HCV treatment initiation in the era of universal direct acting antiviral coverage – Improvements in access and persistent barriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Barriers to HCV treatment initiation persisted after the introduction of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) in Canada among people who inject drugs (PWID); whether DAA universal coverage lifted these barriers remain unknown. We assessed the evolution of HCV treatment initiation and associated factors among PWID in Montreal, Canada, comparing eras of IFN-based regimens (2011-2013), of DAA restricted access (2014-02/2018), and universal coverage (03/2018-03/2020). METHODS: We included chronically HCV-infected participants followed in a community-based PWID cohort in Montreal, Canada between 2011 and 03/2020 and collected data at 3-month intervals. Time-updated Cox regressions were conducted to examine 9 variables of interest associated with treatment initiation overall and for each of the three eras. RESULTS: Of 276 participants, 126 initiated treatment during follow-up. Yearly initiation increased from 3% in 2011 to 19% in 2016, and 54% in 2018. PWID aged >40 (vs. ≤40) were twice as likely to initiate treatment in 2014-02/2018 (HR: 2.02 95%CI: [1.24-3.28]) but not in other periods (2011-2013: 0.55 [0.25-1.22]; 03/2018-03/2020: 1.14 [0.59-2.22])). Odds of initiation were lower for men than women in all periods, with women three times more likely to be treated under universal coverage (0.30 [0.11-0.77] vs 2011-2013: 0.67 [0.25-1.78] and 2014-02/2018: 0.75 [0.42-1.35]). Recent incarceration was negatively associated with initiation throughout all periods (2011-2013: 0.57 [0.13-2.43]; 2014-03/2018: 0.39 [0.17-0.91]; 03/2018-03/2020: 0.25 [0.07-0.83]). Barriers associated with high injection frequency appear to have diminished since DAA introduction (2014-02/2018: 0.71 [0.42-1.20]; 03/2018-03/2020: 1.05 [0.52-2.11] vs. 2011-2013: 0.26 [0.08-0.88]). Contact with a primary care physician and engagement in opioid agonist therapy were positively associated with treatment initiation, though estimates were attenuated under universal coverage relative to previous eras. CONCLUSION: Treatment initiation rates have increased since the introduction of universal DAA coverage, though barriers such as incarceration persist.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".