People detained in prisons and other closed settings are at elevated risk of infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV). We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis with the aim of determining the rate of incident HCV infection and the prevalence of anti-HCV among detainees of closed settings. We systematically searched databases of peer-reviewed literature and widely distributed a call for unpublished data. We calculated summary estimates of incidence and prevalence among general population detainees and detainees with a history of injecting drug use (IDU), and explored heterogeneity through stratification and meta-regression. The summary prevalence estimates were used to estimate the number of anti-HCV positive prisoners globally. HCV incidence among general detainees was 1·4 per 100 person-years (py; 95% CI: 0·1, 2·7; k=4), and 16·4 per 100py (95% CI: 0·8, 32·1; k=3) among detainees with a history of IDU. The summary prevalence estimate of anti-HCV in general detainees was 26% (95% CI: 23%, 29%; k=93), and in detainees with a history of IDU, 64% (95% CI: 58%, 70%; k=51). The regions of highest prevalence were Central Asia (38%; 95% CI 32%, 43%; k=1) and Australasia (35%; 95% CI: 28%, 43%; k=9). We estimate that 2·2 million (range: 1·4 million – 2·9 million) detainees globally are anti-HCV positive, with the largest populations in North America (668,500; range: 553,500–784,000) and East and Southeast Asia (638,000; range: 332,000–970,000). Conclusion HCV is a significant concern in detained populations, with one in four detainees anti-HCV positive. Epidemiological data on the extent of HCV infection in detained populations is lacking in many countries. Greater attention towards prevention, diagnosis and treatment of HCV infection among detained populations is urgently required.

Background-More than 50% of incarcerated individuals have a history of substance use, and over 200,000 individuals with heroin addiction pass through American correctional facilities annually. Opiate replacement therapy (ORT) with methadone or buprenorphine is an effective treatment for opiate dependence and can reduce drug-related disease and recidivism for inmates. Provision of ORT is nevertheless a frequently neglected intervention in the correctional setting.Objective and Methods-We surveyed the 50 state; Washington, District of Columbia (DC); and Federal Department of Corrections' medical directors or their equivalents about their facilities' ORT prescribing policies and referral programs for inmates leaving prison.Results-We received responses from 51 of 52 prison systems nationwide. Twenty-eight prison systems (55%) offer methadone to inmates in some situations. Methadone use varies widely across states: over 50% of correctional facilities that offer methadone do so exclusively for pregnant women or for chronic pain management. Seven states' prison systems (14%) offer buprenorphine to some inmates. The most common reason cited for not offering ORT was that facilities "prefer drug-free detoxification over providing methadone or buprenorphine." Twenty-three states' prison systems (45%) provide referrals for some inmates to methadone maintenance programs after release, which increased from 8% in 2003; 15 states' prison systems (29%) provide some referrals to community buprenorphine providers.Conclusion-Despite demonstrated social, medical, and economic benefits of providing ORT to inmates during incarceration and linkage to ORT upon release, many prison systems nationwide still do not offer pharmacological treatment for opiate addiction or referrals for ORT upon release.

The diversion, misuse, and non-medically supervised use of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone by opioid users are reviewed. Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone are used globally as opioid analgesics and in the treatment of opioid dependency. Diversion of buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone represents a complex medical and social issue, and has been widely documented in various geographical regions throughout the world. We first discuss the clinical properties of buprenorphine and its abuse potential. Second, we discuss its diversion and illicit use on an international level, as well as motivations for those activities. Third, we examine the medical risks and benefits of buprenorphine’s non-medically supervised use and misuse. These risks and benefits include the effect of buprenorphine’s use on HIV risk and the risk of its concomitant use with other medications and drugs of abuse. Finally, we discuss the implications of diversion, misuse, and non-medically supervised use (including potential measures to address issues of diversion); and potential areas for further research.

