HCV practices at M6 [coefficient, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.73 (-1.47 to 0.01)] and in injection-related complications at M12 [coefficient, 95% CI = -1.01 (-1.77 to -0.24)], compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: An inexpensive and easily implemented educational intervention on risks associated with drug injection reduces significantly unsafe HIV-HCV transmission practices and injection-related complications.