Correlates of Intimate Partner Violence, Including Psychological Partner Violence, in a Multisite U.S. Cohort of People in HIV Care.

We examined past-year intimate partner violence (IPV), including psychological violence without physical/sexual violence, and health outcomes among people with HIV (PWH) in care in a multi-site U.S. cohort. Between 2016 and 2022, PWH reported 12-month psychological, physical, and sexual IPV in a routine assessment. We used linear and logistic regression models adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, and site to examine relationships with health outcomes. Among 9748 PWH (median age 50 years, 81% cisgender male/16% cisgender female/1% transgender female; 44% non-Hispanic white/36% non-Hispanic Black/15% Hispanic), 9.3% (n = 905) reported any IPV in the past 12 months; half reported psychological IPV without physical/sexual IPV (n = 453). PWH reporting any type of IPV were on average younger than those who did not experience IPV. In adjusted models, any IPV was associated with increased likelihood of unstable housing, HIV viral load detection (HIV viral load ≥ 75 copies/mL), moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms, anxiety with panic symptoms, substance use (methamphetamines, cocaine/crack, illicit opioids, marijuana, heavy episodic/hazardous drinking), and concern about exposure to sexually transmitted infection. PWH reporting any IPV in the past 12 months had 4.2% lower adherence to antiretroviral therapy, 2.4 more HIV-related symptoms, a 1.9 point higher HIV stigma score, and a 9.5% lower quality of life score than those without IPV. We found similar associations among PWH reporting only psychological IPV, without physical/sexual IPV. IPV was common among PWH. Half reporting IPV reported only psychological IPV and had similarly poor outcomes as those reporting physical/sexual IPV, demonstrating the need to assess psychological as well as physical and sexual IPV.

RESUMEN: Examinamos la violencia de la pareja íntima (intimate partner violence, IPV) del año anterior, incluida la violencia psicológica sin violencia física y sexual, así como los resultados sanitarios entre las personas con VIH (people with HIV, PWH) que reciben atención en una cohorte multicéntrica de los Estados Unidos. Entre 2016 y 2022, las PWH informaron situaciones de IPV psicológica, física y sexual durante los 12 meses en una evaluación de rutina. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión lineal y logística ajustados por edad, raza/etnia y centro para examinar las relaciones con los resultados sanitarios. Entre 9748 PWH (mediana de edad de 50 años, 81% de hombres cisgénero/16% de mujeres cisgénero/1% de mujeres transgénero; 44% de blancos no hispanos/36% de negros no hispanos/15% de hispanos), el 9,3% (n = 905) informaron haber sufrido algún tipo de IPV en los últimos 12 meses; la mitad informó situaciones de IPV psicológica sin IPV física y sexual (n = 453). Las PWH que informaron de cualquier tipo de IPV fueron, en promedio, más jóvenes que las que no sufrieron IPV. En los modelos ajustados, cualquier IPV se asoció con una mayor probabilidad de vivienda inestable, detección de carga viral del VIH (carga viral del VIH ≥ 75 copias/ml), síntomas depresivos de moderados a graves, ansiedad con síntomas de pánico, consumo de sustancias (metanfetaminas, cocaína/crack, opioides ilícitos, marihuana, consumo excesivo episódico/peligroso de alcohol) y preocupación por la exposición a infecciones de transmisión sexual. Las PWH que informaron alguna situación de IPV en los últimos 12 meses tuvieron un 4,2% menos de cumplimiento de la terapia antirretrovírica, un 2,4% más de síntomas relacionados con el VIH, una puntuación de estigma del VIH 1,9 puntos más alta y una puntuación de calidad de vida un 9,5% más baja que las que no sufrieron IPV. Se encontraron asociaciones similares entre las PWH que informaron solo IPV psicológica, sin IPV física y sexual. La IPV fue común entre las PWH. La mitad de las personas que informaron IPV solo informaron IPV psicológica y tuvieron resultados igualmente deficientes que los que informaron IPV física y sexual, lo que demuestra la necesidad de evaluar la IPV psicológica, al igual que la IPV física y sexual.

