3
Sterile Needle and Syringe Access, and Outreach and Education

For those who are unable to stop using or injecting drugs, sterile needle and syringe access aims to reduce HIV transmission by increasing access to sterile injecting equipment, removing contaminated needles from circulation, and preventing needles and syringes from being discarded in the community, where others might reuse them or suffer needle sticks. Access can be ensured through needle and syringe exchange, pharmacy and prescription-based sales, vending machines, supervised injecting facilities, and disinfection programs. Many sterile needle and syringe access programs also encourage the cessation of drug abuse through referrals to drug treatment, and the reduction of sex-related risk through the provision of condoms. All these interventions can be combined with outreach and education.

This chapter starts with a discussion of needle and syringe exchange (NSE).1 In many regions of the world where it has been implemented and evaluated, needle and syringe exchange is usually part of a multi-component HIV prevention effort. To properly reflect this, the Committee refers to such programs as multi-component HIV prevention programs

1

Needle and syringe exchange refers broadly to supplying clean needles and syringes to IDUs and collecting used injecting equipment. While some programs require exchange of used needles for clean ones, need-based programs allow unlimited distribution of needles and syringes.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 137
3 Sterile Needle and Syringe Access, and Outreach and Education For those who are unable to stop using or injecting drugs, sterile needle and syringe access aims to reduce HIV transmission by increasing access to sterile injecting equipment, removing contaminated needles from circulation, and preventing needles and syringes from being discarded in the community, where others might reuse them or suffer needle sticks. Access can be ensured through needle and syringe exchange, pharmacy and prescription-based sales, vending machines, supervised injecting facilities, and disinfection programs. Many sterile needle and syringe access programs also encourage the cessation of drug abuse through referrals to drug treatment, and the reduction of sex-related risk through the provision of condoms. All these interventions can be combined with outreach and education. This chapter starts with a discussion of needle and syringe exchange (NSE).1 In many regions of the world where it has been implemented and evaluated, needle and syringe exchange is usually part of a multi-component HIV prevention effort. To properly reflect this, the Committee refers to such programs as multi-component HIV prevention programs 1 Needle and syringe exchange refers broadly to supplying clean needles and syringes to IDUs and collecting used injecting equipment. While some programs require exchange of used needles for clean ones, need-based programs allow unlimited distribution of needles and syringes.

OCR for page 137
that include needle and syringe exchange. These are defined as interventions that combine needle and syringe exchange with any one or more of the following services: outreach, health education in risk reduction, condom distribution, bleach distribution coupled with education on needle disinfection, and referrals to substance abuse treatment and other health and social services. In this report, the term multi-component HIV prevention programs does not include drug dependence treatment and other medical or social services (discussed in Chapter 2), but does include referrals to these services. While this separation may seem somewhat artificial, the Committee felt it was necessary to accurately describe the evidence related to needle and syringe exchange. The following two sections then examine alternatives to NSE for providing access to clean injecting equipment. One of these two sections focuses on pharmacy and prescription sales, vending machines, and supervised injecting facilities, while the other section focuses on disinfection distribution and education programs. The chapter then evaluates empirical evidence on the effectiveness of outreach and education in preventing HIV transmission among IDUs. Outreach and education are sometimes part of multi-component HIV prevention programs, as they are often used to direct drug users to services such as needle and syringe exchange. They can also stand alone as a means of educating IDUs on HIV prevention, and can also be used to refer drug users to drug treatment and other health and social services. The final section of the chapter discusses specific areas in need of further research in high-risk countries. NEEDLE AND SYRINGE EXCHANGE To evaluate the effectiveness of NSE, the Committee reviewed studies identified by a literature review (see Appendix B). As discussed in Chapter 2, the Committee then used a structured qualitative method based on an approach developed by the GRADE Working Group to evaluate the strength of the evidence (GRADE Working Group, 2004) (see Chapter 2 for further detail). The majority of evidence on the effectiveness of NSEs comes from observational studies, including numerous prospective cohort studies, supplemented by results from ecological and cross-sectional studies. (Appendix D provides a summary of these studies, grouped by study design.) The Committee did not identify any randomized controlled trials of NSE. This is not completely unexpected for such a public health intervention, particularly one with such immediacy and assumed efficacy and face validity. The Committee identified three case-control studies. Such studies enroll participants based on the presence or absence of a disease, and then com-

OCR for page 137
pare the characteristics of a previous exposure to NSE. The Committee identified 26 prospective cohort studies, which enroll participants based on their risk characteristics, and follow them to compare related outcomes. The committee felt that 14 of these studies were especially strong in terms of study design and relevance (and noted those studies with an asterisk in a table in Appendix D). Case-control and prospective cohort studies were ranked as having the strongest available study design. The Committee also identified six ecological studies, which examine populations rather than individuals and cannot establish causal links. Finally, the Committee identified many cross-sectional and serial cross-sectional studies. Cross-sectional studies describe the associations between a disease and risk factors in a population at a specific point in time. The Committee considered such studies as having the weakest design because causal inferences cannot be drawn from them. Serial cross-sectional studies examine groups of people at multiple time points, and offer stronger evidence of shifts in associations over time. As opposed to prospective cohort studies which examine individual-level changes in risk behavior, well-designed serial cross-sectional studies can indicate patterns of behavior change at the community level. As supporting evidence, the Committee included six cross-sectional and four serial cross-sectional studies in Appendix D, based on their strong study design and relevance to the Committee’s statement of task. The Committee used caution in interpreting the results of studies reviewed in this chapter because of their generally weak designs and serious limitations. One limitation is that the studies identified do not randomly assign subjects to treatment and control groups—rather, participants deliberately choose whether to use NSEs and other services. This creates an unavoidable risk of selection bias, and means that differences in rates of risk behaviors and HIV infection may not be due to use of the service itself. Another limitation is that the study designs generally do not allow separate examination of program elements, so the independent contribution of improving access to sterile needles and syringes cannot be assessed. For example, NSE is often one component of a multi-component HIV prevention program, making it difficult to isolate the exact effects of NSE alone. Another concern is that studies of drug abuse, like most behavioral research, depend heavily on self-reported data on drug use, risk behavior, and precautions taken to reduce risk. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of NSEs are no exception. Self-reported data can introduce bias, as drug abuse is illegal in most settings, and drug users may underestimate risk behavior and overestimate protective behavior. Still, the self-reports of drug users on the incidence of drug abuse and drug-related risks have generally been shown to be valid (Darke, 1998) and remain the major type of outcome measures used in studies of NSE.

OCR for page 137
Studies comparing audio computer-assisted self-interviews with interviewer-administered surveys show that IDUs tend to under-report risk behavior such as needle sharing (Metzger et al., 2000; Des Jarlais et al., 1999) and over-report protective behaviors such as condom use and syringe disinfection (Macalino, 2002) in face-to-face interviews. However, Safaeian et al. (2002) compared self-reports to NSE records and found that the majority of self-reports of NSE attendance in Baltimore were valid. This study also found that persons who over-reported NSE attendance were more likely to have injected frequently (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04–1.61), denied needle sharing (AOR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.52–0.89), and seroconverted to HIV (AOR=1.83; 95% CI: 1.11–.01). In the Baltimore study, model predictors of HIV infection based on self-reports compared with actual program data underestimated the protective effect of NSE participation by 18 percent (Safaeian et al., 2002). Evaluations of NSE often include a range of outcome measures (see Box 3.1). Desirable outcomes may include a reduction in high-risk behavior, more referrals to drug treatment, and declines in rates of HIV infection. Negative outcomes may include more frequent injection among participants, new initiates to injecting drug use, greater drug use in the community, and more needles discarded in public places. In the following sections, BOX 3-1 Potential Outcomes from Needle and Syringe Exchange Drug-related risk behavior Sex-related risk behavior Frequency of drug use Number of sexual partners Frequency of injection Frequency of unprotected sex Frequency of equipment sharing Sale of sex for drugs or money Use of disinfectant   Number of injecting partners   Unintended consequences Links to health and social services Recruitment of new IDUs Referral to services Increase in unsafe disposal of needles Extent of use of services Increase in prevalence or frequency of drug use Referral to drug treatment Incidence/prevalence   HIV   Hepatitis C   Hepatitis B  

