Search

IntroductionPeople who inject drugs (PWID) experience high HIV incidence and face significant barriers to engagement in HIV care and substance use treatment. Strategies for HIV treatment as prevention and substance use treatment present unique challenges in PWID that may vary regionally. Understanding differences in the risk structure for HIV transmission and disease progression among PWID is essential in developing and effectively targeting intervention strategies of HIV treatment as prevention.MethodsWe present a baseline analysis of HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 074, a two-arm, randomized controlled trial among PWID in Indonesia (n = 258), Ukraine (n = 457) and Vietnam (n = 439). HPTN 074 was designed to determine the feasibility, barriers and uptake of an integrated intervention combining health systems navigation and psychosocial counselling for the early engagement of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and substance use treatment for PWID living with HIV. Discordant PWID networks were enrolled, consisting of an HIV-positive index and their HIV-negative network injection partner(s). Among the enrolled cohort of 1154 participants (502 index participants and 652 network partners), we examine regional differences in the baseline risk structure, including sociodemographics, HIV and substance use treatment history, and injection and sexual risk behaviours.ResultsThe majority of participants were male (87%), with 82% of the enrolled females coming from Ukraine. The overall mean age was 34 (IQR: 30, 38). Most commonly injected substances included illegally manufactured methadone in Ukraine (84.2%), and heroin in Indonesia (81.8%) and Vietnam (99.5%). Injection network sizes varied by region: median number of people with whom participants self-reported injecting drugs was 3 (IQR: 2, 5) in Indonesia, 5 (IQR: 3, 10) in Ukraine and 3 (IQR: 2, 4) in Vietnam. Hazardous alcohol use, assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test - Alcohol Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C), was prominent in Ukraine (54.7%) and Vietnam (26.4%). Reported sexual risk behaviours in the past month, including having two or more sex partners and giving/receiving money or drugs in exchange for sex, were uncommon among all participants and regions.ConclusionsWhile regional differences in risk structure exist, PWID particularly in Ukraine need immediate attention for risk reduction strategies. Substantial regional differences in risk structure will require flexible, tailored treatment as prevention interventions for distinct PWID populations.

Introduction: HIV infection may be affected by multiple complex socioeconomic status (SES) factors, especially individual socioeconomic disadvantage and community‐level inequality. At the same time, stigma towards HIV and marginalized groups has exacerbated persistent concentrated epidemics among key populations, such as persons who inject drugs (PWID) in Vietnam. Stigma researchers argue that stigma fundamentally depends on the existence of economic power differences in a community. In rapidly growing economies like Vietnam, the increasing gap in income and education levels, as well as an individual's absolute income and education, may create social conditions that facilitate stigma related to injecting drug use and HIV. Methods: A cross‐sectional baseline survey assessing different types of stigma and key socioeconomic characteristics was administered to 1674 PWID and 1349 community members living in physical proximity throughout the 32 communes in Thai Nguyen province, Vietnam. We created four stigma scales, including HIV‐related and drug‐related stigma reported by both PWID and community members. We then used ecologic Spearman's correlation, ordinary least‐squares regression and multi‐level generalized estimating equations to examine community‐level inequality associations, individual‐level SES associations and multi‐level SES associations with different types of stigma, respectively. Results: There was little urban–rural difference in stigma among communes. Higher income inequality was marginally associated with drug‐related stigma reported by community members (p=0.087), and higher education inequality was significantly associated with higher HIV‐related stigma reported by both PWID and community members (p Conclusions: The results of the study confirm that socioeconomic factors at both the individual level and community level affect different types of stigma in different ways. Attention should be paid to these differences when planning structural or educational interventions to reduce stigma, and additional research should investigate the mechanisms with which SES and inequality affect social relationships and, in turn, stigma., Introduction Stigma towards persons living with HIV (PLHIV) and key populations at higher risk of HIV infection is a major barrier to curbing the HIV epidemic [1–4]. Research has shown [...]