Towards combination HIV prevention for injection drug users: addressing addictophobia, apathy and inattention

Strathdee, Steffanie A.a; Shoptaw, Stevenb; Dyer, Typhanye Pennimanc; Quan, Vu Minhd; Aramrattana, Apinune; for the Substance Use Scientific Committee of the HIV Prevention Trials Network

Current Opinion in HIV & AIDS:
doi: 10.1097/COH.0b013e32835369ad
INJECTING DRUG USE AND HIV: Edited by Lisa Maher and Nick Walsh
Abstract

Purpose of review: Recent breakthroughs in HIV-prevention science led us to evaluate the current state of combination HIV prevention for injection drug users (IDUs). We review the recent literature focusing on possible reasons why coverage of prevention interventions for HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and tuberculosis among IDUs remains dismal. We make recommendations for future HIV research and policy.

Recent findings: IDUs disproportionately under-utilize voluntary HIV counseling and testing (VCT), primary care and antiretroviral therapy (ART), especially in countries that have the largest burden of HIV among IDUs. IDUs present later in the course of HIV infection and experience greater morbidity and mortality. Why are IDUs under-represented in HIV-prevention research, access to treatment for both HIV and addiction, and access to HIV combination prevention? Possible explanations include addictophobia, apathy, and inattention, which we describe in the context of recent literature and events.

Summary: This commentary discusses the current state of HIV-prevention interventions for IDUs including VCT, needle and syringe program (NSP), opioid substitution therapy (OST), ART and pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis (PrEP), and discusses ways to work towards true combination HIV prevention for IDU populations. Communities need to overcome tacit assumptions that IDUs can navigate through systems that are maintained as separate silos, and begin to take a rights-based approach to HIV prevention to ensure that IDUs have equitable access to life-saving prevention and treatments.

Author Information

aUC San Diego Division of Global Public Health, Department of Medicine

bUCLA Departments of Family Medicine and Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences

cDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics University of Maryland College Park

dThe Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, USA

eThe Department of Family Medicine and Center for Substance Abuse Research, Research Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai University, Thailand

Correspondence to Steffanie A. Strathdee, PhD, Harold Simon Professor, Associate Dean of Global Health Sciences, Chief, Division of Global Public Health, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, USA. Tel: +1 858 822 1952; fax: +1 858 534 7566; e-mail: sstrathdee@ucsd.edu

Article Outline
Back to Top | Article Outline

INTRODUCTION

These are heady times for HIV prevention. Science named the findings from the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 052 as the ‘scientific breakthrough’ for 2011 [1▪▪]. HPTN 052 showed that early initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV-positive partners in HIV-serodiscordant couples dramatically reduced transmission to the HIV-negative partner (96%) and significantly reduced health problems (41%) in the HIV-positive partner. Moreover, combination approaches that integrate ART with behavioral interventions demonstrated significant and relevant reductions in acquiring HIV [2]. For the first time, there exists a variety of efficacious tools for HIV prevention – both medical and behavioral – that can be used in combination to optimally address the specific prevention needs of distinct communities.

Yet not all communities have equal access to HIV prevention and care, especially to interventions that involve medications and an infrastructure needed to deliver them. A historical case in point is the development and implementation of guidelines for postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). Initial efforts [3] that guided use of anti-HIV drugs as PEP were published in 1990 and updated [4] in the form of guidelines through 2005. Early recommendations for PEP were constrained to healthcare workers who experienced HIV exposures in the workplace and were based on data from primate studies, studies of peri-natal prophylaxis and one case-control study of healthcare workers [5]. For individuals potentially exposed to HIV in settings other than work, a consensus statement cited an overall lack of evidence to support initiating PEP and instead noted ‘…medical treatment after sexual, injection drug use or other nonoccupational HIV exposure is less effective than preventing HIV infection by avoiding exposure’ [6]. Not until 15 years after recommendations for initiating PEP for occupational exposures was the guideline broadened to include individuals who experienced nonoccupational exposures – largely without the controlled data that had previously been a major reason for excluding them. Still, citing concerns over ethics, morals and economics, PEP was considered efficacious but expensive [7], and policy makers responded by offering recommendations that reflected a hierarchy: healthcare workers who experienced occupational exposures obtained access first. Later and less consistently, victims of rape received access. Much later and far less consistently today, individuals who experience sexual or injection-related potential exposures are recommended for PEP.

