HIV testing and sexual risk reduction counseling in office-based buprenorphine/naloxone treatment

Demand creation for HIV testing services: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

HIV testing services (HTS) are the first steps in reaching the UNAIDS 95-95-95 goals to achieve and maintain low HIV incidence. Evaluating the effectiveness of different demand creation interventions to increase uptake of efficient and effective HTS is useful to prioritize limited programmatic resources. This review was undertaken to inform World Health Organization (WHO) 2019 HIV testing guidelines and assessed the research question, "Which demand creation strategies are effective for enhancing uptake of HTS?" focused on populations globally.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The following electronic databases were searched through September 28, 2021: PubMed, PsycInfo, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE, and Global Health Database; we searched IAS and AIDS conferences. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any demand creation intervention (incentives, mobilization, counseling, tailoring, and digital interventions) to either a control or other demand creation intervention and reported HTS uptake. We pooled trials to evaluate categories of demand creation interventions using random-effects models for meta-analysis and assessed study quality with Cochrane's risk of bias 1 tool. This study was funded by the WHO and registered in Prospero with ID CRD42022296947. We screened 10,583 records and 507 conference abstracts, reviewed 952 full texts, and included 124 RCTs for data extraction. The majority of studies were from the African (N = 53) and Americas (N = 54) regions. We found that mobilization (relative risk [RR]: 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.30, 3.09], p < 0.05; risk difference [RD]: 0.29, 95% CI [0.16, 0.43], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), couple-oriented counseling (RR: 1.98, 95% CI [1.02, 3.86], p < 0.05; RD: 0.12, 95% CI [0.03, 0.21], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), peer-led interventions (RR: 1.57, 95% CI [1.15, 2.15], p < 0.05; RD: 0.18, 95% CI [0.06, 0.31], p < 0.05, N = 10 RCTs), motivation-oriented counseling (RR: 1.53, 95% CI [1.07, 2.20], p < 0.05; RD: 0.17, 95% CI [0.00, 0.34], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), short message service (SMS) (RR: 1.53, 95% CI [1.09, 2.16], p < 0.05; RD: 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.19], p < 0.05, N = 5 RCTs), and conditional fixed value incentives (RR: 1.52, 95% CI [1.21, 1.91], p < 0.05; RD: 0.15, 95% CI [0.07, 0.22], p < 0.05, N = 11 RCTs) all significantly and importantly (≥50% relative increase) increased HTS uptake and had medium risk of bias. Lottery-based incentives and audio-based interventions less importantly (25% to 49% increase) but not significantly increased HTS uptake (medium risk of bias). Personal invitation letters and personalized message content significantly but not importantly (<25% increase) increased HTS uptake (medium risk of bias). Reduced duration counseling had comparable performance to standard duration counseling (low risk of bias) and video-based interventions were comparable or better than in-person counseling (medium risk of bias). Heterogeneity of effect among pooled studies was high. This study was limited in that we restricted to randomized trials, which may be systematically less readily available for key populations; additionally, we compare only pooled estimates for interventions with multiple studies rather than single study estimates, and there was evidence of publication bias for several interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobilization, couple- and motivation-oriented counseling, peer-led interventions, conditional fixed value incentives, and SMS are high-impact demand creation interventions and should be prioritized for programmatic consideration. Reduced duration counseling and video-based interventions are an efficient and effective alternative to address staffing shortages. Investment in demand creation activities should prioritize those with undiagnosed HIV or ongoing HIV exposure. Selection of demand creation interventions must consider risks and benefits, context-specific factors, feasibility and sustainability, country ownership, and universal health coverage across disease areas.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of changes in quality of life following initiation of buprenorphine for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

People with opioid use disorder (OUD) experience lower quality of life (QoL) than the general population, but buprenorphine treatment for OUD could help improve QoL of individuals with OUD. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of buprenorphine on QoL among people with OUD.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched through August 2020. We included English-language studies with pre- and post- QoL assessments internationally. Standardized mean differences were calculated for five domains of QoL measures using a random effects model for correlated effect sizes with robust variance estimation. Meta-regression was used to assess variation in effect sizes based on QoL domain, treatment, and patient factors.

RESULTS

Twenty-one peer-reviewed studies from twelve countries were included. Only three studies included a no-treatment control group and five studies assigned groups using randomization. Improvements between baseline and follow-up were observed across all five domains of QoL measures (overall, physical, psychological, social, and environmental). The certainty of evidence was low for all domains of QoL, and very low for environmental QoL. We did not observe differences in the effect of buprenorphine on QoL by QoL domain, duration, dose, participant characteristics, or adjunctive counseling services.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine treatment likely improves overall, physical, psychological, and social QoL, and may improve environmental QoL, for individuals with OUD. Findings are limited by study quality, including lack of control groups and incomplete reporting. Future studies with more rigorous methods and comprehensive reporting are needed.

