ArticlePDF Available

Using Interrupted Time Series Analysis to Measure the Impact of Legalized Syringe Exchange on HIV Diagnoses in Baltimore and Philadelphia

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Background: Syringe exchange programs (SEP) reduce HIV incidence associated with injection drug use (IDU), but legislation often prohibits implementation. We examined the policy change impact allowing for SEP implementation on HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs in 2 US cities. Setting: Philadelphia, PA, and Baltimore, MD. Methods: Using surveillance data from Philadelphia (1984-2015) and Baltimore (1985-2013) for IDU-associated HIV diagnoses, we used autoregressive integrated moving averages modeling to conduct 2 tests to measure policy change impact. We forecast the number of expected HIV diagnoses per city had policy not changed in the 10 years after implementation and compared it with the number of observed diagnoses postpolicy change, obtaining an estimate for averted HIV diagnoses. We then used interrupted time series analysis to assess the immediate step and trajectory impact of policy change implementation on IDU-attributable HIV diagnoses. Results: The Philadelphia (1993-2002) model predicted 15,248 new IDU-associated HIV diagnoses versus 4656 observed diagnoses, yielding 10,592 averted HIV diagnoses over 10 years. The Baltimore model (1995-2004) predicted 7263 IDU-associated HIV diagnoses versus 5372 observed diagnoses, yielding 1891 averted HIV diagnoses over 10 years. Considering program expenses and conservative estimates of public sector savings, the 1-year return on investment in SEPs remains high: 243.4M(Philadelphia)and243.4 M (Philadelphia) and 62.4 M (Baltimore). Conclusions: Policy change is an effective structural intervention with substantial public health and societal benefits, including reduced HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs and significant cost savings to publicly funded HIV care.
Content may be subject to copyright.
SUPPLEMENT ARTICLE
Using Interrupted Time Series Analysis to Measure the
Impact of Legalized Syringe Exchange on HIV Diagnoses in
Baltimore and Philadelphia
Monica S. Ruiz, PhD, MPH,
a
Allison ORourke, MPH,
b
Sean T. Allen, DrPH, MPH,
c
David R. Holtgrave, PhD,
c
David Metzger, PhD,
d
,
e
Jose Benitez, MSW,
f
Kathleen A. Brady, MD,
g
C. Patrick Chaulk, MD, MPH,
h
and Leana S. Wen, MD
i
Background: Syringe exchange programs (SEP) reduce HIV
incidence associated with injection drug use (IDU), but legislation
often prohibits implementation. We examined the policy change
impact allowing for SEP implementation on HIV diagnoses among
people who inject drugs in 2 US cities.
Setting: Philadelphia, PA, and Baltimore, MD.
Methods: Using surveillance data from Philadelphia (19842015)
and Baltimore (19852013) for IDU-associated HIV diagnoses, we
used autoregressive integrated moving averages modeling to conduct
2 tests to measure policy change impact. We forecast the number of
expected HIV diagnoses per city had policy not changed in the 10
years after implementation and compared it with the number of
observed diagnoses postpolicy change, obtaining an estimate for
averted HIV diagnoses. We then used interrupted time series analysis
to assess the immediate step and trajectory impact of policy change
implementation on IDU-attributable HIV diagnoses.
Results: The Philadelphia (19932002) model predicted 15,248
new IDU-associated HIV diagnoses versus 4656 observed diagno-
ses, yielding 10,592 averted HIV diagnoses over 10 years. The
Baltimore model (19952004) predicted 7263 IDU-associated HIV
diagnoses versus 5372 observed diagnoses, yielding 1891 averted
HIV diagnoses over 10 years. Considering program expenses and
conservative estimates of public sector savings, the 1-year return on
investment in SEPs remains high: $243.4 M (Philadelphia) and
$62.4 M (Baltimore).
Conclusions: Policy change is an effective structural intervention
with substantial public health and societal benets, including
reduced HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs and
signicant cost savings to publicly funded HIV care.
Key Words: injection drug use, HIV, syringe exchange, policy
change, cost-effectiveness
(J Acquir Immune Dec Syndr 2019;82:S148S154)
INTRODUCTION
Syringe exchange programs (SEP), also known as needle
exchange programs or syringe access programs, are an essential
component to preventing HIV/AIDS among people who inject
drugs (PWID). Studies have shown that SEP utilization is
associated with reductions in bloodborne infections among
PWID; research from Tacoma, WA,
1
New Haven, CT,
2
and
New York City, NY,
3
has demonstrated that SEP implementa-
tion was associated with signicant reductions in hepatitis B and
C incidence (80% reduction)
1
and HIV incidence (estimated
33%reductioninNewHavenand70%reductioninNew
York).
2,3
Despite evidence demonstrating the public health
utility of SEPs,
49
federal and state policies (eg, drug parapher-
nalia laws) may limit their implementation. Other policies more
explicitly affect SEP operations. In 1988, Congress passed
legislation prohibiting the use of federal monies to support SEPs.
Aside from a brief period (20092012) during which the
restriction was removed, the legislation remained until Decem-
ber2015when,largelyinresponsetoHIVoutbreaksamong
suburban and rural populations injecting prescription opioids,
the language was modied to allow federal monies to support
SEP operations except for purchasing injection equipment.
10
From the
a
Department of Prevention and Community Health, Milken Institute
School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC;
b
Department of Sociology, Center for Health, Risk, and Society, American
University, Washington, DC;
c
Department of Health, Behavior, and
Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore,
MD;
d
Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA;
e
Treatment Research Institute, Phila-
delphia, PA;
f
Prevention Point Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA;
g
AIDS
Activities Coordinating Ofce, Philadelphia Department of Public Health,
Philadelphia, PA;
h
Bureau of HIV/STD Services, Baltimore City Health
Department, Baltimore, MD; and
i
Ofce of the Commissioner, Baltimore
City Health Department, Baltimore, MD.
This publication resulted in part from research supported by the Penn Center
for AIDS Research (CFAR) (P30 AI 045008 - Ronald Collman, PI), the
Penn Mental Health AIDS Research Center (PMHARC) (P30 MH
097488 - Dwight Evans, PI) and the CFAR Social & Behavioral Science
Research Network National Scientic Meeting (SBSRN) (R13 HD
074468 - Michael Blank, PI).
The authors have no conicts of interest to disclose.
Correspondence to: Monica S. Ruiz, PhD, MPH, Milken Institute School of
Public Health, George Washington University, 950 New Hampshire
Avenue, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20052 (e-mail: msruiz@gwu.edu).
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0
(CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the
work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any
way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
S148 |www.jaids.com J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 82, Supplement 2, December 1, 2019
SEP Case Histories: Philadelphia
and Baltimore
For Philadelphia and Baltimore in the 1990s, changing
paraphernalia legislation was critical to creating SEPs.
11
SEPs in Philadelphia originated when activists orga-
nized a community response to rising HIV infection rates
among PWID.
11
Pennsylvanias paraphernalia laws were
conicting: syringe possession and distribution were illegal
in Philadelphia,
12
but the Disease Prevention and Control Act
of 1955 authorized syringe distribution as a disease pre-
vention activity within individual cities. Seeing the AIDS
epidemic as a public health emergency, activists felt that the
Disease Prevention and Control Act authorized SEPs as
a public health measure. In late 1991, Prevention Point
Philadelphia (PPP) was created, operating illegally while
working with and gaining support from the health commis-
sioner, ofcials at the Department of Healths AIDS Ofce
(now the AIDS Activities Coordinating Ofce), and the
mayor.
13
Despite state disapproval, the mayor signed Exec-
utive Order 492 on July 27, 1992, declaring HIV/AIDS
a public health emergency in Philadelphia and authorizing
SEPs as a measure to address it.
