PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Curr Opin HIV AIDS. Author manuscript; available in PMC Nov 6, 2013.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3819201
NIHMSID: NIHMS516977
The potential uses of preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention among people who inject drugs
Stefan D. Baral,ab Susanne Strömdahl,ab and Chris Beyrera
aCenter for Public Health and Human Rights, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
bDivision of Global Health (IHCAR), Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Correspondence to Stefan Baral, MD, MPH, MBA, CCFP, FRCPC, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, E7146, 615N, Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Tel: +1 410 502 8975; fax: +1 410 614 8371; sbaral/at/jhsph.edu
Purpose of review
Oral preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) has shown HIV preventive efficacy for several key populations at risk for HIV infection including MSM and heterosexual men and women in HIV serodiscordant relationships. An efficacy trial of daily oral tenofovir among people who inject drugs (IDU) is underway in Thailand.
Recent findings
Although efficacy data is pending, there is emerging biological and public health plausibility data suggesting the utility of PrEP as an effective component of combination HIV prevention for IDU. Drawing from studies characterizing adherence to antiretroviral therapy for IDU, there are a range of scientific and operational considerations for the potential use of PrEP for IDU. We review here the available literature on the potential use of PrEP for IDU, barriers to uptake and adherence, and potential implementation science questions, which could address, and potently increase, the effectiveness of this intervention.
Summary
IDU remain the most underserved population in the HIV response worldwide, and have a marked gap in prevention services, making PrEP a potentially promising addition to the prevention toolkit for people who use drugs and, for those already living with HIV infection, for their spouses and other sexual partners.
Keywords: HIV, injecting drug user, preexposure prophylaxis, prevention
Daily oral chemoprophylaxis with Truvada has shown efficacy in the reduction of HIV-1 acquisition risk among MSM, heterosexual men and women in discordant couples, and daily oral tenofovir alone has shown efficacy among heterosexual men at risk for HIV infection [1,2[filled square][filled square],3]. There is an ongoing efficacy trial of daily oral tenofovir among people who inject drugs (categorized here by convention as IDU) in Thailand started in June, 2005 that has fully enrolled and being conducted by the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA), the Royal Thai Ministry of Public Health, and the US Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC4370) [4[filled square][filled square]]. This trial of daily oral PrEP, among 2413 largely male IDUs attending 17 BMA drug treatment centers across Bangkok, has been continued through interim Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) reviews and results will likely be available at the end of 2012 [4[filled square][filled square]]. There are a range of scientific and implementation questions to be answered regarding the efficacy, effectiveness, and optimization of PrEP for IDU [5].
The need for additional HIV prevention tools for IDU populations is clear. The Eastern European and Central Asian regions, where HIV epidemics are largely driven by IDU risks, HIV epidemics are expanding in 2012, and there remain huge unmet needs for HIV prevention [6]. Ongoing public policy resistance to medication-assisted therapy with methadone, buprenorphine, and another opioid agonists with known efficacy as HIV preventive interventions across this vast region have limited prevention options and may make PrEP, if it is shown to be effective, an important alternative approach [7]. But clearly, as in so many other settings, including in the USA, structural barriers, including stigma and discrimination against persons who use drugs, will likely challenge PrEP use implementation as much as they have limited access to other interventions, from needle and syringe exchange to decriminalization of drug dependency [8].
Adherence is the Achilles heel of PrEP efficacy and effectiveness, and this has been true in both oral and vaginal chemoprophylaxis trials [1,9]. How will adherence challenges be addressed for IDU? The population most in need of PrEP among drug users would arguably be those who are actively injecting, those who inject cocaine (due to more frequent injecting per day and the current lack of effective treatments for cocaine dependency), who have dual sexual and injecting risks, and men and women who are the sexual partners of HIV-positive drug users. All are challenging populations to reach, engage, serve, and maintain in care in many settings [10]. Yet, numerous studies have demonstrated that active injectors will use clean needles if they are available, and are as willing as other populations at risk for HIV infection to take steps to reduce acquisition risks [11,12,13]. PrEP may be a useful intervention for some IDU and their sex partners, and it will most likely be a part of a menu of preventive options where a range of effective services are available [14]. It may also be of utility where few options are available to drug users to protect themselves, and for those periods of high exposure risk in their lives [15].
