Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroductionIn light of the COVID‐19 pandemic, considerable effort is going into identifying and protecting those at risk. Criminalization, stigmatization and the psychological, physical, behavioural and economic consequences of substance use make people who inject drugs (PWID) extremely vulnerable to many infectious diseases. While relationships between drug use and blood‐borne and sexually transmitted infections are well studied, less attention has been paid to other infectious disease outbreaks among PWID.DiscussionCOVID‐19 is likely to disproportionally affect PWID due to a high prevalence of comorbidities that make the disease more severe, unsanitary and overcrowded living conditions, stigmatization, common incarceration, homelessness and difficulties in adhering to quarantine, social distancing or self‐isolation mandates. The COVID‐19 pandemic also jeopardizes essential for PWID services, such as needle exchange or substitution therapy programmes, which can be affected both in a short‐ and a long‐term perspective. Importantly, there is substantial evidence of other infectious disease outbreaks in PWID that were associated with factors that enable COVID‐19 transmission, such as poor hygiene, overcrowded living conditions and communal ways of using drugs.ConclusionsThe COVID‐19 crisis might increase risks of homelessnes, overdoses and unsafe injecting and sexual practices for PWID. In order to address existing inequalities, consultations with PWID advocacy groups are vital when designing inclusive health response to the COVID‐19 pandemic.

AbstractIntroductionPeople who inject drugs (PWID) remain at high risk of HIV in many countries. The HIV prevention cascades have been proposed to replicate the success of the treatment cascades and reinvigorate the prevention programmes through improved monitoring, planning and delivery. We adapted the cascade framework to the PWID context in Ukraine, assessed gaps and analysed factors associated with achieving "access" and "effective use" outcomes.MethodsSelf‐reported data on the use of prevention services and risk behaviours from the 2017 integrated bio‐behavioural survey among PWID in Ukraine were used to construct cascades for needle/syringe and condom programmes (NSP and CP). Socio‐demographic and behavioural variables were evaluated as potential correlates of cascade outcomes.ResultsThe NSP cascade analysis included 7815 HIV‐negative PWID. Motivation to use clean syringes was not assessed and assumed at 100%. Access to clean syringes through NSP in the past 12 months was reported by 2789 participants (35.7%). Effective use of syringes (no sharing in the past 30 days) was reported by 7405 participants (94.8%). NSP access was higher among women, individuals older than 44, and mixed drug users; while effective use was reported more frequently by men and opioid users, with no difference by age. The CP cascade analysis included 6606 (85%) of the HIV‐negative PWID who had sex in the past three months. Of those, 2282 (34.5%) received condoms, and 1708 (25.9%) reported consistent use with all partners in the past three months. Older PWID and mixed‐drug users accessed condoms more frequently; whereas younger subgroups and opioid users used them more consistently.ConclusionsOverall, the cascade framework was useful to describe the status of HIV prevention among PWID in Ukraine and to identify areas for improvement in the programming and evaluation of HIV prevention. Access to needle/syringe and condom programmes was substantially below the recommended levels. Effective use of clean syringes was reported by a vast majority of PWID, although likely affected by self‐report bias; whereas consistent condom use was infrequent. Socio‐demographic and behavioural variables showed significant associations in NSP and CP cascade analyses, with little consistency between the access and effective use outcomes.