Integration of care for HIV and opioid use disorder

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify optimal strategies for integrating HIV- and opioid use disorder-(OUD) screening and treatment in diverse settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and preidentified websites. Studies were included if they were published in English on or after 2002 through May 2017, and evaluated interventions that integrated, at an organizational level, screening and/or treatment for HIV and OUD in any care setting in any country.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine articles met criteria for inclusion, including 23 unique studies: six took place in HIV care settings, 12 in opioid treatment settings, and five elsewhere. Eight involved screening strategies, 22 involved treatment strategies, and seven involved strategies that encompassed screening and treatment. Randomized controlled studies demonstrated low-to-moderate risk of bias and observational studies demonstrated fair to good quality. Studies in HIV care settings (n = 6) identified HIV-related and OUD-related clinical benefits with the use of buprenorphine/naloxone for OUD. No studies in HIV care settings focused on screening for OUD. Studies in opioid treatment settings (n = 12) identified improving HIV screening uptake and clinical benefits with antiretroviral therapy when provided on-site. Counseling intensity for OUD medication adherence or HIV-related risk reduction was not associated with clinical benefits.

CONCLUSION

Screening for HIV can be effectively delivered in opioid treatment settings, yet there is a need to identify optimal OUD screening strategies in HIV care settings. Strategies integrating the provision of medications for HIV and for OUD should be expanded and should not be contingent on resources available for behavioral interventions.

REGISTRATION

A protocol for record eligibility was developed a priori and was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42017069314).

A mixed methods study of HIV-related services in buprenorphine treatment

BACKGROUND

Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a major risk factor in the acquisition and transmission of HIV. Clinical practice guidelines call for the integration of HIV services in OUD treatment. This mixed methods study describes the integration of HIV services in buprenorphine treatment and examines whether HIV services vary by prescribers' medical specialty and across practice settings.

METHODS

Data were obtained via qualitative interviews with buprenorphine experts (n = 21) and mailed surveys from US buprenorphine prescribers (n = 1174). Survey measures asked about screening for HIV risk behaviors at intake, offering HIV education, recommending all new patients receive HIV testing, and availability of on-site HIV testing. Prescribers' medical specialty, practice settings, caseload demographics, and physician demographics were measured. Multivariate models of HIV services were estimated, while accounting for the nesting of physicians within states.

RESULTS

Qualitative interviews revealed that physicians often use injection behaviors as the primary indicator for whether a patient should be tested for HIV. Interviews revealed that HIV-related services were often viewed as beyond the scope of practice among general psychiatrists. Surveys indicated that prescribers screened for an average of 3.2 of 5 HIV risk behaviors (SD = 1.6) at intake. About 62.0% of prescribers delivered HIV education to patients and 53.2% recommended HIV testing to all new patients, but only 32.3% offered on-site HIV testing. Addiction specialists and psychiatrists screened for significantly more HIV risk behaviors than physicians in other specialties. Addiction specialists and psychiatrists were significantly less likely than other physicians to offer on-site testing. Physicians in individual medical practice were significantly less likely to recommend HIV testing and to offer onsite testing than physicians in other settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Buprenorphine treatment providers have not uniformly integrated HIV-related screening, education, and testing services for patients. Differences by medical specialty and practice setting suggest an opportunity for targeting efforts to increase implementation.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2013

This paper is the thirty-sixth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2013 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia; stress and social status; tolerance and dependence; learning and memory; eating and drinking; alcohol and drugs of abuse; sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology; mental illness and mood; seizures and neurologic disorders; electrical-related activity and neurophysiology; general activity and locomotion; gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions; cardiovascular responses; respiration and thermoregulation; and immunological responses.

The impact of buprenorphine/naloxone treatment on HIV risk behaviors among HIV-infected, opioid-dependent patients

BACKGROUND

Opioid dependence is a major risk factor for HIV infection, however, the impact of buprenorphine/naloxone treatment on HIV risk behaviors among HIV-infected opioid-dependent patients is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal analysis of 303 HIV-infected opioid-dependent patients initiating buprenorphine/naloxone treatment. Outcomes included self-reported past 90-day needle-sharing and non-condom use. We assessed trends over the 12 months using the Cochran-Armitage trend test. Using generalized estimating equations, after multiple imputation, we determined factors independently associated with needle-sharing and non-condom use, including time-updated variables. We then conducted a mediation analysis to determine whether substance use explained the relationship between time since treatment initiation and needle-sharing.

RESULTS

Needle-sharing decreased from baseline to the fourth quarter following initiation of buprenorphine/naloxone (9% vs. 3%, p<0.001), while non-condom use did not (23% vs. 21%, p=0.10). HIV risk behaviors did not vary based on the presence of a detectable HIV-1 RNA viral load. Patients who were homeless and used heroin, cocaine/amphetamines or marijuana were more likely to report needle-sharing. Heroin use fully mediated the relationship between time since treatment initiation and needle-sharing. Women, patients who identified as being gay/lesbian/bisexual, those married or living with a partner and who reported heroin or alcohol use were more likely to report non-condom use. Older patients were less likely to report non-condom use.

CONCLUSIONS

While buprenorphine/naloxone is associated with decreased needle-sharing among HIV-infected opioid-dependent patients, sexual risk behaviors persist regardless of viral load. Targeted interventions to address HIV risk behaviors among HIV-infected opioid-dependent populations receiving buprenorphine/naloxone are needed.