Preprint
Article
Dismantling Barriers to Hepatitis B and Delta Screening, Prevention, and Linkage to Care Among the PWUD Community in Philadelphia
Altmetrics
Downloads
122
Views
51
Comments
0
A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.
supplementary.zip (70.56KB )
This version is not peer-reviewed
Submitted:
01 April 2024
Posted:
02 April 2024
You are already at the latest version
Alerts
Abstract
The prevalence of hepatitis B and delta viruses (HBV/HDV) among people who use drugs (PWUD) remains largely unknown. In the context of one Philadelphia-based harm reduction organization (HRO), this study aimed to assess HBV/HDV prevalence and facilitate linkage to care. Participants completed a demographic HBV/HDV risk factor survey and were screened for HBV and reflexively for HDV if positive for HBV surface antigen or isolated core antibody. Fisher’s exact tests and regression were used to understand relationships between risks and HBV blood markers. Of the 498 participants, 126 (25.3%) were susceptible to HBV, 52.6% had been vaccinated against HBV, and 17.9% had recovered from a past infection. Eleven (2.2%) participants tested positive for isolated HBV core antibody, 10 (2.0%) for HBV surface antigen, and one (0.2%) for HDV antibody. History of incarceration was associated with current HBV infection, while transactional sex and experience of homelessness were predictive of previous exposure. This study found high rates of current and past HBV infection, and a 10% HBV/HDV co-infection rate. Despite availability of vaccine, one quarter of participants remained vulnerable to infection. Findings demonstrate the need to improve low-threshold HBV/HDV screening, vaccination, and linkage to care among PWUD. The study also identified gaps in the HBV/HDV care cascade, including lack of point-of-care diagnostics and lack of support for HROs to provide HBV services.
Keywords:
Subject: Public Health and Healthcare - Public Health and Health Services
1. Introduction
More than 15.6 million people around the world inject drugs, and many are living with serious comorbidities [1]. In the United States, over 6.5 million people have injected drugs in their lifetime [2]. People who use drugs (PWUD), and particularly people who inject drugs (PWID), are susceptible to blood-borne viruses, as unsafe injection practices, such as using unsterile needles and re-using syringes, increase one’s risk of exposure to viral infections. Other factors, such as unsafe sexual practices, including transactional sex (typically necessitated by social and financial circumstances), as well as homelessness and history of incarceration can also heighten risk of exposure to viral infections in this population [3,4,5,6,7,8]. The most common of these exposures are to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis B, C, and delta [9].
Hepatitis B is one of the most prevalent serious liver infections in the world. It is caused by the hepatitis B virus that attacks and injures the liver. Hepatitis delta (also known as hepatitis D) is the most severe form of viral hepatitis and can cause rapid progression to advanced liver disease [10,11]. Only those living with or at high risk for hepatitis B can contract hepatitis delta, and hepatitis delta is estimated to impact approximately 5-10% of individuals living with hepatitis B [12]. Superinfection (infection with hepatitis D after an individual has already acquired hepatitis B) is the most common occurrence of hepatitis delta coinfection and leads to more severe liver disease than a chronic hepatitis B infection alone. Up to 90% of superinfected individuals will develop chronic infections of both hepatitis B and delta, of which approximately 70% will progress to cirrhosis, compared to 15-30% of those infected only with the hepatitis B virus [12]. Up to 30% of people living with chronic hepatitis B infection, and as many as 70% of people living with both viruses, will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer [10,11].
Testing levels for hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis delta (HDV) especially among PWUD are low and data are not robust, but the estimated prevalence of HBV among PWUD ranges between 4% and 12% in the United States [1,13]. PWUD are considered to be a group at high risk for hepatitis B and hepatitis delta virus infections and are recommended by the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD) to be prioritized for screening [13,14]. Moreover, as of March 2023, all adults in the United States aged 18 years and older are recommended to be screened for hepatitis B at least once in their lifetime [15]. Systematic screening for HBV and HDV remains limited, however, and is not routinely conducted, leaving both infections frequently underdiagnosed. Screening rates for hepatitis delta specifically are especially low, and the true epidemiological burden is underestimated [11,16]. Screening is often not performed due to low awareness of HDV among healthcare providers and at-risk communities, limited test availability in many commercial laboratories, complicated screening guidelines, and lack of resources overall [12].
Injection drug use is also an indication for vaccination against HBV infection (from which HDV immunity can also be gained, given the dependent nature of HDV upon HBV for survival and replication) [3]. Additionally, as of 2021, the CDC’s Advisory Council on Immunization Practices recommends hepatitis B vaccination for all adults in the United States between the ages of 19 and 59 and for high-risk adults ages 60 and over [17]. Even though PWUD are at high risk of severe illness and poor health outcomes, this population is less likely to seek vaccination against HBV and HDV [7,18,19].