During 2010 and 2011, findings from key modeling scenarios demonstrated the importance of combination HIV-prevention interventions for IDUs at the population level. Using modeling, Degenhardt et al.[8▪▪] showed that when simultaneous scale-up of needle and syringe programs (NSPs), voluntary counseling and testing (VCT), opioid substitution treatment (OST) and ART were implemented when CD4 cell counts drop below 350 cells/mm3, HIV incidence could be reduced by up to 63%. Similarly, Strathdee et al.[9▪▪] showed that in countries where HIV epidemics among IDUs are established or emerging, the benefits of these combinations of interventions were amplified by structural interventions that optimized either access or efficacy of these intervention components. Furthermore, in settings in which the force of infection is high (as is the case in an HIV outbreak), interventions that have an impact on syringe sharing (e.g. NSP, OST) need to operate at very high levels of efficacy to have an impact on syringe sharing [9▪▪]. This situation underscores assertion by Kurth et al. [10▪▪] that combination HIV prevention should address both infectiousness and susceptibility.

Research is still needed to identify the most effective combination of interventions for IDUs and other key populations and settings [11▪], without assuming that ‘one-size-fits all’ [10▪▪]. There is also a need to ‘unpack’ combinations of interventions to determine which components generate the greatest preventive fraction, and whether some components act synergistically or compete. Yet, in contrast to ripples of excitement in peer-reviewed literature over combination HIV-prevention approaches, including antiretroviral pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis (PrEP) [12,13], empirical data on PrEP and other combination-prevention strategies among IDU populations are virtually absent – and thus cannot inform the discourse on the value of PrEP in IDUs.

Impressive research also emerged with respect to treatment for hepatitis C virus (HCV) and tuberculosis (TB), which are the most common co-infections among HIV-positive IDUs and those at risk, especially in lower and middle-income countries. Sherman et al.[14▪] found that a 24-week course of response-guided telaprevir combination HCV treatment was as effective as the standard 48-week course. The recent trend towards oral combinations of antiviral drugs for treatment of HCV infection without interferon should lead to ART-like interventions for HCV-infected IDUs. Also in 2011, the US Centers for Disease Prevention and Control published guidelines for a shortened course of treatment for latent TB infection [15]. Taken together, IDUs should soon be able to access more manageable treatment regimens for treating HCV and TB; ‘combination prevention’ should be extended to interventions for important comorbid conditions affecting IDU populations.

Yet the international literature is rife with continued reports that IDUs are disproportionately under-utilizing VCT, primary care and ART, especially in countries that have the largest burden of HIV among IDUs [16▪▪,17]. Consequently, IDUs often present later in the course of HIV infection and experience greater morbidity and mortality than other risk populations [18], even in countries like Brazil, which has a relatively high coverage of ART among IDUs [19]. Why are IDU populations under-represented in terms of HIV-prevention research, access to treatment for both HIV and drug addiction, and access to HIV combination prevention interventions? Possible explanations include addictophobia, apathy, and inattention.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ADDICTOPHOBIA

Addictophobia is a term that appeared in the literature in 1991, which was described as the exaggerated fear, aversion and/or discrimination against drug users [20]. Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic, IDUs have been vilified, stigmatized, marginalized and blamed for their HIV infection. A 2011 report by Harm Reduction International [21▪] identifies at least 12 places with legislation allowing judicial corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences, which is a violation of international human rights law [i.e. Singapore, Malaysia, Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Libya, Brunei, Darussalam, Maldives, Indonesia (Aceh) and Nigeria (northern states)]. In several countries, including China, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, drug users are subject to incarceration in compulsory drug centers where forced labor, inadequate medical care, and abuses have been reported [22]. In Thailand, a ‘war on drug users’ has been underway in response to methamphetamine epidemics [23]. Ongoing prosecution, including the death penalty, are reportedly driving the tendency for IDUs to transition towards more harmful polydrug injection [24]. Methamphetamine injection is also increasing [25].