OCR for page 137
the Committee presents evidence categorized by outcome measure, including the impact of NSEs on drug-related and sex-related risk behavior, the impact of NSEs on HIV incidence and prevalence, any unintended consequences, and the impact of NSEs on links to health and social services. Drug-Related Risk Behavior The Committee did not identify any case-control studies that examined the impact of multi-component programs that include needle and syringe exchange on drug-related risk behavior. As noted, the Committee considered prospective cohort studies the strongest study design along with case-control studies. Of 26 prospective cohort studies identified, 18 examined the impact of these programs on drug-related risks. Thirteen found that participation in multi-component programs that include needle and syringe exchange reduced self-reported needle sharing. (Sharing is defined as lending or borrowing used needles or syringes.) Four studies found no increase in injection frequency among NSE participants, and one of these found a decrease (see Appendix D and Table 3.1). The sections below discuss studies selected by the Committee for their strong study design and relevance. Sharing drug preparation equipment such as cookers used to melt drugs, cotton used to filter out particles when drawing the drug into the syringe, and water used to rinse syringes, has been associated with hepatitis C (HCV) infection (Diaz et al., 2001; Hagan et al., 1999, 2001; Hahn et al., 2002; Thorpe et al., 2002). Few studies have examined whether NSEs reduce the sharing of other injection equipment such as cookers, cotton, or water—possibly because NSEs do not always provide such equipment. One prospective cohort study by Ouellet et al. (2004) shows that when NSEs do provide such drug paraphernalia, sharing declines. A cross-sectional study in Providence, Rhode Island, where an NSE provides alcohol swabs and cookers, supports this finding (Longshore et al., 2001). Two prospective cohort studies found no association between NSE use and the sharing of other injecting equipment (Hagan et al., 2000; Huo et al., 2005). In 2004 in Chicago, Ouellet et al. compared NSE users (n=558)—defined as those who obtained at least half their needles from an NSE—to non-users (n=175). Non-users were recruited from a neighborhood that did not have an NSE. Using multivariate analysis, the researchers found that regular NSE users were less likely to share needles (AOR=0.30; 95% CI: 0.19-0.46), lend used needles (AOR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.31–0.71), or use a needle for more than one injection (AOR=0.15; 95% CI: 0.08–0.27). Similarly, Bluthenthal and colleagues (2000) interviewed 340 street-recruited IDUs semi-annually to determine whether NSE use was associated with a decrease in syringe sharing. IDUs participating in the study also received HIV testing and counseling at the time of interview. The study

OCR for page 137
found that 60 percent reported cessation of syringe sharing. Compared with non-NSE users, IDUs who began using an NSE were more likely to stop sharing syringes (AOR=2.68; 95% CI: 1.35–5.33), as were those who continued using the NSE (AOR=1.98; 95% CI: 1.05–3.75). Schoenbaum and colleagues (1996) studied the injection behavior of NSE users and non-users in the Bronx, New York City. The study found that male gender, HIV-seropositive status, and younger age were independently associated with NSE attendance, and that NSE users shared needles less often than non-users (p<0.05). A study by Gibson et al. (2002) examined whether NSE use is protective against high-risk behavior such as more frequent injection and syringe borrowing. The study sample included 338 untreated opiate-addicted IDUs, 77 percent of whom were included in follow-up (n=212). The study found that NSE users did not differ from non-users in injection frequency, but were less likely to report borrowing a used syringe. In univariate analysis, NSE use was protective against HIV risk (OR=0.45; 95% CI: 0.21–0.92). Multivariate analyses were used to correct for potential differences between IDUs who use NSE versus those who choose not to. These analyses found that NSE use had a more than six-fold protective effect against HIV risk behavior among IDUs using NSE as their sole source of syringes. In Baltimore, Vlahov et al. (1997) examined the drug-related behavior of 221 NSE participants at entry into the NSE, 2 weeks after entry, and 6 months after entry. At 6-month follow-up, reductions were reported in using a previously used syringe, lending syringes, backloading (drawing drug into a syringe and then transferring a portion into a second syringe by removing the plunger), and sharing cookers and cotton. A few studies have found that NSEs have no effect on drug-related risk behavior. For example, in a prospective cohort study in Amsterdam, Hartgers et al. (1992) found that NSE users did not borrow needles and syringes more or less often than non-NSE users. A cross-sectional study by Hagan et al. (1993) interviewed NSE users and asked about injection behavior during the month before first use of the NSE and the most recent month since starting to use the NSE. The study found no change in self-reported frequency of injection, but did find a decline in self-reported frequency of unsafe injection. Based on this evidence, the Committee concludes: Conclusion 3-1: Nearly all programs included in our literature search combine needle and syringe exchange with other components such as outreach, risk reduction education, condom distribution, bleach distribution and education on needle disinfection, and referrals to substance abuse treatment and other health and social services.

OCR for page 137
TABLE 3-1 Studies with Drug-Related Risk Outcomes Study Result Bluthenthal et al., 2000, California (prospective cohort)+ NSE users decreased syringe sharing. Bruneau et al., 2004, Montreal (prospective cohort)+ NSE and pharmacy users less likely to stop injecting. Cox et al., 2000, Ireland (prospective cohort) NSE users decreased needle and syringe sharing and frequency of drug use. Des Jarlais et al., 2000, New York City (ecological) Injection risk behaviors declined significantly in presence of NSE. Gibson et al., 2002, California (prospective cohort)+ NSE users decreased syringe sharing; no change in injecting frequency. Hagan et al., 2000, Seattle, Washington (prospective cohort)+ NSE users less likely to inject with a used syringe; no association with sharing of other injection equipment. Hagan et al., 1993, Tacoma, Washington (cross-sectional) NSE users report no change in frequency of injection; the frequency of unsafe injection declined. Hammett et al., 2006, Vietnam and China (serial cross sectional) Drug-related risk behavior declined in frequency. Hart et al., 1989, London (prospective cohort) NSE users decreased syringe sharing; no increase in frequency of injection. Hartgers et al., 1992, Amsterdam (prospective cohort) No difference in sharing between NSE users and non-users. Huo et al., 2005, Chicago (prospective cohort + NSE users less likely to share syringes; no association with sharing of other injection equipment. Keene et al., 1993, Wales (cross-sectional)+ NSE users less likely to share syringes. Klee et al., 1991, UK (cross-sectional) NSE users more likely to lend syringes. Longshore et al., 2001, Providence, Rhode Island (cross-sectional) NSE users less likely to report syringe sharing; more likely to report cleaning their skin; less likely to report sharing cookers. Marmor et al., 2000, New York City (prospective cohort) NSE users decreased rates of drug injecting. Monterroso et al., 2000, multiple U.S. cities (prospective cohort) NSE users less likely to share needles and syringes. Ouellet et al., 2004, Chicago (prospective cohort)+ NSE users decreased sharing of needles, syringes, and other equipment. Schoenbaum et al., 1996, New York City (prospective cohort)+ NSE users shared less than non-NSE users. Van Ameijden and Coutinho, 1998, Amsterdam (prospective cohort) NSE users showed large initial reduction in sharing needles and frequency of injection. Van Ameijden et al., 1994, Amsterdam (serial cross sectional) NSE users are less likely to reuse needles/syringes.

