SummaryBackgroundSharing of equipment used for injecting drug use (IDU) is a substantial cause of disease burden and a contributor to blood-borne virus transmission. We did a global multistage systematic review to identify the prevalence of IDU among people aged 15–64 years; sociodemographic characteristics of and risk factors for people who inject drugs (PWID); and the prevalence of HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) among PWID.MethodsConsistent with the GATHER and PRISMA guidelines and without language restrictions, we systematically searched peer-reviewed databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO; articles published since 2008, latest searches in June, 2017), searched the grey literature (websites and databases, searches between April and August, 2016), and disseminated data requests to international experts and agencies (requests sent in October, 2016). We searched for data on IDU prevalence, characteristics of PWID, including gender, age, and sociodemographic and risk characteristics, and the prevalence of HIV, HCV, and HBV among PWID. Eligible data on prevalence of IDU, HIV antibody, HBsAg, and HCV antibody among PWID were selected and, where multiple estimates were available, pooled for each country via random effects meta-analysis. So too were eligible data on percentage of PWID who were female; younger than 25 years; recently homeless; ever arrested; ever incarcerated; who had recently engaged in sex work, sexual risk, or injecting risk; and whose main drugs injected were opioids or stimulants. We generated regional and global estimates in line with previous global reviews.FindingsWe reviewed 55 671 papers and reports, and extracted data from 1147 eligible records. Evidence of IDU was recorded in 179 of 206 countries or territories, which cover 99% of the population aged 15–64 years, an increase of 31 countries (mostly in sub-Saharan Africa and the Pacific Islands) since a review in 2008. IDU prevalence estimates were identified in 83 countries. We estimate that there are 15·6 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 10·2–23·7 million) PWID aged 15–64 years globally, with 3·2 million (1·6–5·1 million) women and 12·5 million (7·5–18·4 million) men. Gender composition varied by location: women were estimated to comprise 30·0% (95% UI 28·5–31·5) of PWID in North America and 33·4% (31·0–35·6) in Australasia, compared with 3·1% (2·1–4·1) in south Asia. Globally, we estimate that 17·8% (10·8–24·8) of PWID are living with HIV, 52·3% (42·4–62·1) are HCV-antibody positive, and 9·0% (5·1–13·2) are HBV surface antigen positive; there is substantial geographic variation in these levels. Globally, we estimate 82·9% (76·6–88·9) of PWID mainly inject opioids and 33·0% (24·3–42·0) mainly inject stimulants. We estimate that 27·9% (20·9–36·8) of PWID globally are younger than 25 years, 21·7% (15·8–27·9) had recently (within the past year) experienced homelessness or unstable housing, and 57·9% (50·5–65·2) had a history of incarceration.InterpretationWe identified evidence of IDU in more countries than ...

No abstract

No abstract

Background Buprenorphine has been reported as an alternative to methadone and LAAM for maintenance treatment of opioid dependence, differing results are reported concerning its relative effectiveness indicating the need for an integrative review. Objectives To evaluate the effects of buprenorphine maintenance against placebo and methadone maintenance in retaining patients in treatment and in suppressing illicit drug use. Search strategy We searched the following databases up to 2001, inclusive: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF-VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs, the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews. Authors of identified RCT's were asked about any other published or unpublished relevant RCT. Selection criteria Randomised clinical trials of buprenorphine maintenance versus either placebo or methadone maintenance for opioid dependence. Data collection and analysis Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation; data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered. Main results Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, all were randomised clinical trials, all but one were double-blind. The method of concealment of allocation was not clearly described in 11 of the studies, otherwise methodological quality was good. Buprenorphine given in flexible doses appeared statistically significantly less effective than methadone in retaining patient in treatment (RR= 0.82; 95% CI: 0.69-0.96).

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Outcomes Assumed risk Corresponding risk Relative effect (95% CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE) Comments No methadone maintenance treatment Methadone maintenance treatment Medium risk population Retention in treatment-Old studies (pre 2000) objective 210 per 1000 640 per 1000 (368 to 1123) RR 3.05 (1.75 to 5.35) 505 (3) ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high 1,2 Medium risk population Retention in treatment-New studies 154 per 1000 684 per 1000 (502 to 930) RR 4.44 (3.26 to 6.04) 750 (4) ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high 2,3 Medium risk population Morphine positive urine or hair analysis objective 701 per 1000 463 per 1000 (393 to 547) RR 0.66 (0.56 to 0.78) 1129 (6) ⊕⊕⊕⊕ high Medium risk population Criminal activity objective 118 per 1000 46 per 1000 (14 to 148) RR 0.39 (0.12 to 1.25) 363 (3) ⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate 4 Medium risk population Mortality objective 17 per 1000 8 per 1000 RR 0.48 (0.1 to 2.39) 576 (4)

No abstract

Background Methadone maintenance was the first widely used form of opioid replacement therapy developed to treat heroin dependence, and it remains the best-researched treatment for this problem. Despite the widespread use of methadone in maintenance treatment for opioid dependence in many countries, it is a controversial treatment whose effectiveness has been disputed. Objectives To evaluate the effects of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) compared with treatments that did not involve opioid replacement therapy (i.e., detoxification, offer of drug-free rehabilitation, placebo medication, wait-list controls) for opioid dependence. Search strategy We searched all the following databases up to 2001: Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Review Group Register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Current Contents, Psychlit, CORK [www. state.vt.su/adap/cork], Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia (ADCA) [www.adca.org.au], Australian Drug Foundation (ADF-VIC) [www.adf.org.au], Centre for Education and Information on Drugs and Alcohol (CEIDA) [www.ceida.net.au], Australian Bibliographic Network (ABN), and Library of Congress databases, available NIDA monographs and the College on Problems of Drug Dependence Inc. proceedings, the reference lists of all identified studies and published reviews; authors of identified RCTs were asked about other published or unpublished relevant RCTs. Selection criteria All randomised controlled clinical trials of methadone maintenance therapy compared with either placebo maintenance or other nonpharmacological therapy for the treatment of opioid dependence. Data collection and analysis Reviewers evaluated the papers separately and independently, rating methodological quality of concealment of allocation, data were extracted independently for meta-analysis and double-entered.

No abstract