14
On August 1, 1992, PPP
held its rst day of legal syringe exchange. Although data
pertaining to syringe distribution from the initial years of PPP
are not available, SEP operationsdata from 1998 indicate
that over 400,000 syringes were distributed during this year,
with that amount almost doubling to 810,000 in 1999. In each
of these years, over 2000 new clients were registered. PPP
remains the sole ofcially recognized SEP in Philadelphia,
providing syringe access and harm reduction services
(including medical care, wound care, HIV/HCV testing,
overdose prevention and reversal training, linkage to drug
treatment, and medication-assisted treatment) through munic-
ipal and private support.
15
Baltimores legislative environment was also the big-
gest obstacle to SEP implementation. Marylands Uniform
Controlled Dangerous Substances Act of 1970 made drug
paraphernalia possession illegal. For SEPs to open in
Baltimore, state laws needed to change. The impetus for
change came in 1992 from the citys own leadership: the
mayor and the health commissioner. They lobbied the state
legislature for exemptions to existing paraphernalia laws for
Baltimore City so the Health Department could legally
distribute sterile injection equipment. Early attempts at policy
change were met with resistance from the Governor and other
state legislators, but eventually, Senate Bill 402 was signed in
to law on April 2, 1994,
16
and went into effect on June 1,
1994. Since then, the Baltimore City Health Department has
run the SEP.
17
In addition to syringe access services, the SEP
provides harm reduction education, linkage to addiction
treatment services (including maintaining same day treatment
openings), testing and counseling for HIV and syphilis, and
opioid overdose response training.
17
Why Policy Change Matters
These stories show 2 different mechanisms of policy
change for SEP establishment; they also underscore the
importance of policy change as a structural intervention for
HIV prevention among PWID in that it changes individuals
risk environment without changing their behaviors or social
interactions.
18
Our study in the District of Columbia (DC)
found that changing legislation to allow the use of municipal
revenue for SEPs in 2008 was associated with an estimated
120 averted HIV diagnoses in PWID in the rst 2 years after
policy change and an estimated savings of $44.3 million in
health care costs associated with HIV treatment.
19
Given the historical contexts of Philadelphia and
Baltimore, would one expect the same magnitude of epidemic
impact that was observed in DC? We examined this question
using similar methodologies used in the examination of
policy change impact in DC.
19
Although previous research
has examined the association between presence of SEPs and
HIV incidence, these studies were more ecological in nature.
We build on these previous analyses by not only examining
how SEP implementation affected the HIV epidemic in each
city but also by attempting to isolate the epidemic impact of
policy change specically on the numbers of new
HIV diagnoses.
METHODS
Using autoregressive integrated moving averages (ARI-
MA) modeling, forecasts were created to estimate the
expected annual number of new HIV diagnoses that would
have occurred in the 10 years had policies not changed.
Forecasted numbers for each city were then compared with
observed numbers of diagnoses to calculate the averted new
HIV diagnoses that could be attributed to legal SEP
implementation. We then used interrupted time series analysis
(ITSA) to assess the impact that policy change (the inter-
ruption) had on injection drug use (IDU)associated HIV
diagnoses, both immediately and as a trend change. ITSA
examines temporally ordered data to determine whether an
experimental manipulation or intervention produced a reliable
change in data
20,21
while also allowing models to account for
baseline levels and trends present in the data. Henceforth, we
refer to observations before the interruption as the pre-
implementation periodand those after the interruption as the
postimplementation period.
The outcome measure for both cities was IDU-
associated HIV diagnoses. In Philadelphia, data were ex-
tracted from Philadelphias Enhanced HIV/AIDS Reporting
System (eHARS), a population-based registry containing
information on all HIV/AIDS diagnoses reported to the
Philadelphia Department of Public Health AIDS Activities
Coordinating Ofce Surveillance Unit since 1984. eHARS
contains information abstracted from medical records, includ-
ing HIV transmission risk (eg, IDU and MSM/IDU) and
laboratory reporting of all CD4 cell counts and HIV-1 RNA
levels. Thus, eHARS contains data from all people living with
HIV (PLWH) diagnosed in Philadelphia.
Annual numbers of HIV diagnoses in Baltimore were
extracted from the Baltimore City Annual HIV Epidemiolog-
ical Prole,
22
which contains data reported to the state
through December 31, 2014. Annual percentages of diagno-
ses attributed to each exposure category are reported for the
Impact of Legalized Syringe ExchangeJ Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 82, Supplement 2, December 1, 2019
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. www.jaids.com |S149
years 19852013. To determine the annual number of IDU-
associated HIV cases, the percentages of new HIV diagnoses
with a known exposure risk were multiplied by each IDU-
associated exposure category (IDU and MSM/IDU). These 2
numbers were combined for each year to represent the total
number of new IDU-associated HIV diagnoses.
ARIMA models were t to the preimplementation data
for each city using Box and Jenkins
23
methods. Outlier
detection was completed to identify signicant (a,0.01)
shift and additive observations. Shift outliers were addressed
in the model by entering dichotomous variables assigning 0 to
observations prior to and 1 to all other observations including
and following the identied shift outlier. For additive outliers,
dichotomous variables were added to the model, assigning 1
to the additive outlier and 0 to all other observations.
ITSA models evaluated 2 types of impactstep change
and slope changeon new HIV diagnoses. Step change tests
for an immediate signicant change between HIV diagnoses
in the last preperiod and rst postperiod observations. It was
measured with a dichotomous variable that assigned 0 to all
prepolicy and 1 to all postimplementation observations. Slope
change tests for signicant changes in trend and direction of
the number of HIV diagnoses across the preperiod versus the
postperiod. It was measured using a continuous variable that
assigned 0 to all preimplementation observations and 1 to the
rst postinterruption observation, with subsequent observa-
tion values increasing by 1 (1, 2, ., n).
For the ITSA, the year ending after the date of policy
change was used as the interruption. In the 6 months after each
policy change, surveillance efforts and normal testing mecha-
nisms would have been more likely to detect those who are
already HIV-positive. Therefore, the real policy impact would
have occurred after persons already living with HIV and
previously undiagnosed were detected and after legal SEPs were
operating and effectively reaching PWID. In Philadelphia, legal
SEP began on August 1, 1992, so the data were divided into 2
periods: preimplementation (1984 through 1992) and postim-
plementation (1993 through 2015). Baltimores legal SEP began
on June 1, 1994, so data were similarly divided into preimple-
mentation (1985 through 1994) and postimplementation (1995
through 2013) periods. In using annual data, our analyses attempt
to conservatively account for the possible lag time between when
the policy changed and when it started to have epidemic impact.
In addition, we replicated these methods in Baltimore
using HIV diagnoses data among MSM without IDU
exposure to examine the true impact of SEP utilization on
new HIV diagnoses (ie, as a control). Notably, these analyses
were only possible in Baltimore given HIV case-reporting
data availability. Given that MSM in Baltimore would be
similar to the PWID population in terms of exposure to public
health efforts (eg, changes in HIV testing and access to HIV
treatment) that would have been available during the same
time period, these analyses allow us to control for other
variables that may have affected new cases of HIV and better
understand the true impact of SEP implementation on IDU-
associated HIV diagnoses. All analyses were completed using
SAS v9.4. This research was determined by the George
Washington Universitys Institutional Review Board as
exempt from oversight (IRB #051106).
RESULTS
Descriptive measures for the epidemiologic data are
presented in Table 1. For Philadelphia, we observed a non-
signicant preimplementation to post implementation
decrease in the mean number of new IDU-associated HIV
diagnoses (419.9 and 291.6, respectively) as well as a signif-
icant preimplementation to post implementation decrease in
the MSM/IDU exposure category (77.7 and 35.6, P,0.05).