OCR for page 137
Study Result Van den Hoek et al., 1989, Amsterdam (prospective cohort) NSE users decreased needle and syringe sharing; no increase in frequency of drug use. Vazirian et al., 2005, Iran (cross-sectional) NSE users decreased needle/syringe sharing. Vertefeuille et al. 2000, Baltimore (prospective cohort) NSE users decreased syringe sharing; increased participation in drug treatment. Vlahov et al., 1997, Baltimore (prospective cohort) NSE users decreased syringe sharing. Watters et al., 1994, San Francisco (serial cross-sectional) NSE users reported decrease in frequency of injection; less likely to share needles/syringes. Wood et al., 2002, Vancouver (prospective cohort)+ NSE users less likely to share needles and syringes. Wood et al., 2003, Vancouver NSE users more likely to frequently inject (prospective cohort) cocaine; more likely to safely dispose of syringes. + Indicates that the study compared NSE users with non-users. Conclusion 3-2: Moderate evidence from a large number of studies and review papers—most from developed countries—shows that participation in multi-component HIV prevention programs that include needle and syringe exchange is associated with a reduction in drug-related HIV risk behavior. Such behavior includes self-reported sharing of needles and syringes, safer injecting and disposal practices, and frequency of injection. Sex-Related Risk Behavior Few studies have evaluated the effect of NSEs on sex-related HIV risk behavior (see Table 3-2). This is not surprising, because reduction in sexual risk (often evaluated by reports of condom use) is often not a primary goal of NSEs. However, two early prospective cohort studies associated use of an NSE with a decline in the number of sexual partners (Donoghoe et al., 1989; Hart et al., 1989). Donoghoe and colleagues measured the sexual behavior of 142 NSE clients in England and Scotland at baseline and 2 to 4 months later. Seventy-seven percent of clients reported having one or more sexual partner in the 3 months prior to the first interview. Forty-six percent of these sexually active clients had non-IDU partners. At follow-up, the number of NSE clients having no sexual partners increased from 23 to 31

OCR for page 137
TABLE 3-2 Studies with Sex-Related Risk Outcomes Study Result Donoghoe et al., 1989, UK (prospective cohort) Number of NSE participants having no sexual partners increased; number having multiple sexual partners decreased. Hart et al., 1989, London (prospective cohort) Significant correlation between multiple sexual partners and condom use; and a reduction in the proportion of clients with multiple partners. Cox et al., 2000, Ireland (prospective cohort) NSE users reported no significant change in levels of condom use. percent, and the number having multiple partners decreased slightly from 26 to 21 percent. Hart et al. (1989) monitored an NSE in London and followed 121 NSE clients from November 1987 to October 1988. Clients were interviewed 1 month after entry into the NSE and again three months later. The study found a highly significant correlation between multiple sexual partners and condom use, and a reduction in the proportion of NSE clients with multiple partners. Based on this evidence, the Committee concludes: Conclusion 3-3: Needle and syringe exchange is not primarily designed to address sex-related risk behavior. In two early prospective cohort studies, NSE participants reported decreases in sex-related risk behavior. However, this issue has not been well studied, and the existing modest evidence is insufficient to determine the effectiveness of needle and syringe exchange in reducing sex-related risk. Effects of NSE on HIV Incidence/Prevalence Few site-specific studies have explored the relationship between NSE participation and HIV incidence, although several ecological studies have found positive associations between the introduction or presence of NSEs and reduced HIV prevalence and incidence (see Table 3-3). As mentioned, whether NSE alone is responsible for the impacts is unclear, given myriad design and methodological issues noted in the majority of studies. Two prospective cohort studies from Montreal and Vancouver in the 1990s associated NSE participation with higher risk of HIV seroconversion (Strathdee et al., 1997; Bruneau et al., 1997). In Montreal, Bruneau et al.

OCR for page 137
TABLE 3-3 Studies with HIV Incidence or Prevalence Outcomes Study Result Bruneau et al., 1997, Montreal (prospective cohort) Increased HIV seroconversion among NSE users. Des Jarlais et al., 2005a, New York City (ecological) From 1990–2001, HIV prevalence declined. Des Jarlais et al., 2005b, New York City (serial cross-sectional) Strong negative relationship between the number of syringes exchanged and estimated HIV incidence. Hammett et al., 2006, Vietnam and China (serial cross-ectional) HIV prevalence among IDUs declined in Vietnam and remained stable in China. Hurley et al., 1997, worldwide (ecological) Increased HIV prevalence in cities without NSE. MacDonald et al., 2003, worldwide (ecological) Increased HIV prevalence in cities without NSE. Mansson et al., 2000, Sweden (prospective cohort) No new HIV cases during a median of 31 months among NSE participants. Patrick et al., 1997, Vancouver (case control) No association with frequency of NSE use and HIV seroconversion. Schechter et al., 1999, Vancouver (prospective cohort) Cumulative HIV incidence was significantly elevated in frequent NSE attenders. Strathdee et al., 1997, Vancouver (prospective cohort) Increased HIV and HCV prevalence in the presence of NSE. Van Ameijden et al., 1992, Amsterdam (case control) No association between NSE participation and HIV seroconversion. (1997) used three risk-assessment approaches to examine the association between NSE use and HIV infection. All three analytical approaches associated NSE attendance with a substantial and consistently higher risk of HIV infection. For example, in the cohort approach, in which there were 89 incident cases of HIV infection, the researchers found a 33 percent cumulative probability of HIV seroconversion for NSE users, compared with a 13 percent probability for non-users. In the nested case-control study, consistent NSE use was associated with HIV seroconversion during follow-up (OR=10.5; 95% CI: 2.7–41.0). The analyses employed methodologies to control for a range of confounders, including drug of choice and frequency of injecting drug use in the previous month. These findings persisted after controlling for confounders. The authors and commentators on this research pointed out that the Montreal NSE appeared to have attracted high-risk cocaine injectors, who injected much more often than heroin users. Also, as shown by the seroprevalence data at baseline, Montreal NSE users had high baseline rates of HIV and hepatitis B infection (Bruneau et al., 1997). The NSE also originally strictly limited the number of needles and syringes users could

OCR for page 137
receive during any one visit. The authors further noted that the ready availability of clean injecting equipment through pharmacies might have meant that the NSE attracted marginalized, high-risk individuals (Bruneau et al., 1997). These early research results prompted the Montreal NSE to remove limits on the number of needles and syringes users could obtain, to provide access to other injection equipment, and to expand the number of distribution points to 25 (Personal communication, Carole Morissette and Pascale Leclerc, Health Protection Sector, Public Health Department, Agence de Santé et Des Services Sociaux de Montréal, June 6, 2006). In addition to syringes, NSEs began to provide alcohol swabs, individual disposal containers, sterile water vials, and “stericups” (kits containing a filter, cooker, and post-injection swab). Of 429 pharmacies in Montreal, injection equipment is available at roughly 40 percent, and some (n=70) sell kits containing four syringes, condoms, alcohol swabs, sterile water vials, stericups, and education material for $1. Following these changes, HIV incidence among participants in the Montreal SurvUDI study dropped from 6.1 per 100 person-years in 1995 to 4.7 per 100 person-years in 2004. The SurvUDI study is a surveillance network that began in 1995 and targets hard-to-reach, mostly out-of-treatment IDUs in Eastern Central Canada (Hankins et al., 2002). HCV incidence—reported retrospectively among Montreal SurvUDI participants between 1997 and 2003—remains high, at about 26 per 100 person-years. (Personal communication, Carole Morissette and Pascale Leclerc, Health Protection Sector, Public Health Department, Agence de santé et des services sociaux de Montréal, June 6, 2006). The SurvUDI network also provides data on trends in syringe sharing in Montreal, including the proportion of participants injecting with a syringe used by someone else (at first study participation). That proportion fell from 45 percent in 1995 to 28 percent in 2004. In Vancouver, Strathdee et al. (1997) also found that frequent NSE attendance was an independent predictor of HIV seroconversion. After adjusting for confounders, the authors found that the adjusted odds ratio for HIV infection status among NSE users compared with non-NSE users was 1.68. The authors noted that cocaine was the drug of choice among 72 percent of HIV-seropositive IDUs, and that cocaine puts IDUs at elevated risk because it is associated with more frequent injection (Anthony et al., 1991; Chaisson et al., 1989). A follow-up study by Schechter et al. (1999) in the same setting found no relationship between NSE use and HIV incidence, and a case-control study found borrowing of syringes to be the most significant behavior associated with seroconversion among IDUs (Patrick et al., 1997). After multivariate analysis controlling for confounders, the au-