A recent example of addictophobia is the return of the United States’ Congressional ban on use of federal funds to support NSPs both domestically and internationally that was approved by both houses of Congress at the end of 2011. The use of US federal funds for NSPs was enacted in 1988, but had been repealed in 2009, after eight US government commissioned reports and a plethora of international research consistently showed that NSPs can reduce syringe sharing, HIV prevalence and incidence and are cost-effective. In response to this political about-face, Laura Thomas of the San Francisco Drug Policy Alliance stated, ‘Reinstating the ban is murderous. It's saying that people who use drugs should contract fatal and expensive diseases and die….this is a truly shameful moment, when we go backward instead of forward, and let a politics of ignorance, of stigma, of hate, win out over compassion, science and a desire for a healthy community’ [26]. Furthermore, in at least 36 US states, legislation has been introduced requiring applicants to public assistance programs (e.g. food stamps, unemployment benefits and heating subsidies). Around the world, policies that address addiction and the health of addicts are steeped in attributions of self-blame, moral failure and psychopathy. This contrasts with over 30 years of scientific findings that have articulated the medical basis of opiate addiction, opiate-seeking behavior, and effectiveness of OST. With rare exception, decisions about providing access for IDUs to health protecting interventions continue to be driven by morality rather than empirical data.

Another example is the general lack of inclusion of IDUs in controlled trials of combination prevention interventions. Whereas few protocols expressly exclude IDUs, all contain a provision allowing an investigator to exclude any individual whose behavior would interfere with safe, consistent participation, such as active injection drug use. Concerns are frequently articulated about drug toxicities from interactions between ART and illicit drugs, about drug users’ inability to adhere to treatment, and about concomitant risks for development of drug resistance [2]. As a result, trials often include former, but not active IDUs. IDUs are not only under-represented in trials, they are under-represented among those receiving ART in many countries, both rich and poor. There are exceptions, such as Vancouver, Canada, where additional outreach efforts are employed to engage IDUs [27▪] but even so, Vancouver researchers report subgroups of IDUs that have sub-optimal highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) access, such as sex workers and the homeless [28].

Back to Top | Article Outline

APATHY

Apathy – or indifference to the suffering of drug users and their right to access HIV prevention and treatment – may be a consequence of addictophobia, a lack of political will, or the extreme marginalization that often prevents drug users from having a place at the bargaining table to advocate for services. How do we advocate for HIV treatment as a prevention strategy, when HIV treatment is not even being delivered to IDUs for its primary purpose (i.e. reducing morbidity and mortality)? Before we can justify incorporating PrEP into combination prevention interventions for IDUs, we need to do a better job of ensuring that the components that have already been shown to be effective are brought to scale. Indeed, the United Nations Office on AIDS articulated nine HIV interventions as essential to prevent HIV among IDUs, including sterile syringe access through NSPs, OST (methadone and buprenorphine), HIV counseling and testing, ART, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), condom distribution programs, information and education campaigns, vaccination and treatment of viral hepatitis, and prevention and treatment of tuberculosis [29]. It is time to challenge the policies of countries and agencies unwilling to support harm minimization as an excuse to reallocate prevention resources towards unproven interventions at the expense of proven, cost-effective interventions. Moreover, efforts to divert prevention resources that would otherwise be used for IDUs to more socially acceptable populations (e.g. mothers and children) should be challenged.

