11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Psychosocial Interventions to Reduce Drug and Sexual Blood Borne Virus Risk Behaviours Among People Who Inject Drugs

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Opiate substitution treatment and needle exchanges have reduced blood borne virus (BBV) transmission among people who inject drugs (PWID). Psychosocial interventions could further prevent BBV. A systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether psychosocial interventions (e.g. CBT, skills training) compared to control interventions reduced BBV risk behaviours among PWID. 32 and 24 randomized control trials (2000-May 2015 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Collaboration and Clinical trials, with an update in MEDLINE to December 2016) were included in the review and meta-analysis respectively. Psychosocial interventions appear to reduce: sharing of needles/syringes compared to education/information (SMD −0.52; 95% CI −1.02 to −0.03; I 2 = 10%; p = 0.04) or HIV testing/counselling (SMD −0.24; 95% CI −0.44 to −0.03; I 2 = 0%; p = 0.02); sharing of other injecting paraphernalia (SMD −0.24; 95% CI −0.42 to −0.06; I 2 = 0%; p < 0.01) and unprotected sex (SMD −0.44; 95% CI −0.86 to −0.01; I 2 = 79%; p = 0.04) compared to interventions of a lesser time/intensity, however, moderate to high heterogeneity was reported. Such interventions could be included with other harm reduction approaches to prevent BBV transmission among PWID.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10461-017-1755-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Resumen

          El tratamiento de sustitución de opiáceos y los programas de intercambio de  jeringuillas han disminuido la transmisión de virus transmitidos por sangre (VTS) entre los usuarios de drogas inyectadas (UDI). Las intervenciones psicosociales podrían prevenir la transmisión de VTS. Mediante una revisión sistemática con meta-análisis, se estudió si las intervenciones psicosociales (p.e. CBT, entrenamiento en habilidades) redujeron los comportamientos de riesgo asociados a los VTS entre UDI, en comparación con las intervenciones control. Se incluyeron 32 y 24 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados en la revisión y meta-análisis, respectivamente (2000-mayo 2015 en MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Colaboración Cochrane y Clinical Trials, con una actualización en MEDLINE hasta diciembre de 2016). Las intervenciones psicosociales disminuyen los siguientes comportamientos de riesgo: compartir agujas/jeringuillas en comparación con la educación/información (DME −0.52; IC del 95%: −1.02, −0.03; I 2 = 10%; p = 0.04) o en comparación con asesoramiento/pruebas para el VIH (DME −0.24; IC del 95%: −0.44, −0.03; I 2 = 0%, p = 0.02);  compartir otros utensilios de inyección (DME −0.24; IC del 95%: −0.42, −0.06; I 2 = 0%; p < 0.01) y el sexo sin protección (DME −0.44; IC del 95%: −0.86, −0.01; I 2 = 79%; p = 0.04) en comparación con las intervenciones de menor duración/intensidad. Sin embargo, se ha detectado una heterogeneidad de moderada a alta. Tales intervenciones podrían incluirse junto con otros enfoques de reducción de daños para prevenir la transmisión de VTS entre los UDI.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10461-017-1755-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Statistics notes. The odds ratio.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Treatment of hepatitis C virus infection among people who are actively injecting drugs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

            Although guidelines recommend that people who inject drugs (PWID) should not be excluded from hepatitis C (HCV) treatment, some services remain reluctant to treat PWID. The aim of this review was to investigate sustained virologic response (SVR), adherence, discontinuation, and HCV reinfection among PWID. A search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (between 2002 and January 2012) was conducted for primary articles/conference abstracts examining HCV treatment outcomes in PWID. Meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled estimates of SVR, adherence, discontinuation, and HCV reinfection. Ten primary articles and 1 conference abstract met the inclusion criteria. Across 6 studies (comprising 314 drug users, of whom 141 [45%] were PWID), pooled SVR was 56% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50%-61%) for all genotypes, 37% (95% CI, 26%-48%) for genotypes 1/4, and 67% (95% CI, 56%-78%) for genotypes 2/3. Pooled 80/80/80 adherence was 82% (95% CI, 74%-89%) across 2 studies, and pooled treatment discontinuation was 22% (95% CI, 16%-27%) across 4 studies. Across 5 studies (comprising 131 drug users) examining reinfection, pooled risk was 2.4 (95% CI, .9-6.1) per 100 person-years. HCV treatment outcomes are acceptable in PWID, supporting treatment guidelines. The pooled estimate of HCV reinfection risk was low, but there was considerable uncertainty around this estimate. Further studies on the risk of reinfection are needed to assess the long-term effectiveness of HCV treatment in PWID.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Infection with hepatitis B and C virus in Europe: a systematic review of prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening

              Background Treatment for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection is improving but not benefiting individuals unaware to be infected. To inform screening policies we assessed (1) the hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and anti-hepatitis C virus antibody (anti-HCV-Ab) prevalence for 34 European countries; and (2) the cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic HBV and HCV infection. Methods We searched peer-reviewed literature for data on HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab prevalence and cost-effectiveness of screening of the general population and five subgroups, and used data for people who inject drugs (PWID) and blood donors from two European organizations. Of 1759 and 468 papers found in the prevalence and cost-effectiveness searches respectively, we included 124 and 29 papers after assessing their quality. We used decision rules to calculate weighted prevalence estimates by country. Results The HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab prevalence in the general population ranged from 0.1%-5.6% and 0.4%-5.2% respectively, by country. For PWID, men who have sex with men and migrants, the prevalence of HBsAg and anti-HCV-Ab was higher than the prevalence in the general population in all but 3 countries. There is evidence that HCV screening of PWID and HBsAg screening of pregnant women and migrants is cost-effective. Conclusion The prevalence of chronic HBV and HCV infection varies widely between European countries. Anti-HCV-Ab screening of PWID and HBsAg screening of pregnant women and migrants have European public health priority. Cost-effectiveness analyses may need to take effect of antiviral treatment on preventing HBV and HCV transmission into account.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44 (0)20 7848 0646 , gail.gilchrist@kcl.ac.uk
                Journal
                AIDS Behav
                AIDS Behav
                AIDS and Behavior
                Springer US (New York )
                1090-7165
                1573-3254
                1 April 2017
                1 April 2017
                2017
                : 21
                : 7
                : 1791-1811
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, GRID grid.13097.3c, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, , King’s College London, ; 4 Windsor Walk, London, SE5 8BB UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2179 088X, GRID grid.1008.9, Department of General Practice, , University of Melbourne, ; Parkville, VIC 3010 Australia
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychobiology, School of PsychologyUniversity of Barcelona, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0719 6059, GRID grid.15751.37, , University of Huddersfield, ; Huddersfield, HD1 3DH UK
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9668, GRID grid.5685.e, Mental Health and Addiction Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, , University of York, ; York, YO24 2YD UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9262, GRID grid.11835.3e, School for Health and Related Research, , University of Sheffield, ; Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA UK
                [7 ]GRID grid.418476.8, Addiction Research Group, IMIM-Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques, Institute of Neuropsychiatry and Addictions, , Parc de Salut Mar de Barcelona, ; 08003 Barcelona, Spain
                Article
                1755
                10.1007/s10461-017-1755-0
                5491643
                28365913
                101ea2ac-5276-4684-a9bd-9e1839b13cee
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000664, Health Technology Assessment Programme;
                Award ID: project number 13/17/04
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Substantive Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                people who inject drugs,psychosocial intervention,blood borne virus,injecting risk behaviour,sexual risk behaviour,systematic review,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article