Xiao Zang1, Williams C Goedel1, Sam E Bessey1, Mark N Lurie1, Sandro Galea2, Alison P Galvani3,4,5, Samuel R Friedman6, Bohdan Nosyk7, Brandon D L Marshall1. 1. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 2. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. 4. Program in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics. 5. School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 6. Department of Population Health, Grossman School of Medicine, New York University, New York City, New York, USA. 7. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite their effectiveness in preventing the transmission of HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID), syringe services programs (SSPs) in many settings are hampered by social and political opposition. We aimed to estimate the impact of closure and temporary interruption of SSP on the HIV epidemic in a rural United States setting. METHODS: Using an agent-based model (ABM) calibrated to observed surveillance data, we simulated HIV risk behaviors and transmission in adult populations who inject and do not inject drugs in Scott County, Indiana. We projected HIV incidence and prevalence between 2020 and 2025 for scenarios with permanent closure, delayed closure (one additional renewal for 24 months before closure), and temporary closure (lasting 12 months) of an SSP in comparison to persistent SSP operation. RESULTS: With sustained SSP operation, we projected an incidence rate of 0.15 per 100 person-years among the overall population (95% simulation interval: 0.06-0.28). Permanently closing the SSP would cause an average of 58.4% increase in the overall incidence rate during 2021-2025, resulting in a higher prevalence of 60.8% (50.9-70.6%) (18.7% increase) among PWID by 2025. A delayed closure would increase the incidence rate by 38.9%. A temporary closure would cause 12 (35.3%) more infections during 2020-2021. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that temporary interruption and permanent closure of existing SSPs operating in rural United States may lead to 'rebound' HIV outbreaks among PWID. To reach and sustain HIV epidemic control, it will be necessary to maintain existing and implement new SSPs in combination with other prevention interventions.
OBJECTIVE: Despite their effectiveness in preventing the transmission of HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID), syringe services programs (SSPs) in many settings are hampered by social and political opposition. We aimed to estimate the impact of closure and temporary interruption of SSP on the HIV epidemic in a rural United States setting. METHODS: Using an agent-based model (ABM) calibrated to observed surveillance data, we simulated HIV risk behaviors and transmission in adult populations who inject and do not inject drugs in Scott County, Indiana. We projected HIV incidence and prevalence between 2020 and 2025 for scenarios with permanent closure, delayed closure (one additional renewal for 24 months before closure), and temporary closure (lasting 12 months) of an SSP in comparison to persistent SSP operation. RESULTS: With sustained SSP operation, we projected an incidence rate of 0.15 per 100 person-years among the overall population (95% simulation interval: 0.06-0.28). Permanently closing the SSP would cause an average of 58.4% increase in the overall incidence rate during 2021-2025, resulting in a higher prevalence of 60.8% (50.9-70.6%) (18.7% increase) among PWID by 2025. A delayed closure would increase the incidence rate by 38.9%. A temporary closure would cause 12 (35.3%) more infections during 2020-2021. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that temporary interruption and permanent closure of existing SSPs operating in rural United States may lead to 'rebound' HIV outbreaks among PWID. To reach and sustain HIV epidemic control, it will be necessary to maintain existing and implement new SSPs in combination with other prevention interventions.
Authors: Andrew Ivsins; Clifton Chow; Scott Macdonald; Tim Stockwell; Kate Vallance; David C Marsh; Warren Michelow; Cameron Duff Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2012-01-26
Authors: William C Goedel; Maximilian R F King; Mark N Lurie; Sandro Galea; Jeffrey P Townsend; Alison P Galvani; Samuel R Friedman; Brandon D L Marshall Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Bruno Ledergerber; Kate Tilling; Rainer Weber; Pedram Sendi; Martin Rickenbach; James M Robins; Matthias Egger Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Jul 30-Aug 5 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Marcelo H Fernández-Viña; Nadya E Prood; Adam Herpolsheimer; Joshua Waimberg; Scott Burris Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Philip J Peters; Pamela Pontones; Karen W Hoover; Monita R Patel; Romeo R Galang; Jessica Shields; Sara J Blosser; Michael W Spiller; Brittany Combs; William M Switzer; Caitlin Conrad; Jessica Gentry; Yury Khudyakov; Dorothy Waterhouse; S Michele Owen; Erika Chapman; Jeremy C Roseberry; Veronica McCants; Paul J Weidle; Dita Broz; Taraz Samandari; Jonathan Mermin; Jennifer Walthall; John T Brooks; Joan M Duwve Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-07-21 Impact factor: 91.245