There is significant biological and public health plausibility supporting PrEP as an effective component of combination HIV prevention interventions for IDU. Recent in-vivo research has demonstrated the plausibility of PrEP in protection against parenteral exposure with HIV [16]. Humanized bone marrow/liver/thymus susceptible to HIV infection were challenged with either intravenously administered HIV through the tail vein or rectal administration of HIV after a 7-day course of daily intraperitoneal injections with emtricitabine/tenofovir (FTC/TDF). Protection against HIV seroconversion was highly significant irrespective of route of HIV exposure demonstrating the in-vivo biological plausibility of PrEP for parenteral exposure of HIV [16].
IDU also have significant acquisition risks related to sexual practices. This is especially the case among dual risk gay men and other MSM who also use drugs [1719]. The per-act HIV transmission probability during anal intercourse is approximately 1.4% with an approximate 40% per-partner HIV transmission probability with unprotected receptive anal intercourse [20,21]. Other populations of IDU that would benefit from PrEP to prevent sexual acquisition of HIV include male-to-female transgender people who are often the receptive partner during anal intercourse and have also been demonstrated to carry a high burden of HIV across several settings [22]. Sex workers who use drugs including women, men, and transgender women also have high HIV sexual acquisition risks from higher numbers of partners and unprotected sex [23].
PrEP also has potential for significant benefit in the context of serodiscordant couples where the person living with HIV is a drug user [24,25, 26[filled square][filled square],27,28]. HPTN 052 enrolled only few couples in which one or both members of the couple were IDU, limiting the efficacy data supporting treatment as prevention in the context of drug use [29,30]. However, there is efficacy data in the context of serodiscordant heterosexual couples and this could be relevant especially where the couple is trying to conceive, and thus using barrier methods as an HIV prevention strategy is often not acceptable [2[filled square][filled square]].
There will clearly be both opportunities and challenges to achieve the necessary levels of adherence required for PrEP to be an effective HIV prevention strategy for IDU and their sex partners who choose to use it [27]. There have been numerous studies of adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) among IDUs living with HIV [3133]. A large recent systematic review examined adherence rates among IDUs and characterized pooled adherence to be approximately 60% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52–0.68], which is similar to nondrug using populations living with HIV [34]. A recent study from Spain demonstrated that using a multidisciplinary approach to the provision of ART for active drug users living with HIV, time to and maintenance of virologic suppression was similar to study participants that were infected through sexual risks, even though the drug using patients presented with more advanced disease. At 48 weeks, 92.9% (95% CI 87.1–99.1) of PUD had less than 50 copies of HIV per millilitre and this was relatively sustained at 96 weeks with 87.3% (95% CI 78.7–95.2) remaining virologically suppressed [35]. A recent systematic review also demonstrated that PUD are no more likely to develop de-novo HIV resistance than non-IDU (odds ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.74–1.45) supporting the ability to effectively provide ART to this population [36,37]. Although ART adherence in patients is not an ideal proxy for potential PrEP use among seronegative persons with similar risks, these findings do suggest that poor adherence to daily regimens among active drug users is not a given.
There is also likely some value in extrapolating results from studies evaluating increasing adherence to ART for IDU who are living with HIV to interventions that could be co-implemented with PrEP to increase adherence for drug users who are at high risk for HIV acquisition. A number of programs have demonstrated benefits including medical interventions such as methadone maintenance to behavioral interventions such as peer education and mentoring, directly observed therapy (DOT), and adherence counseling using motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral strategies [38]. Opioid maintenance therapy, now generally referred to as medically assisted therapy (MAT) is the mainstay of support for opioid dependence and relies on daily administration of methadone, buprenorphine and methadone, or buprenorphine–naloxone. There is evidence from six randomized controlled trials that methadone maintenance programs can increase retention in treatment and suppression of heroin use (relative risk [RR] = 0.66, 95% CI 0.56–0.78) as measured both through biological and behavioral indicators [39]. More recently, there is emerging data on the use of heroin prescribed with methadone to support the drug users’ refractory to methadone therapy alone. Data from four studies were available demonstrating a risk ratio of 1.44 (95% CI 1.19–1.75) for patients to remain in therapy and to use less illicit drugs [40]. Although MAT remains at the core of interventions to increase treatment adherence, counseling has also shown to be of significant benefit with each hour of counseling resulting in a 20% increase in postcounseling adherence [41[filled square]]. A recent RCT of DOT for drug users attending MAT was shown to significantly increase adherence to 86% as compared to 56% in the group with self-administered therapy (P <0.0001) [42]. Patients under DOT were significantly more likely to have undetectable viral load (VL) [43]. However, the benefit of DOT in this randomized controlled trial was subject to decay with decreasing adherence and increasing rates of detectable viral loads [44[filled square]]. Although these data relate to ART for those living with HIV, they highlight the need for sustained adherence interventions that are required to ensure sustained adherence for PrEP.
