O09.5 Hepatitis C incidence rate among people who inject drug (PWID) in british columbia from 2000 to 2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Global Health Sector Strategy on Viral Hepatitis aims to reduce new hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections by 80% by 2030. However, countries lack systems to monitor incidence of HCV. We estimated the HCV incidence over time among people who inject drugs (PWID) at population level to provide proof of concept for incidence monitoring. Methods This study utilized data from the BC Hepatitis Testers Cohort (BC-HTC). Incidence was defined as a positive anti-HCV, RNA, or genotype test following a negative anti-HCV test among PWID, assessed based on a previously validated algorithm using administrative data. Annual incidence rates for HCV primary infection from 2000 to 2015 were estimated using a log-binomial regression model and were stratified by birth cohorts (<1965, 1965–1974, >1974) to observe change in risk over time. Adjusted incidence rates (aIR) were calculated controlling for risk factors. Results Of the 42,568 participants identified, 4,066 HCV seroconversions occurred over 318,613 person-years (PY) of follow-up. The overall incidence rate was 1.28/100PY. Between 2000 and 2011, the annual aIR decreased steadily from 4.01 to 1.00/100PY. The aIR then rose to 1.49/100PY in 2015. Factors associated with elevated risk of infection include: younger birth cohort (1965–1974: RR:1.9, 95%CI: 1.02,3.6), history of illicit opioid use (RR:2.5, 95%CI: 2.3,2.7), stimulant misuse (RR:1.77, 95%CI: 1.7,1.9), HIV coinfection (RR:3.6, 95%CI: 3.1,4.1), HBV coinfection (RR:1.9, 95%CI: 1.6,2.2), material deprivation (RR:1.5, 95%CI: 1.4,1.7) and social deprivation (RR:1.6, 95%CI: 1.4,1.8). Conclusion A slight increase in HCV incidence rate since 2011 was mainly driven by the younger birth cohort and introduction of enhanced testing in 2010. People with HIV or HBV coinfection, opioid and stimulant misuse, social and material deprivation are at higher risk of HCV infection. HCV treatment and prevention programs need to address comorbidities and include harm reduction strategies like opioid substitution therapy and access to social services to achieve HCV elimination goals. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".