Faculty Bibliography

Objectives. We examined HIV prevalence and risk factors among injection drug users (IDUs) in Athens, Greece, during an HIV outbreak. Methods. We used respondent-driven sampling (RDS) to recruit 1404 IDUs to the Aristotle intervention in August to October 2012. We interviewed participants and tested for HIV. We performed bivariate and multivariate analyses. Results. Estimated HIV prevalence was 19.8% (RDS-weighted prevalence = 14.8%). Odds of infection were 2.3 times as high in homeless as in housed IDUs and 2.1 times as high among IDUs who injected at least once per day as among less frequent injectors (both, P < .001). Six percent of men and 23.5% of women reported transactional sex in the past 12 months, and condom use was low. Intercourse with non-IDUs was common (53.2% of men, 25.6% of women). Among IDUs who had been injecting for 2 years or less the estimated incidence rate was 23.4 new HIV cases per 100 person-years at risk. Conclusions. Efforts to reduce HIV transmission should address homelessness as well as scaling up prevention services, such as needle and syringe distribution and other risk reduction interventions.

This article discusses ways in which randomized controlled trials do not accurately measure the impact of HIV behavioral interventions. This is because: 1. Such trials measure the wrong outcomes. Behavior change may have little to do with changes in HIV incidence since behavior change in events between HIV-concordant people have no impact on incidence. Even more important, the comparison of HIV incidence rates between study arms of individual-level RCTs does not measure the true outcome of interest-whether or not the intervention reduces HIV transmission at the community level. This is because this comparison cannot measure the extent to which the intervention stops transmission by HIV-infected people in the study to those outside it. (And this is made even worse if HIV-infected are excluded from the evaluation of the intervention.) 2. There are potential harms implicit in most cognitively oriented behavioral interventions that are not measured in current practice and may not be measurable using RCTs. Intervention trials often reinforce norms and values of individual self-protection. They rarely if ever measure whether doing this reduces community trust, solidarity, cohesion, organization, or activism in ways that might facilitate HIV transmission. 3. Many interventions are not best conceived of as interventions with individuals but rather with networks, cultures of risks, or communities. As such, randomizing individuals leads to effective interventions that diffuse protection through a community; but these are evaluated as ineffective because the changes diffuse to the control arm, which leads to systematic and erroneous reductions in the evaluated effectiveness as RCTs measure it. The paper ends by discussing research designs that are superior to individual-level RCTs at measuring whether an intervention reduces or increases new HIV transmission.

The term "Big Events" began as a way to help understand how wars, transitions and other crises shape long-term HIV epidemiology in affected areas. It directs attention to the roles of ordinary people in shaping these outcomes. Big Events themselves can take years, as in long-term armed struggles like those in Colombia and also long-term political and economic changes like the turn over the last 15 years of many Latin American countries away from neoliberalism and towards attempts to build solidarity economies of some form. The effects of Big Events on HIV epidemics, at least, may run in phases: In the short term, by creating vulnerability to epidemic outbreaks among existing Key Populations like people who inject drugs (PWID) or men who have sex with men (MSM); then, in their non-PWID (or non-MSM) risk networks; and perhaps, several years later, among youth who became involved in high-risk sexual or drug use networks and behaviors due to the social impacts of the Big Event. Issues of time loom large in other articles in this Special Issue as well. Some articles and commentaries in this issue point to another important phenomenon that should be studied more: The positive contributions that people who use drugs and other members of the population make towards helping other people in their communities during and after Big Events. Finally, this Commentary calls for more thought and research about an impending very Big Event, global climate change, and how it may exacerbate HIV, hepatitis C and other epidemics among people who use drugs and other members of their networks and communities.

Big Events are processes like macroeconomic transitions that have lowered social well-being in various settings in the past. Greece has been hit by the global crisis and experienced an HIV outbreak among people who inject drugs. Since the crisis began (2008), Greece has seen population displacement, inter-communal violence, cuts in governmental expenditures, and social movements. These may have affected normative regulation, networks, and behaviors. However, most pathways to risk remain unknown or unmeasured. We use what is known and unknown about the Greek HIV outbreak to suggest modifications in Big Events models and the need for additional research.

Over the eight months following Hurricane Sandy, of October 2012, we interviewed 300 people who inject drugs in New York City. During the week after the storm, 28% rescued others or volunteered with aid groups; 60% experienced withdrawal; 27% shared drug injection or preparation equipment, or injected with people they normally would not inject with; 70% of those on opioid maintenance therapy could not obtain sufficient doses; and 43% of HIV-positive participants missed HIV medication doses. Although relatively brief, a hurricane can be viewed as a Big Event that can alter drug environments and behaviors, and may have lasting impact. The study's limitations are noted and future needed research is suggested.

Past research suggests that as many as 50% of onward human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmissions occur during acute and recent HIV infection. It is clearly important to develop interventions which focus on this highly infectious stage of HIV infection to prevent further transmission in the risk networks of acutely and recently infected individuals. Project Protect tries to find recently and acutely infected individuals and prevents HIV transmission in their risk networks. Participants are recruited by community health outreach workers at community-based HIV testing sites and drug users' community venues, by coupon referrals and through referrals from AIDS clinics. When a network with acute/recent infection is identified, network members are interviewed about their risky behaviors, network information is collected, and blood is drawn for HIV testing. Participants are also educated and given prevention materials (condoms, syringes, educational materials); HIV-infected participants are referred to AIDS clinics and are assisted with access to care. Community alerts about elevated risk of HIV transmission are distributed within the risk networks of recently infected. Overall, 342 people were recruited to the project and screened for acute/recent HIV infection. Only six index cases of recent infection (2.3% of all people screened) were found through primary screening at voluntary counseling and testing (VCT) sites, but six cases of recent infection were found through contact tracing of these recently infected participants (7% of network members who came to the interview). Combining screening at VCT sites and contact tracing the number of recently infected people we located as compared to VCT screening alone. No adverse events were encountered. These first results provide evidence for the theory behind the intervention, i.e., in the risk networks of recently infected people there are other people with recent HIV infection and they can be successfully located without increasing stigma for project participants.

The altruism and/or solidarity of people who inject drugs helps protect sex and drug partners from HIV. Research has been hindered by lack of measures. We developed and administered scales to assess them to 300 people who inject drugs. Altruism and Solidarity Scales were both internally consistent. Each correlated significantly with measures of helping others. These measures appear reliable and valid. They can be used to study how big events or structural interventions affect altruism and solidarity, and how altruism and solidarity are associated with changes in HIV or other risks, among people who inject drugs.

Little is known about group memberships of people who inject drugs (PWID). Three hundred PWID were interviewed about formal and informal group participation and risk behaviors. Many took part in groups related to problems and resources associated with injecting drugs, religion, sports or gender. Harm reduction group and support group participation was associated with less risk behavior; sports groups participation with more risk behavior. Group involvement by PWID may be important to their lives and/or affect prevention or infectious disease transmission. More research is needed about determinants and consequences of their and other drug users' group memberships.