Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Drug Policy. 2014 Jan;25(1):34-52. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.07.001. Epub 2013 Aug 21.

Interventions to prevent HIV and Hepatitis C in people who inject drugs: a review of reviews to assess evidence of effectiveness.

Author information

1
School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK. Electronic address: georgie.macarthur@bristol.ac.uk.
2
NHS Sutton and Merton/London KSS Specialty School of Public Health, UK.
3
Health Protection Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
4
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
5
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Solna, Sweden.
6
Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; Health Protection Services, Health Protection Agency, London, UK.
7
University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, Scotland, UK.
8
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.
9
Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
10
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal.
11
School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK.
12
Health Protection Scotland, Glasgow, UK; University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, Scotland, UK.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Injecting drug use is a major risk factor for the acquisition and transmission of HIV and Hepatitis C virus (HCV). Prevention of these infections among people who inject drugs (PWID) is critical to reduce ongoing transmission, morbidity and mortality.

METHODS:

A review of reviews was undertaken involving systematic literature searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, IBSS and the Cochrane Library (2000-2011) to identify English language reviews regarding the effectiveness of harm reduction interventions in relation to HIV transmission, HCV transmission and injecting risk behaviour (IRB). Interventions included needle and syringe programmes (NSP); the provision of injection paraphernalia; opiate substitution treatment (OST); information, education and counselling (IEC); and supervised injecting facilities (SIFs). Reviews were classified into 'core' or 'supplementary' using critical appraisal criteria, and the strength of review-level evidence was assessed.

RESULTS:

Twelve core and thirteen supplementary reviews were included. From these reviews we identified: (i) for NSP: tentative review-level evidence to support effectiveness in reducing HIV transmission, insufficient review-level evidence relating to HCV transmission, but sufficient review-level evidence in relation to IRB; (ii) for OST: sufficient review-level evidence of effectiveness in relation to HIV transmission and IRB, but tentative review-level evidence in relation to HCV transmission; (iii) for IEC, the provision of injection paraphernalia and SIFs: tentative review-level evidence of effectiveness in reducing IRB; and either insufficient or no review-level evidence for these interventions in relation to HIV or HCV transmission.

CONCLUSION:

Review-level evidence indicates that harm reduction interventions can reduce IRB, with evidence strongest for OST and NSP. However, there is comparatively little review-level evidence regarding the effectiveness of these interventions in preventing HCV transmission among PWID. Further studies are needed to assess the effectiveness and impact of scaling up comprehensive packages of harm reduction interventions to minimise HIV and HCV transmission among PWID.

KEYWORDS:

HIV; Harm reduction; Hepatitis C; People who inject drugs; Review

PMID:
23973009
DOI:
10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.07.001
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center