Statistical Table 12: Prevalence of HIV infection (%) among injecting drug users in the EU and Norway (sample sizes in brackets)

Transcription

1 version Statistical Table 2: Prevalence of HIV infection (% among injecting drug users in the EU and Norway (sample sizes in brackets HIV - total Belgium, French Community / 6. ( ( (255.3 ( ( ( (27 3. (28 SR centres; selfreported test results. Belgium, French Community - Lantin Belgium, French Community - Namur 0.0 (26.2 ( ( (573 Prison; serum, tests on demand, prisoners, IDU status unknown prevalence may be too low. Prison; screening saliva. 6 9 Belgium, Flemish Community 0.8 ( ( (86.2 (6.7 (8 ; 2 Belgium, Flemish Community.9 (373.9 (628, low-threshold and hospitals. 50% missing data. 3

2 Belgium, Flemish Community Belgium, Flemish Community - Antwerp / 0.6 (n.a. 0.3 ( (254 Prisons, serum, screening. All prisoners, IDU status unknown prevalence may be too low., needle exchange, 7 8 Belgium, Flemish Community 2.2 (225 6 sites: hospitals, drug treatment, street; screening 3 Belgium, French Community - Charleroi.6 ( (228 General practitioners; 0

3 / Denmark, 0.0 (343 centres, prison; Denmark, Copenhagen 3.4 (265 centres, serum; current 2

4 / Germany, 3.8 (795 Germany, Köln-Ossendorf.4 ( ( (225 SR reporting system; self-reported test results; in 2000: 46% not tested or unknown test result; selection changed in prison; screening saliva; data 997/98., 3 8 Germany, 3.3 (2030 Overdose deaths; autopsy rates vary considerably between federal states (25-00%. 7

5 / Greece, 2.2 (626 /SR ; self-reported test results. Greece, 0.0 (286 2 Greece, Athens 0.0 (30 /SR Prisons; selfreported test results.

6 excluding communities of Madrid and La Rioja / 38.4 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (608 0 sites; STD clinics and HIV testing centres., 2 26 excluding Galicia 32 (266 Survey of drug treatment centres. 3.3 (559? Prospective study in 8 HIV testing centres; first and follow-up visits ( ( (32 Unlinked anonymous testing in 7 STI clinics ( ( HIV testing 28 Seville. (27 HIV testing centres; Data

7 Gijón /.9 (53 HIV testing centres; Data Tenerife 25.6 (43 HIV testing centres; data Santander 5.4 (2 HIV testing centres; Data Barcelona 9. (77 HIV testing centres; Data Madrid (Sandoval 9.3 (398 HIV testing centres; Data Bilbao 4.9 (4 HIV testing centres; Data San Sebastián 3.0 (67 HIV testing centres; Data

8 Castellón / 25.0 (296 HIV testing centres; Data Alicante 7.0 (298 HIV testing centres; Data Valencia 8. (49 HIV testing centres; Data Cataluña 43.6 ( ( ( ( ( (246 IDUs starting detoxification treatment. 25 Barcelona 2.3 (227 2 Hospitals; Data IDUs who started injecting after Barcelona 50.0 ( ( (300 Street recruited study; screening saliva. IDUs not in treatment last 3 months. 25

9 Barcelona / 46.2 (247 / Recruitment in and out of drug treatment centres. 3 Bilbao Bask country 46 ( (9 47 (04 SR?? Needle exchange; self-reported test results; 90.6% (998 and 93.3% (2000 had been tested. Testing of used syringes in syringe exchange programmes Bask country 37.3 (37 SR Syringe exchange 27 programmes; selfreported test restults; 86.2% had been tested. Pamplona 23.4 (47?? Prison; screening saliva. 4 Madrid 39.6 (22 / Recruitment in and out of drug treatment centres. 3

10 Madrid / 4 (42 SR Needle exchanges; IDUs who attended less than 5 times; self-reported test results. 27 Seville 47. (55 / Recruitment in and out of drug treatment centres. 3 Seville 34 (2 SR Needle exchanges; IDUs who attended less than 5 times; self-reported test results. 27 Valencia 42 (87 SR Needle exchanges; IDUs who attended less than 5 times; self-reported test results. 27

