SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • Buprenorphine;
  • HIV;
  • incarceration;
  • injection drug use;
  • methadone;
  • prison;
  • opioid dependence;
  • opioid substitution therapy;
  • prevention

Larney [1] should be commended for delineating clearly the serious deficits not only in the paucity of available opioid substitution treatment (OST) in prisons, but also on the limited critical evaluation of such programs within the literature to date. The few available studies without significant methodological flaws confirm OST conferring positive public health outcomes by reducing intra-prison injection drug use (IDU) and IDU-related human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk behavior. While this review focused specifically on OST's impact on HIV risk behaviors, the benefit of providing this medically indicated and evidence-based treatment goes well beyond this narrowly defined outcome.

As noted by Larney [1], flawed methodological issues and/or low retention hamper interpretation of existing data which may contribute, in part, to the incredibly poor wide-scale implementation of OST in prison, despite its documentation as an evidence-based treatment outside the criminal justice system. What data might improve current policies to increase provision of OST within prisons? First, HIV risk behaviors within prisons need to be assessed in prisoners on OST who are HIV-infected. Numerous studies document that IDU is correlated with increased HIV incidence in prisons through syringe and needle sharing in several countries, including Thailand [2], Canada [3], the United States [4], Russia, Brazil, Iran, Australia, Lithuania, Russia and the United Kingdom [5]. The limited use of OST among incarcerated populations within the United States is a travesty, given that HIV prevalence is three times greater in incarcerated populations when compared to the community [6], with upwards of 50% meeting DSM-IV criteria for opioid abuse/dependence [7]. The disparity between OST need and implementation is unambiguous, and results in significant public health harm despite both the World Health Organization (WHO) [8] and the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) calling for widespread institution of OST in prison and jail settings [9]. Unfortunately, provision of OST in the criminal justice systems in the United States and elsewhere or the rest of the world has improved little in recent years.

Secondly, HIV risk behaviors should be assessed immediately after prison release in order to avoid reporting bias and incurring criminal sanctions. Thirdly, it is shortsighted to consider only HIV transmission as the primary benefit of OST. It is well documented that prisoners are medically and socially vulnerable immediately upon release. They face homelessness [10], unacceptable rates of overdose and death [11], poor continuity of care and, in the case of HIV, have poor access to continuation of antiretroviral therapy [12], resulting in poor HIV treatment outcomes [13] and increased HIV risk behaviors that may result in the acquisition and transmission of HIV to the uninfected public [14]. Prison release programs often omit OST as relapse prevention because substance abuse is often not perceived as a chronic, relapsing medical condition [15]. OST among released prisoners, however, has been demonstrated to decrease recidivism, relapse to opioid use and IDU-related risk behaviors and improve adherence to antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected individuals [16–18].

Why, then, even with Larney's [1] conclusion that OST reduces intra-prison HIV transmission and international experts recommending wide-scale implementation of OST within prisons, has there been little uptake of OST in prison? Specifically among countries that have the highest HIV prevalence rates among IDUs, only a few notable examples such as Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Moldova, Poland and the United States have allowed limited OST among opioid-dependent prisoners. More concerning is that there has been recent discontinuation of OST in community settings, including Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Kyrgyzstan, due to interruption or reduction in treatment and lack of available supplies [19].

In summary, the lack of implementation of OST in correctional setting should not be predicated only on precise studies confirming reduction of HIV transmission risk while within prison. Its use has many more important benefits. First, the criminal justice system provides an important public health benefit by its ability to routinely screen and systematically implement evidence-based treatments for a number of chronic conditions, including for opioid dependence and HIV. Secondly, it may reduce HIV transmission within prisons. Thirdly, it serves as a conduit to care after release from prison. Fourthly, it reduces the adverse consequences of injection drug use, including overdose both within prison and after release. Wide-scale implementation of OST within prison and jail settings will impact prevention and treatment of HIV infection positively. It is time to translate science into practice through increased provision of OST in prisons. The scientific questions are not ‘should we?’, but ‘what are the best-practice implementation strategies?’.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Acknowledgements
  3. References

Special thanks to Frederick L. Altice MD, Professor of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, Yale AIDS Program for his mentorship during my research career and for his advice and edits of this commentary. Funding for this research was provided by provision of career development award from the National Institute of Drug Abuse (K23 DA019381). The funding source played no role in the study design or interpretation of the data.