For Baltimore, we observed a signicant preimplementation
to postimplementation decreases in both in the mean number
of IDU-associated HIV diagnoses (607.9 and 357.0, P,
0.05) and the mean numbers of new diagnoses attributed to
each IDU exposure category (IDU only: 542.8 and 332.2, P
,0.05, MSM/IDU: 65.0 and 24.8, P,0.05).
Philadelphia
For Philadelphia, an ARIMA (0, 1, 0) model with 4
outliersshift outliers at 1989 and 1990 and additive outliers
at 2002 and 2005was determined to be the best t for the
data. The 1989 and 1990 shift outliers were included in all
analyses; the 2002 and 2005 additive outliers were only
included in the ITSA. The model forecasts 15,248 new IDU-
associated HIV diagnoses in Philadelphia between 1993 and
2002, whereas 4656 IDU-associated HIV diagnoses were
reported (Fig. 1). This is a difference of 10,592 averted
diagnoses of HIV over 10 years (approximately 1059 averted
diagnoses annually). Using annual HIV case data from 1984
to 2015, ITSA was completed to determine whether SEP
implementation resulted in an immediate step or trend change
between the preimplementation and postimplementation peri-
ods. A signicant negative step change (B = 2162.5,
P,0.001) was identied, as was a signicant decreasing
slope change (B = 2115.5, P,0.001) (Table 2).
Baltimore
For Baltimore, an ARIMA (1, 1, 0) model with one
order of nonseasonal differencing and a single autoregressive
TABLE 1. Annual New Diagnoses of IDU-Associated HIV
Infection: Baltimore and Philadelphia
Prepolicy Period,
Mean (SD)
Postpolicy Period,
Mean (SD)
Overall,
Mean (SD)
Philadelphia
IDU exposure 342.2 (300.4) 256.0 (179.3) 280.25 (218.3)
MSM and
IDU
exposure
77.7 (39.6) 35.61 (17.7)* 47.4 (31.6)
Total 419.9 (336.9) 291.6 (196.3) 327.7 (245.1)
Baltimore
IDU exposure 542.8 (267.5) 332.2 (211.7)* 404.8 (249.4)
MSM and
IDU
exposure
65.0 (21.6) 24.78 (16.0)* 38.7 (26.3)
Total 607.9 (281.0) 357.0 (226.7)* 443.48 (270.4)
*Studentst-test, P,0.05 comparing pre interruption and postinterruption values.
Ruiz et al J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 82, Supplement 2, December 1, 2019
S150 |www.jaids.com Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
term was determined as the best t for the data. The 10-year
forecast predicted 7263 new IDU-associated HIV diagnoses
in Baltimore between 1995 and 2004, whereas 5372 diagno-
ses were reported (Fig. 2). This is a difference of 1891 averted
HIV diagnoses over 10 years, with 207 averted cases in the
rst 5 years (11% of total predicted averted cases) and 1684
in years 6 through 10 (89% of total predicted averted cases).
Using surveillance data for 1985 to 2013, ITSA was
completed to assess signicant immediate and slope changes
between the preimplementation and postimplementation peri-
ods. No signicant immediate step (B = 55.34 P= 0.4368) or
slope (B = 283.41, P= 0.0852) change was identied
(Table 2).
With respect to the control model in Baltimore that used
MSM-attributed HIV diagnoses, the ITSA found no signi-
cant immediate step change or slope change for new cases of
HIV after SEP implementation (Fig. 3). In addition, the
forecasting showed only a small difference between the
observed (1,345) and expected (1,776) cases of MSM-
attributed HIV in the 10 years after the SEP policy change.
DISCUSSION
These analyses demonstrate that SEP implementation in
Philadelphia and Baltimore was associated with signicant
overall reductions in IDU-associated HIV diagnoses. Phila-
delphiasndings are particularly striking: the signicant step
and slope changes observed indicate that policy change and
SEP implementation occurred in the same year as the number
of HIV diagnoses was peaking. Although it cannot be stated
with 100% certainty that the epidemic trajectory would have
leveled after reaching that apex, the ARIMA forecast suggests
that diagnoses would have continued to rise had SEP
implementation not taken place. The signicant level-shift
outliers identied in 1989 and 1990 during the prepolicy
change period indicate that Philadelphia had a signicant
increase in new HIV diagnoses during these 2 consecutive
years that persisted for many years following. The additive
outliers identied in 2002 and 2005 mark 2 years that had
signicantly higher numbers of reported new HIV cases;
however, these changes did not persist or impact observations
seen in the following years. Of interest and likely the
explanation for these 2 outliers, Philadelphia moved to
code-based reporting in 2002 and name-based reporting in
2005. These data support the possibility that the policy
change in Philadelphia may have capped the peak of IDU-
associated diagnoses in the city, explaining the rapid decrease
in IDU-associated diagnoses after 1995.
The Baltimore data also showed a decrease in IDU-
associated HIV diagnoses after the policy change.
Although the surveillance data show that IDU-associated
HIV diagnoses had begun to stabilize and decrease slightly
before SEP implementation, the addition of SEPs contrib-
uted to a more rapid decline. The comparison of the more
rapid decline in IDU-associated cases and the slower
decline in the number of MSM-associated cases indicates
that although other factors occurring within Baltimore
likely played some role in the decrease in HIV seen among
PWID, the vast majority of this decrease can be attributed
to SEP implementation.
FIGURE 1. Forecasted versus actual
diagnoses of IDU-associated HIV infec-
tion in Philadelphia during the 10 years
after the change in syringe exchange
policy.
TABLE 2. Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Philadelphia and
Baltimore
Coefcients
t
Value P
Philadelphia ARIMA (0, 1, 0)
Constant 79.0 6.57 ,0.0001
Shift outlier1989 103.0 3.24 0.0035
Shift outlier1990 149.0 4.68 ,0.0001
Additive outlier2002 90.0 4.32 0.0002
Additive outlier2005 117.53 3.9 0.0007
Immediate effect of policy
implementation
2162.5 25.39 ,0.001
Change in trend postpolicy
implementation
2115.5 28.47 ,0.001
Baltimore ARIMA (1,1,0)
Constant 51.30 1.38 0.1790
AR term 0.41 1.99 0.0576
Immediate effect of policy
implementation
55.33 0.79 0.4368
Change in trend postpolicy
implementation
283.41 21.80 0.0852
Impact of Legalized Syringe ExchangeJ Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 82, Supplement 2, December 1, 2019
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. www.jaids.com |S151
Limitations must be acknowledged in this research, the
rst pertaining to the quantity and quality of available
surveillance data for each city. Although AIDS case surveil-
lance in both cities began in the mid-1980s, HIV case
reporting (either by name or code) was implemented much
later; in Baltimore, code reporting began in 1994 and name
reporting began in 2007, whereas in Philadelphia, code
reporting began in 2002 and name reporting began in 2005.
Since SEPs in both cities started in the early to mid-1990s,
there were fewer observations of annual HIV diagnoses
before the policy change event despite having sufcient
numbers of observations to meet the minimum requirements
for ARIMA modeling. More prepolicy change observations
would have facilitated a more nely tunedmodel that better
reects longitudinal trends in IDU-associated HIV diagnoses.