11 / France, 23 (n.a. France, 22.3 ( ( (n.a. 4.7 (243 8 (n.a. 3.9 ( ( ( ( (8339 SR SR centres; selfreported test results; sample sizes around centres inpatient care; self-reported test results. France, 9.4 (894 SR Needle exchanges; self-reported test results. 3 France, Bordeaux Cayenne Dijon Fort-de France Lille Lyon Marseille Paris Renne La Reunion Toulouse France, Tarascon 3.3 ( (350 SR SR Needle exchanges, 4 low threshold services; selfreported test results. Prison for males; self-reported test results and saliva. 5 France, Toulouse 6.6 (27 7 sites. Hospitals, 3 drug treatment centers, prisons, needle exchange, other; saliva or selfreported test results.

12 France, Toulouse France, Lille / 7.8 ( (43 SR SR centers, low threshold service, prisons, arrests, GPs; self-reported test results. 43.6% unknown status. centers, low threshold service, prisons, arrests, GPs; self-reported test results. 67.6% unknown status. 4 4

13 / Ireland,.5 (267 Ireland, 0.9 ( (509 Centre Trinity Court; first attendees ; screening serum, ever- Prison inmates; screening saliva, ever- 4 Ireland, 5.8 (73 Prison entrants; screening saliva, ever- 2 Ireland, Eastern Regional Health Authority Ireland, Dublin Ireland, Dublin 8.4 ( ( (344 Survey GPs: 5 methadone clients, laboratory reports or clinical notes; 3.6% (78/57 non-idus, 40% (227/57 missing HIV status. Five drug treatment 6 centers: methadone clients, laboratory reports or clinical notes; serum; may include non- 9 centres and nontreatment sources; screening serum and saliva.

14 Ireland, Dublin / 4.8 (8 One needle exchange; screening saliva.

15 23.6 ( / 23.0 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (7769 serum; 5-0% non- Sardegna 5.7 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (889 serum; 5-0% non- Sardegna Sicilia 8.4 (274.3 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (456 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3 Sicilia Calabria 24.0 ( ( ( ( (682 9 ( ( ( ( ( (899 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3

16 Calabria Basilicata / 4.3 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (475.5 ( (45 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3 Puglia 0.8 ( ( ( ( (626 8 ( ( ( ( (5505 serum; 5-0% non- Campania 5.0 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (96 serum; 5-0% non- Campania Molise 5.2 (5 7.8 (4 6.5 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (38 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3 Abruzzo 9.6 ( ( ( (360 7 ( ( ( ( ( (232 serum; 5-0% non-

17 Lazio / 30. ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (425 serum; 5-0% non- Lazio Marche 23.2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (220 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3 Marche Umbria 2.5 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (397 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3 Toscana 20.9 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (470 serum; 5-0% non-

18 Toscana Emilia Romagna / 34.2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (3343 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3 Emilia Romagna Liguria 33.3 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (2579 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3 Liguria Friuli 3.3 (230. ( ( (537.5 ( ( ( ( ( ( (70 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3

19 Friuli Veneto / 4.7 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (563 centres; sample study in 2 regions; data are for ; screening serum; 5-0% non- 3 Trentino 5.8 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (374 serum; 5-0% non- Trento 4.2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (32 serum; 5-0% non- Bolzano 7.3 (542 8 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (53 serum; 5-0% non- Lombardia 39.2 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (4670 serum; 5-0% non- Valle d Aosta 2.7 ( ( (2 3. (254.2 (285.2 ( (75.7 ( (66 2. (97 serum; 5-0% non-

20 Piemonte / 9. ( ( ( ( ( (748.6 ( ( ( (6969 serum; 5-0% non- 5.5 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (32 STD clinics; 2 Cagliari 6. (80?? 8