In order to better understand how best to advance viral hepatitis elimination goals at all levels from local to global, there is an urgent need to improve HBV and HDV awareness, accurately assess prevalence, and increase prevention and linkage to care in populations that are most at-risk, including PWUD and PWID. It is essential to engage these communities and to ensure an uninterrupted cascade of care in the community’s own spaces and terms. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of HBV and HDV among members of the PWUD community in Philadelphia, and to facilitate connection to HBV vaccination or to HBV or HDV management and care as appropriate. This project was designed to serve as a pilot program for hepatitis B and delta outreach, education, and screening within a harm reduction setting in the United States, and to provide a model for integration of HBV and HDV screening in this population.
2. Materials and Methods
Between August and September of 2023, participants seeking services at a harm reduction organization (HRO) in Philadelphia, PA, USA were invited to participate in a HBV and HDV screening program. Participants were required to be at least 18 years of age, receiving services of any kind at the HRO, able to provide consent for services in English or Spanish, and agreeable to being listed in the electronic medical record system of the harm reduction site at which the screenings were performed. Individuals presenting with visual impairment or who are illiterate were still able to participate, via the provision of verbal consent.
Potential study participants were informed of the study by research staff who explained the project’s purpose and processes and assessed participants for eligibility. Trained staff conducted in-person consent with all prospective participants, fully describing potential benefits and risks of participation. After signing a consent form, participants completed a routine demographic survey, which included questions about preferred language, services received at the harm reduction site, any previous testing or vaccination received for any type of viral hepatitis, and risk factors for viral hepatitis (Supplementary File). The suite of data collection tools known as Open Data Kit (ODK) was used to capture data from the demographic questionnaire.
One 3 mL sample of blood was drawn on-site from each participant by a licensed phlebotomist. Quest Diagnostics conducted blood sample screening. Blood samples were assessed using the hepatitis B triple-panel test, (hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), hepatitis B surface antibody (HBsAb), and hepatitis B core antibody (HBcAb)). Reflex testing for hepatitis delta total antibody (anti-HDV) was performed on any individuals testing positive for either HBsAg or isolated HBcAb. All participants were compensated 20 dollars for completing the demographic survey and screening.
Following screening, participants were encouraged to return to the harm reduction site to receive their results in person from study staff, and were given reminder cards with dates, times, locations and staff contact information for collecting results. Participants were incentivized with an additional 15 dollars for returning to review their test results in person. A simplified summary of test results was printed for each participant, along with a letter explaining test results. Anyone testing positive for HBsAg, isolated HBcAb, and anti-HDV was provided with detailed information and efforts were made to connect these individuals to appropriate medical care, as well as health insurance and healthcare navigation, wherever possible. Any participants who were found to not have immunity to hepatitis B (and delta) were encouraged to return to the site on specific dates on which the city health department would be providing hepatitis B vaccines free of charge. Every attempt was made to contact participants who did not receive their results in person, including via mail, telephone, and/or assigned on-site case manager. Participant test results were also provided to staff at the harm reduction site for inclusion in participants’ electronic medical records.
A sample size calculation was performed prior to the study, determined by the estimated prevalence of HBV and HDV in Philadelphia within this population, using previous studies conducted locally by the health department, and the volume of clients served within this harm reduction organization. The target sample size for screening hepatitis B and delta using 95% confidence interval, with an estimated population of 30,000 served annually by the harm reduction organization, and 5% margin of error, was approximately 380 people. To account for the expected prevalence of hepatitis delta within this population, the desired sample size was increased to 480 for this study.
2.1. Data Analysis
Data were extracted from ODK and analyzed using R software to examine the association between HBV infection status and risk factors of HBV. A statistical model was developed to predict a hepatitis B infection (using HBsAg-positive and HBcAb-positive). Fisher’s exact tests were performed to calculate odds ratios and significance of variables for HBV blood markers and behavioral risks. Backward stepwise logistic regression was then conducted to identify possible predictors of the outcomes for infection (HBsAg and HBcAb) using R (with library MASS). At each step, variables were added based on p-values, and Akaike information criteria (AIC) was used to limit the total number of variables included in the final model. To improve model convergence, variables with greater than 20% missingness were removed. These variables included self-reported history of positive test results and vaccination for hepatitis A and B and self-reported history of positive test result for hepatitis D. Variables with complete separation were also excluded from consideration. An alpha of 0.05 was utilized for analysis.