Barriers to drug and HIV treatment are likely to be all too similar to those to PrEP for this population [45,46]. A recent systematic review evaluated barriers to treatment among IDUs and found these barriers to be more commonly higher order risk factors outside of the control of the individual [31]. These structural associations with HIV disease progression among IDUs include incarceration, inadequate housing, and lack of a legal income [47,48]. Given the criminalization of drug use and drug users, incarceration constitutes an important potential barrier to the implementation of daily PrEP for people actively using drugs [49]. Recent data highlighted the potential causal and dose-dependent relationship of nonadherence to ART and incarceration events, with more incarceration events being independently associated with higher odds of nonadherence to ART [50[filled square][filled square]]. Incarceration was also independently associated with an 83% increase (95% CI 33–252%) in virologic rebound among drug users previously virologically suppressed [51]. In addition, in the AIDSVAX B/E HIV vaccine trial in Thai IDU, incarceration was significantly associated with HIV seroconversion (P <0.04) [52]. Although incarceration has been found to be a barrier, a recent systematic review of MAT in prison studies found 21 studies, including six experimental studies, demonstrating the benefits of MAT in prison [53[filled square]]. These included increased treatment uptake and decreased heroin usage [53[filled square]]. A recent prospective study found that opioid-dependent people living with HIV recently released from prison were more than five times (aOR 5.37, 95% CI 1.15–25.1) more likely to achieve virological suppression if they were provided buprenorphine/naloxone [54[filled square]]. These studies suggest that if programs in prison link effectively to those offered in the community, IDU could be safely maintained on PrEP [55]. This may be of particular importance in the acute postrelease phase, in which both sexual and substance use exposures may be marked.
To realize effective implementation of PrEP for IDU, there is a need to exploit the existing platforms of recommended services including needle and syringe exchange programs (NSEP), MAT, targeted HIV counseling and testing services, prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections, and vaccination and treatment of blood-borne pathogens to provide PrEP [56,57]. In settings such as Manipur, Northeast India, where the epidemic is driven by IDUs, NSEP have shown significant benefit in decreasing sharing of needles (OR 0.35, P <0.05) highlighting the possibility of implementing PrEP in this context [58[filled square][filled square]]. Separately, in Tallinn, Estonia, NSEP distribution for approximately 10 000 IDUs increased from 230 000 syringes in 2005 to 770 000 in 2009 [59[filled square]]. During the same time frame, HIV incidence among new injectors halved from 18 per 100 person-years in 2005 to nine per 100 person-years in 2009 with HIV prevalence stabilizing at about 50% [60]. For people who inject cocaine or other stimulants or people who are actively injecting, NSEP could especially represent an important opportunity for the provision of PrEP given that MAT will be of limited uptake for these populations. These trends were highlighted among IDUs in Bangkok where the proportion injecting heroin has decreased and the proportion injecting methamphetamines has increased and this is now a strong predictor of HIV seroconversion [61]. Moreover, in Bangkok, among IDUs, similar to the experience in Tallinn, enrollment characteristics of participants in the ongoing Bangkok PrEP Tenofovir Study in 2005 demonstrated less sharing of needles than participants enrolled in 1999 in the AIDSVAX B/E HIV vaccine study prompting investigators to increase the sample size from 1600 to 2400 because of presumably lower HIV incidence [4[filled square][filled square]].