21 / Luxembourg, 6.86 ( ( ( ( ( (205 SR centers, low threshold, hospitals, police; self-reported test results., 3 Luxembourg, 4.3 (6 Prison study; screening saliva. 4

22 Netherlands, Amsterdam / 25.6 ( (97 Low threshold services and street; screening saliva., 5 Netherlands, Utrecht 5. (96 centres, low threshold services and methadone post; screening saliva. 7 Netherlands, Zuid-Limburg region; Heerlen and Maastricht Netherlands, Heerlen Netherlands, Rotterdam 9.7 (340.6 (492.8 ( ( ( ( (6 centres, needle exchanges, low threshold services, methadone post, street prostitution project, street and via other IDUs; (994/96 saliva, 999 serum. centres, needle exchanges, low threshold services, methadone post, street prostitution project, street and via other IDUs; (994/96 saliva, 999 serum. centers, methadone post and street; screening saliva. 6,, 4 6, 5, 0

23 Netherlands, Arnhem / 2.2 ( ( (27 Methadone care, low threshold services, street and street prostitution; screening saliva. 2, 2, 3 Netherlands, Groningen 0.5 (96 centres, low threshold services and methadone post; screening saliva. 4 Netherlands, Noord-Brabant region (Eindhoven/ Helmond/ s- Hertogenbosch 4.6 (30 centres and methadone post; screening saliva. 3 Netherlands, Twente region (Almelo/ Enschede/ Hengelo 2.5 (79 saliva. 8 Netherlands, The Hague.9 (2 centres, needle exchanges, low threshold services; 9 Netherlands, Deventer 0.0 (69 Snowball sampling, street, lowthreshold, drug treatment centers; screening saliva. 6

24 Norway, Region East Norway, Bergen / 4.6 (4 3.0 (99 Methadone assisted rehabilitation. Data may be upward biased due to programme for HIV patients. Methadone assisted rehabilitation. Norway, Trondheim 6.7 (60 Methadone assisted rehabilitation.

25 Austria, / 2.3 (3 5.6 ( ( (78 3. (95.4 (4 0.9 (7 4.4 ( ( (39 Overdose deaths and/or non-fatal emergencies; Austria, Vienna Lower Austria 0.0 ( (66 4 Austria, Vienna 5.4 ( (58.6 ( ( (74.8 (4 2.0 (00 2. ( (25.3 (53 Needle exchange and low threshold services; screening 3 Austria, Vorarlberg 0.0 ( ( ( ( ( (34 Inpatient drug treatment centres; 2

26 / 9.9 (586.9 ( ( ( (n.a. 8.0 (n.a. 4.5 ( ( ( ( ( (2694 centres, first treatments; IDU status unknown prevalence may be too low. centres, therapeutic communities; IDU status unknown prevalence may be too low. centres, detoxification units; IDU status unknown prevalence may be too low. centres, IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low Lisbon Lisbon 56.0 ( ( (728 0 centres, first treatments; IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. Low threshold 20 services? IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low (data

27 Lisbon- Xabregas / 9.4 (408 centres, IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. 8 Lisbon - Xabregas 2.2 ( (8 9.4 (06 Lisbon-Taipas 7.3 (358 centres; IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. 8 Lisbon - Taipas 4.3 (46 7 Lisbon Casal Ventoso North region 48.0 ( ( (877 Low threshold 4 services in high problem area, data 998/99; IDU status unknown prevalence may be too low, 0 centres, first treatments; IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low.

28 Porto Porto /.5 (46 centres; IDU and/or inhaled, IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. 0 (2 8 3 Porto Boavista 29.2 (606 3 Central Region 9.2 ( ( (06 6. (908 0 centres, first treatments; IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. 2 centres, public health laboratory and pregnant IDUs; Évora 30.8 (39 6

29 Santarém / 37.0 (73 7 Sintra 25.0 (24 7 Algarve 5.4 ( (9 4.3 (4 0 (2 3.6 (9 5.4 (3 2.4 (4 Algarve Alentejo Lisbon Porto Leiria 28. ( ( ( (9 0.8 (37 0 centres, first treatments; IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. 0 centres, first treatments; IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. 3 Prisons, one in five 5 sampling of volunteers, screening saliva.