Also, our analyses modeled HIV diagnoses rather than
incidence due to data limitations. Whether diagnoses are
a good proxy for incidence depends on various factors,
including stage of the local HIV epidemic, the number of
PLWH unaware of their status, and the availability of local
testing programs. Furthermore, data obtained from city health
departments for these analyses may reect issues present in
disease surveillance systems, including inconsistencies in
HIV/AIDS case reporting and variability in PWIDsHIV
testing patterns. Effects observed in both cities may actually
underestimate impact given potential overlaps between diag-
noses of IDU-associated and heterosexual transmission, as
well as the availability and utilization of other interventions
for PWID such as addiction treatment and access to
antiretroviral medication.
Anal point of consideration pertains to the determi-
nation of HIV epidemic impact of policy change within the
PWID population when there are no precise size estimates of
this population. Although estimates of the overall PWID
population has remained stable from 1992 to 2002, there have
been estimates of growing PWID populations in Baltimore
(168336 per 10,000 population) and the PhiladelphiaNew
Jersey MSAs (from 151 to 173 per 10,000 population).
24
Given that the time period for these estimates is similar to that
of our analyses, we are condent that our estimates are
measuring true population impact.
Our ndings also demonstrate that averted HIV diag-
noses translated to cost savings for cities where most PLWH
are recipients of publicly funded healthcare. The forecasts
estimated an average of 1059 HIV diagnoses in Philadelphia
and 189 HIV diagnoses in Baltimore averted annually.
Multiplying the lifetime costs of HIV treatment per person
($229,800)
25
by the average number of diagnoses averted
annually in both cities yields an estimated annual saving of
$243.4 million for Philadelphia and $62.4 million for
Baltimore. Considering diagnoses averted over the 10-year
modeled period, the lifetime cost savings associated with
averted HIV diagnoses stemming from policy change to
support SEPs may be more than $2.4 billion and $624 million
FIGURE 2. Forecasted versus actual
diagnoses of IDU-associated HIV diag-
noses in Baltimore during the 10 years
after the change in syringe exchange
policy.
FIGURE 3. Forecasted versus actual
diagnoses of IDU-associated and MSM-
associated HIV diagnoses (control case
scenario) in Baltimore during the 10
years after the change in syringe
exchange policy.
Ruiz et al J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 82, Supplement 2, December 1, 2019
S152 |www.jaids.com Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
dollars for Philadelphia and Baltimore, respectively. Because
SEPs are relatively inexpensive to operate,
26
overall cost
savings are substantial even when deducting program oper-
ational costs from the total amount. Considering annual
program expense ($390,000 in 2011 for Philadelphia
27
and
$800,000 estimated in FY 2017 for Baltimore
28
) (Kathleen
Goodwin, Baltimore City Health Department, personal
communication, January 3, 2017) and cost savings in each
city, and a conservative estimate that 75% of these savings
would be experienced in the public sector, the 1-year return
on investment in SEPs remains in the hundreds of millions
of dollars ($182.5 M for Philadelphia, $46.8 M for
Baltimore). Small investments in SEPs may yield large
savings in HIV treatment costs, so implementing SEPs may
liberate resources for other important interventions, such as
expanded access to medication-assisted treatment, overdose
prevention, and housing.
Another implication pertains to how variations in SEP
implementation may have inuenced intervention effective-
ness. Policies governing SEPs affect not only the overall
number of syringes distributed annually but also the ability of
PWID to obtain sufcient coverage for all injection events.
For example, PPPs clients may exchange syringes for
themselves and others; recent data show that the mean
number of syringes exchanged per exchange event increased
from 1.53 in 1999 to 1.82 in 2014.
13
In addition, PPPs
annual syringe distribution has consistently increased from
approximately 811,000 in 1999 to 1.2 million in 2014,
13
allowing for greater coverage of injection events and more
opportunities for disease prevention.
By contrast, Baltimores SEP had a one-for-one (1:1)
exchange policy from 1994 to 1999 but, in 2000, switched to
a more restrictive policy, where clients were allowed 1:1
exchange for program-distributed syringes but could receive 1
sterile syringe in exchange for 2 nonprogram syringes. From
2005 to 2014, the SEP returned to the less restrictive 1:1
policy, after which they shifted to a need-based distribution
model whereby PWID could access as many syringes as
needed. Baltimore Citys health commissioner estimated that
moving from the 1:1 to the needs-based distribution policy
could increase coverage of injection events from 42% to
61%.
29
More exible approaches to syringe access in
Baltimore could have resulted in greater injection coverage
and more dramatic declines in IDU-associated HIV diagnoses
earlier. Regulations limiting clean needle and syringe distri-
bution are important operational issues to consider if policy
changes supporting harm reduction for PWID are to have
optimal impact.
This research provides additional support for the
effectiveness of policy change as a structural intervention
for HIV prevention among PWID and the utility of syringe
access as an effective, evidence-based approach to promote
PWID health. The need for such approaches is particularly
relevant given the current state of the opioid epidemic in the
United States and the resurgence of IDU-associated HIV
outbreaks in suburban and rural areas. A critical lesson
learned from the Indiana HIV outbreak was that had the
SEP been implemented earlier in the course of that outbreak,
many infections could have been averted. Communities
throughout the United States which are vulnerable to IDU-
associated HIV outbreaks should consider the potential public
health benets, such as those experienced in Philadelphia and
Baltimore; they may gain from implementing SEPs as they
are one of our most powerful HIV prevention strategies for
PWID populations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is part of a larger projectDC POINTE:
Policy Impact on the Epidemicwhose main objective is to
examine the epidemic impact of policy change as a structural
intervention for HIV prevention for PWID in the District of
Columbia. This research was supported by a grant from the
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to M.S.R.
(R01DA031649). The authors of this paper have no conicts
of interest to declare.
We would also like to acknowledge the infrastructure,
core, and administrative support provided by the District of
Columbia Center for AIDS Research (CFAR; P30AI087714),
the Penn Center for AIDS Research (CFAR; P30 AI045008),
the Penn Mental Health AIDS Research Center (PMHARC;
P30MH097488), and the Johns Hopkins University Center
for AIDS Research (CFAR; P30AI094189). The CFARs are
NIH funded programs which are supported by the following
NIH Co-Funding and Participating Institutes and Centers:
NIAID, NCI, NICHD, NHLBI, NIDA, NIMH, NIA, FIC,
NIGMS, NIDDK, and OAR. The content of this paper is
solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
necessarily represent the ofcial views of the NIH.
The authors would like to express gratitude to the
Baltimore Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the
Philadelphia Department of Public Health, the Baltimore
City Syringe Exchange program, and Prevention Point
Philadelphia. We would also like to thank Danielle Fiore
for her assistance with the abstraction of the Philadelphia
surveillance data.
L.S.W. is currently a Visiting Professor of Health
Policy and Management and Distinguished Fellow in the
Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity at the
Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington
university. D.R.H. is currently the Dean and SUNY Empire
Innovation Professor at the University of Albany, State
University of New York (SUNY). C.P.C. is currently retired
from the Baltimore City Health Department.
REFERENCES
1. Hagan H, Des Jarlais DC, Friedman SR, et al. Reduced risk of hepatitis B
and hepatitis C among injecting drug users participating in the Tacoma
syringe exchange program. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:15311537.
2. Kaplan E, Heimer R. HIV prevalence among intravenous drug users:
model-based estimates from New Havens legal needle exchange. J
Acquir Immune Dec Syndr. 1992;5:163169.
3. Des Jarlais DC, Marmor M, Paone D, et al. HIV incidence among
injecting drug users in New York City syringe-exchange programmes.
Lancet. 1996;348:987991.
4. Kerr T, Small W, Buchner C, et al. Syringe sharing and HIV incidence
among injection drug users and increased access to sterile syringes. Am J
Public Health. 2010;100:14491453.