3. Results
The study population consisted of 513 individuals. Fifteen individuals were excluded from the analysis due to missing data points, however, leaving a total sample of 498. Among the study population, 38.4% identified as female (n=191), 61.4% as male (n=306), and 0.2% as nonbinary (n=1). The median age of the study population was 40, with ages ranging from 19 to 76. These and other demographics, including race, are captured in Table 1. Other statistics detailing participants’ engagement in harm reduction services are outlined in Table 2. One hundred twenty-six participants (25.3%) did not have hepatitis B immunity. Two hundred sixty-two (52.6%) had been previously vaccinated. Eighty-nine participants (17.9%) had developed immunity through past infection. Eleven individuals had isolated HBcAb (2.21%). From the study sample, 2% tested positive for HBsAg (n= 10). One individual was identified as living with hepatitis delta antibody (.20% of the total sample and 10% of those testing positive for HBsAg). For model development, after removing missing variables and null odds ratios, there were 11 variables considered as potential predictors of HBsAg status or history of a previous infection (HBcAb-positive). From the model of all the predictive risk variables, the only one found to be significant was whether an individual had been previously incarcerated (p=0.047, OR=0.24). Backward stepwise logistic regression was able to confirm only previous incarceration as predictive of HBsAg status (Table 3 and Table 4). Engagement in transactional sex and experiences of homelessness were identified as predictive of HBcAb status.
In general, HBV vaccine-derived immunity was found to be more prevalent among younger participants, who were born closer to the introduction of HBV childhood vaccine recommendations in the United States. Current drug use was the risk factor most correlated with vaccine-derived immunity (Table 5).
A total of 439 (88.2%) returned to receive their test results in person from study staff and, by the conclusion of the study, 10 participants had received the first dose of the HBV vaccine from health department staff, representing 7.9% of the those susceptible and 2% of the total study population.
4. Discussion
The risk factors found to be associated with positive HBV status in this study included a history of incarceration, which was associated with the presence of HBsAg, and experiences with homelessness and transactional sexual encounters, which were associated with the presence of HBcAb. Previous literature examining risk factors associated with HBV and HDV status has demonstrated HDV antibody prevalence among PWUD to be positively associated with a longer duration of drug use and resolved hepatitis C (HCV) infection. In one study, PWUD participants who were living with HBcAb were approximately eight times more likely to have HDV infection if they had a resolved HCV infection than if they were living with chronic HCV. For those testing positive for HBsAg, this difference was twofold [9]. Given the relationship found between positive HBV status and a history of incarceration, findings from this study underscore the importance of viral hepatitis care and prevention within the penal system. The importance of providing vaccines in correctional settings is also evident, given the high proportion of study participants who had previously been incarcerated, and it is critical to incorporate robust vaccination efforts in overall hepatitis B elimination planning.
Because hepatitis B and delta testing requires a venous blood draw, the need for a skilled phlebotomist to perform these was essential to the success of this study. Other research has also found the need for venipuncture to be a barrier to performing hepatitis B screening among PWUD, as many members of this community often avoid blood tests, due to pain and difficulty [20,21,22]. This demonstrates the value of a hepatitis B and delta point-of-care test, particularly within high-risk settings. Such a test would not only eliminate the discomfort and hardship associated with obtaining blood samples via venous draw, but would also allow for much more rapid delivery of results and immediate connection to vaccination or appropriate care, thus significantly reducing the risk of loss to follow-up. Additionally, point-of-care testing would help to mitigate other challenges that presently impede screening in this population, including the need for a physician order and an established relationship with a commercial laboratory. The lack of a point-of-care test only exacerbates the serious problem of missed opportunities to identify individuals living with and susceptible to hepatitis B and delta, thus making effective management of these viruses at the individual and population levels that much more challenging.
The timely, in-person delivery of test results to participants in this study proved to be highly effective in increasing levels of follow-up and linkage to vaccination. Similar initiatives that included single-visit test-and-treat models of care delivery for hepatitis C in other settings have also found success [23]. Although a return visit was needed for delivery of results following blood sample collection, this study demonstrated the effectiveness of offering incentives to encourage participants to come back for results and counseling. Directing individuals who were susceptible to HBV to receive first-dose vaccines on-site in parallel with reception of results was also an effective practice. For the approximately 11% of participants who did not return for test results, effectively communicating results proved to be challenging as many participants did not have updated contact information. Additionally, physical health was of low importance for most participants and was superseded by other needs perceived to be more pressing, including housing, food, and avoidance of withdrawal, a finding also demonstrated in previous literature [24].
Existing research has found that proactively offering screening, vaccination, and treatment referrals at a centralized site, such as a syringe services program (SSP), rather than referring participants to external settings, increases vaccine uptake and healthcare follow-up within the PWUD population, as this frequently eliminates both financial and transportation barriers [19,25]. A 2019 study by Tressler et al. found that interventions designed to administer accelerated schedule (two-dose) hepatitis B vaccines, alongside services like case management, peer coaching, and hepatitis care coordination, as well as financial incentives, were moderately effective at increasing HBV vaccination completion among PWUD [26].