Strathdee et al. [56] posited that addictophobia, apathy, and inattention have all played a role in limiting HIV prevention research for IDUs and these same factors would likely limit coverage of services even if found to be efficacious in trial settings. However, where studies have been done, accrual and study retention have been good including 2456 IDU accrued in approximately 1 year in Bangkok for the AIDSVAX B/E HIV vaccine study, several studies evaluating hepatitis C virus treatment, and other studies evaluating vaccine immunogenicity or efficacy [62,6366]. However, increasingly punitive policies in countries where IDUs carry the highest burden of HIV will limit PrEP research where it would otherwise be most feasible given sustained and high HIV incidence [8,67].
A further important consideration with the implementation of PrEP among IDUs is that both tenofovir and emtricitabine are primarily renally excreted. IDU have several risk factors for both acute and chronic renal failure including chronic opiate exposure, hepatitis C virus infection, and codependency on other nephrotoxic drugs [68,69]. This highlights the importance of closely monitoring renal function among IDUs that would receive PrEP including FTC/TDF or alternatively exploring PrEP drug regimens that are metabolized by the liver.
Existing and interim guidelines for PrEP do not describe usage among IDUs, and decisions about the use of PrEP for IDUs and their sexual partners will likely be informed by the findings of the Thai phase III trial [70[filled square],7173]. For drug users in some settings, such as the USA, who meet risk recommendation criteria for PrEP based on sexual risks (gay men who also inject drugs might be an example) PrEP may already be a reality. Every effort should be made to capture the data on these persons as PrEP is implemented in the USA and other settings, as such operational data may be critical to further decision making for providers and patients seeking to reduce HIV acquisition risks. There is a clear need for an implementation science agenda in this area. Studies of the sexual partners of IDU are of particular urgency because in most settings the majority of IDU are men of reproductive age, and their wives, spouses, and sex partners are markedly understudied and underserved populations. Recent work suggests, for example, that a significant proportion of HIV infections among women in Pakistan may be due to their husband’s IDU risks, yet accessing these women has proven to be extremely difficult [7477].
Adapting PrEP, should it prove efficacious, will also require provision of quality HIV testing, counseling, prevention, and care services. Like all other HIV status-dependent interventions, PrEP mandates regular HIV testing in settings in which clients are willing to have regular testing, trust the confidentiality of services, and are willing to work with providers to maintain high adherence as long as they are on drug [45]. For far too many IDUs, the basic platforms to support PrEP now do not exist, and so a ‘first things first’ approach will likely be required for PrEP to benefit this currently least served of all populations in the HIV response.
KEY POINTS
  • There is a single ongoing randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of tenofovir in preventing HIV acquisition among IDUs in Bangkok that is fully enrolled with results expected in late 2012.
  • There is biological and public health plausibility that PrEP could be an important biomedical component of an effective package of HIV prevention services for IDU including biomedical, behavioral, and structural approaches.
  • There are several structural barriers to the effective implementation of PrEP for IDU such as incarceration, although there is emerging evidence of innovative programs that can support adherence to ART in difficult contexts.
  • PrEP for IDU could be implemented in the context of existing services such as needle and syringe exchange programs and medically assisted therapy.
  • There is a clear need for an implementation science agenda to evaluate the effectiveness of PrEP for IDU, should the ongoing randomized controlled trial prove PrEP efficacious in IDU.
Footnotes
Conflicts of interest
None declared for S.B., S.S., and C.B. C.B. receives salary support from the Johns Hopkins Center for AIDS Research (NIAID, 1P30AI094189-01A1).
Papers of particular interest, published within the annual period of review, have been highlighted as:
[filled square] of special interest
[filled square][filled square] of outstanding interest
Additional references related to this topic can also be found in the Current World Literature section in this issue (p. 611).
