Access to opioid agonist therapy in Russia: time for reform

The impact of emergency guidance to the COVID-19 pandemic on treatment entry, retention and mortality among patients on methadone in Ukraine

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Ukraine's Ministry of Health released urgent COVID-19 guidelines, allowing for early implementation of take-home dosing (THD) for opioid agonist therapies (OAT) such as methadone. Enrollment in OAT and retention in the program are the most effective HIV prevention strategies for people who inject drugs (PWID). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of Ukraine's COVID-19 emergency guidance on OAT treatment enrollment, retention on treatment and mortality.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Using Ukraine's national OAT registry for 252 governmental clinics across 25 regions, we conducted a 12-month comparative prospective cohort survival analysis. This study compared newly enrolled methadone patients within the initial 6 months following the COVID-19 guidance (COVID) with patients from the preceding year (pre-COVID) in a country with high adult HIV prevalence (1.2%) that is concentrated in PWID.

PARTICIPANTS

In the nation-wide sample of newly enrolled PWID in Ukraine, comprising 2798 individuals, 1423 were in the COVID cohort and 1375 were in the pre-COVID cohort. The majority were male (86.7%), with an average age of 39.3 years.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes were average monthly enrollment per cohort, treatment retention and mortality, with internal time-dependent predictors, including THD and optimal (> 85 mg) methadone dosing.

RESULTS

Relative to the pre-COVID period, the monthly average patient enrollment was statistically significantly higher during the COVID period (283.7 versus 236.0; P < 0.0001), where patients were more likely to transition to THD and achieve optimal dosing earlier. Significant differences were observed in the proportions of person-months on THD (41 versus 13%, P < 0.0001) and optimal dosing (38 versus 31%, P < 0.0001) between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts. Predictors of treatment retention, expressed as adjusted hazard ratios (aHR), included early THD [aHR = 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.47-2.45], early optimal dosing (aHR = 1.71, 95% CI = 1.37-2.13) and prior methadone treatment (aHR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.15-1.68). These factors persisted, respectively, in the pre-COVID (aHR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.41-3.70; aHR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.32-2.56; and aHR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.06-1.74) and COVID (aHR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.40-2.59; aHR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.20-2.16; and aHR = 1.49, 95% CI = 1.08-1.94) cohorts. Survival did not differ significantly between the two prospective cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Ukraine's prompt adoption of early take-home dosing for opioid agonist therapies, such as methadone, following the emergency COVID-19 guidance appears to have increased enrollment into methadone and improved treatment retention for people who inject drugs without adverse effects on patient survival.

Impulsivity and linkage to HIV Care among People living with HIV in St. Petersburg, Russia

This study evaluated the association between impulsivity and linkage to HIV care among Russians living with HIV recruited from an inpatient narcology hospital. Linking Infectious and Narcology Care (LINC) study participants who completed the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) were included in these analyses. The primary independent variable was impulsivity score which was categorized as high impulsivity (BIS score > 71) vs. low impulsivity (BIS score < = 71). The primary outcome, linkage to care post recruitment, was defined as one or more HIV medical care visits at 12-month follow-up. Multiple logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between high impulsivity and linkage to HIV care controlling for potential confounders. Participants (N = 227) were adults with a mean age of 34 years (SD = 5), and the majority were male (74%). We did not detect a significant association between impulsivity and linkage to HIV care after adjusting for respondents' age, gender, CD4 cell count, and depression score. We also found that substance use and hazardous drinking did not appear to confound the relationship. Although our study was unable to detect an association between impulsivity and linkage to HIV care, it may provide direction for future research exploring the associations between impulsivity and HIV care.

Stigma and ART initiation among people with HIV and a lifetime history of illicit drug use in Saint-Petersburg, Russia–A prospective cohort analysis

BACKGROUND

HIV-positive people who inject drugs (PWID) are stigmatized and face more challenges in accessing ART. The natural course of stigma and its role on ART initiation in this population is unclear. We examined 1] whether HIV stigma changes over time and 2] whether HIV and substance use stigma are associated with ART initiation in a prospective cohort of HIV-positive PWID in St. Petersburg, Russia.

METHODS

We used data from 165 HIV-positive PWID who were ART-naïve at enrollment andgeneralized estimating equations to assess changes in HIV stigma between baseline, 12- and 24-month study visits. Logistic regression estimated associations of HIV stigma and substance use stigma with ART initiation. All models were adjusted for gender, age, CD4 count, duration of HIV diagnosis, recent (past 30-day) drug use and depressive symptoms.

RESULTS

Participants characteristics were the following: median age of 34 (Q1; Q3: 30; 37) years; 30% female; 28% with CD4 count <350; 44% reported recent drug use. During the study period, 31% initiated ART and the median time between HIV diagnosis and ART initiation was 8.5 years (Q1; Q3: 4.68; 13.61). HIV stigma scores decreased yearly by 0.57 (95% CI -1.36, 0.22). More than half (27/47 [57.4%]) of participants who were eligible for ART initiation per local ART guidelines did not initiate therapy. Total HIV stigma and substance use stigma scores were not associated with ART initiation (AOR 0.99, 95%CI 0.94-1.04; AOR 1.01, 95%CI 0.96-1.05, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In this Russian cohort of HIV-positive, ART-naïve PWID, stigma did not change over time and was not associated with ART initiation. Addressing stigma alone is unlikely to increase ART initiation rates in this population. Reducing further existing structural barriers, e.g., by promoting equal access to ART and the value of substance-use treatment for ART treatment success should complement stigma-reduction approaches.

