HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a potential strategy to overcome disparities in access to and uptake of HIV testing, particularly among key populations (KP). A literature review was conducted on the acceptability, values and preferences among KP. Data was analyzed by country income World Bank classification, type of specimen collection, level of support offered and other qualitative aspects. Most studies identified were from high-income countries and among men who have sex with men (MSM) who found HIVST to be acceptable. In general, MSM were interested in HIVST because of its convenient and private nature. However, they had concerns about the lack of counseling, possible user error and accuracy. Data on the values and preferences of other KP groups regarding HIVST is limited. This should be a research priority, as HIVST is likely to become more widely available, including in resource-limited settings.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10461-015-1097-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The findings of this review suggest that oral naltrexone did not perform better than treatment with placebo or no pharmacological agent with respect to the number of participants re-incarcerated during the study period. If oral naltrexone is compared with other pharmacological treatments such as benzodiazepine and buprenorphine, no statistically significant difference was found. The percentage of people retained in treatment in the included studies is however low (28%). The conclusion of this review is that the studies conducted have not allowed an adequate evaluation of oral naltrexone treatment in the field of opioid dependence. Consequently, maintenance therapy with naltrexone cannot yet be considered a treatment which has been scientifically proved to be superior to other kinds of treatment.

No abstract

Introduction: Key populations (KPs) are disproportionally affected by HIV and have low rates of access to HIV testing and treatment services compared to the broader population. WHO promotes the use of differentiated approaches for reaching and recruiting KP into the HIV services continuum. These approaches may help increase access to KPs who are often criminalized or stigmatized. By catering to the specific needs of each KP individual, differentiated approaches may increase service acceptability, quality and coverage, reduce costs and support KP members in leading the HIV response among their communities.Discussion: WHO recommends the implementation of community-based and lay provider administered HIV testing services. Together, these approaches reduce barriers and costs associated with other testing strategies, allow greater ownership in HIV programmes for KP members and reach more people than do facility-based services. Despite this evidence availability and support for them is limited.Peer-driven interventions have been shown to be effective in engaging, recruiting and supporting clients. Some programmes employ HIV-positive or non-PLHIV “peer navigators” and other staff to provide case management, enrolment and/or re-enrolment in care and treatment services. However, a better understanding of the impact, cost effectiveness and potential burden on peer volunteers is required.Task shifting and non-facility-based service locations for antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation and maintenance and antiretroviral (ARV) distribution are recommended in both the consolidated HIV treatment and KP guidelines of WHO. These approaches are accepted in generalized epidemics and for the general population where successful models exist; however, few organizations provide or initiate ART at KP community-based services.Conclusions: The application of a differentiated service approach for KP could increase the number of people who know their status and receive effective and sustained prevention and treatment for HIV. However, while community-based and lay provider testing are effective and affordable, they are not implemented to scale. Furthermore regulatory barriers to legitimizing lay and peer providers as part of healthcare delivery systems need to be overcome in many settings. WHO recommendations on task shifting and decentralization of ART treatment and care are often not applied to KP settings.

Aim: The study investigates patterns of cocaine powder and crack cocaine use of different groups in nine European cities. Design, Setting, Participants: Multi-centre cross-sectional study conducted in Barcelona, Budapest, Dublin, Hamburg, London, Paris, Rome, Vienna, and Zurich. Data were collected by structured face-to-face interviews. The sample comprises 1,855 cocaine users out of three subgroups: 632 cocaine users in addiction treatment, mainly maintenance treatment; 615 socially marginalized cocaine users not in treatment, and 608 socially integrated cocaine users not in treatment. Measurements: Use of cocaine powder, crack cocaine and other substances in the last 30 days, routes of administration, and lifetime use of cocaine powder and crack cocaine. Findings: The marginalized group showed the highest intensity of cocaine use, the highest intensity of heroin use and of multiple substance use. 95% of the integrated group snorted cocaine powder, while in the two other groups, injecting was quite prevalent, but with huge differences between the cities. 96% of all participants had used at least one other substance in addition to cocaine in the last 30 days. Conclusions: The use of cocaine powder and crack cocaine varies widely between different groups and between cities. Nonetheless, multiple substance use is the predominating pattern of cocaine use, and the different routes of administration have to be taken into account.