In a 2018 study conducted by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health to better understand susceptibility to hepatitis A and B viruses among PWUD in Philadelphia, 32.6% of study participants were found to be susceptible to hepatitis B. This study also revealed that 43% of individuals tested had evidence of HBV vaccine-derived immunity, and 24.3% had recovered from past HBV infection [5]. These results align closely with the results of the present study but do demonstrate a notable decline in susceptibility and an increase in vaccine-derived immunity, and underscore the benefits of coordination and collaboration with public health departments, especially for the provision and administration of vaccines, which was found in the present study to be vital to the successful connection of individuals susceptible to hepatitis B with vaccine.
Another barrier currently associated with HBV vaccine administration is the need for insurance coverage and copay support – presently, the CDC only subsidizes adult vaccines for individuals who are uninsured, leaving many who are under-insured to pay out of pocket for expensive costs related to vaccination that their insurance may not cover. Provision of affordable adult vaccines to a much broader expanse of the population is necessary to ensure more widespread coverage and to contribute in a meaningful way toward hepatitis B elimination in the United States.
The use of reflex testing for hepatitis delta, as was used in this study, has been shown to increase timely detection and linkage to care for people living with the virus, thus reducing liver disease-related mortality [11,27]. The lack of automatic reflex testing on HBsAg-positive blood samples has contributed to hampering overall screening for HDV infection globally. In one 2019 study, only 42% of people with chronic HBV were tested for HDV, and 8% of those people had a positive HDV test result [16]. Other research has found that implementation of anti-HDV testing in all HBsAg-positive patients increased the number of HDV diagnoses by five times. As HDV is currently underreported, systematic anti-HDV reflex testing can be a method to improve diagnostic rates and linkage to care for hepatitis delta [11]. The expansion of automatic HDV reflex testing on positive HBsAg samples should be explored as an essential tool to better understand HDV population prevalence, and to address this dangerous public health threat in keeping with equitable public health principles and practice. To ensure this happens, it is necessary for current HDV screening guidelines from professional societies, such as AASLD, to be updated to encompass this important need.
Despite their efficacy in serving the PWUD community, HROs and SSPs can face several barriers to patient health education and disease screening, including limited staff availability and the challenge of working with communities that generally lack access to primary care [28]. These study findings exemplify the need for policies and macro-level viral hepatitis elimination programming tailored to PWUD to be comprehensive and address hepatitis in a way that is thoughtful and intersectional with other important health and social justice issues [29]. On a broad systemic level, inappropriate service delivery models, and political and financial constraints that impede public health interventions for PWUD, such as harm reduction services in general and testing for chronic diseases, pose a significant barrier to timely diagnosis of health conditions and linkage to suitable care for this population [4]. Additionally, much of the focus on disease mitigation in this population (and subsequently much of the funding) has been centered around HIV and hepatitis C, evidence for which can be found in a 2023 harm reduction framework published by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, from which mention of hepatitis B is entirely absent (SAMHSA) [30]. It is of particular interest to note that, based on the findings of this study, the HBV prevalence rate at the harm reduction organization at which this study was conducted is higher than the current prevalence rate of HIV among the organization’s clientele. Therefore, a reallocation of funding and resources to integrate hepatitis B and delta in these spaces would be a worthwhile consideration.
4.1. Limitations
This study had several limitations. The phrasing of the demographic questions may have contributed to a failure to fully capture some of the behavioral risk factors in which participants engaged. For example, participants were asked if they engaged in unprotected sexual activity in the past six months, but many individuals were in monogamous relationships and this was unaccounted for in the data collection, thus perhaps assigning inaccurate levels of risk to some participants. Additionally, in this population, participants presented with various levels of mental alertness and, although coherent and able to provide informed consent, were frequently unable to recount information about health and past experiences accurately. Finally, given the fact that vaccines were offered during the study as well to minimize loss to follow-up, the possibility exists that some participants may have falsely tested positive for HBsAg, due to the narrow timeframe between receipt of a vaccine dose and testing.
The enticement of the financial incentive led to several participants attempting to complete the screening multiple times, which in turn led to difficulties with accurate reporting. The threshold for inclusion in this study was kept purposefully low and the presentation of identification documentation was not required, as this would have been overly burdensome and precluded participation of a large proportion of community members. All efforts were made to ensure participation was unique per each individual; however, it is possible that some duplication existed towards the end of the recruitment period.
