Dimitri Prybylski1, Chomnad Manopaiboon2, Prin Visavakum2, Kovit Yongvanitjit3, Apinun Aramrattana4, Parnrudee Manomaipiboon3, Suvimon Tanpradech2, Orapin Suksripanich2, Sarika Pattanasin2, Mitchell Wolfe5, Sara J Whitehead5. 1. Thailand MOPH - U.S. CDC Collaboration, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand; Division of Global HIV/AIDS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, 30333, USA. Electronic address: hjt1@cdc.gov. 2. Thailand MOPH - U.S. CDC Collaboration, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand. 3. Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, Bangkok 10200, Thailand. 4. Research Institute for Health Sciences, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 5. Thailand MOPH - U.S. CDC Collaboration, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailand; Division of Global HIV/AIDS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, 30333, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Thailand's long-standing HIV sero-sentinel surveillance system for people who inject drugs (PWID) is confined to those in methadone-based drug treatment clinics and representative data are scarce, especially outside of Bangkok. METHODS: We conducted probability-based respondent-driven sampling (RDS) surveys in Bangkok (n=738) and Chiang Mai (n=309) to increase understanding of local HIV epidemics and to better inform the planning of evidence-based interventions. RESULTS: PWID had different epidemiological profiles in these two cities. Overall HIV prevalence was higher in Bangkok (23.6% vs. 10.9%, p<0.001) but PWID in Bangkok are older and appear to have long-standing HIV infections. In Chiang Mai, HIV infections appear to be more recently acquired and PWID were younger and had higher levels of recent injecting and sexual risk behaviors with lower levels of intervention exposure. Methamphetamine was the predominant drug injected in both sites and polydrug use was common although levels and patterns of the specific drugs injected varied significantly between the sites. In multivariate analysis, recent midazolam injection was significantly associated with HIV infection in Chiang Mai (adjusted odds ratio=8.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.2-54.5) whereas in Bangkok HIV status was not associated with recent risk behaviors as infections had likely been acquired in the past. CONCLUSION: PWID epidemics in Thailand are heterogeneous and driven by local factors. There is a need to customize intervention strategies for PWID in different settings and to integrate population-based survey methods such as RDS into routine surveillance to monitor the national response. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
BACKGROUND: Thailand's long-standing HIV sero-sentinel surveillance system for people who inject drugs (PWID) is confined to those in methadone-based drug treatment clinics and representative data are scarce, especially outside of Bangkok. METHODS: We conducted probability-based respondent-driven sampling (RDS) surveys in Bangkok (n=738) and Chiang Mai (n=309) to increase understanding of local HIV epidemics and to better inform the planning of evidence-based interventions. RESULTS: PWID had different epidemiological profiles in these two cities. Overall HIV prevalence was higher in Bangkok (23.6% vs. 10.9%, p<0.001) but PWID in Bangkok are older and appear to have long-standing HIV infections. In Chiang Mai, HIV infections appear to be more recently acquired and PWID were younger and had higher levels of recent injecting and sexual risk behaviors with lower levels of intervention exposure. Methamphetamine was the predominant drug injected in both sites and polydrug use was common although levels and patterns of the specific drugs injected varied significantly between the sites. In multivariate analysis, recent midazolam injection was significantly associated with HIV infection in Chiang Mai (adjusted odds ratio=8.1; 95% confidence interval: 1.2-54.5) whereas in Bangkok HIV status was not associated with recent risk behaviors as infections had likely been acquired in the past. CONCLUSION: PWID epidemics in Thailand are heterogeneous and driven by local factors. There is a need to customize intervention strategies for PWID in different settings and to integrate population-based survey methods such as RDS into routine surveillance to monitor the national response. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.
Entities:
Keywords:
HIV; People who inject drugs; Respondent-driven sampling; Risk behaviors; Thailand
Authors: Nadia Fairbairn; Thomas Kerr; Jane A Buxton; Kathy Li; Julio S Montaner; Evan Wood Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: B G Weniger; K Limpakarnjanarat; K Ungchusak; S Thanprasertsuk; K Choopanya; S Vanichseni; T Uneklabh; P Thongcharoen; C Wasi Journal: AIDS Date: 1991 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Louisa Degenhardt; Bradley Mathers; Mauro Guarinieri; Samiran Panda; Benjamin Phillips; Steffanie A Strathdee; Mark Tyndall; Lucas Wiessing; Alex Wodak; John Howard Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2010-02-01
Authors: Punnee Pitisuttithum; Peter Gilbert; Marc Gurwith; William Heyward; Michael Martin; Fritz van Griensven; Dale Hu; Jordan W Tappero; Kachit Choopanya Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2006-11-03 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: C Beyrer; M H Razak; J Jittiwutikarn; V Suriyanon; T Vongchak; N Srirak; S Kawichai; S Tovanabutra; K Rungruengthanakit; P Sawanpanyalert; T Sripaipan; D D Celentano Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 1.359
Authors: Nittaya Phanuphak; Ying-Ru Lo; Yiming Shao; Sunil Suhas Solomon; Robert J O'Connell; Sodsai Tovanabutra; David Chang; Jerome H Kim; Jean Louis Excler Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2015-06-24 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Michael Martin; Suphak Vanichseni; Udomsak Sangkum; Philip A Mock; Manoj Leethochawalit; Sithisat Chiamwongpaet; Punnee Pitisuttithum; Jaranit Kaewkungwal; Frits van Griensven; Janet M McNicholl; Jordan W Tappero; Timothy D Mastro; Somyot Kittimunkong; Kachit Choopanya Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2019-04-01
Authors: Myrtille Prouté; Sophie Le Coeur; Métrey H Tiv; Timothée Dub; Parinya Jongpaijitsakul; Anantika Ratnamhin; Chaisiri Angkurawaranon; Apinun Aramrattana; Marc Lallemant Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.295