OCR for page 137
ing needles and syringes—and enhance legal access via pharmacy sales, voucher schemes, and physician prescription programs—have focused on assessing the acceptability of such programs by drug users, pharmacists, and physicians. A few studies have examined the impact on drug-related HIV risk, and found suggestive evidence of a reduction. The evidence regarding supervised injecting facilities and vending machines—while encouraging—is insufficient for drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing drug-related HIV risks among IDUs. As with drug treatment, a common concern is that sterile needle and syringe access may produce unintended results, including more new drug users, expanded networks of high-risk users, more frequent injection, and more discarded needles in the community. While few studies have specifically examined such outcomes, studies to date have not found evidence of negative effects. More research is needed on potential unintended consequences of HIV prevention programs that include needle and syringe access, and strategies to address such problems if they are found. Undiluted bleach can inactivate HIV on injecting equipment in the laboratory, and in the field if used according to guidelines. However, in practice, injecting drug users do not use bleach correctly, so programs that distribute bleach should also educate drug users on proper techniques. In some countries, bleach is not available or acceptable, and it may be necessary to use other disinfectants. Drug users should rely on such methods only when they cannot stop injecting, or do not have access to new equipment. More research is needed to identify the simplest and most acceptable effective disinfection techniques using bleach and the best methods for educating IDUs on these techniques as well as the effectiveness of alternative disinfectants in field settings, particularly in countries where bleach is not available or acceptable. Outreach-based efforts to prevent HIV transmission—which may direct drug users to needle and syringe exchange, for example—are associated with reductions in drug-related risk behavior, including injection frequency and sharing of injection equipment. Outreach is effective in linking hard-to-reach IDUs with drug treatment and other health and social services. The impact of outreach on sex-related HIV risk behavior is less clear and more research is needed to study this impact. More research is also needed to determine the best way to integrate effective strategies for reducing sexual risk behavior and sexual transmission of HIV among IDU into outreach and education programs. Although questions remain about the contribution of individual elements of multi-component programs that include sterile needle and syringe access and outreach and education on risk behavior and actual HIV incidence, the report recommends that high-risk countries act now to implement such programs. These programs should include multiple access points

OCR for page 137
and methods of delivery, focus on reducing sexual risks, actively refer drug users to other services, focus additional efforts on preventing hepatitis C, and incorporate strong program and component evaluations. REFERENCES Abdala N, Stephens PC, Griffith BP, Heimer R. 1999. Survival of HIV-1 in syringes. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology. 20(1):73–80. Abdala N, Gleghorn AA, Carney JM, Heimer R. 2001. Can HIV-1-contaminated syringes be disinfected? Implications for transmission among injection drug users. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 28(5):487–494. Abdala N, Crowe M, Tolstov Y, Heimer R. 2004. Survival of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 after rinsing injection syringes with different cleaning solutions. Substance Use and Misuse. 39(4):581–600. Anthony JC, Vlahov D, Nelson KE, Cohn S, Astemborski J, Solomon L. 1991. New evidence on intravenous cocaine use and the risk of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. American Journal of Epidemiology. 134(10):1175–1189. Bloom D, Mahal A, O’Flaherty L. 2006. Economics of Needle Use and Reuse. Unpublished manuscript. Boston, MA: Department of Population and International Health, Harvard University School of Public Health. Bluthenthal RN, Kral AH, Gee L, Erringer EA, Edlin BR. 2000. The effect of syringe exchange use on high-risk injection drug users: A cohort study. AIDS. 14(5):605–611. Broadhead RS, van Hulst Y, Heckathorn DD. 1999. The impact of a needle exchange’s closure. Public Health Reports. 114:439–447. Bruneau J, Lamothe F, Franco E, Lachance N, Desy M, Soto J, Vincelette J. 1997. High rates of HIV infection among injection drug users participating in needle exchange programs in Montreal: Results of a cohort study. American Journal of Epidemiology. 146(12):994– 1002. Bruneau J, Brogly SB, Tyndall MW, Lamothe F, Franco EL. 2004. Intensity of drug injection as a determinant of sustained injection cessation among chronic drug users: The interface with social factors and service utilization. Addiction. 99(6):727–737. Burris S, Strathdee S, Vernick J. 2003. Lethal injections: The law, science, and politics of syringe access for injection drug users. University of San Francisco Law Review. 37: 813–885. Carlson RG, Wang J, Siegal HA, Falck RS. 1998. A preliminary evaluation of a modified needle-cleaning intervention using bleach among injection drug users. AIDS Education and Prevention. 10(6):523–532. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2004. Syringe Disinfection for Injection Drug Users. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/idu/facts/disinfection.pdf [accessed June 29, 2006]. Chaisson RE, Osmond D, Moss AR, Feldman HW, Bernacki P. 1987. HIV, bleach, and needle sharing. Lancet. 1(8547):1430. Chaisson RE, Bacchetti P, Osmond D, Brodie B, Sande MA, Moss AR. 1989. Cocaine use and HIV infection in intravenous drug users in San Francisco. Journal of the American Medical Association. 261(4):561–565. Chen HT, Liao Q. 2005. A pilot study of the NGO based relational intervention model for HIV prevention among drug users in China. AIDS Education and Prevention. 17(6): 503–514.