5. Conclusions
Hepatitis B and delta viruses remain important and under-prioritized public health concerns among people who use drugs. Despite the long-standing status of PWUD as a group at high risk for hepatitis B and delta, diagnosis and prevention of both viruses remain low in these communities. This study’s findings indicate that hepatitis B and delta remain prevalent in this population. As this study demonstrates, consistent and robust screening, vaccination, and linkage to care efforts can positively impact health outcomes for this frequently marginalized community. While executing such an initiative can present a unique and complex set of challenges, implementation of certain recommendations, including approval of a hepatitis B point-of-care test, funding and political support for provision of comprehensive healthcare services at HROs, accessible and low-threshold collaboration opportunities with public health departments, adequate insurance coverage for vaccines, and recommendation and uptake of universal HDV reflex testing, can contribute greatly to moving the needle on hepatitis B and delta diagnosis, prevention, and treatment, thus advancing elimination efforts, lowering mortality, increasing quality of life, and centering the health and needs of people who use drugs.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this paper posted on Preprints.org. Table 6: Self-reported previous viral hepatitis A, B, C and D positive test results and association with active hepatitis B and delta infection; Table 7: Self-reported setting of receiving a tattoo and association with active hepatitis B infection; Table 8: Self-reported risk factor variables and odds ratios for the study sample, and association with HBcAb; City of Philadelphia Demographic Questions – Revised Final.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, B.Z., C.F., and C.C.; methodology, B.Z., C.F., C.C., A.J., and R.H.; software, D.B., and R.W.H.; validation, B.Z., C.F., C.C., A.J., and R.H.; formal analysis, D.B., R.W.H., and C.F.; investigation, B.Z., C.F., H.M., K.S., A.Q., J.Z., R.H., and A.J.; resources, B.Z., C.F., A.J., and R.H.; data curation, B.Z., C.F., H.M., K.S., D.B., and R.W.H.; writing—original draft preparation, B.Z., C.F., H.M., and K.S.; writing—review and editing, R.H., A.J., D.B., R.W.H., and C.C.; visualization, B.Z., C.F., and H.M.; supervision, A.J.; project administration, B.Z. and C.F.; funding acquisition, B.Z., C.F., and C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Gilead Sciences Inc., protocol number IN-US-980-6671.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the City of Philadelphia Department of Public Health (Project Number: 2023-33) on August 7th, 2023, and Heartland IRB (Project Number: 02202023-457) on February 20th, 2023.
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patient(s) to publish this paper.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to the need to protect participant privacy.
Acknowledgments
This project was only made possible by the staff at Prevention Point Philadelphia, and we appreciate their ongoing support to make this project possible.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results. The Hepatitis B Foundation receives program and research grants from Gilead Sciences, VBI Vaccines, GSK, and Genentech. Beatrice Zovich has received compensation for serving on an advisory committee for Gilead Sciences, Inc. Chari Cohen sits on a patient advocacy advisory committee for GSK (with funds going to the Foundation).
References
- Richardson D, Bell C. Public health interventions for reducing HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C infections in people who inject drugs. PHA. 2018;8(4):153. [CrossRef]
- Roth A, Tran N, Piecara B, Welles S, Shinefeld J, Brady K. Factors associated with awareness of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV among persons who inject drugs in Philadelphia: national HIV behavioral surveillance, 2015. AIDS Behav. 2019;23:1833-1840. [CrossRef]
- Trépo C, Chan HL, Lok A. Hepatitis B virus infection. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2053–2063. [CrossRef]
- Bayani A, Ghiasvand H, Rezaei O, et al. Factors associated with HIV testing among people who inject drugs: a meta-analysis. J Addict Dis. 2020;38(3):361-374. [CrossRef]
- Figgatt M, Hildick-Smith J, Addish E, et al. Susceptibility to hepatitis A and B virus among clients at a syringe services program in Philadelphia, 2018. Public Health Reports. 2020;135(5):691-699. [CrossRef]
- Walters SM, Kral AH, Simpson KA, Wenger L, Bluthenthal RN. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis prevention awareness, willingness, and perceived barriers among people who inject drugs in Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA, 2016-2018. Subst Use Misuse. 2020;55(14):2409-2419. [CrossRef]
- Aronson ID, Bennett AS, Ardouin-Guerrier MA, et al. How vaccine ambivalence can lead people who inject drugs to decline COVID-19 vaccination and ways this can be addressed: a qualitative study. JMIR Form Res. 2022;6(3):e35066. [CrossRef]
- Surratt HL, Yeager HJ, Adu A, Gonzalez EA, Nelson EO, Walker T. Pre-exposure prophylaxis barriers, facilitators and unmet need among rural people who inject drugs: a qualitative examination of syringe service program client perspectives. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:905314. [CrossRef]
- Mahale P, Aka PV, Chen X, et al. Hepatitis D viremia among injection drug users in San Francisco. J Infect Dis. 2018;217(12):1902-1906. [CrossRef]
- Rizzetto M. Hepatitis D virus: introduction and epidemiology. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2015;5:a021576. [CrossRef]
- Palom A, Rando-Segura A, Vico J, et al. Implementation of anti-HDV reflex testing among HBsAg-positive individuals increases testing for hepatitis D. JHEP Rep. 2022;4(10): 100547. [CrossRef]
- Gish R. Diagnosing and screening for hepatitis D viral infection. [White paper]. Hepatitis B Foundation. 2022. https://www.hepb.org/assets/Uploads/Gish-HDV-Diagnositic-Analysis-Whitepaper-1.pdf Hepatitis D Viral Infection.