Impact of Legalized Syringe ExchangeJ Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 82, Supplement 2, December 1, 2019
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. www.jaids.com |S153
5. Ksobiech K. A meta-analysis of needle sharing, lending, and borrowing
behaviors of needle exchange program attenders. AIDS Educ Prev. 2003;
15:257268.
6. Hurley SF, Jolley DJ, Kaldor JM. Effectiveness of needle exchange
programmes for prevention of HIV infection. Lancet. 1997;21:
17971800.
7. Palmateer N, Kimber J, Hickman M, et al. Evidence for the effectiveness
of sterile injecting equipment provision in preventing hepatitis C and
human immunodeciency virus transmission among injecting drug users:
a review of reviews. Addiction. 2010;105:844859.
8. 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;41:777816.
9. Institute of Medicine. Preventing HIV Infection Among Injecting Drug
Users in High-Risk Countries: An Assessment of the Evidence. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.
10. PL 114-113: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. Available at:
https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ113/PLAW-114publ113.pdf.
Accessed June 8, 2016.
11. Allen ST, Ruiz MS, ORourke A. The evidence does not speak for
itself: the role of research evidence in shaping policy change for the
implementation of publicly funded syringe exchange programs in
three US cities. Int J Drug Pol. 2015. doi:10.1016/j.drug-
po.2015.04.008.
12. Pennsylvania Drug Paraphernalia Act, 1980. P.L. 634 No. 186. Avail-
able at: http://www.palrb.us/pamphletlaws/19001999/1980/0/act/0186.
pdf. Accessed June 8, 2016.
13. Maurer LA, Bass SB, Ye D, et al. Trend analyses of users of a syringe
exchange program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1999-2014. AIDS
Behav. 2016. doi: 10.1007/s10461-016-1393-y.
14. Executive order 4-92. Available at: http://www.phila.gov/
ExecutiveOrders/Executive%20Orders/4-92.pdf. Accessed June 8, 2016.
15. Prevention Point Philadelphia website. Available at: http://ppponline.org.
Accessed June 8, 2016.
16. Maryland General Assembly. Senate Bill 402: AIDS prevention sterile
needle and syringe exchange pilot program. 1994. Available at: https://
www.overdosepreventionstrategies.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/%
C2%A7%C2%A724-801-to-%C2%A724-810-Aids-Prevention-Sterile-
Needle-And-Syringe-Exchange-Pilot-Program.pdf. Accessed June 8,
2016.
17. Baltimore City Health Department. Community risk reduction: Balti-
more city needle exchange program. Available at: http://health.
baltimorecity.gov/hiv-std-services/community-risk-reduction. Ac-
cessed June 8, 2016.
18. Des Jarlais DC. Structural interventions to reduce HIV transmission
among injecting drug users. AIDS. 2000;14(suppl 1):S41S46.
19. Ruiz MS, ORourke A, Allen ST. Impact evaluation of a policy
intervention for HIV prevention in Washington, DC. AIDS Behav.
2015. doi: 10.1007/s10461-015-1143-6.
20. Hartmann DP, Gottman JM, Jones RR, et al. Interrupted time series
analyses and its application to behavioral data. J Appl Behav Anal. 1980;
13:543559.
21. Gilmour S, Degenhart L, Hall W, et al. Using intervention time series
analyses to assess the effects of imperfectly identiable natural events:
a general method and example. BMC Med Res Tech. 2006;6:16.
22. Baltimore City Annual HIV Epidemiological Prole 2013. Baltimore,
MD: Center for HIV Surveillance, Epidemiology and Evaluation,
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; 2015.
23. Box GEP, Jenkins GM. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control.
San Francisco: Holden-Day; 1970.
24. Brady JE, Friedman SR, Cooper HLF, et al. Estimating the prevalence of
injection drug users in the U.S. And in large U.S. Metropolitan areas
from 1992 to 2002. J Urban Health 2008;85:323351.
25. Schackman BR, Fleishman JA, Su AE, et al. The lifetime medical cost
savings from preventing HIV in the United States. Med Care. 2015;53:
293301.
26. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Needle exchange programs
promote public safety: fact sheet on needle exchange programs. Avail-
able at: https://www.aclu.org/needle-exchange-programs-promote-
public-safety. Accessed June 8, 2016.
27. Prevention point Philadelphia. Financial. Available at: http://ppponline.
org/about/nancial. Accessed June 8, 2016.
28. City of Baltimore. Open budget Baltimore. Available at: http://
openbudget.baltimorecity.gov/#!/year/default. Accessed June 8,
2016.
29. Broadwater L. Baltimore wants to give out thousands more needles to drug
users. Baltimore Sun. 2014. Available at: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/
2014-01-17/news/bs-md-srb-legislative-agenda-20140117_1_clean-
syringes-baltimore-county-addicts. Accessed June 8, 2016.
Ruiz et al J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Volume 82, Supplement 2, December 1, 2019
S154 |www.jaids.com Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
... In addition, these tools can support public health system by serving as a prognostic and epidemiological tools to monitor variations in prevalence and risk factors across different regions [13][14][15], and to access the adherence to the intervention [16,17] and its outcomes [18]. This comprehension can aid in the development of tailed prevention, control, and resource allocation strategies for diverse regions [19]. The users of prediction tools have gradually shifted from being used only by HPs to being available to the public. ...
... Time series prediction models can be utilized to assess the impact of laws and policies on HIV/STI. Ruiz et al. [19] utilized time-series analysis to predict HIV infection in the absence of Syringe exchange program (SEP) and compared it with the actual HIV infection in the presence of SEP. The findings indicate that HIV diagnosis would rise with the implementation of SEP. ...
Article
Full-text available
The prevention and control of human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted infections (HIV/STI) face challenges worldwide, especially in China. Prediction tools, which analyze medical data and information to make future predictions, were once mainly used in HIV/STI research to help make diagnostic or prognostic decisions, has have now extended to the public as a freely accessible tool. This article provides an overview of the different roles of prediction tools in preventing and controlling HIV/STI from the perspectives of individuals, healthcare providers, and policymakers. For individuals, prediction tools serve as a risk assessment solution that assess their risk and consciously improve risk reception or change risky behaviors. For researchers, prediction tools are powerful for assisting in identifying risk factors and predicting patients’ infection risk, which can inform timely and accurate intervention planning in the future. In order to achieve the best performance, current research increasingly underscores the necessity of considering multiple levels of information, such as socio-behavioral data, in developing a robust prediction tool. In addition, it is also crucial to conduct trials in clinical settings to validate the effectiveness of prediction tools. Many studies only use theoretical parameters such as model accuracy to estimate its predictive. If these improvements are made, the application of prediction tools could be a potentially inspiring solution in the prevention and control of HIV/STI, and an opportunity for achieving the World Health Organization’s agenda to end the HIV/STI epidemic by 2030.