OCR for page 137
Coffin P, Ahern J, Dorris S, Stevenson L, Fuller C, Vlahov D. 2002. More pharmacists in high-risk neighborhoods of New York City support selling syringes to injection drug users. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association. 42(Suppl. 2):S62–S67. Collins C, Kohler C, DiClemente R, Wang MQ. 1999. Evaluation of the exposure effects of a theory-based street based outreach HIV intervention on African-American drug users. Evaluation and Program Planning. 22:279–293. Colon HM, Sahai H, Robles RR, Matos TD. 1995. Effects of a community outreach program in HIV risk behaviors among injection drug users in San Juan, Puerto Rico: An analysis of trends. AIDS Education and Prevention. 7(3):195–209. Contoreggi C, Jones S, Simpson P, Lange WR, Meyer WA 3rd. 2000. Effects of varying concentrations of bleach on in vitro HIV-1 replication and the relevance to injection drug use. Intervirology. 43(1):1–5. Coutinho R. 2005 (December 20). Needle Exchange: The Amsterdam Experience. Presentation at the Institute of Medicine Workshop on the Prevention of HIV Among Injecting Drug Users in High-Risk Countries, Geneva, Switzerland. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Prevention of HIV Infection Among Injecting Drug Users in High-Risk Countries. Coyle SL, Needle RH, Normand J. 1998. Outreach-based HIV prevention for injecting drug users: A review of published outcome data. Public Health Reports. 113 Suppl 1:19–30. Cox GM, Lawless MC, Cassin SP, Geoghegan TW. 2000. Syringe exchanges: A public health response to problem drug use. Irish Medical Journal. 93(5):143–146. Darke S. 1998. Self report among injecting drug users: A review. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 51:253–263. Deren S, Fuller C, Pouget E, Blaney S, Tortu S, Kang SY. 2003. Impact of expanding syringe access in New York on sources of syringes for injection drug users in Harlem and the Bronx, NYC, USA. International Journal of Drug Policy. 14:373–379. Deren S, Cleland CM, Fuller C, Kang S-Y, Des Jarlais DC, Vlahov D. 2006. The impact of syringe deregulation on sources of syringes for injection drug users: Preliminary findings. AIDS and Behavior. [Online]. Epub ahead of print: April 26, 2006. Des Jarlais DC, Hagan H, Friedman S, Friedmann P, Goldberg D, Frischer M, Green S, Tunving K, Ljungberg B, Wodak A, Ross M, Purchase D, Millson M, Myers T. 1995. Maintaining low HIV seroprevalence in populations of injecting drug users. Journal of the American Medical Association. 274(15):1226–1231. Des Jarlais DC, Paone D, Milliken J, Turner CF, Miller H, Gribble J, Shi Q, Hagan H, Friedman SR. 1999. Audio-computer interviewing to measure risk behaviour for HIV among injecting drug users: A quasi-randomised trial. Lancet. 353(9165):1657–1661. Des Jarlais DC, Perlis T, Friedman SR, Chapman T, Kwok J, Rockwell R, Paone D, Milliken J, Monterroso E. 2000. Behavioral risk reduction in a declining HIV epidemic: Injection drug users in New York City, 1990-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 90(7): 1112–1116. Des Jarlais DC, McKnight C, Friedmann P. 2002. Legal syringe purchases by injection drug users, Brooklyn and Queens, NYC, 2000-2001. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association. 42(6)Suppl 2:S73–S76. Des Jarlais DC, Perlis T, Arasteh K, Torian LV, Hagan H, Beatrice S, Smith L, Wethers J, Milliken J, Mildvan D, Yancovitz S, Friedman SR. 2005a. Reductions in hepatitis C virus and HIV infections among injecting drug users in New York City, 1990–2001. AIDS. 19 Suppl 3:S20–S25. Des Jarlais DC, Perlis T, Arasteh K, Torian LV, Beatrice S, Milliken J, Mildvan D, Yancovitz S, Friedman SR. 2005b. HIV incidence among injection drug users in New York City, 1990 to 2002: Use of serologic test algorithm to assess expansion of HIV prevention services. American Journal of Public Health. 95(8):1439–1444.

OCR for page 137
Diaz T, Des Jarlais DC, Vlahov D, Perlis T, Edwards V, Friedman S, Rockwell R, Hoover D, Williams I, Monterroso E. 2001. Factors associated with prevalent hepatitis C: Differences among young adult injection drug users in lower and upper Manhattan, New York City. American Journal of Public Health. 91(1):23–30. Doherty MC, Junge B, Rathouz P, Garfein RS, Riley E, Vlahov D. 2000. The effect of a needle exchange program on numbers of discarded needles: A 2-year follow-up. American Journal of Public Health. 90(6):936–939. Dolan K, Kimber J, Fry C, Fitzgerald J, McDonald D, Trautmann F. 2000. Drug consumption facilities in Europe and the establishment of supervised injecting centres in Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review. 19:337–346. Donoghoe MC, Stimson GV, Dolan KA. 1989. Sexual behaviour of injecting drug users and associated risks of HIV infection for non-injecting sexual partners. AIDS Care. 1(1): 51–58. Druce JD, JardineD, Locarnini SA, Birch CJ. 1995. Susceptibility of HIV to inactivation by disinfectants and ultraviolet light. Journal of Hospital Infection. 30(3):167–180. Empelen PV, Kok G, van Kesteren N, van den Borne B, Bos, A, Schaalma H. 2003. Effective methods to change sex-risk among drug users: A review of psychosocial interventions. Social Science and Medicine. 57:1593–1608. Flynn N, Jain S, Keddie EM, Carlson JR, Jennings MB, Haverkos HW, Nassar N, Anderson R, Cohen S, Goldberg D. 1994. In vitro activity of readily available household materials against HIV-1: Is bleach enough? Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 7(7):747–753. Froner GA, Rutherford GW, Rokeach M. 1987. Injection of sodium hypochlorite by intravenous drug users [letter]. Journal of the American Medical Association. 258(3):325. Fuller C, Galea S, Blaney S, Ompad DC, Deren S, Des Jarlais DC, Vlahov D. 2004. Explaining the relationship between race/ethnicity and pharmacy purchased syringes among injection drug users in New York City. Ethnicity and Disease. 14:589–596. Galea S, Ahern J, Fuller C, Freudenberg N, Vlahov D. 2001. Needle exchange programs and experiences of violence in an inner city neighborhood. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 28(3):282–288. Gambia Hepatitis Study Group. 1987. The Gambia Hepatitis Intervention Study. Cancer Research. 47:5782–5787. Gibson DR, Brand R, Anderson K, Kahn JG, Perales D, Guydish J. 2002. Two- to sixfold decreased odds of HIV risk behavior associated with use of syringe exchange. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 31(2):237–242. Gleghorn AA, Doherty MC, Vlahov D, Celentano D, Jones T. 1994. Inadequate bleach contact times during syringe cleaning among injection drug users. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 7(7):767–772. GRADE Working Group. 2004. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendation. British Medical Journal. 328:1490–1498. Grau LE, Arevalo S, Catchpool C, Heimer R. 2002. Expanding harm reduction services through a wound and abscess clinic. American Journal of Public Health. 92(12):1915– 1917. Groseclose SL, Weinstein B, Jones TS, Valleroy LA, Fehrs LJ, Kassler WJ. 1995. Impact of increased legal access to needles and syringes on practices of injecting-drug users and police officers—Connecticut, 1992-1993. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology. 10(1):82–89. Guydish J, Clark G, Garcia D, Downing M, Case P, Sorensen JL. 1991. Evaluating needle exchange: Do distributed needles come back? American Journal of Public Health. 81(5): 617–619.

