Reinfection following successful direct-acting antiviral therapy for hepatitis C virus infection among people with recent injecting drug use: the SHARP-C study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injecting drug use following treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) may result in reinfection, potentially reversing individual, and population benefits of HCV treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of HCV reinfection following successful direct acting antiviral (DAA) therapy among people with recent injecting drug use. METHODS: This analysis used data from an observational cohort study of people with recent injecting drug use (previous six months) following successful DAA treatment in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Participants were either recruited prior to commencing DAA therapy or after a documented sustained virological response (SVR). Participants were assessed three-monthly for HCV reinfection. Reinfection was defined as recurrence of virus distinct from the initial infecting strain or recurrence after confirmed cure at or after 12 weeks post-treatment. Person-time of observation and Cox proportional hazard models were used to calculate reinfection incidence and associated factors. RESULTS: Among 112 participants who contributed follow-up time at risk of reinfection (113 person-years of follow-up time), the median age was 43 years, 34 % were female, and 86 % reported injecting drug use in the month prior to enrolment. Eleven cases of reinfection were observed for an incidence of 9.7/100 person-years (95 % confidence interval [CI], 5.4-17.4) overall, 11.1/100 person-years (95 % CI, 6.1-20.0) among people who reported injecting drugs during follow-up, and 24.3/100 person-years (95 % CI, 7.8-75.3) among those who reported sharing needles/syringes during follow-up. All cases of HCV reinfection occurred among people reporting injecting drug use during the study. CONCLUSIONS: The relatively high incidence of reinfection seen in this study underscores the importance of targeted harm reduction measures and monitoring for HCV reinfections within the first year following successful treatment among people who inject drugs. Additional research into integrated models of care incorporating harm reduction and supporting reducing risk of reinfection and HCV treatment are needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".