... Evaluating an implementation strategy's impact in the absence of a control group or randomization Ruiz and colleagues [30] used a controlled interrupted time series (ITS) study based upon surveillance data from Philadelphia and ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Implementation science (IS) offers methods to systematically achieve the Ending the HIV Epidemic goals in the United States, as well as the global UNAIDS targets. Federal funders such as the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) have invested in implementation research to achieve these goals, including supporting the AIDS Research Centres (ARCs), which focus on high‐impact science in HIV and mental health (MH). To facilitate capacity building for the HIV/MH research workforce in IS, “grey areas,” or areas of IS that are confusing, particularly for new investigators, should be addressed in the context of HIV/MH research. Discussion A group of IS experts affiliated with NIMH‐funded ARCs convened to identify common and challenging grey areas. The group generated a preliminary list of 19 grey areas in HIV/MH‐related IS. From the list, the authors developed a survey which was distributed to all ARCs to prioritize grey areas to address in this paper. ARC members across the United States (N = 60) identified priority grey areas requiring clarification. This commentary discusses topics with 40% or more endorsement. The top grey areas that ARC members identified were: (1) Differentiating implementation strategies from interventions; (2) Determining when an intervention has sufficient evidence for adaptation; (3) Integrating recipient perspectives into HIV/MH implementation research; (4) Evaluating whether an implementation strategy is evidence‐based; (5) Identifying rigorous approaches for evaluating the impact of implementation strategies in the absence of a control group or randomization; and (6) Addressing innovation in HIV/MH IS grants. The commentary addresses each grey area by drawing from the existing literature (when available), providing expert guidance on addressing each in the context of HIV/MH research, and providing domestic and global HIV and HIV/MH case examples that address these grey areas. Conclusions HIV/MH IS is key to achieving domestic and international goals for ending HIV transmission and mitigating its impact. Guidance offered in this paper can help to overcome challenges to rigorous and high‐impact HIV/MH implementation research.
... However, one long-standing, trusted, and frequented institution for PWID are SSPs. Decades of research have highlighted their effectiveness in HIV prevention [18][19][20][21][22][23] and, more recently, their ability to implement HIV testing [24], PrEP [25], medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) [26], and overdose education and naloxone distribution [27]. Increased access to MOUD has been shown to facilitate positive care outcomes among people with opioid use disorder (OUD) [28,29], and SSPs have been shown to be ideal venues to offer PrEP [30] and buprenorphine [31][32][33] to further mitigate HIV risk and acquistion. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background People who inject drugs (PWID) remain a high priority population under the federal Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative with 11% of new HIV infections attributable to injection drug use. There is a critical need for innovative, efficacious, scalable, and community-driven models of healthcare in non-stigmatizing settings for PWID. We seek to test a Comprehensive-TeleHarm Reduction (C-THR) intervention for HIV prevention services delivered via a syringe services program (SSP). Methods The CHARIOT trial is a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation study using a parallel two-arm randomized controlled trial design. Participants (i.e., PWID; n = 350) will be recruited from a syringe services program (SSP) in Miami, Florida. Participants will be randomized to receive either C-THR or non-SSP clinic referral and patient navigation. The objectives are: (1) to determine if the C-THR intervention increases engagement in HIV prevention (i.e., HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis; PrEP or medications for opioid use disorder; MOUD) compared to non-SSP clinic referral and patient navigation, (2) to examine the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the C-THR intervention, and (3) to assess the barriers and facilitators to implementation and sustainment of the C-THR intervention. The co-primary outcomes are PrEP or MOUD engagement across follow-up at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. For PrEP, engagement is confirmed by tenofovir on dried blood spot or cabotegravir injection within the previous 8 weeks. For MOUD, engagement is defined as screening positive for norbuprenorphine or methadone on urine drug screen; or naltrexone or buprenorphine injection within the previous 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include PrEP adherence, engagement in HCV treatment and sustained virologic response, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. The short and long term cost-effectiveness analyses and mixed-methods implementation evaluation will provide compelling data on the sustainability and possible impact of C-THR on comprehensive HIV prevention delivered via SSPs. Discussion The CHARIOT trial will be the first to our knowledge to test the efficacy of an innovative, peer-led telehealth intervention with PWID at risk for HIV delivered via an SSP. This innovative healthcare model seeks to transform the way PWID access care by bypassing the traditional healthcare system, reducing multi-level barriers to care, and meeting PWID where they are. Trial Registration : ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05897099. Trial registry name: Comprehensive HIV and Harm Prevention Via Telehealth (CHARIOT). Registration date: 06/12/2023.
... • fund and expand legal access to "harm-reduction" programs intended to decrease the number of drugrelated deaths and communicable diseases via the: (a) medical supervision of the use of dangerous drugs so that medics can administer life-saving treatment when overdoses occur, (b) distribution of overdose reversal kits that drug-users can take home, (c) testing of drugs to ensure that there are not any unknown impurities or alternative substances like fentanyl mixed into the substances being consumed, (d) distribution of clean needles (in order to reduce viral/bacterial infections due to the use of unclean needles for syringe-injected drugs), (e) promote outreach for drug-addicted individuals in order to provide education about safe(r) drug-use practices and encourage needed treatment and (f) provide vaccinations against diseases that are commonly contracted via the use of injectable drugs 133 . Prior research has indicated that harm-reduction programs like safe-injection sites and clean needle exchange programs reduce drug-related deaths and disease infections 134,135 , and ...
Article
Full-text available
This report presents research that has identified the ways that mental health and mental health treatment has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic for New Jersey residents and how such changes compare to those observed nationally and worldwide. This study investigated this topic via three main methods: (1) analysis of the results of an original poll we designed and administered in March-April 2023 asking a sample of New Jersey residents to report their mental health and mental health treatment experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) analysis of publicly available datasets that contain New Jersey-specific information relevant to the study of mental health and mental health treatment that allow for comparisons between pre-pandemic and pandemic time periods and (3) a review of relevant published research.
Article
Objetivo: Analisar os motivos da não adesão às profilaxias relacionadas ao HIV. Métodos: Trata-se de uma revisão de literatura, que usou o método PICO para formular a pergunta norteadora, com pesquisas nas bases de dados CAPES, PubMed e Scielo e utilizando as palavras chaves “HIV”, “profilaxia”, “prevenção” e “políticas públicas”, foram encontrados 66 artigos, nos quais 20 foram selecionados com apoio da plataforma “Rayyan” para coleta de dados. Resultados: Os principais achados evidenciam que o HIV está presente principalmente entre homens, brancos e jovens, especialmente entre os que fazem sexo com homens. Além disso, tais achados ressaltam que há relação entre a falta de informações sobre ISTs e a condição socioeconômica do indivíduo com o aumento das taxas de HIV no Brasil. Ademais, foi possível identificar que indivíduos com alta escolaridade são predominantes no uso da PrEP e PEP, em contrapartida, indivíduos com baixa escolaridade possuem acesso dificultado a esses tipos de profilaxia. Considerações finais: Pode se considerar que variáveis como classe social, idade, gênero e escolaridade estão diretamente relacionadas ao acesso à informação e utilização de medidas profiláticas relacionadas ao HIV, sendo necessária a implementação de políticas públicas voltadas à prevenção da síndrome.
Article
Full-text available
Importance The overdose epidemic continues in the US, with 107 941 overdose deaths in 2022 and countless lives affected by the addiction crisis. Although widespread efforts to train and support physicians to implement medications and other evidence-based substance use disorder interventions have been ongoing, adoption of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) by physicians remains low. Objective To describe physician-reported reasons for reluctance to address substance use and addiction in their clinical practices using screening, treatment, harm reduction, or recovery support interventions. Data Sources A literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, medRxiv , and SSRN Medical Research Network was conducted and returned articles published from January 1, 1960, through October 5, 2021. Study Selection Publications that included physicians, discussed substance use interventions, and presented data on reasons for reluctance to intervene in addiction were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two reviewers (L.N., M.C., L.F., J.P., C.S., and S.W.) independently reviewed each publication; a third reviewer resolved discordant votes (M.C. and W.C.). This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and the theoretical domains framework was used to systematically extract reluctance reasons. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was reasons for physician reluctance to address substance use disorder. The association of reasons for reluctance with practice setting and drug type was also measured. Reasons and other variables were determined according to predefined criteria. Results A total of 183 of 9308 returned studies reporting data collected from 66 732 physicians were included. Most studies reported survey data. Alcohol, nicotine, and opioids were the most often studied substances; screening and treatment were the most often studied interventions. The most common reluctance reasons were lack of institutional support (173 of 213 articles [81.2%]), knowledge (174 of 242 articles [71.9%]), skill (170 of 230 articles [73.9%]), and cognitive capacity (136 of 185 articles [73.5%]). Reimbursement concerns were also noted. Bivariate analysis revealed associations between these reasons and physician specialty, intervention type, and drug. Conclusions and Relevance In this systematic review of reasons for physician reluctance to intervene in addiction, the most common reasons were lack of institutional support, knowledge, skill, and cognitive capacity. Targeting these reasons with education and training, policy development, and program implementation may improve adoption by physicians of EBPs for substance use and addiction care. Future studies of physician-reported reasons for reluctance to adopt EBPs may be improved through use of a theoretical framework and improved adherence to and reporting of survey development best practices; development of a validated survey instrument may further improve study results.
