HIV among injecting drug users: Current epidemiology, biologic markers, respondent-driven sampling, and supervised-injection facilities

Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 308-313

  Des Jarlais, Don C ^a   Arasteh, Kamyar ^a   Semaan, Salaam ^b   Wood, Evan ^c  

^a BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

AIDS; Epidemiology; HIV; Injecting drug use; Respondent driven sampling; Supervised injecting facilities

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ASIA; DISEASE COURSE; EPIDEMIC; EUROPE; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEPATITIS C VIRUS; HERPES SIMPLEX VIRUS 2; HETEROSEXUALITY; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; INTERVENTION STUDY; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ABUSE; METHODOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUALITY; DISEASE TRANSMISSION; FEMALE; MALE; RISK FACTOR; SUBSTANCE ABUSE;

FEMALE; HIV INFECTIONS; HUMANS; INTERVENTION STUDIES; MALE; RISK FACTORS; SUBSTANCE ABUSE, INTRAVENOUS;

EID: 67651155916     PISSN: 1746630X     EISSN: 17466318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/COH.0b013e32832bbc6f     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. Mathers B, Degenhardt L, Phillips B, et al. Global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among people who inject drugs: a systematic review. Lancet 2008; 372:1733-1745. This first systematic review of the global epidemiology of injecting drug use and HIV among IDUs revises previous estimates by giving preference to data sources collected through rigorous methods (e.g., capture-recapture and multiplier methods) and clearly identifying less rigorous methods as such.
2. Aceijas C, Stimson G, Hickman M, Rhodes T. Global overview of injecting drug use and HIV infection among injecting drug users. AIDS 2004; 18:2295-2303. (Pubitemid 39620222)
3. van de Laar M, Likatavicius G, Stengaard A, Donoghoe M. HIV/AIDS surveillance in Europe: update 2007. Euro Surveill 2008; 13:19066.
4. Balakiryeva O, Gusak L, Dovbakh H, et al. Evaluation of the size of most-at-risk populations vulnerable to HIV infection in Ukraine. Kyiv: Ukraine, International HIV/AIDS Alliance in Ukraine; 2006.
5. Wiessing L, van de LaarM, Donoghoe M, et al. HIV among injecting drug users in Europe: increasing trends in the east. Euro Surveill 2008; 13:19067. This report presents the most recent detailed account of the HIV epidemics in the European Union (EU), European Free Trade Association (EFTA), and WHO European Region countries (including non-EU/EFTA countries such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan), thereby providing an overview of new HIV infections among IDUs across the region.
6. Kruglov Y, Kobyshcha Y, Salyuk T, et al. The most severe HIV epidemic in Europe: Ukraine's national HIV prevalence estimates for 2007. Sex Transm Infect 2008; 84 (Suppl 1):i37-i41. In addition to providing the most accurate estimates of the population of IDUs and people living with HIV in Ukraine, this report exemplifies the use of standard methods that render the most reliable estimates and allow for comparison across time and national settings.
7. UNAIDS. 2008 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic. Geneva: UNAIDS; 2008. The annual UNAIDS reports provide the single most comprehensive source of data regarding the global epidemiology of HIV, including HIV testing, antiretroviral therapy, and risk behaviors of the most-at-risk populations.
8. Abdala N, Krasnoselskikh T, Durante A, et al. Sexually transmitted infections, sexual risk behaviors and the risk of heterosexual spread of HIV among and beyond IDUs in St. Petersburg, Russia. Eur Addict Res 2008; 14:19-25.
9. Burchell A, Calzavara L, Orekhovsky V, Ladnaya N. Characterization of an emerging heterosexual HIV epidemic in Russia. Sex Transm Dis 2008; 35:807-813.
10. Kissin D, Akatova N, Rakhmanova A, et al. Rapid HIV testing and prevention of perinatal HIV transmission in high-risk maternity hospitals in St. Petersburg, Russia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 183:e1-e7.
11. Jia Y, Sun J, Fan L, et al. Estimates of HIV prevalence in a highly endemic area of China: Dehong Prefecture, Yunnan Province. Int J Epidemiol 2008; 37:1287-1296.
