Despite global reductions in HIV incidence and mortality, the 15 UNAIDS-designated countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) that gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991 constitute the only region where both continue to rise. HIV transmission in EECA is fuelled primarily by injection of opioids, with harsh criminalisation of drug use that has resulted in extraordinarily high levels of incarceration. Consequently, people who inject drugs, including those with HIV, hepatitis C virus, and tuberculosis, are concentrated within prisons. Evidence-based primary and secondary prevention of HIV using opioid agonist therapies such as methadone and buprenorphine is available in prisons in only a handful of EECA countries (methadone or buprenorphine in five countries and needle and syringe programmes in three countries), with none of them meeting recommended coverage levels. Similarly, antiretroviral therapy coverage, especially among people who inject drugs, is markedly under-scaled. Russia completely bans opioid agonist therapies and does not support needle and syringe programmes—with neither available in prisons—despite the country’s high incarceration rate and having the largest burden of people with HIV who inject drugs in the region. Mathematical modelling for Ukraine suggests that high levels of incarceration in EECA countries facilitate HIV transmission among people who inject drugs, with 28–55% of all new HIV infections over the next 15 years predicted to be attributable to heightened HIV transmission risk among currently or previously incarcerated people who inject drugs. Scaling up of opioid agonist therapies within prisons and maintaining treatment after release would yield the greatest HIV transmission reduction in people who inject drugs. Additional analyses also suggest that at least 6% of all incident tuberculosis cases, and 75% of incident tuberculosis cases in people who inject drugs are due to incarceration. Interventions that reduce incarceration itself and effectively intervene with prisoners to screen, diagnose, and treat addiction and HIV, hepatitis C virus, and tuberculosis are urgently needed to stem the multiple overlapping epidemics concentrated in prisons.

Benefits of prison OMT are similar to those in community settings. OMT presents an opportunity to recruit problem opioid users into treatment, to reduce illicit opioid use and risk behaviours in prison and potentially minimize overdose risks on release. If liaison with community-based programmes exists, prison OMT facilitates continuity of treatment and longer-term benefits can be achieved. For prisoners in OMT before imprisonment, prison OMT provides treatment continuity.

In the developed world, the majority of new and existing hepatitis C virus (HCV) infections occur among people who inject drugs (PWID). The burden of HCV-related liver disease in this group is increasing, but treatment uptake among PWID remains low. Among PWID, there are a number of barriers to care that should be considered and systematically addressed, but these barriers should not exclude PWID from HCV treatment. Furthermore, it has been clearly demonstrated that HCV treatment is safe and effective across a broad range of multidisciplinary healthcare settings. Given the burden of HCV-related disease among PWID, strategies to enhance HCV assessment and treatment in this group are urgently needed. These recommendations demonstrate that treatment among PWID is feasible and provides a framework for HCV assessment, management, and treatment. Further research is needed to evaluate strategies to enhance assessment, adherence, and SVR among PWID, particularly as new treatments for HCV infection become available.

Background/Aims: Although the number of patients in opioid substitution treatment (OST) in Germany has increased in recent years, many dependent opioid users remain out of treatment. Project IMPROVE assessed attitudes and beliefs regarding barriers to OST. Methods: Data were collected from opioid-dependent individuals (using self-complete questionnaires) currently in treatment (n = 200) or not in treatment (n = 200), and OST-accredited physicians (using computer-aided telephone interviewing) who currently provided (n = 101) or did not provide OST (n = 51) from different regions in Germany. Results: Key results showed that OST was perceived as valuable and effective by physicians, patients and users but that OST access and provision were inadequate, especially outside of major cities. Conclusion: These findings are consistent with national data indicating a worsening imbalance between patient demand for treatment and the supply of available physicians accredited to provide it. Many physicians and patients were not aware of, or were not utilizing, therapeutic strategies that may help reduce misuse and diversion. Improvements in the regulatory framework for OST, and identifying additional sources of support and training, would encourage more accredited physicians to actively provide treatment and thus help to fully realize the benefits of currently available treatment options.