Rapid hepatitis C virus point-of-care RNA testing and treatment at an integrated supervised consumption service in Toronto, Canada: a prospective, observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite high burden of Hepatitis C (HCV) among people who inject drugs, significant barriers to care persist. The aim of this study was to evaluate the provision of rapid, low-barrier point-of-care (POC) HCV RNA testing and linkage to care among clients of a supervised consumption service (SCS) located within a community health centre in Toronto, Canada. Secondary aims included measuring HCV RNA prevalence at baseline, HCV incidence during follow-up and exploring factors associated with HCV RNA positivity and treatment uptake. Methods: Participants were enrolled in a prospective, observational cohort from August 13, 2018 to September 30, 2021. Those with positive HCV RNA tests were offered immediate referral to onsite treatment. Those with negative results were offered repeat testing every three months for up to four visits. HCV incidence was estimated as the number of incident HCV infections per 100 person-years at risk, among those HCV RNA negative at baseline who returned for ≥1 follow-up visit. Missing data were reported when present. Findings: 128 participants were enrolled with four later removed due to ineligibility. At baseline, 54 of 124 eligible participants (43.5%) tested HCV RNA positive. HCV incidence was 35.1 cases per 100 person-years (95% CI: 18.9-65.3) with a cumulative incidence of 38.3% at 15 months of follow-up. Among participants HCV RNA positive at baseline or follow-up (n = 64), 67.2% (n = 43) were linked to HCV care and treatment was initiated among 67.4% (n = 29/43). Interpretation: High HCV RNA prevalence and incidence demonstrate that the SCS serves a high-risk population for HCV. Testing acceptance was high, as was treatment engagement. POC HCV RNA testing positions SCSs as an important point of HCV care access. Funding: HCV Micro-Elimination Grant, Gilead Sciences Canada; in-kind support from Cepheid.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".