Article
Full-text available
Until recently, most syringe services programs (SSPs) in the United States operated in metropolitan areas. This study explores how SSP implementers at rural health departments in Kentucky secured support for SSP operations. In late 2020, we conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 18 people involved with rural SSP implementation in Kentucky. Participants were asked to reflect on their experiences building support for SSP operations among rural health department staff and community members. Participants reported that attitudes and beliefs about SSP implementation among rural health department staff shifted quickly following engagement in educational activities and interaction with SSP clients. Participants explained that successful SSP implementation at rural health departments required sustained educational activities among community members and authorizing authorities. Future work should explore how rural communities may advocate for low-threshold and evidence-based policies that support the provision of harm reduction services.
Article
Full-text available
Background Rates of serious injection-related infections in persons who use drugs have increased. Resulting admissions are an opportunity for screening and vaccination of preventable infections such as hepatitis A virus (HAV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), and tetanus. Design and methods We conducted a retrospective review of adults with documented substance use admitted for bacterial infection between July 2015 and March 2020. We evaluated HAV, HBV, and tetanus vaccination status at admission, along with screening for HAV and HBV infection and immunity. We identified the proportion of patients at risk for infection who received HAV, HBV, and tetanus vaccines during admission and patient-level factors associated with vaccination. Results We identified 280 patients who met our inclusion criteria. Of the 198 (70.7%) patients at risk for HAV, infectious disease providers recommended vaccination for 21 (10.6%) and 15 (7.6%) received HAV vaccine. Of the 174 (62.1%) patients at risk for HBV, infectious disease providers recommended vaccination for 32 (18.3%) and 25 (14.4%) received HBV vaccine. A large proportion of patients (31.4%, 88) had no documentation of prior tetanus vaccination, and infectious disease providers recommended tetanus vaccination for three (1.1%) and five patients (1.8%) received a tetanus booster. Infectious disease consult vaccine recommendations were statistically significantly associated with HAV or HBV vaccination prior to discharge. Conclusion Over 70% of our population is at risk for one or more of these preventable infections. Efforts are needed to maximize inpatient screening and vaccination for HAV, HBV, and tetanus in patients with barriers to care.
Article
Introduction: People who inject drugs (PWID) are at increased risk for infectious disease transmission, including hepatitis C and HIV. Understanding trends in injection risk behaviors and syringe service program (SSP) use over time can help improve infectious disease prevention and other harm reduction services. Methods: Using National HIV Behavioral Surveillance System data from Baltimore, Maryland, we examined changes in receptive sharing of (1) syringes, (2) injection equipment, (3) syringes to divide drugs; and (4) receipt of syringes from SSPs among PWID from 2009 to 2018 (n = 518 in 2009, n = 638 in 2012, n = 586 in 2015, and n = 575 in 2018) using unadjusted and adjusted logistic models calculated across time for the total sample. Results: The conditional probability of receptive sharing of syringes and receipt of syringes from SSPs remained relatively stable, while receptive sharing of injection equipment and receptive sharing of syringes to divide drugs dropped substantially after 2009. White race and daily injection frequency were positively associated with sharing syringes and injection equipment and negatively associated with SSP use over time. In 2015, there was a notable shift such that women were twice as likely as men to receive syringes from SSPs and less likely than men to report the use of shared syringes or equipment. Conclusion: Findings indicate overall steady or decreasing trends in injection risk and steady trends in SSP usage over time, with some notable improvements among women and indications of shifting drug market patterns. Injection-related risk behaviors remain high among White PWID and may require targeted outreach and interventions.
Article
Full-text available
This study examines trends of injection drug users' (IDUs) use of a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, syringe exchange program (SEP) from 1999 to 2014, including changes in demographics, drug use, substance abuse treatment, geographic indicators, and SEP use. Prevention Point Philadelphia's SEP registration data were analyzed using linear regression, Pearson's Chi square, and t-tests. Over time new SEP registrants have become younger, more racially diverse, and geographically more concentrated in specific areas of the city, corresponding to urban demographic shifts. The number of new registrants per year has decreased, however syringes exchanged have increased. Gentrification, cultural norms, and changes in risk perception are believed to have contributed to the changes in SEP registration. Demographic changes indicate outreach strategies for IDUs may need adjusting to address unique barriers for younger, more racially diverse users. Implications for SEPs are discussed, including policy and continued ability to address current public health threats.
Article
Full-text available
Syringe exchange programs (SEPs) lower HIV risk. From 1998 to 2007, Congress prohibited Washington, DC, from using municipal revenue for SEPs. We examined the impact of policy change on IDU-associated HIV cases. We used surveillance data for new IDU-associated HIV cases between September 1996 and December 2011 to build an ARIMA model and forecasted the expected number of IDU-associated cases in the 24 months following policy change. Interrupted time series analyses (ITSA) were used to assess epidemic impact of policy change. There were 176 IDU-associated HIV cases in the 2 years post-policy change; our model predicted 296 IDU-associated HIV cases had the policy remained in place, yielding a difference of 120 averted HIV cases. ITSA identified significant immediate (B = -6.0355, p = .0005) and slope changes (B = -.1241, p = .0427) attributed to policy change. Policy change is an effective structural intervention for HIV prevention when it facilitates the implementation of services needed by vulnerable populations.
Article
Full-text available
Background: A breadth of literature exists that explores the utilization of research evidence in policy change processes. From this work, a number of studies suggest research evidence is applied to change processes by policy change stakeholders primarily through instrumental, conceptual, and/or symbolic applications, or is not used at all. Despite the expansiveness of research on policy change processes, a deficit exists in understanding the role of research evidence during change processes related to the implementation of structural interventions for HIV prevention among injection drug users (IDU). This study examined the role of research evidence in policy change processes for the implementation of publicly funded syringe exchange services in three US cities: Baltimore, MD, Philadelphia, PA, and Washington, DC. Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (n=29) from each of the study cities. Stakeholders were asked about the historical, social, political, and scientific contexts in their city during the policy change process. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for common themes pertaining to applications of research evidence. Results: In Baltimore and Philadelphia, the typological approaches (instrumental and symbolic/conceptual, respectively) to the applications of research evidence used by harm reduction proponents contributed to the momentum for securing policy change for the implementation of syringe exchange services. Applications of research evidence were less successful in DC because policymakers had differing ideas about the implications of syringe exchange program implementation and because opponents of policy change used evidence incorrectly or not at all in policy change discussions. Conclusion: Typological applications of research evidence are useful for understanding policy change processes, but their efficacy falls short when sociopolitical factors complicate legislative processes. Advocates for harm reduction may benefit from understanding how to effectively integrate research evidence into policy change processes in ways that confront the myriad of factors that influence policy change.