AbstractIntroductionProviding HIV healthcare and Treatment as Prevention both depend on diagnosing HIV cases, preferably soon after initial infection. We hypothesized that tracing risk networks recruits higher proportions of undiagnosed positives than outreach‐based testing or respondent‐driven sampling (RDS) in Odessa, Ukraine.MethodsThe Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP) used risk network tracing to recruit sexual and injection networks of recently‐infected and longer‐term infected (LTs) seeds (2013 to 2016). Integrated Biobehavioural Surveillance (IBBS) (2013) used RDS to recruit people who inject drugs (PWID). Outreach Testing tested PWID for HIV at community outreach sites (2013 to 2016). Proportions of undiagnosed positives among those tested were compared TRIP versus IBBS; TRIP versus Outreach Testing and between TRIP arms. Costs were compared across the projects.ResultsTRIP tested 1252 people (21% women) in seeds' risk networks; IBBS tested 400 (18% women); Outreach Testing 13,936 (31% women). TRIP networks included a higher proportion of undiagnosed positives (14.6%) than IBBS (5.0%) or Outreach Testing (2.4%); odds ratio (OR) 3.25 (95% CI 2.07, 5.12) versus IBBS and 7.03 (CI 5.95, 8.31) versus Outreach Testing respectively. Findings remained significant in analyses stratified by sex and when PWID in TRIP networks were compared with Outreach Testing and IBBS. Within TRIP, recently‐infected participants' networks contained higher proportions of undiagnosed positives (16.3%) than LTs' networks (12.2%); OR 1.41 (CI 1.01, 1.95). TRIP located undiagnosed positives less expensively than did RDS or Outreach Testing.ConclusionsTRIP's recruiting techniques, including prioritizing networks of the recently infected, find undiagnosed HIV‐positive people efficiently. They should be integrated with standard practice to improve case‐finding. Research should test these techniques in other socio‐epidemiologic contexts.Clinical trial registryRegistered ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01827228.

AbstractIntroductionThis paper examines the extent to which an intervention succeeded in locating people who had recently become infected with HIV in the context of the large‐scale Ukrainian epidemic. Locating and intervening with people who recently became infected with HIV (people with recent infection, or PwRI) can reduce forward HIV transmission and help PwRI remain healthy.MethodsThe Transmission Reduction Intervention Project (TRIP) recruited recently‐infected and longer‐term infected seeds in Odessa, Ukraine, in 2013 to 2016, and asked them to help recruit their extended risk network members. The proportions of network members who were PwRI were compared between TRIP arms (i.e. networks of recently‐infected seeds vs. networks of longer‐term infected seeds) and to the proportion of participants who were PwRI in an RDS‐based Integrated Biobehavioral Surveillance of people who inject drugs in 2013.ResultsThe networks of PwRI seeds and those of longer‐term infected seeds had similar (2%) proportions who were themselves PwRI. This was higher than the 0.25% proportion in IBBS (OR = 7.80; p = 0.016). The odds ratio among the subset of participants who injected drugs was 11.17 (p = 0.003). Cost comparison analyses using simplified ingredients‐based methods found that TRIP spent no more than US $4513 per PwRI located whereas IBBS spent $11,924.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to confirm these results and improve TRIP further, but our findings suggest that interventions that trace the networks of people who test HIV‐positive are a cost‐effective way to locate PwRI and reduce HIV transmission and should therefore be implemented.

Abstract
Internally displaced persons are often excluded from HIV molecular epidemiology surveillance due to structural, behavioral, and social barriers in access to treatment. We test a field-based molecular epidemiology framework to study HIV transmission dynamics in a hard-to-reach and highly stigmatized group, internally displaced people who inject drugs (IDPWIDs). We inform the framework by Nanopore generated HIV pol sequences and IDPWID migration history. In June–September 2020, we recruited 164 IDPWID in Odesa, Ukraine, and obtained 34 HIV sequences from HIV-infected participants. We aligned them to publicly available sequences (N = 359) from Odesa and IDPWID regions of origin and identified 7 phylogenetic clusters with at least 1 IDPWID. Using times to the most recent common ancestors of the identified clusters and times of IDPWID relocation to Odesa, we infer potential post-displacement transmission window when infections likely to happen to be between 10 and 21 months, not exceeding 4 years. Phylogeographic analysis of the sequence data shows that local people in Odesa disproportionally transmit HIV to the IDPWID community. Rapid transmissions post-displacement in the IDPWID community might be associated with slow progression along the HIV continuum of care: only 63% of IDPWID were aware of their status, 40% of those were in antiviral treatment, and 43% of those were virally suppressed. Such HIV molecular epidemiology investigations are feasible in transient and hard-to-reach communities and can help indicate best times for HIV preventive interventions. Our findings highlight the need to rapidly integrate Ukrainian IDPWID into prevention and treatment services following the dramatic escalation of the war in 2022.