No abstract

With political will, modest financial investment and effective technical assistance, public sector hepatitis C virus (HCV) programmes can be established in low- and middle-income countries as a first step towards elimination. Seven countries, with support from the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) and partners, have expanded access to HCV treatment by combining programme simplification with market shaping to reduce commodity prices. CHAI has supported a multipronged approach to HCV programme launch in Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nigeria, Rwanda and Vietnam including pricing negotiations with suppliers, policy development, fast-track registrations of quality-assured generics, financing advocacy and strengthened service delivery. Governments are leading programme implementation, leveraging HIV programme infrastructure/financing and focusing on higher-HCV prevalence populations like people living with HIV, people who inject drugs and prisoners. This manuscript aims to describe programme structure and strategies, highlight current commodity costs and outline testing and treatment volumes across these countries. Across countries, commodity costs have fallen from >US$100 per diagnostic test and US$750–US$900 per 12-week pan-genotypic direct-acting antiviral regimen to as low as US$80 per-cure commodity package, including WHO-prequalified generic drugs (sofosbuvir + daclatasvir). As of December 2019, 5900+ healthcare workers were trained, 2 209 209 patients were screened, and 120 522 patients initiated treatment. The cure (SVR12) rate was >90%, including at lower-tier facilities. Programmes are successfully implementing simplified, decentralised public health approaches. Combined with political will and affordable pricing, these efforts can translate into commitments to achieve global targets. However, to achieve elimination, additional investment in scale-up is required.

Background Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are becoming accessible in sub-Saharan Africa. This study examined the effectiveness of DAAs in patients treated through the Rwandan national health system and identified factors associated with treatment outcomes. Methods This retrospective study utilized data from the national HCV program for patients who initiated DAAs between November 2015 and March 2017. Sustained virological response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12) was the primary outcome. Logistic regression models were fit to estimate the relationship between patients’ clinical and demographic characteristics and treatment outcome. Results 894 patients initiated treatment during the study period; 590 completed treatment and had SVR12 results. Among the 304 patients without SVR12 results, 48 were lost to follow-up and 256 had no SVR12 results but clinical data indicated they likely completed treatment – these patients were classified as non-virological failure since viral clearance could not be determined. In a per-protocol analysis for 590 patients with SVR12 results, 540 (92%) achieved SVR12 and 50 (8%) experienced virological failure. Pre-treatment HCV RNA above the median split was associated with virological failure. Intention-to-treat analyses including all patients indicated 540 (60%) achieved SVR12, 304 (34%) experienced non-virological failure, and 50 (6%) experienced virological failure. Patients in Western Province were more likely to experience non-virological failure than patients in Kigali, likely due to the five- to seven-hour travel required to access testing and treatment. Conclusions DAAs were effective when implemented through the Rwandan national health system. Decentralization and enhanced financing are underway in Rwanda, which could improve access to treatment and follow-up as the country prepares for HCV elimination.

Services were shifted to CHWs, as demonstrated by the number of individuals treated through the expanded program. The rate of severe malaria increased immediately after implementation within intervention districts relative to controls, potentially because of enhanced case-finding. The rate of increase in severe cases was lower in the intervention districts comparatively, likely due to expedited treatment.

ObjectivesThis study describes the burden of the hepatitis B, C and HIV co-infections and assesses associated risk factors.SettingThis analysis used data from a viral hepatitis screening campaign conducted in six districts in Rwanda from April to May 2019. Ten health centres per district were selected according to population size and distance.ParticipantsThe campaign collected information from 156 499 participants (51 496 males and 104 953 females) on sociodemographic, clinical and behavioural characteristics. People who were not Rwandan by nationality or under 15 years old were excluded.Primary and secondary outcomesThe outcomes of interest included chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, HIV infection, co-infection HIV/HBV, co-infection HIV/HCV, co-infection HBV/HCV and co-infection HCV/HBV/HIV. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess factors associated with HBV, HCV and HIV, mono and co-infections.ResultsOf 156 499 individuals screened, 3465 (2.2%) were hepatitis B surface antigen positive and 83% (2872/3465) of them had detectable HBV desoxy-nucleic acid (HBV DNA). A total of 4382 (2.8%) individuals were positive for antibody-HCV (anti-HCV) and 3163 (72.2%) had detectable HCV ribo-nucleic acid (RNA). Overall, 36 (0.02%) had HBV/HCV co-infection, 153 (0.1%) HBV/HIV co-infection, 238 (0.15%) HCV/HIV co-infection and 3 (0.002%) had triple infection. Scarification or receiving an operation from traditional healer was associated with all infections. Healthcare risk factors—history of surgery or transfusion—were associated with higher likelihood of HIV infection with OR 1.42 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.66) and OR 1.48 (1.29 to 1.70), respectively, while history of physical traumatic assault was associated with a higher likelihood of HIV and HBV/HIV co-infections with OR 1.69 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.88) and OR 1.82 (1.08 to 3.05), respectively.ConclusionsOverall, mono-infections were common and there were differences in significant risk factors associated with various infections. These findings highlight the magnitude of co-infections and differences in underlying risk factors that are important for designing prevention and care programmes.