Alcohol and drug use severity are independently associated with antiretroviral adherence in the current treatment era.

Substance use in people with HIV (PWH) negatively impacts antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence. However, less is known about this in the current treatment era and the impact of specific substances or severity of substance use. We examined the associations of alcohol, marijuana, and illicit drug use (methamphetamine/crystal, cocaine/crack, illicit opioids/heroin) and their severity of use with adherence using multivariable linear regression in adult PWH in care between 2016 and 2020 at 8 sites across the US. PWH completed assessments of alcohol use severity (AUDIT-C), drug use severity (modified ASSIST), and ART adherence (visual analogue scale). Among 9400 PWH, 16% reported current hazardous alcohol use, 31% current marijuana use, and 15% current use of ≥1 illicit drugs. In multivariable analysis, current methamphetamine/crystal use, particularly common among men who had sex with men, was associated with 10.1% lower mean ART adherence (p < 0.001) and 2.6% lower adherence per 5-point higher severity of use (ASSIST score) (p < 0.001). Current and more severe use of alcohol, marijuana, and other illicit drugs were also associated with lower adherence in a dose-dependent manner. In the current HIV treatment era, individualized substance use treatment, especially for methamphetamine/crystal, and ART adherence should be prioritized.

Motivation and context of concurrent stimulant and opioid use among persons who use drugs in the rural United States: a multi-site qualitative inquiry.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, stimulant use has increased among persons who use opioids in the rural U.S., leading to high rates of overdose and death. We sought to understand motivations and contexts for stimulant use among persons who use opioids in a large, geographically diverse sample of persons who use drugs (PWUD) in the rural settings. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured individual interviews with PWUD at 8 U.S. sites spanning 10 states and 65 counties. Content areas included general substance use, injection drug use, changes in drug use, and harm reduction practices. We used an iterative open-coding process to comprehensively itemize and categorize content shared by participants related to concurrent use. RESULTS: We interviewed 349 PWUD (64% male, mean age 36). Of those discussing current use of stimulants in the context of opioid use (n = 137, 39%), the stimulant most used was methamphetamine (78%) followed by cocaine/crack (26%). Motivations for co-use included: 1) change in drug markets and cost considerations; 2) recreational goals, e.g., seeking stronger effects after heightened opioid tolerance; 3) practical goals, such as a desire to balance or alleviate the effects of the other drug, including the use of stimulants to avoid/reverse opioid overdose, and/or control symptoms of opioid withdrawal; and 4) functional goals, such as being simultaneously energized and pain-free in order to remain productive for employment. CONCLUSION: In a rural U.S. cohort of PWUD, use of both stimulants and opioids was highly prevalent. Reasons for dual use found in the rural context compared to urban studies included changes in drug availability, functional/productivity goals, and the use of methamphetamine to offset opioid overdose. Education efforts and harm reduction services and treatment, such as access to naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and accessible drug treatment for combined opioid and stimulant use, are urgently needed in the rural U.S. to reduce overdose and other adverse outcomes.

Barriers to opioid use disorder treatment among people who use drugs in the rural United States: A qualitative, multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: In 2020, 2.8 million people required substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in nonmetropolitan or 'rural' areas in the U.S. Among this population, only 10% received SUD treatment from a specialty facility, and 1 in 500 received medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). We explored the context surrounding barriers to SUD treatment in the rural United States. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews from 2018 to 2019 to assess barriers to SUD treatment among people who use drugs (PWUD) across seven rural U.S. study sites. Using the social-ecological model (SEM), we examined individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy factors contributing to perceived barriers to SUD treatment. We employed deductive and inductive coding and analytical approaches to identify themes. We also calculated descriptive statistics for participant characteristics and salient themes. RESULTS: Among 304 participants (55% male, mean age 36 years), we identified barriers to SUD treatment in rural areas across SEM levels. At the individual/interpersonal level, relevant themes included: fear of withdrawal, the need to "get things in order" before entering treatment, close-knit communities and limited confidentiality, networks and settings that perpetuated drug use, and stigma. Organizational-level barriers included: strict facility rules, treatment programs managed like corrections facilities, lack of gender-specific treatment programs, and concerns about jeopardizing employment. Community-level barriers included: limited availability of treatment in local rural communities, long distances and limited transportation, waitlists, and a lack of information about treatment options. Policy-level themes included insurance challenges and system-imposed barriers such as arrest and incarceration. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight multi-level barriers to SUD treatment in rural U.S. communities. Salient barriers included the need to travel long distances to treatment, challenges to confidentiality due to small, close-knit communities where people are highly familiar with one another, and high-threshold treatment program practices. Our findings point to the need to facilitate the elimination of treatment barriers at each level of the SEM in rural America.