- Lim JK, Nguyen MH, Kim WR, Gish R, Perumalswami P, Jacobson IM. Prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus infection in the United States. American J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(9):1429-1438. [CrossRef]
- Terrault NA, Lok A, McMahon BJ, et al. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance. Hepatology. 2018;67(4):1560–1599. [CrossRef]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Screening and testing for hepatitis B virus infection: CDC recommendations – United States, 2023. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention MMWR. Published March 10, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/rr/rr7201a1.htm.
- Rocco C, Bonavolta R, Vallefuoco L, Braschi U, Sorrentino R, Terracciano D, et al. Comparison of anti–hepatitis D virus (HDV) ETI-AB-DELTAK-2 assay and the novel LIAISON® XL MUREX anti-HDV assay in the diagnosis of HDV infection. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;95(4); 114873. [CrossRef]
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Universal hepatitis B vaccination in adults aged 19–59 years: Updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - United States, 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention MMWR. Published April 15, 2022(b). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7113a1.htm#:~:text=ACIP%20recommends%20that%20adults%20aged,B%20may%20receive%20HepB%20vaccines.
- Price O, Dietze P, Sullivan SG, Salom C, Peacock A. Uptake, barriers and correlates of influenza vaccination among people who inject drugs in Australia. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2021; 226: 108882. [CrossRef]
- Montgomery MP, Zhong Y, Roberts E, et al. Vaccination barriers and opportunities at syringe services programs in the United States, June-August 2021 – a cross-sectional survey. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2022;237: 109540. [CrossRef]
- Jones L, Bates G, McCoy E, Beynon C, McVeigh J, Bellis MA. Effectiveness of interventions to increase hepatitis C testing uptake among high-risk groups: a systematic review. Eur J Public Health. 2014;24(5):781-788. [CrossRef]
- Bajis S, Dore, GJ, Hajarizadeh B, Cunningham EB, Maher L, Grebely J. Interventions to enhance testing, linkage to care and treatment uptake for hepatitis C virus infection among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;47:34-46. [CrossRef]
- Harris M, Bonnington O, Harrison G, Hickman M, Irving W. Understanding hepatitis C intervention success: qualitative findings from the HepCATT study. Nottingham eprints. 2018. [CrossRef]
- Conway A, Read P, Gilliver R, et al. Awareness of HCV status and preferences for testing and treatment among people with recent injecting drug use at a peer-led needle and syringe program: the TEMPO pilot study. Viruses. 2022;14(11):2463. [CrossRef]
- Motavalli D, Taylor JL, Childs E, et al. “Health is on the back burner:” multilevel barriers and facilitators to primary care among people who inject drugs. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2021;36(1): 129–137. [CrossRef]
- Stephens DB, Young AM, Havens JR. Healthcare contact and treatment uptake following hepatitis C virus screening and counseling among rural Appalachian people who use drugs. Int J Drug Policy. 2017;47:86-94. [CrossRef]
- Tressler S, Bhandari R. Interventions to increase completion of hepatitis B vaccination in people who inject drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis. OFID. 2019;6(12). [CrossRef]
- Gish RG, Yi DH, Jane S, et al. Coinfection with hepatitis B and D: epidemiology, prevalence and disease in patients in Northern California. J Gastroenterol Hepat. 2013;28(9):1521-1525. [CrossRef]
- Aronson ID, Bennett A, Marsch LA, Bania TC. Mobile technology to increase HIV/HCV testing and overdose prevention/response among people who inject drugs. Front Public Health. 2017;5:217. [CrossRef]
- Treloar C, Valentine K, Fraser S. Social inclusion and hepatitis C: exploring new possibilities for prevention. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2011;9(4):397-404. [CrossRef]
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Harm Reduction Framework. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2023. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/harm-reduction-framework.pdf.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of study participants in relation to active HBV infection.