Unfortunately, there is no sign that the low global coverage of HIV prevention interventions and ART among IDUs will improve anytime soon. The recent announcement of the cancellation of the next round of the Global Fund competition and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)'s reduced funding commitment will disproportionately affect the delivery of HIV prevention and care services for IDUs in countries where HIV infections among IDUs continues to surge (e.g. China, Russia, Ukraine, Vietnam) [18]. Legislation that prevents PEPFAR funds from being used to provide syringes in any international setting undermines the successes that this program has achieved with other populations, and is an act we condemn. Rollbacks of Ryan White funding mean that there will be longer delays for HIV care among the poor, who are disproportionately IDUs and under-represented minorities.

Back to Top | Article Outline

INATTENTION

Some subgroups of IDUs remain especially vulnerable. One is adolescent IDUs, many of whom are street youth. In a 2011 study of street youth in Ukraine, Hillis et al.[30▪] found that being both orphaned and homeless had additive effects on both injection drug use initiation and HIV risks. In an accompanying editorial, Mastro et al.[31] call for structural interventions for this doubly marginalized group, which should include social welfare systems, child protection and support services for victims of violence and abuse. These recommendations underscore the notion that combination HIV prevention should not focus solely on the individual, but on structural factors, systems and processes that are the underlying drivers of individual-level risk behaviors [9▪▪].

As international literature generally indicates that the median age of first injection is about 19 years [32], we need to recognize that almost half of IDUs begin injecting before age 18 and this subgroup is often hidden, and less likely to attend NSP or OST programs. They also are likely to be minors not living with family, which heightens ethical concerns that complicate their inclusion in research. Because of their youth and extreme vulnerability to HIV, we need concerted efforts to overcome these hurdles.

Women who inject drugs are also disproportionately impacted by the epidemic, yet remain understudied. Recent research suggests that female IDUs frequently experience violence from intimate partners, police and sex trade clients [33▪], homelessness [34] and psychiatric comorbidities [35], which may act synergistically, increasing their risk for HIV infection. Yet, many of the women falling into these risk groups are excluded from intervention studies [36].

HIV-prevention research tends to focus on IDUs while overlooking other subgroups of substance users who may not inject, such as stimulant users, and heavy and episodic drinkers. In Thailand, alcohol consumption among IDUs increased rapidly in recent years, and excessive alcohol consumption among IDUs was associated with increased mortality [37]. We echo the call for renewed efforts to extend combination HIV prevention to noninjection drug users [38▪].

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSION

In 2009, a group of representatives from agencies that guide international public health policies deliberated and recommended that once proof of concept for PrEP is established, its roll-out should be preceded by a delivery and implementation framework that demonstrates its feasibility in different cultural, ethical, legal and political environments [39▪]. In considering IDUs in this context, communities will need to overcome their tacit assumptions that IDUs can navigate through systems that are maintained as separate silos (e.g. NSP, clinics providing VCT and OST and specialty clinics treating TB, STIs and HCV, reproductive health and mental health services). Providing combination HIV prevention to IDUs under one umbrella, in a point-of-care, one-stop venue that addresses their myriad needs may seem like a Holy Grail, but it is ultimately what substance users need and is likely to be cost-effective. For decades, Amsterdam has offered integrated OST, HIV and primary care services for substance users [40]. In the USA, some early steps have been made to promote a multicity infrastructure that integrates HIV primary care and substance abuse treatment [41].

Research is also needed to develop optimal combination prevention packages which are cost-effective. Even with new advancements in HIV-prevention research, we should keep in mind that to maximize the impact of intervention packages, particularly in resource-limited settings, some of the most cost-effective preventions to reduce HIV infections and deaths may be existing, proven tools such as access to NSP, OST, VCT and linkage to care. We need to avoid over-investment in individually focused interventions that include so many sessions that they are impractical or cost prohibitive. Yet, some IDUs, especially women, need safe spaces to access to deal with trauma, violence and stigma that interfere with health. Most of all, we need to overcome addictophobia, which manifests as the desire to refer drug users somewhere else, anywhere else, or to deny them access to life-saving interventions ‘for their own good’. People who use drugs, both by injection or other routes, can be difficult to manage. But if we do not integrate services and make combination prevention interventions truly accessible, effective interventions will remain under-utilized and morbidity and mortality will increase, even when we have the best of intentions.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

