No abstract

BackgroundWe conducted a cross-sectional integrated bio-behavioral survey among sex partners of persons who inject drugs (PWID) to explore reasons for reported increase in reporting of heterosexually transmitted HIV in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.MethodsSexual partners of PWID were recruited through PWID. Behavioral data were collected through semi-structured interviews. Dried blood spots were obtained and tested for HIV and hepatitis C virus antibodies (HCVAb). Descriptive univariate and bivariate analyses, and multivariate analyses using logistic regression modeling were performed to identify factors associated with HIV and HCV infections.ResultsAmong 1982 sex partners of PWID, overall HIV prevalence was 6.4%; 5.1% and 12.9% among those reported never and ever injecting drugs, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, HCVAb prevalence was 21.3%; 15.0% and 53.9% among those reported never and ever injecting drugs, respectively (p < 0.001). Of HCV-positive participants, 58% and 34% (p < 0.001) reported prior history of injecting drug use among men and women, respectively. HIV prevalence was lower among HCV-negative (4.2%) compared to HCV-positive participants (14.4%) (p < 0.001). HIV prevalence was 3.5% (95%CI = 2.4–4.6) in a subset of female participants with no reported prior injecting drug use history and who were HCVAb-negative and did not report having an HIV-positive sex partner. Participant sex and number of sex partners as well as use of condoms in the past 12 months were not associated with HIV seropositivity.ConclusionsHigh prevalence of HCV among sex partners of PWID who denied ever injecting drugs suggests underreporting of injecting practices. The increased attribution of HIV infection to sexual transmission based on self-report may be partly explained by underreporting of injection drug use due to stigmatization of this behavior.

Background The Georgia Ministry of Labor, Health, and Social Affairs is working to strengthen its Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Program, but until recently has lacked an assessment of performance gaps and implementation challenges faced by hospital staff. Methods In 2018, health care hospitals were assessed using a World Health Organization (WHO) adapted tool aimed at implementing the WHO’s IPC Core Components. The study included site assessments at 41 of Georgia’s 273 hospitals, followed by structured interviews with 109 hospital staff, validation observations of IPC practices, and follow up document reviews. Results IPC programs for all hospitals were not comprehensive, with many lacking defined objectives, workplans, targets, and budget. All hospitals had at least one dedicated IPC staff member, 66% of hospitals had IPC staff with some formal IPC training; 78% of hospitals had IPC guidelines; and 55% had facility-specific standard operating procedures. None of the hospitals conducted structured monitoring of IPC compliance and only 44% of hospitals used IPC monitoring results to make unit/facility-specific IPC improvement plans. 54% of hospitals had clearly defined priority healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), standard case definitions and data collection methods in their HAI surveillance systems. 85% hospitals had access to a microbiology laboratory. All reported having posters or other tools to promote hand hygiene, 29% had them for injection safety. 68% of hospitals had functioning hand-hygiene stations available at all points of care. 88% had single patient isolation rooms; 15% also had rooms for cohorting patients. 71% reported having appropriate waste management system. Conclusions Among the recommended WHO IPC core components, existing programs, infrastructure, IPC staffing, workload and supplies present within Georgian healthcare hospitals should allow for implementation of effective IPC. Development and dissemination of IPC Guidelines, implementation of an effective IPC training system and systematic monitoring of IPC practices will be an important first step towards implementing targeted IPC improvement plans in hospitals.

Study Aims. Evaluate the quality and effectiveness of the medication-assisted therapy (MAT) pilot in Kazakhstan and review implementation context and related challenges. Methods. We performed a desk review of MAT policy and program documents and reviewed medical records at three MAT sites in Kazakhstan. MAT patients (n = 93) were interviewed to assess their perceptions of the program and its impact on their health, criminal, drug use, and HIV risk related behaviors as well as expenditures on nonprescribed psychoactive drugs. Persons injecting drugs who are not in treatment, MAT program staff, and other stakeholders were interviewed to obtain their perspectives on MAT. Results. Legislation supports introducing MAT as a standard of care for treatment of opioid dependence; however, its progress has been hampered by active opposition. Inadequate access and coverage, insufficient supply management, scarce infrastructure of narcological facilities, limited opportunities for staff development, and restrictive methadone dispensing policies compromise the quality of the intervention and limit its potential benefits. There were significant reductions in criminal, drug use, and HIV risk related behaviors in patients receiving MAT. Conclusions. The MAT pilot in Kazakhstan demonstrated its feasibility and effectiveness in the local context and is recommended for scaleup throughout the country.

No abstract