| Category | HBsAg+ | HBsAg- | Total | |||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |
| Sex | ||||||
| Female | 4 | 40% | 187 | 38.3% | 191 | 38.4% |
| Male | 6 | 60% | 300 | 61.5% | 306 | 61.4% |
| Non-Binary | 0 | - | 1 | 0.2% | 1 | 0.2% |
| Race | ||||||
| White | 6 | 60% | 268 | 54.9% | 274 | 55.0% |
| Black | 2 | 20% | 117 | 24.0% | 119 | 23.9% |
| Hispanic | 0 | - | 55 | 11.3% | 55 | 11.0% |
| Asian | 0 | - | 3 | 0.6% | 3 | 0.6% |
| Native American | 1 | 10% | 3 | 0.6% | 4 | 0.8% |
| Multiracial | 1 | 10% | 29 | 5.9% | 30 | 6.0% |
| Other | 0 | - | 11 | 2.3% | 11 | 2.2% |
| Unreported | 0 | - | 2 | 0.4% | 2 | 0.4% |
| Ethnicity | ||||||
| Hispanic | 2 | 20% | 94 | 19.3% | 96 | 19.3% |
| Non-Hispanic | 8 | 80% | 381 | 78.1% | 389 | 78.1% |
| Unknown | 0 | - | 6 | 1.2% | 6 | 1.2% |
| Unreported | 0 | - | 7 | 1.4% | 7 | 1.4% |
| Age | ||||||
| 18-33 | 3 | 30% | 108 | 22.1% | 111 | 22.3% |
| 34-48 | 6 | 60% | 285 | 58.4% | 291 | 58.4% |
| 49-63 | 1 | 10% | 87 | 17.8% | 88 | 17.7% |
| 64-78 | 0 | - | 8 | 1.6% | 8 | 1.6% |
| Birthplace | ||||||
| USA | 10 | 100% | 472 | 96.7% | 482 | 96.8% |
| Other | 0 | - | 16 | 3.3% | 16 | 3.2% |
* Multiracial indicates self-reporting more than one of the above races listed.
Table 2.
Study participant self-reported engagement in harm reduction services.
| Service | Frequency | % of total (N = 498) |
|---|---|---|
| Services at HRO | ||
| Syringe Service Program | 340 | 68.3% |
| Drug Treatment | 73 | 14.7% |
| HIV/HCV Testing | 265 | 53.2% |
| Medical Care | 159 | 31.9% |
| Other | 189 | 38.0% |
| None | 43 | 8.6% |
| Unreported | 11 | 2.2% |
| Case Manager | ||
| Yes | 151 | 30.3% |
| No | 343 | 68.9% |
| Unreported | 4 | 0.8% |
Table 3.
Self-reported risk factor variables and odds ratios for the study sample, and association with active hepatitis B infection.
Table 3.
Self-reported risk factor variables and odds ratios for the study sample, and association with active hepatitis B infection.
| Category | HBsAg+ | HBsAg- | Total | p-value | OR | |||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| Tattoo | 1 | 0.9 | ||||||
| Yes | 8 | 80% | 397 | 81.4% | 405 | 81.3% | ||
| No | 2 | 20% | 90 | 18.4% | 92 | 18.5% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 1 | 0.2% | 1 | 0.2% | ||
| Incarcerated * | 0.047 | 0.24 | ||||||
| Yes | 5 | 50% | 408 | 83.6% | 413 | 82.9% | ||
| No | 4 | 40% | 80 | 16.4% | 84 | 16.9% | ||
| Unreported | 1 | 10% | 0 | - | 1 | 0.2% | ||
| Unprotected Sex | 0.46 | 0.65 | ||||||
| Yes | 7 | 70% | 381 | 78.1% | 388 | 77.9% | ||
| No | 3 | 30% | 106 | 21.7% | 109 | 21.9% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 1 | 0.2% | 1 | 0.2% | ||
| Transactional Sex | 1 | 1.00 | ||||||
| Yes | 3 | 30% | 145 | 29.7% | 148 | 29.7% | ||
| No | 7 | 70% | 336 | 68.9% | 343 | 68.9% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 7 | 1.4% | 7 | 1.4% | ||
| Unhoused | 0.48 | 0.60 | ||||||
| Yes | 6 | 60% | 346 | 70.9% | 352 | 70.7% | ||
| No | 4 | 40% | 139 | 28.5% | 143 | 28.7% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 3 | 0.6% | 3 | 0.6% | ||
| Use Drugs | 0.44 | 0.53 | ||||||
| Yes | 9 | 90% | 459 | 94.1% | 468 | 94% | ||
| No | 1 | 10% | 27 | 5.5% | 28 | 5.6% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 2 | 0.4% | 2 | 0.4% | ||
| Receive HRO Services | 1 | - | ||||||
| Yes | 10 | 100% | 433 | 88.7% | 443 | 89% | ||
| No | 0 | - | 37 | 7.6% | 37 | 7.4% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 18 | 3.7% | 18 | 3.6% | ||
| Case Manager | 0.50 | 1.53 | ||||||
| Yes | 4 | 40% | 147 | 30.1% | 151 | 30.3% | ||
| No | 6 | 60% | 337 | 69.1% | 343 | 68.9% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 4 | 0.8% | 4 | 0.8% | ||
*Indicates significance.