1. Grant RM, Lama JR, Anderson PL, et al. Preexposure chemoprophylaxis for HIV prevention in men who have sex with men. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2587–2599. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
2[filled square][filled square]. Baeten JM, Donnell D, Ndase P, et al. Antiretroviral prophylaxis for HIV prevention in heterosexual men and women. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:399–410. This article presents the data from the Partners PrEP study evaluating the benefit of PrEP for the HIV-negative partner in HIV serodiscordant relationships. These data are of particular relevance to the interpretation of the Bangkok Tenofovir Study as they showed that tenofovir alone was beneficial, although there was a trend toward increased protection with Truvada. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
3. Thigpen MC, Kebaabetswe PM, Paxton LA, et al. Antiretroviral preexposure prophylaxis for heterosexual HIV transmission in Botswana. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:423–434. [PubMed]
4[filled square][filled square]. Martin M, Vanichseni S, Suntharasamai P, et al. Enrollment characteristics and risk behaviors of injection drug users participating in the Bangkok Tenofovir Study, Thailand. PLoS One. 2011;6:e25127. This article describes significant study details about the sole study that is ongoing evaluating PrEP for IDU; the results of which will directly inform whether PrEP for IDU is going to be further explored or not. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
5. Cohen MS, Baden LR. Preexposure prophylaxis for HIV: where do we go from here? N Engl J Med. 2012;367:459–461. [PubMed]
6. Havlir D, Beyrer C. The beginning of the end of AIDS? N Engl J Med. 2012 Epub ahead of print http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22809362. [PubMed]
7. Beyrer C, Malinowska-Sempruch K, Kamarulzaman A, et al. Time to act: a call for comprehensive responses to HIV in people who use drugs. Lancet. 2010;376:551–563. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
8. Wolfe D, Carrieri MP, Shepard D. Treatment and care for injecting drug users with HIV infection: a review of barriers and ways forward. Lancet. 2010;376:355–366. [PubMed]
9. Abdool Karim Q, Abdool Karim SS, Frohlich JA, et al. Effectiveness and safety of tenofovir gel, an antiretroviral microbicide, for the prevention of HIV infection in women. Science. 2010;329:1168–1174. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Beyrer C, Baral S, Kerrigan D, et al. Expanding the space: inclusion of most-at-risk populations in HIV prevention, treatment, and care services. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;57 (Suppl 2):S96–S99. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
11. Beyrer C, Malinowska-Sempruch K, Kamarulzaman A, Strathdee SA. 12 myths about HIV/AIDS and people who use drugs. Lancet. 2010;376:208–211. [PubMed]
12. Shahbazi M, Farnia M, Keramati M. The first evaluation of needle and syringe exchange program in Iranian prisons. Rev Esp Sanidad Penitenciaria. 2009;11:63.
13. Wodak A, Cooney A. Do needle syringe programs reduce HIV infection among injecting drug users: a comprehensive review of the international evidence. Subst Use Misuse. 2006;41:777–813. [PubMed]
14. Degenhardt L, Mathers B, Vickerman P, et al. Prevention of HIV infection for people who inject drugs: why individual, structural, and combination approaches are needed. Lancet. 2010;376:285–301. [PubMed]
15. Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Ali H, et al. HIV prevention, treatment and care for people who inject drugs: A systematic review of global, regional and country level coverage. Lancet. 2010;375:1014–1028. [PubMed]
16. Denton PW, Krisko JF, Powell DA, et al. Systemic administration of antiretrovirals prior to exposure prevents rectal and intravenous HIV-1 transmission in humanized BLT mice. PLoS One. 2010;5:e8829. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
17. Baral S, Sifakis F, Peryskina A, et al. Risks for HIV infection among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in moscow and St. Petersburg, Russia. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2012;28:874–879. [PubMed]
18. Ferreira AD, Caiaffa WT, Bastos FI, Mingoti SA. Profile of male Brazilian injecting drug users who have sex with men. CadSaude Publica. 2006;22:849–860. [PubMed]
19. Beyrer C, Wirtz A, Walker D, et al. World Bank. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications; 2011. The global HIV epidemics among men who have sex with men: epidemiology, prevention, access to care and human rights; pp. 156–193.
20. Beyrer C, Baral SD, van Griensven F, et al. Global epidemiology of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. Lancet. 2012;380:367–377. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
21. Baggaley RF, White RG, Boily MC. HIV transmission risk through anal intercourse: systematic review, meta-analysis and implications for HIV prevention. Int J Epidemiol. 2010 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
22. Baral S, Poteat T, Wirtz A, et al. Global burden of HIV infection among Transgender persons: a systematic review and meta-analysis (THPDC0202). International AIDS Society; XIX International AIDS Conference; Washington, DC. 2012. http://pag.aids2012.org/Abstracts.aspx?SID=283&AID=19729.
