Injecting nation: achieving control of hepatitis C in Australia

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Since Australia banned heroin in 1953 consumption of illicit drugs, deaths, crime and corruption related to drugs have steadily increased. Injecting drug use (IDU) in Australia is now a significant public health problem linked each year to approximately 500 overdose deaths and more than 6000 hepatitis C infections. At least 85% of prevalent and incident hepatitis C cases in Australia are injecting drug users (IDUs) with annual incidence estimated at 15%. Although poorly documented, increasing numbers of patients with end‐stage liver disease from hepatitis C now appear to present in Australia. This reflects a heroin‐injecting epidemic commencing a quarter of a century ago, the close association between drug injecting and hepatitis C and the long delay between hepatitis C infection and complications. The overall health and economic burden of hepatitis C may soon exceed HIV. Control is far more difficult to achieve for hepatitis C than HIV because of much higher baseline prevalence levels and far greater infectiousness by blood to blood spread. Transmission appears to follow minimal breaches of infection control guidelines. Hepatitis C has not yet become a priority public health issue in Australia. No national prevention strategy has been proposed. Prevention strategies (such as needle exchange or methadone) which controlled HIV among IDUs should be expanded, with the expectation of some useful reduction of spread but without achieving control of hepatitis C. Other options for control must be considered. Eradicating illicit drug use in Australia is unachievable. Virtually eradicating injecting drug use by facilitating a switch to non‐injecting routes of administration (NIROA) is achievable (although difficult) and this could control hepatitis C. NIROA will have the probable additional benefit of reducing drug overdose deaths. NIROA has begun recently to replace injecting in several countries without government intervention. Powerful cultural, pharmacological and economic factors strongly reinforce drug injecting. Economic impediments to NIROA could be reduced by drug policy reform. Facilitating a switch to NIROA carries some risk of increased discrimination directed against an already marginalized population. A major obstacle to harm reduction is the common assumption that any relaxation of drug policy invariably leads to increased consumption. Switching the predominant route of administration of illicit drugs from IDU to NIROA should be the major focus of national efforts to control hepatitis C and overdose deaths in Australia.