The article is dedicated to people who inject drugs around the globe who have been denied HIV prevention interventions or antiretroviral therapies. Members of the HPTN SUSC developed this commentary as part of its mission to raise awareness of emerging needs for HIV prevention in substance users. We are grateful to Laura Thomas of the San Francisco Drug Policy Alliance who allowed us to reprint a quote from her blog on the reinstatement of the US Congressional ban on federal support for syringe exchange programs. The authors acknowledge funding from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R37DA019829, R01DA030776, R01DA028766) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U01 068619, U01 069424).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Dr Penniman Dyer acknowledges support from the HPTN Scholars program and The HIV/AIDS Translational Training (HATT) Program (R25 MH-080644). Dr Shoptaw receives clinical supplies from Pfizer and Medicinova for his research, as well as the NIMH Center Grant P30MH58107.

Disclaimer: The opinions in this article are the sole opinions of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the HIV Prevention Trials Network, or the National Institutes of Health.

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READING

Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:

▪ of special interest

▪▪ of outstanding interest

Additional references related to this topic can also be found in the Current World Literature section in this issue (p. 379).

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1▪▪. Cohen J. Breakthrough of the year: HIV treatment as prevention. Science 2011; 334:1628.

This study highlights the use of antiretrovirals not only to treat HIV-infected people but also to reduce HIV transmission rates. Sets the stage for this review in that this breakthrough is highly influential for the development of strategies used by health advocates and policymakers to reduce the burden of HIV disease among those most highly affected.

2. Grant RM. Antiretroviral agents used by HIV-uninfected persons for prevention: pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 50 (Suppl 3):S96.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-infected adults and adolescents. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1998; 47:39–82.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Update: Provisional Public Health Service recommendations for chemoprophylaxis after occupational exposure to HIV. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1996; 45:468–472.
5. Cardo DM, Culver DH, Ciesielski CA, et al. A case–control study of HIV seroconversion in health care workers after percutaneous exposure. N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1485–1490.
6. Smith DK, Grohskopf LA, Black RJ, et al. Antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection-drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV in the United States: recommendations from the US Department of Health and Human Services. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005; 54:1–20.
7. Lurie P, Miller S, Hecht F, et al. Postexposure prophylaxis after nonoccupational HIV exposure. J Am Med Assoc 1998; 280:1769.
8▪▪. Degenhardt L, Mathers B, Vickerman P, et al. Prevention of HIV infection for people who inject drugs: why individual, structural, and combination approaches are needed. Lancet 2010; 376:285–301.

This study stresses the importance of integrating multifaceted approaches to HIV-prevention interventions among IDUs. Using modeling scenarios in a hypothetical population, the authors show that simultaneous scale-up of NSP, OST and ART has a synergistic effect on reducing HIV incidence up to 67%. This study argues against ‘pilot’ or ‘demonstration’ programs of proven interventions, in favor of simultaneous implementation.

9▪▪. Strathdee SA, Hallett TB, Bobrova N, et al. HIV and risk environment for injecting drug users: the past, present, and future. Lancet 2010; 376:268–284.

This study demonstrates how combination HIV prevention for IDUs can have a significant impact on HIV epidemics among IDUs that are emerging or established, but also shows the important influence that structural interventions may have on HIV incidence as well. Of special interest is the need for OST and NSP to operate at the higher levels of efficacy in situations where the force of HIV infection is high (e.g. in an HIV outbreak).

10▪▪. Kurth AE, Celum C, Baeten JM, et al. Combination HIV prevention: significance, challenges, and opportunities. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2011; 1–11.

Focuses on the need to develop HIV ‘prevention packages’ that combine various evidence-based strategies which are tailored to the needs of diverse subgroups and provided at high coverage for a measurable reduction in population-level HIV transmission. Reviews current studies of PrEP delivery among different subsets of high-risk populations (i.e. IDU, sero-discordant couples, MSM) and discusses elements of the packages that can then be integrated into combination prevention interventions.