12. Duan S, Guo H, Pang L, et al. Analysis of the epidemiologic patterns of HIV transmission in Dehong Prefecture, Yunnan Province. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008; 42:866-869.
13. Lu L, Jia M, Ma Y, et al. The changing face of HIV in China. Nature 2008; 455:609-611.
14. Des Jarlais D, Arasteh K, McKnight C, et al. Using hepatitis C virus and herpes simplex virus-2 to track HIV among injecting drug users in New York City. Drug Alcohol Depend; 101:88-91. This study proposes using HCV and HSV-2 serostatus as biomarkers for injectingrelated and sexual risk. Use of these biomarkers among IDUs in New York shows a dramatic shift from dominant injecting risk to dominant sexual risk after large-scale implementation of syringe exchange in the city.
15. Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Soc Probl 1997; 44:174-199. (Pubitemid 127082490)
16. Heckathorn D, Semaan S, Broadhead RS, Hughes J. Extensions of respondent- driven sampling: a new approach to the study of injection drug users aged 18-25. AIDS Behav 2002; 6:55-67. (Pubitemid 35303722)
17. Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling II: deriving valid population estimates from chain-referral samples of hidden populations. Soc Probl 2002; 49:11-34.
18. King W, Larkins S, Hucks-Ortiz C, et al. Factors associated with HIV viral load in a respondent-driven sample in Los Angeles. AIDS Behav 2009; 13:145-153.
19. Malekinejad M, Johnston L, Kendall C, et al. Using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance in international settings: a systematic review. AIDS Behav 2008; 12 (4 Suppl):S105-S130. This article reviews operational, design, and analytical considerations in implementing RDS in surveillance activities. These considerations are applicable to research studies as well.
20. Semaan S, Santibanez S, Garfein R, et al. Ethical and regulatory considerations in HIV prevention studies employing respondent-driven sampling. Int J Drug Policy 2009; 20:14-27. This article reviews important ethical and regulatory considerations in implementing RDS.
21. Semaan S, Lauby J, Liebman J. Street and network sampling in evaluation studies of HIV risk-reduction interventions. AIDS Rev 2002; 4:213-223. (Pubitemid 36104232)
22. Salganik M. Variance estimation, design effects, and sample size calculations for respondent-driven sampling. J Urban Health 2006; 83 (Suppl 7):98-112. (Pubitemid 46786466)
23. Johnston L, Malekinejad M, Kendall C, et al. Implementation challenges to using respondent-driven sampling methodology for HIV biological and behavioral surveillance: field experiences in international settings. AIDS Behav 2008; 12:S131-S141.
24. Scott G. They got their program and I got mine: a cautionary tale concerning the ethical implications of using respondent-driven sampling to study injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19:42-51.
25. Broadhead R. Notes on a cautionary (tall) tale about respondent-driven sampling: a critique of Scott's ethnography. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19: 235-237.
26. Lansky A, Mastro T. Using respondent-driven sampling for behavioural surveillance: response to Scott. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19:241-243.
27. Ouellet L. Response: cautionary comments on an ethnographic tale gone wrong. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19:238-240.
28. Prachand N, Benbow N. Clarifying the ethnographer's role in Chicago's HIV behavioural surveillance - injecting drug users cycle, 2005: response to Scott. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19:244-245.
29. Scott G. Responses on a cautionary tale concerning the ethics of using respondent-driven sampling to study injection drug users. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19:246-247.
30. Des Jarlais D, Semaan S. HIV prevention and psychoactive drug use: a research agenda. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009; 63:191-196.
31. Des Jarlais D, Semann S. HIV prevention for injecting drug users: the first 25 years and counting. Psychosom Med 2008; 70:606-611.