Barriers to retention in inpatient and residential drug treatment among persons who use opioids and/or injection drugs living in the rural U.S.

AIM: Barriers to retention in inpatient and residential care for persons who use drugs are understudied in the rural context. We sought to better understand barriers to retention in inpatient and residential drug treatment in a large, multi-site, geographically diverse sample of persons who use opioids and/or injection drugs in the rural U.S. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured individual interviews with persons currently using opioids and/or injection drugs in 9 U.S. states, including Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Content areas included substance use history and experiences with all modalities of drug treatment. We performed initial structural coding followed by an iterative "open-coding" process of itemizing and categorizing content within each code, and a multi-coder memoing process to summarize themes. We identified themes using three levels of the Social-Ecological Model (SEM): individual, interpersonal, and facility-level (organizational) barriers. RESULTS: Among 304 interviewed, over half (n = 166, 54 %) reported having experienced inpatient and residential treatment. Lack of treatment retention was driven by interrelated factors at all levels of the SEM. Person-level factors inhibiting retention included lack of readiness to stop using, which was particularly true for court-ordered treatment, and dislike of "freedom limitations". The sole interpersonal-level factor was the influence of other patients on re-initiation of drug use. Facility-level barriers included unaddressed withdrawal symptoms and lack of access to MOUD, staff relatability, inadequate staff training, and, particularly in residential treatment, lack of structure and supervision. Lack of preparation for coping with real-world triggers was seen as a barrier to engagement in ongoing treatment. CONCLUSION: Barriers to retention in inpatient and residential substance use treatment were present at three levels of the SEM. Interviews suggest much room for improvement in inpatient and residential drug treatment programs with respect to improving access to MOUD, tailoring content to better address social challenges in the rural context, and improving quality control measures with respect to staff and resident supervision.

Venous Thromboembolism Among People With HIV: Design, Implementation, and Findings of a Centralized Adjudication System in Clinical Care Sites Across the United States.

BACKGROUND: People with HIV (PWH) are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). We conducted this study to characterize VTE including provoking factors among PWH in the current treatment era. METHODS: We included PWH with VTE between 2010 and 2020 at 6 sites in the CFAR Network of Integrated Clinical Systems cohort. We ascertained for possible VTE using diagnosis, VTE-related imaging, and VTE-related procedure codes, followed by centralized adjudication of primary data by expert physician reviewers. We evaluated sensitivity and positive predictive value of VTE ascertainment approaches. VTEs were classified by type and anatomic location. Reviewers identified provoking factors such as hospitalizations, infections, and other potential predisposing factors such as smoking. RESULTS: We identified 557 PWH with adjudicated VTE: 239 (43%) had pulmonary embolism with or without deep venous thrombosis, and 318 (57%) had deep venous thrombosis alone. Ascertainment with clinical diagnoses alone missed 6% of VTEs identified with multiple ascertainment approaches. DVTs not associated with intravenous lines were most often in the proximal lower extremities. Among PWH with VTE, common provoking factors included recent hospitalization (n = 134, 42%), infection (n = 133, 42%), and immobilization/bed rest (n = 78, 25%). Only 57 (10%) PWH had no provoking factor identified. Smoking (46%), HIV viremia (27%), and injection drug use (22%) were also common. CONCLUSIONS: We conducted a robust adjudication process that demonstrated the benefits of multiple ascertainment approaches followed by adjudication. Provoked VTEs were more common than unprovoked events. Nontraditional and modifiable potential predisposing factors such as viremia and smoking were common.