11▪. Burns DN, Dieffenbach CW, Vermund SH. Rethinking prevention of HIV type 1 infection. Clin Infect Dis 2010; 51:725.

This study centers around treatment as prevention with a substantial focus placed on the relevance of the seek, test and treat model and suggests that mathematical modeling estimating success in ‘eradicating’ HIV may be overestimated. The authors contend that a 100% success rate may be impossible to attain as 21% of all HIV-positive persons in the USA, where opt out testing is the practice, are unaware of their status. The study contends that we must focus on the whole individual, with an emphasis on their total health and well being and not only public health goals, which has previously been the standard.

12. Buchbinder SP, Liu A. Preexposure prophylaxis and the promise of combination prevention approaches. AIDS Behav 2011; 1–8.
13. Krakower D, Mayer KH. Promising prevention approaches: tenofovir gel and prophylactic use of antiretroviral medications. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2011; 1–8.
14▪. Sherman KE, Flamm SL, Afdhal NH, et al. Response-guided telaprevir combination treatment for hepatitis C virus infection. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:1014–1024.

Support for response-guided therapy to increase efficacy of treatment regimes that increase survival among those infected with hepatitis C. Research in this area has the potential to decrease transmissibility to the noninfected.

15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations on use of new treatment pption for latent TB infection. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report 2011; 60:1650–1653.
16▪▪. Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Ali H, et al. HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage. Lancet 2010; 375:1014–1028.

Systematic review which estimates national, regional, and global coverage of HIV services in IDUs. These authors concluded that worldwide, coverage of HIV prevention, treatment, and care services in IDU populations is very low and needs dramatic improvements for proven interventions to achieve reductions in HIV incidence among IDUs. In several regions, data are also poor or lacking.

17. UNAIDS. Global report: UNAIDS report on the global AIDS epidemic 2010. Geneva; 2010.
18. Quan VM, Minh NL, Ha TV, et al. Mortality and HIV transmission among male Vietnamese injection drug users. Addiction 2011; 106:583–589.
19. Malta M, Bastos FI, da Silva CMFP, et al. Differential survival benefit of universal HAART access in Brazil: a nation-wide comparison of injecting drug users versus men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 52:629.
20. Blansfield H. Addictophobia. Connect Med 1991; 55:361.
21▪. International Harm Reduction Association. Inflicting harm: judicial corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences in selected countries. Harm Reduction International 2011.

This report reinforces the need to make necessary changes in how drug and alcohol offenders are treated. Corporal punishment for drug and alcohol offences is a breach of human rights and reinforces negative treatment of offenders.

22. Human Rights Watch. Where darkness knows no limits: incarceration, ill-treatment and forced labor as drug rehabilitation in China. 2010 [cited 2011 December 21]; Available from: http://www.hrw.org.
23. Vongchak T, Kawichai S, Sherman S, et al. The influence of Thailand's 2003 ‘war on drugs’ policy on self-reported drug use among injection drug users in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Int J Drug Policy 2005; 16:115–121.
24. Kerr T, Kiatying-Angsulee N, Fairbairn N, et al. High rate of midazolam injection among drug users in Bangkok, Thailand. Harm Reduction J 2010a; 7.
25. Global SMART Programme, UNODC (2011). Amphetamine and ecstasy: 2011 global ATS assessment. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna, p. 12.
26. Thomas L. Reinstating the federal ban on syringe exchange funding is murderous. 2011 [cited 2012 January 3]; Available from: http://www.alternet.org/drugs/153478/reinstating_the_federal_ban_on_syringe_exchange_funding_is_murderous.
27▪. Montaner JSG, Wood E, Kerr T, et al. Expanded highly active antiretroviral therapy coverage among HIV-positive drug users to improve individual and public health outcomes. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 55:S5.