32. Semaan S, Leinhos M. The ethics of public health practice for the prevention and control of sexually transmitted diseases. In: Aral S, Douglas J, Lipshutz J, editors. Behavioral interventions for prevention and control of sexually transmitted diseases. New York: Springer-SBM; 2007. pp. 517-548.
33. Kerr T, Kimber J, DeBeck K, Wood E. The role of safer injection facilities in the response to HIV/AIDS among injection drug users. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep 2007; 4:158-164.
34. Dolan K, Kimber J, Fry C, et al. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and the establishment of supervised injecting centres in Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev 2000; 19:337-346.
35. Wood E, Tyndall M, Montaner J, Kerr T. Summary of findings from the evaluation of a pilot medically supervised safer injecting facility. CMAJ 2006; 175:1399-1404. (Pubitemid 44876560)
36. Fast D, Small W, Wood E, Kerr T. The perspectives of injection drug users regarding safer injecting education delivered through a supervised injecting facility. Harm Reduct J 2008; 5:32.
37. Wood R, Wood E, Lai C, et al. Nurse-delivered safer injection education among a cohort of injection drug users: evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver's supervised injection facility. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19:183-188.
38. Small W, Wood E, Lloyd-Smith E, et al. Accessing care for injection-related infections through a medically supervised injecting facility: a qualitative study. Drug Alcohol Depend 2008; 98:159-162.
39. Lloyd-Smith E, Wood E, Zhang R, et al. Risk factors for developing a cutaneous injection-related infection among injection drug users: a cohort study. BMC Public Health 2008; 8:405.
40. Fairbairn N, Small W, Shannon K, et al. Seeking refuge from violence in streetbased drug scenes: women's experiences in North America's first supervised injection facility. Soc Sci Med 2008; 7:817-823.
41. DeBeck K, Wood E, Zhang R, et al. Police and public health partnerships: evidence from the evaluation of Vancouver's supervised injection facility. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 2008; 3:11. This study demonstrates the unique role SIF may play in addressing vulnerabilities facing drug-using women.
42. Richardson L, Wood E, Zhang R, et al. Employment among users of a medically supervised safer injection facility. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2008; 34:519-525.
43. Milloy M, Kerr T, Mathias R, et al. Nonfatal overdose among a cohort of active injection drug users recruited from a supervised injection facility. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 2008; 34:499-509. (Pubitemid 351913750)
44. Milloy M, Kerr T, Tyndall M, et al. Estimated drug overdose deaths averted by North America's first medically-supervised safer injection facility. PLoS ONE 2008; 3:e3351.
45. DeBeck K, Small W, Wood E, et al. Public injecting among a cohort of injecting drug users in Vancouver, Canada. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009; 63:81-86.
46. Kerr T, Tyndall M, Li K, et al. Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet 2005; 366:316-318. (Pubitemid 41019422)
47. Marshall B, Wood E, Zhang R, et al. Condom use among injection drug users accessing a supervised injecting facility. Sex Transm Infect 2008; 85:121-126.
48. Kimber J, Mattick R, Kaldor J, et al. Process and predictors of drug treatment referral and referral uptake at the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Drug Alcohol Rev 2008; 27:602-612.
49. Kerr T, Montaner J, Wood E. Supervised injecting facilities: time for scale-up? Lancet 2008; 372:354-355.
50. Wood E, Kerr T, Tyndall M, Montaner J. The Canadian government's treatment of scientific process and evidence: inside the evaluation of North America's first supervised injecting facility. Int J Drug Policy 2008; 19:220-225.
51. Bayoumi A, Zaric G. The cost-effectiveness of Vancouver's supervised injection facility. CMAJ 2008; 179:1143-1151.
52. Beletsky L, Davis C, Anderson E, Burris S. The law (and politics) of safe injection facilities in the United States. Am J Public Health 2008; 98:231-237. (Pubitemid 351317557)