This study demonstrates that strong adherence and SVR with DAAs is achievable, with appropriate supports, even in the context of substance use, and complex health/social issues.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting antivirals (DAA) offer an opportunity to cure hepatitis C. Reimbursement for DAAs has changed on two occasions since their inclusion on the Ontario public formulary. Whether these changes have appreciably modified prescribing patterns and increased access to DAAs is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study of DAA reimbursement by the Ontario Public Drug Programs from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2018, to summarize the use of DAAs in Ontario and describe changes in DAA prescribing physician specialties over this period. We measured the total number of users quarterly. Results are reported overall and by prescriber type. RESULTS: A total of 27,116 individuals received a publicly funded prescription for a DAA from the first quarter (Q1) of 2012 to the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2018. Nearly two-thirds (n = 17,813; 65.7%) of all DAAs were prescribed by gastroenterologists, hepatologists, or infectious disease specialists. Use of DAAs over time appears to have had three major phases in uptake: (1) the introduction of DAA treatments on the Ontario public drug formulary as a prior authorization benefit in Q1 2015, (2) expanded listing of all DAAs as limited-use products on the formulary in Q1 2017, and (3) the introduction of newer DAAs in Q2 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in listing of these agents had a direct impact on the use of DAAs overall. Generally, broader listing expanded access but did not appear to shift utilization patterns to primary care prescribers. Further understanding of who is not receiving treatment is needed.

Background: The majority of new hepatitis C (HCV) cases occur among people who inject drugs. In recent years, multidisciplinary models of HCV treatment have emerged that demonstrate successful treatment outcomes for this population, as well as broad positive individual- and system-level impacts. Our objective was to evaluate changes in health care use among a cohort of people living with HCV before and after engagement with one such program. Methods: Program data were uniquely linked to provincial health administrative databases. Rates of emergency department (ED) visits and hospital admissions of clients from 2011 through 2015 ( N = 103) were evaluated using linkages with administrative data for the 2 years before and after program initiation. Data were evaluated using negative binomial regression models with a covariance structure to account for within-individual correlations. Results: Of participants, 72.8% were men (mean age 47 years), and 38% experienced high rates of physical and mental health comorbidity (Aggregated Diagnosis Group score ≥10). Female clients had significantly fewer ED visits 2 years after program initiation (5.04 versus 3.12; risk ratio [RR] 0.61 [95% CI 0.44% to 0.86%]). ED visits for infectious diseases and soft tissue injury were significantly lower for the cohort overall (RRs 0.58 0.51 [95% CIs 0.35% to 0.95% and 0.29% to 0.90%], respectively). Conclusion: Co-locating HCV treatment within comprehensive primary care and harm reduction services appears to have benefits beyond HCV, including a reduction in ED visits among women and a decrease in ED visits for soft tissue infections for all participants.

Background: Central line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) account for many harms suffered in healthcare and are associated with increased costs and disease burden. Central line rounds, like medical rounds, are a multidisciplinary bedside assessment strategy for all active central lines on a unit. In-person line rounds in this 144-bed oncology acute care setting are challenging due to a variety of unchangeable factors. The aim was to develop a process for addressing concerning central lines in this context. Methods: The project team designed a HIPAA-protected, text-based process for assessing central lines for risk factors contributing to infection. Staff initiated a consultation via a virtual platform with an interdisciplinary team composed of oncology and infectious diseases experts. The virtual discussion included recommendations for a line-related plan of care. Results: The number of consultations averaged about five per month, with 27.4% resulting in the central line being removed, which is believed to have contributed to an overall reduction in infection rates. The CLABSI standardized infection ratio, a risk-adjusted measure which accounts for patient acuity and volumes, improved from 0.85 prior to the intervention (November 2020–October 2021) to 0.57 after the intervention (November 2021–August 2022), a 33% reduction. Conclusion: A virtual process for central line consultation and interdisciplinary planning was effective and, in this setting, perhaps optimal. This type of process could be applied to nearly any aspect of clinical care where teams are solving problems in an environment with complex geography and relationships.