This study discusses the need to expand the use of HAART to those in medical need, including drug users. It further reinforces the idea that human rights should be considered in provision of HAART. Finally, they propose that HAART use should be carried out within a comprehensive ‘combination prevention’ framework, which emphasizes both drug addiction treatment and HIV prevention.

28. Milloy MJ, Kerr T, Bangsberg DR, et al. Homelessness as a structural barrier to effective antiretroviral therapy among HIV-seropositive illicit drug users in a Canadian setting. AIDS Patient Care and STDs 2012; 26:60–67.
29. World Health Organization. UNAIDS: Technical guide for countries to set targets for universal access to HIV prevention, treatment and care for injecting drug users. World Health Organization; 2009.
30▪. Hillis SD, Zapata L, Robbins CL, et al. HIV seroprevalence among orphaned and homeless youth: no place like home. AIDS 2012; 26:105.

This study focuses on a neglected subgroup of adolescent IDUs in the Ukraine and shows that HIV prevalence is especially high among individuals who are homeless and orphaned. These youths may benefit from combination HIV-prevention interventions that address structural processes that create extreme vulnerability in their risk environment.

31. Mastro TD, Cunningham J, Medrano T, van Dam J. Youth and HIV: the intersection of homelessness, orphaned status, injection drug use and sexual risk. AIDS 2012; 26:111.
32. DeJarlais DC. The 1993 Okey Memorial Lecture: cross-national studies of AIDS among injecting drug users. Addiction 1994; 89:383–392.
33▪. Strathdee SA, Lozada R, Martinez G, et al. Social and structural factors associated with HIV infection among female sex workers who inject drugs in the Mexico-US border region. PLoS One 2011; 6:e19048.

This study highlights the need to remove barriers that prevent HIV-negative and HIV-positive female sex workers who inject drugs from availing themselves of HIV-prevention interventions. From a rights-based perspective, this study highlights the need to develop interventions that target unjustified policing practices, which is a breach of human rights, as well as clients’ risk behaviors.

34. Brown QL, Cavanaugh CE, Penniman TV, Latimer WW. The impact of homelessness on recent sex trade among pregnant women in drug treatment. J Subs Use 2011; 1–7.
35. Cavanaugh CE, Latimer WW. Recent sex trade and injection drug use among pregnant opiate and cocaine dependent women in treatment: the significance of psychiatric comorbidity. Addict Disord Their Treatment 2010; 9:32.
36. El-Bassel N, et al. Curr Opin HIV/AIDS. 2012.
37. Quan VM, Aramrattana A, Vongchak T, et al. Mortality among injection drug users in northern Thailand: a prospective cohort study. J Addict Med 2010; 4:217.
38▪. Crawford ND, Vlahov D. Progress in HIV reduction and prevention among injection and noninjection drug users. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 55:S84.

This study provides support for a multifaceted approach to HIV prevention among IDUs and makes the case that these approaches should be extended to non-IDUs. This study also offers suggestions for screening and prevention including test and treat, nPrEP and PrEP.

39▪. Kim SC, Becker S, Dieffenbach C, et al. Planning for pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV transmission: challenges and opportunities. J Int AIDS Soc 2010; 13:24.

Outlines key action points to be considered in implementing PrEP to the most vulnerable and underserved subgroups. One major point made is that whereas PrEP is promising, it cannot replace other alternative interventions and should be combined with other effective approaches to decrease burden of HIV in the most vulnerable segments of the population. Considers cost/benefits to implementation.

40. Plomp HN, Hek HVD, Ader HJ. The Amsterdam methadone dispensing circuit: genesis and effectiveness of a public health model for local drug policy. Addiction 1996; 91:711–722.
41. Cheever LW, Kresina TF, Cajina A, Lubran R. A model federal collaborative to increase patient access to buprenorphine treatment in HIV primary care. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 56:S3.
Keywords:

drug abuse treatment; HIV; injection drug use; needle and syringe exchange programs; pre-exposure prophylaxis

© 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.