Linkage and retention in <scp>HCV</scp> care for <scp>HIV</scp>‐infected populations: early data from the <scp>DAA</scp> era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is currently no published data on the effectiveness of DAA treatment for elimination of HCV infection in HIV-infected populations at a population level. However, a number of relevant studies and initiatives are emerging. This research aims to report cascade of care data for emerging HCV elimination initiatives and studies that are currently being evaluated in HIV/HCV co-infected populations in the context of implementation science theory. METHODS: HCV elimination initiatives and studies in HIV co-infected populations that are currently underway were identified. Context, intervention characteristics and cascade of care data were synthesized in the context of implementation science frameworks. RESULTS: Seven HCV elimination initiatives and studies were identified in HIV co-infected populations, mainly operating in high-income countries. Four were focused mainly on HCV elimination in HIV-infected gay and bisexual men (GBM), and three included a combination of people who inject drugs (PWID), GBM and other HIV-infected populations. None were evaluating treatment delivery in incarcerated populations. Overall, HCV RNA was detected in 4894 HIV-infected participants (range within studies: 297 to 994): 48% of these initiated HCV treatment (range: 21% to 85%; within studies from a period where DAAs were broadly available the total is 57%, range: 36% to 74%). Among studies with treatment completion data, 96% of 1109 initiating treatment completed treatment (range: 94% to 99%). Among those who could be assessed for sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12), 1631 of 1757 attained SVR12 (93%, range: 86% to 98%). CONCLUSIONS: Early results from emerging research on HCV elimination in HIV-infected populations suggest that HCV treatment uptake is higher than reported levels prior to DAA treatment availability, but approximately half of patients remain untreated. These results are among diagnosed populations and additional effort is required to increase diagnosis rates. Among those who have initiated treatment, completion and SVR rates are promising. More data are required in order to evaluate the effectiveness of these elimination programmes in the long term, assess which intervention components are effective, and whether they need to be tailored to particular population groups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".