23. Baral S, Beyrer C, Muessig K, et al. Burden of HIV among female sex workers in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12:538–549. [PubMed]
24. Gilbert L, El-Bassel N, Terlikbayeva A, et al. Couple-based HIV prevention for injecting drug users in Kazakhstan: a pilot intervention study. J Prev Intervent Community. 2010;38:162–176. [PubMed]
25. Epperson MW, El-Bassel N, Chang M, Gilbert L. Examining the temporal relationship between criminal justice involvement and sexual risk behaviors among drug-involved men. J Urban Health. 2010;87:324–336. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26[filled square][filled square]. Wu E, El-Bassel N, McVinney LD, et al. Feasibility and promise of a couple based HIV/STI preventive intervention for methamphetamine-using, black men who have sex with men. AIDS Behav. 2011;15:1745–1754. In combination with the efficacy data from the Partners PrEP study, this study highlights that couples-based interventions are feasible for IDU suggesting that serodiscordant drug using couples could be appropriate targets for PrEP. [PubMed]
27. El-Bassel N, Gilbert L, Wu E, et al. Couple-based HIV prevention for low-income drug users from New York City: a randomized controlled trial to reduce dual risks. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;58:198–206. [PubMed]
28. Epperson MW, Khan MR, El-Bassel N, et al. A longitudinal study of incarceration and HIV risk among methadone maintained men and their primary female partners. AIDS Behav. 2011;15:347–355. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, et al. Prevention of HIV-1 infection with early antiretroviral therapy. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:493–505. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
30. Eshleman SH, Hudelson SE, Redd AD, et al. Analysis of genetic linkage of HIV from couples enrolled in the HIV prevention trials network 052 trial. J Infect Dis. 2011;204:1918–1926. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Milloy MJ, Montaner J, Wood E. Barriers to HIV treatment among people who use injection drugs: Implications for ‘treatment as prevention’ Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7:332–338. [PubMed]
32. Wood E, Milloy MJ, Montaner JSG. HIV treatment as prevention among injection drug users. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7:151–156. [PubMed]
33. Vlahov D, Celentano DD, Bastos FI, et al. Access to highly active antiretroviral therapy for injection drug users: Adherence, resistance, and death. Cad Saude Publica. 2006;22:705–731. [PubMed]
34. Malta M, Magnanini MM, Strathdee SA, Bastos FI. Adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected drug users: a meta-analysis. AIDS Behav. 2010;14:731–747. [PubMed]
35. Sanchez GV, Llibre JM, Torrens M, et al. Effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected active drug users attended in a drug abuse outpatient treatment facility providing a multidisciplinary care strategy. Curr HIV Res. 2012;10:356–363. [PubMed]
36. Werb D, Mills EJ, Montaner JS, Wood E. Risk of resistance to highly active antiretroviral therapy among HIV-positive injecting drug users: a meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis. 2010;10:464–469. [PubMed]
37. Brust JC, Litwin AH, Berg KM, et al. Directly observed antiretroviral therapy in substance abusers receiving methadone maintenance therapy does not cause increased drug resistance. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2011;27:535–541. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Cunningham CO, Sohler NL, Cooperman NA, et al. Strategies to improve access to and utilization of healthcare services and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected drug users. Subst Use Misuse. 2011;46:218–232. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
39. Mattick RP, Breen C, Kimber J, Davoli M. Methadone maintenance therapy versus no opioid replacement therapy for opioid dependence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(3):CD002209. Epub ahead of print. [PubMed]
40. Ferri M, Davoli M, Perucci CA. Heroin maintenance for chronic heroin-dependent individuals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(12):CD003410. Epub ahead of print. [PubMed]
41[filled square]. Cooperman NA, Heo M, Berg KM, et al. Impact of adherence counseling dose on antiretroviral adherence and HIV viral load among HIV-infected methadone maintained drug users. AIDS Care. 2012;24:828–835. These results demonstrate that adherence counseling is effective in increasing adherence to ART for IDU suggesting that combination HIV interventions including PrEP could use adherence counseling to increase PrEP compliance. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
42. Berg KM, Litwin A, Li X, et al. Directly observed antiretroviral therapy improves adherence and viral load in drug users attending methadone maintenance clinics: a randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;113:192–199. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