Summary Background Methadone is an effective treatment for opioid dependence. When people who are receiving methadone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence are incarcerated in prison or jail, most US correctional facilities discontinue their methadone treatment, either gradually, or more often, abruptly. This discontinuation can cause uncomfortable symptoms of withdrawal and renders prisoners susceptible to relapse and overdose on release. We aimed to study the effect of forced withdrawal from methadone upon incarceration on individuals’ risk behaviours and engagement with post-release treatment programmes. Methods In this randomised, open-label trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) inmates of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RI, USA) who were enrolled in a methadone maintenance-treatment programme in the community at the time of arrest and wanted to remain on methadone treatment during incarceration and on release, to either continuation of their methadone treatment or to usual care—forced tapered withdrawal from methadone. Participants could be included in the study only if their incarceration would be more than 1 week but less than 6 months. We did the random assignments with a computer-generated random permutation, and urn randomisation procedures to stratify participants by sex and race. Participants in the continued-methadone group were maintained on their methadone dose at the time of their incarceration (with dose adjustments as clinically indicated). Patients in the forced-withdrawal group followed the institution’s standard withdrawal protocol of receiving methadone for 1 week at the dose at the time of their incarceration, then a tapered withdrawal regimen (for those on a starting dose >100 mg, the dose was reduced by 5 mg per day to 100 mg, then reduced by 3 mg per day to 0 mg; for those on a starting dose ≤100 mg, the dose was reduced by 3 mg per day to 0 mg). The main outcomes were engagement with a methadone maintenance-treatment clinic after release from incarceration and time to engagement with methadone maintenance treatment, by intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses, which we established in a follow-up interview with the participants at 1 month after their release from incarceration. Our study paid for 10 weeks of methadone treatment after release if participants needed financial help. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874964. Findings Between June 14, 2011, and April 3, 2013, we randomly assigned 283 prisoners to our study, 142 to continued methadone treatment, and 141 to forced withdrawal from methadone. Of these, 60 were excluded because they did not fit the eligibility criteria, leaving 114 in the continued-methadone group and 109 in the forced-withdrawal group (usual care). Participants assigned to continued methadone were more than twice as likely than forced-withdrawal participants to return to a community methadone clinic within 1 month of release (106 [96%] of 110 in the continued-methadone group compared with 68 [78%] of 87 in the for...

No abstract

Recruitment of low-risk blood donors in developing countries is challenging. We studied the attitudes towards blood donation in several populations in a city in Western China. A survey of knowledge, attitude and practice was performed including 1280 individuals from eight distinct populations in Urumqi, Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, China. Included were Han Chinese and Uyghur populations of blood donors, non-donors, injection drug users, students and factory workers. Knowledge about blood donation varied between the groups. Factors motivating blood donation included social pressure, desire to know screening results and altruism. Inhibiting factors included fear of contracting an infection and other adverse health effects, including loss of vitality. Misconceptions about the effects of blood donation are widespread, even among educated persons in Urumqi. Fear of acquiring a serious infection may have been increased by the reports of HIV acquisition during plasma donations in China.

This study tested a mobile health (mHealth) intervention program entitled WeTest, delivered via the WeChat mobile app, to promote oral HIVST among MSM in Hefei, China. A total of 100 MSM participants enrolled, completed baseline assessment, were randomly assigned to intervention or control, and completed 6-month follow-up surveys. Intervention participants (n=50) received two oral HIVST kits and access to WeTest, a private WeChat group which provided app-based messages and referrals to health services related to HIV. Control participants (n=50) received two oral HIVST kits only. All participants received instructions to upload photographic results of their oral HIVST, which were sent to the project counselor via a secure WeChat online portal; immediate contact and referrals were made to any participants who tested HIV-positive. In GEE analyses adjusting for time effects and baseline confounders, intervention participants had significantly higher rates of HIV testing (adjusted rate ratio RR = 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–3.84) and, in particular, higher rates of testing via oral HIVST (adjusted RR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.08–4.37) compared with the control group. Significant time effects were also found such that all participants, regardless of group allocation, had significantly higher rates of reporting consistent condom use with main partners (adjusted RR = 18.13, 95% CI 5.19–63.31) and with non-main partners (adjusted RR = 5.33, 95% CI 2.35–12.08). Findings from this study provide evidence for the feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effects of this mHealth approach to promoting oral HIVST among MSM in China.

Objectives We examined the use, procurement, and motivations for the use of diverted buprenorphine/naloxone among injecting and noninjecting opioid users in an urban area. Methods A survey was self-administered among 51 injecting opioid users and 49 noninjecting opioid users in Providence, RI. Participants were recruited from a fixed-site syringe exchange program and a community outreach site between August and November 2009. Results A majority (76%) of participants reported having obtained buprenorphine/naloxone illicitly, with 41% having done so in the previous month. More injection drug users (IDUs) than non-IDUs reported the use of diverted buprenorphine/naloxone (86% vs 65%, P = 0.01). The majority of participants who had used buprenorphine/naloxone reported doing so to treat opioid withdrawal symptoms (74%) or to stop using other opioids (66%) or because they could not afford drug treatment (64%). More IDUs than non-IDUs reported using diverted buprenorphine/naloxone for these reasons. Significantly more non-IDUs than IDUs reported ever using buprenorphine/naloxone to “get high” (69% vs 32%, P < 0.01). The majority of respondents, both IDUs and non-IDUs, were interested in receiving treatment for opioid dependence, with greater reported interest in buprenorphine/naloxone than in methadone. Common reasons given for not being currently enrolled in a buprenorphine/naloxone program included cost and unavailability of prescribing physicians. Conclusions The use of diverted buprenorphine/naloxone was common in our sample. However, many opioid users, particularly IDUs, were using diverted buprenorphine/naloxone for reasons consistent with its therapeutic purpose, such as alleviating opioid withdrawal symptoms and reducing the use of other opioids. These findings highlight the need to explore the full impact of buprenorphine/naloxone diversion and improve the accessibility of buprenorphine/naloxone through licensed treatment providers.