Criminal Justice System Involvement as a Risk Factor for Detectable Plasma HIV Viral Load in People Who Use Illicit Drugs: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

Univariable associations between a history of incarceration and HIV and HCV prevalence among people who inject drugs across 17 countries in Europe 2006 to 2020 – is the precautionary principle applicable?

Background

People who inject drugs (PWID) are frequently incarcerated, which is associated with multiple negative health outcomes.

Aim

We aimed to estimate the associations between a history of incarceration and prevalence of HIV and HCV infection among PWID in Europe.

Methods

Aggregate data from PWID recruited in drug services (excluding prison services) or elsewhere in the community were reported by 17 of 30 countries (16 per virus) collaborating in a European drug monitoring system (2006–2020; n = 52,368 HIV+/−; n = 47,268 HCV+/−). Country-specific odds ratios (OR) and prevalence ratios (PR) were calculated from country totals of HIV and HCV antibody status and self-reported life-time incarceration history, and pooled using meta-analyses. Country-specific and overall population attributable risk (PAR) were estimated using pooled PR.

Results

Univariable HIV OR ranged between 0.73 and 6.37 (median: 2.1; pooled OR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.52–2.42). Pooled PR was 1.66 (95% CI 1.38–1.98), giving a PAR of 25.8% (95% CI 16.7–34.0). Univariable anti-HCV OR ranged between 1.06 and 5.04 (median: 2.70; pooled OR: 2.51; 95% CI: 2.17–2.91). Pooled PR was 1.42 (95% CI: 1.28–1.58) and PAR 16.7% (95% CI: 11.8–21.7). Subgroup analyses showed differences in the OR for HCV by geographical region, with lower estimates in southern Europe.

Conclusion

In univariable analysis, a history of incarceration was associated with positive HIV and HCV serostatus among PWID in Europe. Applying the precautionary principle would suggest finding alternatives to incarceration of PWID and strengthening health and social services in prison and after release (‘throughcare’).

The state of harm reduction in prisons in 30 European countries with a focus on people who inject drugs and infectious diseases

BACKGROUND

People who inject drugs are often imprisoned, which is associated with increased levels of health risks including overdose and infectious diseases transmission, affecting not only people in prison but also the communities to which they return. This paper aims to give an up-to-date overview on availability, coverage and policy framework of prison-based harm reduction interventions in Europe.

METHODS

Available data on selected harm reduction responses in prisons were compiled from international standardised data sources and combined with a questionnaire survey among 30 National Focal Points of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to determine the level of availability, estimated coverage and policy framework of the interventions.

RESULTS

Information about responses to health harms in prisons is limited and heterogeneous. Cross-country comparability is hampered by diverging national data collection methods. Opioid substitution treatment (OST) is available in 29 countries, but coverage remains low (below 30% of people in need) in half of the responding countries. Needle and syringe programmes, lubricant distribution, counselling on safer injecting and tattooing/piercing are scarcely available. Testing for infectious diseases is offered but mostly upon prison entry, and uptake remains low in about half of the countries. While treatment of infections is mostly available and coverage is high for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis, hepatitis B and C treatment are less often provided. Health education as well as condom distribution is usually available, but provision remains low in nearly half of the countries. Post-release linkage to addiction care as well as to treatment of infections is available in a majority of countries, but implementation is often partial. Interventions recommended to be provided upon release, such as OST initiation, take-home naloxone and testing of infections, are rarely provided. While 21 countries address harm reduction in prison in national strategic documents, upon-release interventions appear only in 12.

CONCLUSIONS

Availability and coverage of harm reduction interventions in European prisons are limited, compared to the community. There is a gap between international recommendations and 'on-paper' availability of interventions and their actual implementation. Scaling up harm reduction in prison and throughcare can achieve important individual and public-health benefits.