43. Nahvi S, Litwin AH, Heo M, et al. Directly observed antiretroviral therapy eliminates adverse effects of active drug use on adherence. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;120:174–180. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
44[filled square]. Berg KM, Litwin AH, Li X, et al. Lack of sustained improvement in adherence or viral load following a directly observed antiretroviral therapy intervention. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:936–943. This manuscript highlights the reality that the benefit of interventions focused on adherence are subject to decay and that effective implementation of PrEP would require sustained adherence support. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
45. Strathdee SA, Hallett TB, Bobrova N, et al. HIV and risk environment for injecting drug users: the past, present, and future. Lancet. 2010;376:268–284. [PubMed]
46. Thompson MA, Mugavero MJ, Rivet Amico K, et al. Guidelines for improving entry into and retention in care and antiretroviral adherence for persons with HIV: evidence-based recommendations from an international association of physicians in AIDS care panel. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156:817–833. [PubMed]
47. Milloy MJ, Kerr T, Buxton J, et al. Social and environmental predictors of plasma HIV RNA rebound among injection drug users treated with antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;59:393–399. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
48. Palepu A, Milloy MJ, Kerr T, et al. Homelessness and adherence to antiretroviral therapy among a cohort of HIV-infected injection drug users. J Urban Health. 2011;88:545–555. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
49. Jurgens R, Csete J, Amon JJ, et al. People who use drugs, HIV, and human rights. Lancet. 2010;376:475–485. [PubMed]
50[filled square][filled square]. Milloy MJ, Kerr T, Buxton J, et al. Dose–response effect of incarceration events on nonadherence to HIV antiretroviral therapy among injection drug users. J Infect Dis. 2011;203:1215–1221. This article clearly demonstrated the importance of incarceration in affecting adherence to ART and is directly relevant to the implementation of PrEP for IDU, given the risk of incarceration. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
51. Milloy MJ, Marshall BD, Kerr T, et al. Social and structural factors associated with HIV disease progression among illicit drug users: a systematic review. AIDS. 2012;26:1049–1063. [PubMed]
52. Suntharasamai P, Martin M, Vanichseni S, et al. Factors associated with incarceration and incident human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among injection drug users participating in an HIV vaccine trial in Bangkok, Thailand, 1999–2003. Addiction. 2009;104:235–242. [PubMed]
53[filled square]. Hedrich D, Alves P, Farrell M, et al. The effectiveness of opioid maintenance treatment in prison settings: a systematic review. Addiction. 2012;107:501–517. These results suggest that although IDU are at risk for incarceration, PrEP programs housed in prison settings could be effective in maintaining PrEP for IDU. [PubMed]
54[filled square]. Springer SA, Qiu J, Saber-Tehrani AS, Altice FL. Retention on buprenorphine is associated with high levels of maximal viral suppression among HIV-infected opioid dependent released prisoners. PLoS One. 2012;7:e38335. These results highlight that for IDU who are at risk for repeated incarcerations are linked in with appropriate community-based programs, their adherence to ART can be high which is directly relevant to potential PrEP programs for IDU. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
55. Saber-Tehrani AS, Springer SA, Qiu J, et al. Rationale, study design and sample characteristics of a randomized controlled trial of directly administered antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected prisoners transitioning to the community - a potential conduit to improved HIV treatment outcomes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33:436–444. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
56. Strathdee SA, Shoptaw S, Dyer TP, et al. Towards combination HIV prevention for injection drug users: Addressing addictophobia, apathy and inattention. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2012;7:320–325. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
57. Kermode M, Armstrong G, Waribam S. Long-term follow up of clients from a community-based opioid substitution therapy programme in Manipur. Indian J Med Res. 2011;134:732–734. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