OCR for page 137
Hagan H, Thiede H. 2000. Changes in injection risk behavior associated with participation in the Seattle needle-exchange program. Journal of Urban Health. 77(3):369–382. Hagan H, Des Jarlais DC, Purchase D, Friedman SR, Reid T, Bell TA. 1993. An interview study of participants in the Tacoma, Washington, syringe exchange. Addiction. 88(12): 1691–1697. Hagan H, Des Jarlais DC, Friedman SR, Purchase D, Alter MJ. 1995. Reduced risk of hepatitis B and hepatitis C among injection drug users in the Tacoma syringe exchange program. American Journal of Public Health. 85(11):1531–1537. Hagan H, McGough JP, Thiede H, Weiss NS, Hopkins S, Alexander ER. 1999. Syringe exchange and risk of infection with hepatitis B and C viruses. American Journal of Epidemiology. 149:203–213. Hagan H, McGough JP, Thiede H, Hopkins SG, Weiss NS, Alexander ER. 2000. Volunteer bias in nonrandomized evaluations of the efficacy of needle-exchange programs. Journal of Urban Health. 77(1):103–112. Hagan H, Thiede H, Weiss N, Hopkins S, Duchin J, Alexander ER. 2001. Sharing of drug preparation equipment as a risk factor for hepatitis C. American Journal of Public Health. 91(1):42–46. Hahn JA, Page-Shafer K, Lum PJ, Bourgois P, Stein E, Evans J, Busch M, Tobler L, Phelps B, Moss AR. 2002. Hepatitis C virus seroconversion among young injection drug users: Relationships and risks. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 186:1558–1564. Hammett TM, Bartlett NA, Chen Y, Ngu D, Cuong DD, Phuong NM, Tho NH, Van LK, Donghua M, Shaomi X, Chen H, Quyen HN, Broadhead RS, Des Jarlais DC. 2005. Law enforcement influences on HIV prevention for injection drug users: Observations from a cross-border project in China and Vietnam. International Journal of Drug Policy. 16: 235–245. Hammett TM, Kling R, Johnston P, Liu W, Ngu D, Friedmann P, Binh KT, Dong HV, Van LK, Donghua M, Chen Y, Des Jarlais DC. 2006. HIV prevalence and HIV risk behaviors among injection drug users prior to and 24 months following implementation of cross-border interventions in Northern Vietnam and Southern China. AIDS Education and Prevention. 18:97–115. Hangzo C, Chatterjee A, Sarkar S, Zomi GT, Deb BC, Abdul-Quader AS. 1997. Reaching out beyond the hills: HIV prevention among injecting drug users in Manipur, India. Addiction. 92(7):813–820. Hankins C, Alary M, Parent R, Blanchette C, Claessens C; SurvUDI Working Group. 2002. Continuing HIV transmission among injection drug users in Eastern Central Canada: The SurvUDI Study, 1995 to 2000. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 30(5):514–521. Hart GJ, Carvell AL, Woodward N, Johnson AM, Williams P, Parry JV. 1989. Evaluation of needle exchange in central London: Behaviour change and anti-HIV status over one year. AIDS. 3(5):261–265. Hartgers C, van Ameijden EJ, van den Hoek JA, Coutinho RA. 1992. Needle sharing and participation in the Amsterdam Syringe Exchange program among HIV-seronegative injecting drug users. Public Health Reports. 107(6):675–681. Heimer R, Khoshnood K, Bigg D, Guydish J, Junge B. 1998. Syringe use and reuse: Effects of syringe exchange programs in four cities. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology. 18(Suppl 1):S37–S44. Heinemann A, Gross U. 2001. Prevention of bloodborne virus infections among drug users in an open prison by syringe vending machines. Sucht. 47(1):57. Huo D, Bailey SL, Garfein RS, Ouellet LJ. 2005. Changes in the sharing of drug injection equipment among street-recruited injection drug users in Chicago, Illinois, 1994-1996. Substance Use and Misuse. 40(1):63–76.

OCR for page 137
Hurley SF, Jolley DJ, Kaldor JM. 1997. Effectiveness of needle-exchange programmes for prevention of HIV infection. Lancet. 349(9068):1797–1800. Jamner MS, Wolitski RJ, Corby NH. 1997. Impact of a longitudinal community HIV intervention targeting injecting drug users’ stage of change for condom and bleach use. American Journal of Health Promotion Stages of Change. 12(1):15–24. Jones TS, Coffin PO. 2002. Preventing blood-borne infections through pharmacy syringe sales and safe community syringe disposal. Journal of American Pharmaceutical Association. 42(6)Suppl 2:S6–S9. Käll K. 2005 (December 19). What Science Tells Us About Needle Exchange Programs. Presentation at the Institute of Medicine Workshop on the Prevention of HIV Among Injecting Drug Users in High-Risk Countries, Geneva, Switzerland. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Prevention of HIV Infection Among Injecting Drug Users in High-Risk Countries. Kapadia F, Vlahov D, Des Jarlais DC, Strathdee SA, Ouellet L, Kerndt P, Morse E EV, Williams I, Garfein RS; Second Collaborative Injection Drug User Study (CIDUS-II) Group. 2002. Does bleach disinfection of syringes protect against hepatitis C infection among young adult injection drug users? Epidemiology. 13(6):738–741. Kaplan E, Heimer R. 1992. HIV prevalence among intravenous drug users: Model-based estimates from New Haven’s legal needle exchange. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 5:163–169. Kaplan E, O’Keefe E. 1993. Let the needles do the talking! Evaluating the New Haven needle exchange. Interfaces. 23:7–26. Kaplan E, Khoshnood K, Heimer R. 1994. A decline in HIV-infected needles returned to New Haven’s needle exchange program: Client shift or needle exchange? American Journal of Public Health. 84(12):1991–1993. Keene J, Stimson GV, Jones S, Parry-Langdon N. 1993. Evaluation of syringe-exchange for HIV prevention among injecting drug users in rural and urban areas of Wales. Addiction. 88(8):1063–1070. Kerr T, Tyndall M, Li K, Montaner J, Wood E. 2005. Safer injection facility use and syringe sharing in injection drug users. Lancet. 366(9482):316–318. Klee H, Faugier J, Hayes C, Morris J. 1991. The sharing of injecting equipment among drug users attending prescribing clinics and those using needle-exchanges. British Journal of Addiction. 86(2):217–223. Klein S, Candelas A, Birkhead G. 2002. Mobilizing public and private partners to support New York’s expanded syringe access demonstration program. Journal of American Pharmaceutical Association. 42(6)Suppl 2:S28–S29. Krol A, Lindenburg K, Thijs van der Helm J, Smit C, Coutinho R, Prins M. 2006 (April 30– May 4). Decline in Injecting Drug Use, But Not in Sexual Risk Behavior, Seen in the Amsterdam Cohort Study Among Drug Users. 17th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug Related Harm. Abstract We_15_2. Vancouver, Canada. Ksobiech K. 2004. Return rates for needle exchange programs: A common criticism answered. Harm Reduction Journal. 1(1):2. Kumar MS, Mudaliar S, Daniels D. 1998. Community-based outreach HIV intervention for street-recruited drug users in Madras, India. Public Health Reports. 113 Suppl 1:58–66. Latkin C, Sherman S, Knowlton A. 2003. HIV prevention among drug users: Outcome of a network-orientated peer outreach intervention. Health Psychology. 22(4):332–339. Lewis BA, Koester SK, Bush TW. 2002. Pharmacists’ attitudes and concerns regarding syringe sales to injection drug users in Denver, Colorado. Journal of American Pharmaceutical Association. 42(6 Suppl 2):S46–S51.

OCR for page 137
Longshore D, Bluthenthal RN, Stein MD. 2001. Needle exchange program attendance and injection risk in Providence, Rhode Island. AIDS Education and Prevention. 13(1): 78–90. Lurie P, Reingold AL, Bowser B, Chen D, Foley J, Guydish J, Kahn JG, Lane S, Sorensen J. 1993. The Public Health Impact of Needle Exchange Programs in the United States and Abroad, Volume 1. San Francisco: University of California. Macalino GE, Celentano DD, Latkin C, Strathdee SA, Vlahov D. 2002. Risk behaviors by audio computer-assisted self-interviews among HIV-seropositive and HIV-seronegative injection drug users. AIDS Education and Prevention. 14(5):367–378. MacDonald M, Law M, Kaldor J, Hales J, Dore GJ. 2003. Effectiveness of needle and syringe programmes for preventing HIV transmission. International Journal of Drug Policy Sterile Syringe Access for Injection Drug Users in the 21st Century: Progress and Prospects. 14(5-6):353–357. Mansson AS, Moestrup T, Nordenfelt E, Widell A. 2000. Continued transmission of hepatitis B and C viruses, but no transmission of human immunodeficiency virus among intravenous drug users participating in a syringe/needle exchange program. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 32(3):253–258. Marmor M, Shore RE, Titus S, Chen X, Des Jarlais DC. 2000. Drug injection rates and needle-exchange use in New York City, 1991-1996. Journal of Urban Health. 77(3): 359–368. Martin LS, McDougal JS, Loskoski SL. 1985. Disinfection and inactivation of the human T lymphotropic virus type III/Lymphadenopathy-associated virus. Journal of Infectious Diseases. 152(2):400–403. Marx M, Crape B, Brookmeyer R, Junge B, Latkin C, Vlahov D, Strathdee S. 2000. Trends in crime and the introduction of a needle exchange program. American Journal of Public Health. 90(12):1933–1936. McCoy CB, Rivers JE, McCoy HV, Shapshak P, Weatherby NL, Chitwood DD, Page JB, Inciardi JA, McBride DC. 1994. Compliance to bleach disinfection protocols among injecting drug users in Miami. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 7(7):773–776. Metzger DS, Koblin B, Turner C, Navaline H, Valenti F, Holte S, Gross M, Sheon A, Miller H, Cooley P, Seage GR 3rd. 2000. Randomized controlled trial of audio computer-assisted self-interviewing: Utility and acceptability in longitudinal studies. American Journal of Epidemiology. 152(2):99–106. Miller CL, Tyndall M, Spittal P, Li K, Palepu A, Schechter MT. 2002. Risk-taking behaviors among injecting drug users who obtain syringes from pharmacies, fixed sites, and mobile van needle exchanges. Journal of Urban Health. 79(2): 257–265. Moatti JP, Vlahov D, Feroni I, Perrin V, Obadia Y. 2001. Multiple access to sterile syringes for injection drug users: Vending machines, needle exchange programs and legal pharmacy sales in Marseille, France. European Addiction Research. 7(1):40–45. Monterroso ER, Hamburger ME, Vlahov D, Des Jarlais DC, Ouellet LJ, Altice FL, Byers RH, Kerndt PR, Watters JK, Bowser BP, Fernando MD, Holmberg SD. 2000. Prevention of HIV infection in street-recruited injection drug users. The Collaborative Injection Drug User Study (CIDUS). Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 25(1):63–70. Morgan DL. 1992. Intravenous injection of household bleach. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 21(11):1394–1395. MSIC (Medically Supervised Injecting Centre) Evaluation Committee. 2003. Final Report on the Evaluation of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. Sydney, Australia: MSIC Evaluation Committee.