Declaration of interest

None.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Acknowledgements
  3. References
  • 1
    Larney S. Does opioid substitution treatment in prisons reduce injecting-related HIV risk behaviours? A systematic review. Addiction 2010; 105: 21623.
  • 2
    Choopanya K., Des Jarlais D. C., Vanichseni S., Kitayaporn D., Mock P. A., Raktham S. et al. Incarceration and risk for HIV infection among injection drug users in Bangkok. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 29: 8694.
  • 3
    Milloy M. J., Wood E., Small W., Tyndall M., Lai C., Montaner J. et al. Incarceration experiences in a cohort of active injection drug users. Drug Alcohol Rev 2008; 27: 6939.
  • 4
    Rich J., Dickinson B., Macalino G., Flanigan T. P., Towe C. W., Spaulding A. et al. Prevalence and incidence of HIV among incarcerated and reincarcerated women in Rhode Island. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1999; 22: 1616.
  • 5
    Jurgens R., Ball A., Verster A. Interventions to reduce HIV transmission related to injecting drug use in prison. Lancet Infect Dis 2009; 9: 5766.
  • 6
    Marushak L., Beavers R. HIV in Prisons, 2007–2008. Bureau of Justice Statistics. US Department of Justice. Washington, D.C.: Office of Justice Program; 2009. Available from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1747 (accessed 20 December 2009).
  • 7
    Peters R. H., Greenbaum P. E., Edens J. F., Carter C. R., Ortiz M. M. Prevalence of DSM-IV substance abuse and dependence disorders among prison inmates. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 1998; 24: 57387.
  • 8
    World Health Organization, United Nations Office On Drugs and Crime & and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. Joint Position Paper on Substitution Maintenance Therapy in the Management of Opioid Dependence and HIV/AIDS Prevention. Geneva: WHO; 2004.
  • 9
    Chandler R. K., Fletcher B. W., Volkow N. D. Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system: improving public health and safety. JAMA 2009; 301: 18390.
  • 10
    Kushel M. B., Hahn J. A., Evans J. L., Bangsberg D. R., Moss A. R. Revolving doors: imprisonment among the homeless and marginally housed population. Am J Public Health 2005; 95: 174752.
  • 11
    Binswanger I. A., Stern M. F., Deyo R. A., Heagerty P. J., Cheadle A., Elmore J. G. et al. Release from prison—a high risk of death for former inmates. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 15765.
  • 12
    Baillargeon J., Giordano T. P., Rich J. D., Wu Z. H., Wells K., Pollock B. H. et al. Accessing antiretroviral therapy following release from prison. JAMA 2009; 301: 84857.
  • 13
    Springer S. A., Pesanti E., Hodges J., Macura T., Doros G., Altice F. L. Effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy among HIV-infected prisoners: reincarceration and the lack of sustained benefit after release to the community. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 38: 175460.
  • 14
    Stephenson B. L., Wohl D. A., McKaig R., Golin C. E., Shain L., Adamian M. et al. Sexual behaviours of HIV-seropositive men and women following release from prison. Int J STD AIDS 2006; 17: 1038.
  • 15
    Springer S. A., Bruce R. D. A pilot survey of attitudes and knowledge about opioid substitution therapy for HIV-infected prisoners. J Opioid Manage 2008; 4: 816.
  • 16
    Levasseur L., Marzo J., Ross N., Blatier C. Frequency of re-incarcerations in the same detention center: role of substitution therapy. A preliminary retrospective analysis. Annal Med Interne (Paris) 2002; 153(3 Suppl): 1S1419.
  • 17
    Garcia C., Correa G., Hernandez-Viver A., Kinlock T. W., Gordon M. S., Avila C. A. et al. Buprenorphine–naloxone treatment for pre-release opioid-dependent inmates in Puerto Rico. J Addict Med 2007; 1: 12632.
  • 18
    Kinlock T. W., Gordon M. S., Schwartz R. P., O'Grady K. E. A study of methadone maintenance for male prisoners: 3-month postrelease outcomes. Crim Justice Behav 2008; 35: 3447.
  • 19
    International Harm Reduction Development Program (IHRD) of the Open Society Institute (OSI). Barriers to access: medication-assisted treatment and injection-driven HIV epidemics. In: Open Society Institute (OSI), editor. New York, NY: Open Society Institute; 2008, pp. 15. Available at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/health/focus/ihrd/articles_publications/publications/barriers_20080215/barriersfootnotes040808.pdf (accessed).