58[filled square][filled square]. Armstrong G, Humtsoe C, Kermode M. HIV risk behaviours among injecting drug users in Northeast India following scale-up of a targeted HIV prevention programme. BMC Public Health. 2011;11 (Suppl 6):S9. These results demonstrate that long-term programs can have long-term benefits for IDU even in difficult and high-incidence contexts suggesting the feasibility of both programming and research for PrEP among IDU. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
59[filled square]. Uuskula A, Des Jarlais DC, Kals M, et al. Expanded syringe exchange programs and reduced HIV infection among new injection drug users in Tallinn, Estonia. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:517. This study clearly demonstrates that if there is increased provision of preventive services for IDU, then uptake will be high suggesting the feasibility of PrEP for IDU. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
60. Uuskula A, Abel-Ollo K, Markina A, et al. Condom use and partnership intimacy among drug injectors and their sexual partners in Estonia. Sex Transm Infect. 2012;88:58–62. [PubMed]
61. Martin M, Vanichseni S, Suntharasamai P, et al. Drug use and the risk of HIV infection amongst injection drug users participating in an HIV vaccine trial in Bangkok, 1999–2003. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21:296–301. [PubMed]
62. Rerks-Ngarm S, Pitisuttithum P, Nitayaphan S, et al. Vaccination with ALVAC and AIDSVAX to prevent HIV-1 infection in Thailand. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2209–2220. [PubMed]
63. Greenberg AE, Tappero J, Choopanya K, et al. CDC International HIV Prevention Research activities among injection drug users in Thailand and Russia. J Urban Health. 2005;82(3 Suppl 4):iv24–iv33. [PubMed]
64. Migasena S, Suntharasamai P, Pitisuttithum P, et al. AIDSVAX (MN) in Bangkok injecting drug users: a report on safety and immunogenicity, including macrophage-tropic virus neutralization. AIDS Res Human Retrovir. 2000;16:655–663. [PubMed]
65. Vanichseni S, Tappero JW, Pitisuttithum P, et al. Recruitment, screening and characteristics of injection drug users participating in the AIDSVAX B/E HIV vaccine trial, Bangkok, Thailand. AIDS (London, England) 2004;18:311–316. [PubMed]
66. Baral S, Sherman SG, Millson P, Beyrer C. Vaccine immunogenicity in injecting drug users: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7:667–674. [PubMed]
67. Human Rights Watch. Torture in the name of treatment: human rights abuses in Vietnam, China, Cambodia, and Lao PDR. New York City, NY: 2012. 1-56432-919-4. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/HHR%20Drug%20Detention%20Brochure_LOWRES.pdf.
68. Di Biagio A, Rosso R, Vitale F, et al. Risk factors for chronic kidney disease among human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients: an European case control study. Clin Nephrol. 2011;75:518–523. [PubMed]
69. Rook EJ, Huitema AD, van den Brink W, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetic variability of heroin and its metabolites: review of the literature. Curr Clin Pharmacol. 2006;1:109–118. [PubMed]
70[filled square]. Interim guidance for PrEP in MSM. CDC: do not expand to other risk groups yet. AIDS alert. 2011;26:44–45. This guidance from the CDC clearly states that without efficacy data, PrEP should not yet be used for IDU, highlighting the need for the Bangkok Tenofovir Study. [PubMed]
71. Centers for Disease and C, Prevention. Interim guidance: preexposure prophylaxis for the prevention of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011;60:65–68. [PubMed]
72. HIV/AIDS Programme. Guidance on preexposure oral prophylaxis (PrEP) for serodiscordant couples, men and transgender women who have sex with men at high risk of HIV: recommendations for use in the context of demonstration projects. Geneva: United Nations; 2012. WC 503.6. [PubMed]
73. Bekker LG, Rebe K, Scheibe A. The Consensus Committee SAHCS. Southern African guidelines for the safe use of preexposure prophylaxis in men who have sex with men who are at risk for HIV infection. S Afr J HIV Med. 2012;13:40–55.
74. International NACPPMoHPFH. Survey of high risk groups in Lahore and Karachi, 2005. Islamabad: FHI, Department for International Development National AIDS Control Program Pakistan; Ministry of Health Pakistan; Family Health International; 2006. http://gametlibrary.worldbank.org/FILES/681_National%20STI%20survey%20Pakistan%202004.pdf.
75. Mathers BM, Degenhardt L, Ali H, et al. HIV prevention, treatment, and care services for people who inject drugs: a systematic review of global, regional, and national coverage. Lancet. 2010;375:1014–1028. [PubMed]
76. Mayhew S, Collumbien M, Qureshi A, et al. Protecting the unprotected: mixed-method research on drug use, sex work and rights in Pakistan’s fight against HIV/AIDS. Sex Transm Infect. 2009;85(Suppl 2):ii31–ii36. [PubMed]
77. Singh S, Ambrosio M, Semini I, et al. Revitalizing the HIV response in Pakistan: A systematic review and policy implications. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2012. [PubMed]