Is the HCV-HIV co-infection prevalence amongst injecting drug users a marker for the level of sexual and injection related HIV transmission?

BACKGROUND: Amongst injecting drug users (IDUs), HIV is transmitted sexually and parenterally, but HCV is transmitted primarily parenterally. We assess and model the antibody prevalence of HCV amongst HIV-infected IDUs (denoted as HCV-HIV co-infection prevalence) and consider whether it proxies the degree of sexual HIV transmission amongst IDUs. METHODS: HIV, HCV and HCV-HIV co-infection prevalence data amongst IDU was reviewed. An HIV/HCV transmission model was adapted. Multivariate model uncertainty analyses determined whether the model's ability to replicate observed data trends required the inclusion of sexual HIV transmission. The correlation between the model's HCV-HIV co-infection prevalence and estimated proportion of HIV infections due to injecting was evaluated. RESULTS: The median HCV-HIV co-infection prevalence (prevalence of HCV amongst HIV-infected IDUs) was 90% across 195 estimates from 43 countries. High HCV-HIV co-infection prevalences (>80%) occur in most (75%) settings, but can be lower in settings with low HIV prevalence (0.75). The model without sexual HIV transmission reproduced some data trends but could not reproduce any epidemics with high HIV/HCV prevalence ratios (>0.85) or low HCV-HIV co-infection prevalence (10%. The model with sexual HIV transmission reproduced data trends more closely. The proportion of HIV infections due to injecting correlated with HCV-HIV co-infection prevalence; suggesting that up to 80/60/90%. CONCLUSION: Substantial sexual HIV transmission may occur in many IDU populations; HCV-HIV co-infection prevalence could signify its importance

Mortality risk during and after opioid substitution treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies

Objective To compare the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people with opioid dependence during and after substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine and to characterise trends in risk of mortality after initiation and cessation of treatment.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and LILACS to September 2016.Study selection Prospective or retrospective cohort studies in people with opioid dependence that reported deaths from all causes or overdose during follow-up periods in and out of opioid substitution treatment with methadone or buprenorphine.Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and assessed study quality. Mortality rates in and out of treatment were jointly combined across methadone or buprenorphine cohorts by using multivariate random effects meta-analysis.Results There were 19 eligible cohorts, following 122 885 people treated with methadone over 1.3-13.9 years and 15 831 people treated with buprenorphine over 1.1-4.5 years. Pooled all cause mortality rates were 11.3 and 36.1 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 2.65 to 3.86) and reduced to 4.3 and 9.5 in and out of buprenorphine treatment (2.20, 1.34 to 3.61). In pooled trend analysis, all cause mortality dropped sharply over the first four weeks of methadone treatment and decreased gradually two weeks after leaving treatment. All cause mortality remained stable during induction and remaining time on buprenorphine treatment. Overdose mortality evolved similarly, with pooled overdose mortality rates of 2.6 and 12.7 per 1000 person years in and out of methadone treatment (unadjusted out-to-in rate ratio 4.80, 2.90 to 7.96) and 1.4 and 4.6 in and out of buprenorphine treatment.Conclusions Retention in methadone and buprenorphine treatment is associated with substantial reductions in the risk for all cause and overdose mortality in people dependent on opioids. The induction phase onto methadone treatment and the time immediately after leaving treatment with both drugs are periods of particularly increased mortality risk, which should be dealt with by both public health and clinical strategies to mitigate such risk. These findings are potentially important, but further research must be conducted to properly account for potential confounding and selection bias in comparisons of mortality risk between opioid substitution treatments, as well as throughout periods in and out of each treatment.This work was partially supported by the ISCIII Network on Addictive Disorders (Networks for Cooperative Research in Health from the Carlos III Institute of Health) (grant No RD16/0017/0013 and RD12/0028/0018) and by the EMCDDA in the context of the activities related to identification, promotion, and monitor of best practices.S

HIV outbreaks among people who inject drugs in Europe, North America and Israel

During 2011–16, HIV outbreaks occurred among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Canada (southeastern Saskatchewan), Greece (Athens), Ireland (Dublin), Israel (Tel Aviv), Luxembourg, Romania (Bucharest), Scotland (Glasgow), and USA (Scott County, Indiana). Factors common to many of these outbreaks included community economic problems, homelessness, and changes in drug injection patterns. The outbreaks differed in size (from under 100 to over 1000 newly reported HIV cases among PWID) and in the extent to which combined prevention had been implemented before, during, and after the outbreaks. Countries need to ensure high coverage of HIV prevention services and coverage higher than the current UNAIDS recommendation might be needed in areas in which short acting drugs are injected. In addition, monitoring of PWID with special attention for changing drug use patterns, risk behaviours, and susceptible subgroups (eg, PWID experiencing homelessness) needs to be in place to prevent or rapidly detect and contain new HIV outbreaks

Monitoring quality and coverage of harm reduction services for people who use drugs: a consensus study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite advances in our knowledge of effective services for people who use drugs over the last decades globally, coverage remains poor in most countries, while quality is often unknown. This paper aims to discuss the historical development of successful epidemiological indicators and to present a framework for extending them with additional indicators of coverage and quality of harm reduction services, for monitoring and evaluation at international, national or subnational levels. The ultimate aim is to improve these services in order to reduce health and social problems among people who use drugs, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, crime and legal problems, overdose (death) and other morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: The framework was developed collaboratively using consensus methods involving nominal group meetings, review of existing quality standards, repeated email commenting rounds and qualitative analysis of opinions/experiences from a broad range of professionals/experts, including members of civil society and organisations representing people who use drugs. Twelve priority candidate indicators are proposed for opioid agonist therapy (OAT), needle and syringe programmes (NSP) and generic cross-cutting aspects of harm reduction (and potentially other drug) services. Under the specific OAT indicators, priority indicators included 'coverage', 'waiting list time', 'dosage' and 'availability in prisons'. For the specific NSP indicators, the priority indicators included 'coverage', 'number of needles/syringes distributed/collected', 'provision of other drug use paraphernalia' and 'availability in prisons'. Among the generic or cross-cutting indicators the priority indicators were 'infectious diseases counselling and care', 'take away naloxone', 'information on safe use/sex' and 'condoms'. We discuss conditions for the successful development of the suggested indicators and constraints (e.g. funding, ideology). We propose conducting a pilot study to test the feasibility and applicability of the proposed indicators before their scaling up and routine implementation, to evaluate their effectiveness in comparing service coverage and quality across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The establishment of an improved set of validated and internationally agreed upon best practice indicators for monitoring harm reduction service will provide a structural basis for public health and epidemiological studies and support evidence and human rights-based health policies, services and interventions