OCR for page 137
Neaigus A, Sufian M, Friedman SR, Goldsmith DS, Stepherson B, Mota P, Pascal J, Des Jarlais DC. 1990. Effects of outreach intervention on risk reduction among intravenous drug users. AIDS Education and Prevention. 2(4):253–271. Needle RH, Burrows D, Friedman SR, Dorabjee J, Touze G, Badrieva L, Grund J-PC, Kumar MS, Nigro L, Manning G, Latkin C. 2005. Effectiveness of community-based outreach in preventing HIV/AIDS among injecting drug users. International Journal of Drug Policy. 16(Suppl 1):S45–S57. Newmeyer JA. 1988. Why bleach? Fighting AIDS contagion among intravenous drug users: The San Francisco experience. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs. 20(2):159–163. Newmeyer JA, Drew L, Miner R. 1990. HIV transmission in simulated conditions of sharing hypodermic equipment. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 3:1019– 1021. NRC (National Research Council) and IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1995. Preventing HIV Transmission: The Role of Sterile Needles and Bleach. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Obadia Y, Feroni I, Perrin V, Vlahov D, Moatti JP. 1999. Syringe vending machines for injection drug users: An experiment in Marseille, France. American Journal of Public Health. 89(12):1852–1854. Oelrichs RB, Shrestha IL, Anderson DA, Deacon NJ. 2000. The explosive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 epidemic among injecting drug users of Kathmandu, Nepal, is caused by a subtype C virus of restricted genetic diversity. Journal of Virology. 74(3): 1149–1157. Oliver KJ, Frideman SR, Maynard H, Magnuson L, Des Jarlais DC. 1992. Impact of a needle exchange program on potentially infectious syringes in public places. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 5:534–535. Ouellet L, Huo D, Bailey SL. 2004. HIV risk practices among needle exchange users and nonusers in Chicago. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 37(1):1187– 1196. Patrick DM, Strathdee SA, Archibald CP, Ofner M, Craib KJ, Cornelisse PG, Schechter MT, Rekart ML, O’Shaughnessy MV. 1997. Determinants of HIV seroconversion in injection drug users during a period of rising prevalence in Vancouver. International Journal of STDs and AIDS. 8(7):437–445. Peak A, Rana S, Maharjan SH, Jolley D, Crofts N. 1995. Declining risk for HIV among injecting drug users in Kathmandu, Nepal: The impact of a harm-reduction programme. AIDS. 9(9):1067–1070. Pollack HA, Khoshnood K, Blankenship KM, Altice FL. 2002. The impact of needle exchange-based health services on emergency department use. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 17(5):341–348. Porter J, Metzger D, Scotti R. 2002. Bridge to services: Drug injectors’ awareness and utilization of drug user treatment and social service referrals, medical care, and HIV testing provided by needle exchange programs. Substance Use and Misuse. 37(11):1305–1330. Pouget ER, Deren S, Fuller C, Blaney S, McMahon J, Kang SY, Tortu S, Andia J, Des Jarlais DC, Vlahov D. 2005. Receptive syringe sharing among injection drug users in Harlem and the Bronx during the New York State Expanded Syringe Access Demonstration Program. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 39:471–477. Resnick L, Veren K, Salahudin Z, Tondreau S, Markham PD. 1986. Stability and inactivation of HTLV-III/LAV under clinical and laboratory environments. Journal of the American Medical Association. 255(14):1887–1891. Rich JD, Wolf FA, Macalino G. 2002. Strategies to improve access to sterile syringes for injection drug users. AIDS Reader. 12:527–535.

OCR for page 137
Rich JD, McKenzie M, Macalino GE, Taylor LE, Sanford-Colby S, Wolf F, McNamara S, Mehrotra M, Stein MD. 2004. A syringe prescription program to prevent infectious disease and improve health of injection drug users. Journal of Urban Health. 81(1): 122–134. Rietmeijer CA, Kane MS, Simons PZ, Corby NH, et al. 1996. Increasing the use of bleach and condoms among injecting drug users in Denver: Outcomes of a targeted, community-level HIV prevention program. AIDS. 10(3):291–298. Riley ED, Robnett TJ, Vlahov D, Vertefeuille J, Strathdee SA, Chaisson RE. 2000. Computer-assisted self-interviewing for HIV and tuberculosis risk factors among injection drug users participating in a needle exchange program. American Journal of Epidemiology. 151(11):S55-S55. Riley ED, Wu AW, Junge B, Marx M, Strathdee SA, Vlahov D. 2002. Health services utilization by injection drug users participating in a needle exchange program. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 28(3):497–511. Rowden DW, Dorsey PE, Bullman S, Lestina RP, Han C, Herrell JM. 1999. HIV outreach for hard-to-reach populations: A cross-site perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning. 22(3):251–258. Safaeian M, Brookmeyer R, Vlahov D, Latkin C, Marx M, Strathdee SA. 2002. Validity of self-reported needle exchange attendance among injection drug users: Implications for program evaluation. American Journal of Epidemiology. 155(2):169–175. Sarkar K, Mitra S, Bal B, Chakraborty S, Bhattacharya SK. 2003. Rapid spread of hepatitis C and needle exchange programme in Kolkata, India. Lancet. 361(9365):1301–1302. Schechter MT, Strathdee SA, Cornelisse PG, Currie S, Patrick DM, Rekart ML, O’Shaughnessy MV. 1999. Do needle exchange programmes increase the spread of HIV among injection drug users?: An investigation of the Vancouver outbreak. AIDS. 13(6):F45–F51. Schoenbaum EE, Hartel DM, Gourevitch MN. 1996. Needle exchange use among a cohort of injecting drug users. AIDS. 10(14):1729–1734. Semaan S, Des Jarlais DC, Sogolow E, Johnson WD, Hedges LV, Ramirez G, Flores SA, Norman L , Sweat MD, Needle R. 2002. A meta-analysis of the effect of HIV prevention interventions on the sex behaviors of drug users in the United States. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 30(Suppl 1):S73–S93. Shapshak P, McCoy CB, Shah SM, Page JB, Rivers JE, Weatherby NL, Chitwood DD, Mash DC. 1994. Preliminary laboratory studies of inactivation of HIV-1 in needles and syringes containing infected blood using undiluted household bleach. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 7(7):754–759. Singer M, Himmelgreen D, Weeks MR, Radda KE, Martinez R. 1997. Changing the environment of AIDS risk: Findings on syringe exchange and pharmacy sales of syringes in Hartford, CT. Medical Anthropology. 18(1):107–130. Spire B, Barre-Sinoussi F, Montagnier L, Chermann JC. 1984. Inactivation of lymphadenopathy associated virus by chemical disinfectants. Lancet. 2(8408): 899–901. Stancliff S, Salomon N, Perlman DC, Russell PC. 2000. Provision of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines to injection drug users at a syringe exchange. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 18(3):263–265. Stark K, Leicht A, Muller R. 1994. Characteristics of users of syringe vending machines in Berlin. Sozial und Präventivmedizin. 39(4):209–216. Strathdee SA, Patrick DM, Currie SL, Cornelisse PG, Rekart ML, Montaner JS, Schechter MT, O’Shaughnessy MV. 1997. Needle exchange is not enough: Lessons from the Vancouver injecting drug use study. AIDS. 11(8):F59–65. Strathdee SA, Celentano DD, Shah N, Lyles C, Stambolis VA, Macalino G, Nelson K, Vlahov D. 1999. Needle-exchange attendance and health care utilization promote entry into detoxification. Journal of Urban Health. 76(4):448–460.