Article
Full-text available
Enhanced HIV prevention interventions, such as preexposure prophylaxis for high-risk individuals, require substantial investments. We sought to estimate the medical cost saved by averting 1 HIV infection in the United States. We estimated lifetime medical costs in persons with and without HIV to determine the cost saved by preventing 1 HIV infection. We used a computer simulation model of HIV disease and treatment (CEPAC) to project CD4 cell count, antiretroviral treatment status, and mortality after HIV infection. Annual medical cost estimates for HIV-infected persons, adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and transmission risk group, were from the HIV Research Network (range, 18541854-4545/mo) and for HIV-uninfected persons were from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (range, 7373-628/mo). Results are reported as lifetime medical costs from the US health system perspective discounted at 3% (2012 USD). The estimated discounted lifetime cost for persons who become HIV infected at age 35 is 326,500(60326,500 (60% for antiretroviral medications, 15% for other medications, 25% nondrug costs). For individuals who remain uninfected but at high risk for infection, the discounted lifetime cost estimate is 96,700. The medical cost saved by avoiding 1 HIV infection is 229,800.Thecostsavedwouldreach229,800. The cost saved would reach 338,400 if all HIV-infected individuals presented early and remained in care. Cost savings are higher taking into account secondary infections avoided and lower if HIV infections are temporarily delayed rather than permanently avoided. The economic value of HIV prevention in the United States is substantial given the high cost of HIV disease treatment.
Article
Full-text available
We assessed the effects of syringe exchange program (SEP) policy on rates of HIV risk behavior and HIV incidence among injection drug users. Using a multivariate generalized estimating equation and Cox regression methods, we examined syringe borrowing, syringe lending, and HIV incidence among a prospective cohort of 1228 injection drug users in Vancouver, British Columbia. We observed substantial declines in rates of syringe borrowing (from 20.1% in 1998 to 9.2% in 2003) and syringe lending (from 19.1% in 1998 to 6.8% in 2003) following SEP policy change. These declines coincided with a statistically significant increase in the proportion of participants accessing sterile syringes from nontraditional SEP sources (P < .001). In multivariate analyses, the period following the change in SEP policy was independently associated with a greater than 40% reduction in syringe borrowing (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49, 0.65) and lending (AOR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.45, 0.60), as well as declining HIV incidence (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.13; 95% CI = 0.06, 0.31). Widespread syringe distribution appears to be a more effective SEP policy than do more restrictive SEP policies that limit syringe access. Efforts should be made to ensure that SEP policies and program design serve to maximize rather than hinder syringe access.
Article
Full-text available
This case-control study examined the association between syringe exchange use and hepatitis B and C in injection drug users. Case patients included 28 injection drug users with acute hepatitis B and 20 with acute hepatitis C reported to the health department in a sentinel hepatitis surveillance county; control subjects were injection drug users with no markers of exposure to hepatitis B or C (n = 38 and 26, respectively) attending health department services during the same period. Data were abstracted from clinic records. Seventy-five percent of case patients with hepatitis B and 26% of control subjects had never used the exchange; similar proportions were found for the hepatitis C case and control groups. After adjustment for demographic characteristics and duration of injecting drugs, nonuse of the exchange was associated with a sixfold greater risk of hepatitis B (odds ratio [OR] = 5.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5, 20.4) and a sevenfold greater risk of hepatitis C (OR = 7.3; 95% CI = 1.6, 32.8). The results suggest that use of the exchange led to a significant reduction in hepatitis B and hepatitis C in the county and may have also prevented a substantial proportion of human immunodeficiency virus infections in injection drug users.
Article
Full-text available
There have been no studies showing that participation in programmes which provide legal access to drug-injection equipment leads to individual-level protection against incident HIV infection. We have compared HIV incidence among injecting drug users participating in syringe-exchange programmes in New York City with that among non-participants. We used meta-analytic techniques to combine HIV incidence data from injecting drug users in three studies: the Syringe Exchange Evaluation (n = 280), in which multiple interviews and saliva samples were collected from participants at exchange sites; the Vaccine Preparedness initiative cohort (n = 133 continuing exchanges and 188 non-exchangers, in which participants were interviewed and tested for HIV every 3 months; and very-high-seroprevalence cities in the National AIDS Demonstration Research (NADR) programme (n = 1029), in which street-recruited individuals were interviewed and tested for HIV every 6 months. In practice, participants in the NADR study had not used syringe exchanges. HIV incidence among continuing exchange-users in the Syringe Exchange Evaluation was 1.58 per 100 person-years at risk (95% CI 0.54, 4.65) and among continuing exchange-users in the Vaccine Preparedness Initiative it was 1.38 per 100 person-years at risk (0.23, 4.57). Incidence among non-users of the exchange in the Vaccine Preparedness Initiative was 5.26 per 100 person-years at risk (2.41, 11.49), and in the NADR cities, 6.23 per 100 person-years at risk (4.4, 8.6). In a pooled-data, multivariate proportional-hazards analysis, not using the exchanges was associated with a hazard ratio of 3.35 (95% CI 1.29, 8.65) for incident HIV infection compared with using the exchanges. We observed an individual-level protective effect against HIV infection associated with participation in a syringe-exchange programme. Sterile injection equipment should be legally provided to reduce the risk of HIV infection in persons who inject illicit drugs.
Article
To review the evidence on the effectiveness of harm reduction interventions involving the provision of sterile injecting equipment in the prevention of hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission among injecting drug users (IDUs). The interventions assessed were needle and syringe programmes (NSP), alternative modes of needle/syringe provision (pharmacies, vending machines and outreach) and the provision of injecting equipment other than needles/syringes. Systematic searches of the English language literature to March 2007 were undertaken to identify systematic, narrative or meta-analytical reviews (also known as a review of reviews) of the impact of interventions on HCV transmission, HIV transmission or injecting risk behaviour (IRB). Critical appraisal criteria classified the reviews as either high quality ('core') or supplementary: a framework based on the quality of reviews, the reviewers' conclusions and the designs/findings of the primary studies was used to derive evidence statements. Three core and two supplementary reviews of injecting equipment interventions were identified. According to the proposed framework, this study found (a) insufficient evidence to conclude that any of the interventions are effective in preventing HCV transmission; (b) tentative evidence to support the effectiveness of NSP in preventing HIV transmission; (c) sufficient evidence to support the effectiveness of NSP (and tentative evidence of an additional impact of pharmacy NSP) in reducing self-reported IRB; and (d) little to no evidence on vending machines, outreach or providing other injecting equipment in relation to any of the outcomes. The evidence is weaker than given credit for in the literature. The lack of evidence for effectiveness of NSP vis-à-vis biological outcomes (HCV and HIV incidence/prevalence) reflects the limitations of studies that have been undertaken to investigate these associations. Particularly for HCV, low levels of IRB may be insufficient to reduce high levels of transmission. New studies are required to identify the intervention coverage necessary to achieve sustained changes in blood-borne virus transmission.
Article
The legal needle exchange in New Haven, Connecticut, was signed into law in July 1990. As part of a rigorous effort to evaluate this program, all distributed syringes receive unique tracking codes, and a sample of returned needles are tested for the presence of HIV proviral DNA via polymerase chain reaction. These data, in conjunction with "back-of-the-envelope" statistical models, allow the estimation of HIV prevalence among those intravenous drug users participating in the needle exchange. We present four new techniques for calculating prevalence estimates: the majority rule cutoff model, the random sharing model, the sharing network model, and a version of Kaplan's "needles that kill" model. To our knowledge, these estimates are the first that attempt to infer HIV prevalence among intravenous drug users via syringe tracking and testing. All four techniques suggest a prevalence of infection of approximately 60%.