Background
Methods
Inclusion | Exclusion | |
---|---|---|
Population | Age 18 years and over Infected with hepatitis C | Age less than 18 years Co-infection with Hepatitis B virus Co-infection with HIV |
Intervention | Provision of hepatitis C treatment in any primary care and community environments Treatment using any direct acting antiviral therapy Care provider could be any health care provider | Hepatitis C treatment in prison populations Treatment with ribavirin / interferon regimes as the primary intervention |
Comparison | Care in any hospital or secondary care environment or no comparison group | |
Outcome | Treatment uptake, treatment completion and SVR outcomes | |
Study design | Observational studies, retrospective or prospective cohort studies, randomised trials; conference abstracts; qualitative and mixed methods studies | Case studies; systematic reviews |
Search strategy
Study selection
Data collection process and data items collected
Risk of bias assessment in individual studies
Data analysis
Data synthesis
Deriving pooled estimates of treatment uptake, treatment completion and SVR
Results
Study selection
Study characteristics
Care Location | Year | Country | Design | Intervention | Comparator | Number of participants | Uptake (%) | SVR (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Primary Care | ||||||||
Bloom | 2017 | Australia | Prospective cohort study of treatment uptake and SVR | Adherence to DAA treatment protocols | Treatment by tertiary care provider | 1044 | 503 (40.6) | 253 (50.2) |
Francheville | 2017 | Canada | Prospective observational study design | Specialist nurse-led care | No comparator group | 242 | 93 (38.4) | 82 (88.2) |
Kattakuzhy | 2017 | USA | Non-randomised open label study | Treatment by primary care providers (PCP) and nurse practitioners (NP) | Standard care - Treatment by secondary care clinic | NP 150 PCP 160 | NP 134 (89.3) PCP139(86.9) | |
McCLure | 2017 | Australia | Retrospective data analysis of SVR12 | Nurse-led care and GP remote consultation | Specialist care in Tertiary centre | Nurse-led 70 | 50 (74.3) | 46 (65.7) |
Miller | 2016 | USA | Retrospective observational study | Treatment by primary care providers | No comparator group | 95 | 79 (83) | |
Norton | 2017 | USA | Retrospective cohort study of SVR | Treatment in urban primary care centre | SVR 12 in PWIDs and non_PWIDs | 89 | 85(95.5) | |
Wade | 2018 | Australia | Randomised controlled trial | Testing, assessment and treatment in primary care | Testing, assessment and treatment in tertiary care | 59 | 31 (52.5) | 14 (23.7) |
Integrated Health Systems (ECHO) | ||||||||
Abdulameer | 2016 | USA | Retrospective data analysis of SVR 12 | VA-Echo model supporting primary care providers | No comparator group | 588 | 318 (54) | |
Beste | 2017 | USA | Retrospective cohort study of treatment uptake and SVR | VA-Echo model supporting primary care providers | Standard care - Treatment by unexposed primary care providers | 6431 | 1303 (21.4) | (58.2) |
Buchanan | 2015 | United Kingdom | Retrospective data analysis | Community-based outreach clinic | Standard care - Treatment by secondary care clinic | 77 | 24 (31.2) | |
Georgie | 2016 | USA | Retrospective data analysis of SVR12 | VA-Echo model supporting primary care providers | Treatment by sub-specialist providers | 623 | Genotype 1 (GT1) (99) GT2 (98) GT3 (79) | |
Opioid Treatment Centres | ||||||||
Butner | 2017 | USA | Retrospective data analysis | Opioid treatment programme | No comparator group | 75 | 75.0 | 64 (85.0) |
Morris | 2017 | Australia | Retrospective data analysis of treatment uptake and SVR | Treatment in a community-based harm reduction and treatment facility | No comparator group | 127 | 122 (96) | 102 (80.3) |
Read | 2017 | Australia | Retrospective data analysis of SVR12 | Treatment of PWIDs in primary care setting | No comparator group | 72 | 59 (81.9) | |
Pharmacies / Pharmacist Clinics | ||||||||
David | 2017 | USA | Retrospective data analysis of SVR12 | Pharmacy-managed clinics | Treatment by non-pharmacist providers | 204 | (83.6) | |
Radley | 2017 | United Kingdom | Pilot cluster RCT of treatment uptake and SVR | Treatment in community Pharmacy | Treatment by secondary care clinic | 26 | 3 (11.5) | 3 (11.5) |
Telemedicine | ||||||||
Cooper | 2017 | Canada | Retrospective cohort study of treatment uptake and SVR | Use of telemedicine | Treatment by secondary care clinic | 157 | 35.0 | 18 (11.5) |
Inclusion Criteria | Treatment Uptake | Treatment Completion | SVR | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No. Of studies | Heterogeneity (I2) | Pooled estimate (95% CI) | No. Of studies | Heterogeneity (I2) | Pooled estimate (95% CI) | No. Of studies | Heterogeneity (I2) | Pooled estimate (95% CI) | |
Opioid Treatment Centres | 2 | 77.7% | 91.9 (82.2–100) | 3 | 0.0% | 82.3 (77.8–86.8) | |||
Integrated Health System (ECHO) | 1 | Not applicable | 75.6 (68.0–83.2) | 1 | Not applicable | 96.8 (93.2–100) | 2 | 84.6% | 81.3 (66.9–95.5) |
Telemedicine | 1 | Not applicable | 22.3 (15.8–28.8) | 1 | Not applicable | 51.4 (34.8–68.0) | |||
Primary Care | 1 | Not applicable | 67.4 (53.9–80.9) | 1 | Not applicable | 100 (97.95–100) | 5 | 94.9% | 74.4 (60.3–88.5) |
Pharmacies / Pharmacist Clinics | 1 | Not applicable | 66.67 (58.3–75.1) | 2 | 89.0% | 79.0 (79.2–98.9) | |||
Specialist Care | 2 | 0.0% | 34.5 (31.79–37.29) | 5 | 96.8% | 73.46 (60.9–85.9) |
Outcome | Study designs/ No. Studies | Findings and Direction of Effect | GRAD E[21] |
---|---|---|---|
1. Uptake of HCV treatment | RCT – 2 Cohort – 3 Observational – 5 | Two RCTs assessed as having low risk of bias reported a positive effect on uptake with precision and a consistent positive direction of effect. One cohort study assessed as having medium-grade study limitations also reported a positive effect on uptake. | Medium |
2. Completion of Treatment | Cohort - 1 Observational - 2 | One cohort study with medium study limitations reported a positive direction of effect on uptake. | Low |
3. Sustained Viral Response at 12 weeks (%)(SVR12) | RCT −2 Cohort - 4 Observational - 11 | Two RCTs assessed as having low risk of bias reported a positive effect on SVR but were imprecise in the estimate of effect size. Four cohort studies and 11 observational studies with over 10,000 participants all reported a consistent positive direction of effect, but with significant study limitations. | Medium |