30 Setúbal / 33.8 (254 centres; data Setúbal 67.0 (42 centres; IDU and/or inhaled, IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low; data

31 / Finland,.4 (46 Overdose deaths; Finland, Finland, 0.9 ( (24 Traffic offence with suspected drug abuse; IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. screening Prisons; screening saliva. Finland, 2.4 ( (56 Prisons, screening serum rapid test. IDU status unknown, prevalence may be too low. Finland, Helsinki 6.7 ( (388.5 (65 Needle exchanges;, 8 Finland, Helsinki 3.0 ( (59.0 (22 Needle exchanges; screening saliva., 8

32 Finland, Tampere / 0.0 ( (376 Needle exchange; Finland, Vantaa 0.0 ( ( (227 Needle exchanges;, 8 Finland, Vantaa.3 ( (84 Needle exchanges; screening saliva., 8

33 Sweden, / 2.6 (96 Study in nine Prisons; screening saliva. Sweden, Stockholm 5.2 (562 Prisons. 7 Sweden, Stockholm 4.0 (93 Remand prison and hospital; screening; 6% nonparticipation. 2

34 UK, England and Wales /.6 ( (34. (342.4 ( ( ( ( ( ( (2855 centres, needle exchanges, low threshold services, primary care and outreach; screening saliva. UK, England 0.5 (775 Prisons, ever IDUs, screening saliva. 4 UK, England and Wales excluding London 0.7 ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (2340 centres, needle exchanges, low threshold services, primary care and outreach; screening saliva. UK, England and Wales excluding London.2 (509 Community surveys; current IDUs; screening saliva. 2, 3 UK, London 7.0 ( ( ( (593.0 ( ( ( ( ( (55 centres, needle exchanges, low threshold services, primary care and outreach; screening saliva.

35 UK, London /.0 (200 Community survey, 7 female current IDUs; screening saliva. UK, London 3.3 (244 Community surveys; current IDUs; screening saliva. 2, 3 UK, Scotland UK, Scotland Greater Glasgow UK, Scotland Lothian (Edinburgh UK, Scotland Tayside (Dundee.5 (454.3 ( ( (77.55 (487.6 ( ( ( ( (73.8 ( ( ( (866.0 ( ( ( ( ( (253 Named HIV tests; first positive HIV test, screening serum, denominators estimated separately. Named HIV tests; first positive HIV test, screening serum, denominators estimated separately. Named HIV tests; first positive HIV test, screening serum, denominators estimated separately. Named HIV tests; first positive HIV test, screening serum, denominators estimated separately

36 UK, Scotland Rural Tayside / 3.7 (54 Multisite sampling: drug treatment services, street and other. Data UK, Scotland Dundee city 26.8 (98 Multisite sampling: drug treatment services, street and other. Data Notes:. Sample size is the number of positive plus negative tests (total valid tests. Prevalence is number positive divided by total valid tests, excluding missing values. Prevalence from sample size under 50 is not reliable. 2. Self-reported test results are less reliable than biological test results. Prevalence is number reporting a positive test result divided by the number reporting a positive or negative result. 3. Having health problems is one selection criterion for admission to drug treatment in some countries or cities (Greece, Rome, due to long waiting lists or special programmes for infected IDUs, this may result in upward bias of prevalence. Prevalence from treatment data should therefore be interpreted in combination with non-treatment data. 4. Data sources with no information on injecting status were excluded as far as possible, as such prevalence can severely underestimate prevalence among injectors in the same source. Some such sources were however included if samples were large or they provided trends over time, in which case it is indicated that injecting status is unknown and prevalence among injectors may be underestimated. * See Box 6 OL: Data sources prevalence ( for details of sources. **=diagnostic testing; =specific prevalence study; SR=prevalence study based on self-reported test results Part of these data were kindly provided by EuroHIV.

37