Effectiveness of both strategies
In the phone call strategy, 15 (10.2%) patients had an incorrect phone number registered in the medical records, and 58 (39.4%) patients did not answer the phone call. Seven (4.8%) patients answered that they did not want to participate in the study. In the mail strategy, 19 (15.4%) letters failed to reach the registered address and were returned. Finally, 74 patients (50.3%) in the phone call strategy and 104 patients (84.5%) in the mail strategy (In the ITT analysis (n=270), there were no significant differences between the percentage of patients who showed up for the appointment with the specialist in the phone call strategy compared with the mail strategy (26.5% vs. 28.5%, respectively; Effectiveness of mail and phone call strategies for reengagement. Abbreviations: ITT, intention to treat, PP, per protocol.In the ITT analysis, patients who did not show up for the specialist appointment compared with patients who showed up for the appointment had a higher percentage of patients with a history of injected or inhaled drugs (45.1% vs. 37.8%, respectively; Characteristics of patients who attended the specialist appointment compared with patients who did not attend the appointment in ITT and PP analysisAbbreviations: DAA, direct-acting antivirals; IQR, interquartile range; ITT, intention to treat; PP, per protocol.In the ITT analysis, a prior specialist’s evaluation and HCV testing in the pre-DAA era were associated with not showing up for the appointment (Table Independent predictors for reengagement according to the strategy (ITT analysis)Abbreviations: DAA, direct-acting antivirals; ITT, intention-to-treat.Among patients who showed up for the appointment, there was no significant difference in the waiting time for a specialist appointment in the phone call strategy compared with the mail strategy (median 7 d, interquartile range 7–11 vs. 10 d, interquartile range 10–11, respectively; 