Assessing HIV and overdose risks for people who use drugs exposed to compulsory drug abstinence programs (CDAP): A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evidence supports integrating drug use treatment, harm reduction, and HIV prevention services to address dual epidemics of drug use disorders and HIV. These dual epidemics have spurred a rise in legally-enforced compulsory drug abstinence programs (CDAP), despite limited evidence on its effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association between CDAP exposure and HIV and overdose-related risk.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EBSCOhost and Sociological Abstracts for studies that contained an individual-level association between CDAP exposure and related HIV or overdose risks, with no date restrictions. Meta-analyses were conducted on data abstracted from eligible studies, using pooled random-effects models and I-squared statistics. We assessed quality of the studies across 14 criteria for observational studies.

RESULTS

Out of 2,226 abstracts screened, we included 8 studies (5253 individuals/776 events) across China, Mexico, Thailand, Norway, and the United States. All but two were cross-sectional analyses, limiting strength of observed associations. In the two studies that reported association between CDAP and HIV seropositivity or receptive syringe sharing, findings were inconsistent and did not indicate that those with exposure to CDAP had increased odds of HIV or syringe sharing. However, we found the odds of experiencing non-fatal overdose in lifetime and in the last 6-12 months were 2.02 (95% CI 0.22 - 18.86, p = 0.16) to 3.67 times higher (95% CI 0.21 - 62.88, p = 0.39), respectively, among those with CDAP exposure than those without.

CONCLUSION

Research assessing HIV risk associated with CDAP is scant and inconclusive, while evidence of robust associations between CDAP and overdose risk continues to mount. More rigorous, longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the causal relationships between CDAP and these health outcomes. Aside from the growing evidence base on collateral harms, ethical considerations dictate that voluntary, evidence-based drug treatment should be prioritized to address the drivers of excess morbidity and mortality among people who use drugs.

Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and mortality of HIV, 1980-2017, and forecasts to 2030, for 195 countries and territories: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017

BACKGROUND

Understanding the patterns of HIV/AIDS epidemics is crucial to tracking and monitoring the progress of prevention and control efforts in countries. We provide a comprehensive assessment of the levels and trends of HIV/AIDS incidence, prevalence, mortality, and coverage of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for 1980-2017 and forecast these estimates to 2030 for 195 countries and territories.

METHODS

We determined a modelling strategy for each country on the basis of the availability and quality of data. For countries and territories with data from population-based seroprevalence surveys or antenatal care clinics, we estimated prevalence and incidence using an open-source version of the Estimation and Projection Package-a natural history model originally developed by the UNAIDS Reference Group on Estimates, Modelling, and Projections. For countries with cause-specific vital registration data, we corrected data for garbage coding (ie, deaths coded to an intermediate, immediate, or poorly defined cause) and HIV misclassification. We developed a process of cohort incidence bias adjustment to use information on survival and deaths recorded in vital registration to back-calculate HIV incidence. For countries without any representative data on HIV, we produced incidence estimates by pulling information from observed bias in the geographical region. We used a re-coded version of the Spectrum model (a cohort component model that uses rates of disease progression and HIV mortality on and off ART) to produce age-sex-specific incidence, prevalence, and mortality, and treatment coverage results for all countries, and forecast these measures to 2030 using Spectrum with inputs that were extended on the basis of past trends in treatment scale-up and new infections.

FINDINGS

Global HIV mortality peaked in 2006 with 1·95 million deaths (95% uncertainty interval 1·87-2·04) and has since decreased to 0·95 million deaths (0·91-1·01) in 2017. New cases of HIV globally peaked in 1999 (3·16 million, 2·79-3·67) and since then have gradually decreased to 1·94 million (1·63-2·29) in 2017. These trends, along with ART scale-up, have globally resulted in increased prevalence, with 36·8 million (34·8-39·2) people living with HIV in 2017. Prevalence of HIV was highest in southern sub-Saharan Africa in 2017, and countries in the region had ART coverage ranging from 65·7% in Lesotho to 85·7% in eSwatini. Our forecasts showed that 54 countries will meet the UNAIDS target of 81% ART coverage by 2020 and 12 countries are on track to meet 90% ART coverage by 2030. Forecasted results estimate that few countries will meet the UNAIDS 2020 and 2030 mortality and incidence targets.

INTERPRETATION

Despite progress in reducing HIV-related mortality over the past decade, slow decreases in incidence, combined with the current context of stagnated funding for related interventions, mean that many countries are not on track to reach the 2020 and 2030 global targets for reduction in incidence and mortality. With a growing population of people living with HIV, it will continue to be a major threat to public health for years to come. The pace of progress needs to be hastened by continuing to expand access to ART and increasing investments in proven HIV prevention initiatives that can be scaled up to have population-level impact.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institute of Mental Health of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Institute on Aging of the NIH.