ArticleJournal of virus eradication2025
A liberalized approach to directly observed therapy for HCV retains excellent cure rates among PWID in Vienna.
Article in Journal of virus eradication, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Directly observed therapy (DOT) is an effective strategy to optimize hepatitis C virus (HCV) cure rates in people who inject drugs (PWID) on stable opioid agonist therapy (OAT). While adherence to daily DOT is excellent, it remains unclear if extended DOT distribution intervals result in similar sustained virologic response (SVR) rates. Methods: PWID undergoing DOT with direct-acting antiviral agents (DAA) alongside OAT for HCV infection at a low-threshold institution were included. Social distancing requirements during the COVID19 pandemic led to an extension in DOT dispensation intervals; therefore, the study population was classified according to "tight period" (DAA start 2014-2020) and "liberal period" (DAA start 2020-2023) cohorts. Socioeconomic characteristics, DOT distribution schedules, and rates of SVR at week 12 after end of therapy (SVR12) were compared between groups. Results: We included 719 consecutive PWID (male: 76.5 %; median age: 39 years), 441 (61.3 %) were treated in the "tight period" and 278 (38.7 %) in the "liberal period". Baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts, however, socioeconomic features of the "liberal period" group showed more problematic features (unemployment: 83.1 % vs. 67.3 %; lack of housing: 38.5 % vs. 35.1 %; ongoing injection drug use: 64.0 % vs. 57.8 %; each p < 0.001).While the "tight period" group had their DAA most commonly dispensed on a daily basis (78.9 %), the "liberal period" group received their DAA/OAT mostly once weekly (45.0 %) or 2-3x/week (24.1 %; p < 0.001). The number of missed DAA ingestions (0.3 % vs. 0.4 %; p = 0.239) and SVR12 rates by modified intention to treat analysis (exclusion of PWID who were lost to follow-up [FU] or died) were similar (401/404, 99.3 % vs. 194/195, 99.5 %; p = 1.000) between tight and liberal period, respectively.Loss of FU after end of DAA treatment was more common during the "liberal period" (28.8 % vs. 7.9 %; p < 0.001), yet no treatment interruptions or early discontinuations occurred. Conclusion: DOT originally aimed to address non-adherence among PWID by strict control through daily supervised OAT and DAA ingestion. While this approach inherently manifests a position of advanced distrust towards PWID, our findings suggest that a strategy of advanced trust and liberalization of DOT alongside effective harm reduction measures yields excellent adherence and results in similarly high HCV cure rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.