OCR for page 137
Taussig J, Junge B, Burris S, Jones TS, Sterk CE. 2002. Individual and structural influences shaping pharmacists’ decisions to sell syringes to injection drug users in Atlanta, Georgia. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association. 42(6 Suppl 2):S40–S45. Taylor A, Goldberg D, Hutchinson S, Cameron S, Gore SM, McMenamin J, Green S, Pithie A, Fox R. 2000. Prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection among injecting drug users in Glasgow 1990-1996: Are current harm reduction strategies working? Journal of Infectious Diseases. 40(2):176–183. Thorpe L, Ouellet L, Hershow R, Bailey S, Williams I, Williamson J, Monterroso E, Garfein R. 2002. Risk of hepatitis C virus infection among young adult injection drug users who share injection equipment. American Journal of Epidemiology. 155(7):645–653. Titus S, Marmor M, Des Jarlais D, Kim M, Wolfe H, Beatrice S. 1994. Bleach use and HIV seroconversion among New York City injection drug users. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 7(7):700–704. Tyndall M, Kerr T, Zhang R, King E, Montaner J, Wood E. 2006. Attendance, drug use patterns, and referrals made from North America’s first supervised injection facility. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 83(2):193–198. UN Nepal Information Platform. 2005. HIV/AIDS Epidemiological Situation. [Online]. Available: http://www.un.org.np/hivaids.php#nat [accessed June 23, 2006]. van Ameijden EJ, Coutinho RA. 1998. Maximum impact of HIV prevention measures targeted at injecting drug users. AIDS. 12(6):625–633. van Ameijden EJ, Coutinho RA. 2001. Large decline in injecting drug use in Amsterdam, 1986-1998: Explanatory mechanisms and determinants of injecting transitions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 55(5):356–363. van Ameijden EJ, van den Hoek JA, van Haastrecht HJ, Coutinho RA. 1992. The harm reduction approach and risk factors for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) sero-conversion in injecting drug users, Amsterdam. American Journal of Epidemiology. 136(2):236–243. van Ameijden EJ, van den Hoek AR, Coutinho RA. 1994. Injecting risk behavior among drug users in Amsterdam, 1986 to 1992, and its relationship to AIDS prevention programs. American Journal of Public Health. 84(2):275–281. Van Bueren J, Simpson RA, Salman H, Farrelly HD, Cookson BD. 1995. Inactivation of HIV-1 by chemical disinfectants: Sodium hypochlorite. Epidemiology and Infection. 115: 567–579. van den Hoek JA, van Haastrecht HJ, Coutinho RA. 1989. Risk reduction among intravenous drug users in Amsterdam under the influence of AIDS. American Journal of Public Health. 79(10):1355–1357. Vazirian M, Nassirimanesh B, Zamani S, Ono-Kihara M, Kihara M, Ravari SM, Gouya MM. 2005. Needle and syringe sharing practices of injecting drug users participating in an outreach HIV prevention program in Tehran, Iran: A cross-sectional study. Harm Reduction Journal. 2:19. Vertefeuille J, Marx MA, Tun W, Huettner S, Strathdee SA, Vlahov D. 2000. Decline in self-reported high-risk injection-related behaviors among HIV-seropositive participants in the Baltimore needle exchange program. AIDS and Behavior. 4(4):381–388. Vickerman P, Hickman M, Rhodes T, Watts C. 2006. Model projections on the required coverage of syringe distribution to prevent HIV epidemics among injecting drug users. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 42(3):355–361. Vlahov D. 2000. The role of epidemiology in needle exchange programs comment on A R Moss. American Journal of Public Health. 90(9):1390–1392. Vlahov D, Munoz A, Celentano DD, Cohn S, Anthony JC, Chilcoat H, Nelson KE. 1991. HIV seroconversion and disinfection of injection equipment among intravenous drug users, Baltimore, Maryland. Epidemiology. 2(6):444–446.

OCR for page 137
Vlahov D, Astemborski J, Solomon L, Nelson KE. 1994. Field effectiveness of needle disinfection among injecting drug users. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 7(7):760–766. Vlahov D, Junge B, Brookmeyer R, Cohn S, Riley E, Armenian H, Beilenson P. 1997. Reductions in high-risk drug use behaviors among participants in the Baltimore needle exchange program. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology. 16(5):400–406. Watters JK, Estilo MJ, Clark GL, Lorvick J. 1994. Syringe and needle exchange as HIV/AIDS prevention for injection drug users. Journal of the American Medical Association. 271(2): 115–120. Weber DJ, Barbee SL, Sobsey MD, Rutala WA. 1999. The effect of blood on the antiviral activity of sodium hypochlorite, a phenolic, and a quaternary ammonium compound. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 20(12):821–827. Wiebel WW, Jimenez A, Johnson W, Ouellet L, Jovanovic B, Lampinen T, Murray J, O’Brien MU. 1996. Risk behavior and HIV seroincidence among out-of-treatment injection drug users: A four-year prospective study. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes and Human Retrovirology. 12(3):282–289. Wood E, Tyndall MW, Spittal PM, Li K, Hogg RS, Montaner JS, O’Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT. 2002. Factors associated with persistent high-risk syringe sharing in the presence of an established needle exchange programme. AIDS. 16(6):941–943. Wood E, Kerr T, Spittal PM, Small W, Tyndall MW, O’Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT. 2003. An external evaluation of a peer-run “unsanctioned” syringe exchange program. Journal of Urban Health. 80(3):455–464. Wood E, Kerr T, Lloyd-Smith E, Buchner C, Marsh D, Montaner J, Tyndall M. 2004a. Methodology for evaluating Insite: Canada’s first medically supervised safer injection facility for injection drug users. Harm Reduction Journal. 1:9. Wood E, Kerr T, Small W, Li K, Marsh D, Montaner J, Tyndall M. 2004b. Changes in public order after the opening of a medically supervised safer injecting facility for illicit injection drug users. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 171(7):731–734. Wood E, Tyndall M, Lai C, Montaner J, Kerr T. 2006a. Impact of a medically supervised safer injecting facility on drug dealing and other drug-related crimes. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy. 1:13. Wood E, Tyndall M, Zhang R, Stoltz J, Lai C, Montaner J, Kerr T. 2006b. Attendance at supervised injecting facilities and use of detoxification services. New England Journal of Medicine. 354(23):2512–2514.