DRID Workshop 4 - Diagnostic testing prevalence data
Cathy Matheï
Background
“The protocol for the implementation of the EMCDDA key indicator Drug Related Infectious Diseases (DRID)” (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2006) advocates the use of two complementary approaches to monitor drug-related infectious diseases: (a) sero-behavioral surveys and (b) routine diagnostic testing. Sero-behavioral studies are more informative as they are specifically designed to study IDU populations. However, as a result of being time- and resource intensive, the sero-behavioral studies often have a limited geographical coverage and a poor continuity over time. Data from routine diagnostic testing also provide useful insights in case annual routine testing is widely offered. Compared to sero-behavioral studies, it is less resource intensive to collect data from routine diagnostic testing and they can be more easily collected on a continuous basis with good geographical coverage..
Problem
As the generation of routine diagnostic testing data is not specifically designed for DRID monitoring, some methodological concerns exists regarding the validity of their use for DRID monitoring (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2006)
Case study: Belgium
Belgium reports yearly to the EMCDDA prevalence rates of HCV, HBV and HIV among IDUs based on routine diagnostic testing data provided by 2 drug treatment services. However, the prevalence rates reported by both services differ substantially, especially with respect to the HCV-prevalence rates, which were in 2011 42 and 81% respectively. These differences are partly the result of differences in patient population. However other factors were identified that might contribute to the important differences in the observed prevalence rates. Adherence to testing policy is suboptimal in both centres but the way testing practice deviates from testing policy differs considerably. There are also substantial differences in the way the prevalence rates as provided by both centers are calculated.
Aims of the workshop
· To identify the barriers/facilitators to the use of diagnostic testing data for DRID monitoring
· To discuss ways to improve the reliability and comparability of diagnostic testing data for DRID monitoring
What do we expect from participants
· To prepare a short country report (less than one page) about the use of diagnostic testing data for DRID monitoring, what are the difficulties using this data and how these problems are dealt with.
· To participate in the discussion
· To appoint someone to make a report (1-2 pages in Word)
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction 2006, Protocol for the implementation of the EMCDDA key indicator Drug Related Infectious Diseases (DRID), EMCDDA, Lisbon.