Table 4.
Methods of self-reported preferred drug use and association with active hepatitis B infection.
Table 4.
Methods of self-reported preferred drug use and association with active hepatitis B infection.
| Category | HBsAg+ | HBsAg- | Total | P-value | OR | |||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| Injection | 0.16 | 5 | ||||||
| Yes | 8 | 88.9% | 283 | 61.5% | 291 | 62% | ||
| No | 1 | 11.1% | 177 | 38.5% | 178 | 38% | ||
| Share Needles | 0.72 | 1.2 | ||||||
| Yes | 3 | 37.5% | 92 | 32.5% | 95 | 32.6% | ||
| No | 5 | 62.5% | 186 | 65.7% | 191 | 65.6% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 5 | 1.8% | 5 | 1.7% | ||
| Inhalation (Oral) | 0.17 | 0.28 | ||||||
| Yes | 2 | 22.2% | 231 | 50.2% | 233 | 49.7% | ||
| No | 7 | 77.8% | 229 | 49.8% | 236 | 50.3% | ||
| Ingestion | 0.35 | 2.6 | ||||||
| Yes | 1 | 11.1% | 21 | 4.6% | 22 | 4.7% | ||
| No | 8 | 88.9% | 439 | 95.4% | 447 | 95.3% | ||
| Inhalation (Nasal) | 0.35 | 2.6 | ||||||
| Yes | 1 | 11.1% | 21 | 4.6% | 22 | 4.7% | ||
| No | 8 | 88.9% | 439 | 95.4% | 447 | 95.3% | ||
Note. OR & p-values reported based on those that use drugs (n = 469). Sharing needles OR & p-values reported based on those that inject (n = 291).
Table 5.
Self-reported risk factor variables and odds ratios for the study sample, and association with hepatitis B serologic immunity.
Table 5.
Self-reported risk factor variables and odds ratios for the study sample, and association with hepatitis B serologic immunity.
| Category | Vaccinated | Not Vaccinated | Total | P-value | OR | |||
| n | % | n | % | n | % | |||
| Tattoo | ||||||||
| Yes | 213 | 81.3% | 192 | 81.4% | 405 | 81.3% | 1 | 1.02 |
| No | 48 | 18.3% | 44 | 18.6% | 92 | 18.5% | ||
| Unreported | 1 | 0.4% | 0 | - | 1 | 0.2% | ||
| Incarcerated | ||||||||
| Yes | 220 | 84.0% | 193 | 81.8% | 413 | 82.9% | 0.632 | 1.14 |
| No | 42 | 16.0% | 42 | 17.8% | 84 | 16.9% | ||
| Unreported | 0 | - | 1 | 0.4% | 1 | 0.2% | ||
| Unprotected Sex | ||||||||
| Yes | 205 | 78.2% | 183 | 77.5% | 388 | 77.9% | 0.824 | - |
| No | 57 | 21.8% | 52 | 22.0% | 109 | 21.9% | ||
| Unknown | 0 | - | 1 | 0.4% | 1 | 0.2% | ||
| Transactional Sex | ||||||||
| Yes | 82 | 31.3% | 66 | 28.0% | 148 | 29.7% | 0.428 | - |
| No | 174 | 66.4% | 169 | 71.6% | 343 | 68.9% | ||
| Unknown | 3 | 1.1% | 1 | 0.4% | 4 | 0.8% | ||
| Unreported | 3 | 1.1% | 0 | - | 3 | 0.6% | ||
| Unhoused | ||||||||
| Yes | 191 | 72.9% | 161 | 68.2% | 352 | 70.7% | 0.473 | - |
| No | 70 | 26.7% | 73 | 30.9% | 143 | 28.7% | ||
| Unreported | 1 | 0.3% | 2 | 0.8% | 3 | 0.6% | ||
| Currently Use Drugs* | ||||||||
| Yes | 200 | 76.3% | 143 | 60.6% | 343 | 68.9% | 0.0002 | 2.09 |
| No | 62 | 23.7% | 93 | 39.4% | 155 | 31.1% | ||
*Indicates significance.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated