Document Detail

Prevalence of, and risk factors for, HIV, hepatitis B and C infections among men who inject image and performance enhancing drugs: a cross-sectional study.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  24030866     Owner:  NLM     Status:  PubMed-not-MEDLINE    
OBJECTIVE: To describe drug use, sexual risks and the prevalence of blood-borne viral infections among men who inject image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs).
DESIGN: A voluntary unlinked-anonymous cross-sectional biobehavioural survey.
SETTING: 19 needle and syringe programmes across England and Wales.
PARTICIPANTS: 395 men who had injected IPEDs.
RESULTS: Of the participants (median age 28 years), 36% had used IPEDs for <5 years. Anabolic steroids (86%), growth hormone (32%) and human chorionic gonadotropin (16%) were most frequently injected, with 88% injecting intramuscularly and 39% subcutaneously. Two-thirds also used IPEDs orally. Recent psychoactive drug use was common (46% cocaine, 12% amphetamine), 5% had ever injected a psychoactive drug and 9% had shared injecting equipment. 'Viagra/Cialis' was used by 7%, with 89% reporting anal/vaginal sex in the preceding year (20% had 5+ female-partners, 3% male-partners) and 13% always using condoms. Overall, 1.5% had HIV, 9% had antibodies to the hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc) and 5% to hepatitis C (anti-HCV). In multivariate analysis, having HIV was associated with: seeking advice from a sexual health clinic; having had an injection site abscess/wound; and having male partners. After excluding those reporting male partners or injecting psychoactive drugs, 0.8% had HIV, 8% anti-HBc and 5% anti-HCV. Only 23% reported uptake of the hepatitis B vaccine, and diagnostic testing uptake was poor (31% for HIV, 22% for hepatitis C).
CONCLUSIONS: Previous prevalence studies had not found HIV among IPED injectors. HIV prevalence in this, the largest study of blood-borne viruses among IPED injectors, was similar to that among injectors of psychoactive drugs. Findings indicate a need for targeted interventions.
Vivian D Hope; Jim McVeigh; Andrea Marongiu; Michael Evans-Brown; Josie Smith; Andreas Kimergård; Sara Croxford; Caryl M Beynon; John V Parry; Mark A Bellis; Fortune Ncube
Related Documents :
12143196 - A comparison study of ultrasound and xenon-133 hepatic retention ratio in fatty liver.
19406596 - Non-invasive assessment of hepatic fat accumulation in chronic hepatitis c by 1h magnet...
12602506 - Altered modulation of soluble guanylate cyclase by nitric oxide in patients with liver ...
12141396 - A toxicologist's guide to biomarkers of hepatic response.
16970836 - Community-associated methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus in the patient with hi...
20657756 - Clinical implications of new findings in hiv basic research.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2013-09-12
Journal Detail:
Title:  BMJ open     Volume:  3     ISSN:  2044-6055     ISO Abbreviation:  BMJ Open     Publication Date:  2013  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2013-09-13     Completed Date:  2013-09-13     Revised Date:  2013-11-25    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101552874     Medline TA:  BMJ Open     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e003207     Citation Subset:  -    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ Open
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ Open
Journal ID (hwp): bmjopen
Journal ID (publisher-id): bmjopen
ISSN: 2044-6055
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR
Article Information
Download PDF
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to
Received Day: 13 Month: 5 Year: 2013
Revision Received Day: 25 Month: 6 Year: 2013
Accepted Day: 22 Month: 7 Year: 2013
collection publication date: Year: 2013
Electronic publication date: Day: 10 Month: 9 Year: 2013
Volume: 3 Issue: 9
E-location ID: e003207
PubMed Id: 24030866
ID: 3773656
Publisher Id: bmjopen-2013-003207
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003207

Prevalence of, and risk factors for, HIV, hepatitis B and C infections among men who inject image and performance enhancing drugs: a cross-sectional study
Vivian D Hope12
Jim McVeigh3
Andrea Marongiu1
Michael Evans-Brown4
Josie Smith5
Andreas Kimergård6
Sara Croxford1
Caryl M Beynon3
John V Parry12
Mark A Bellis3
Fortune Ncube1
1Public Health England, London, UK
2Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
3Centre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK
4European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal
5Public Health Wales, Temple of Peace & Health, Cathays Park, Cardiff, UK
6Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
Correspondence to Dr Vivian Hope;

Article summary
Article focus
  • The Vulnerability to infection of people who inject drugs is widely recognised; however, studies have rarely focused on users of image and performance enhancing drugs. These drugs can be used to change one's appearance for aesthetic reasons, as well as to improve performance.
  • Over the last decade, the number of men using needle and syringe programmes who report injecting image and performance enhancing drugs has risen in England and Wales; as a result, there has been increased concern about the levels of blood-borne viral infections in this group.
  • This study describes the nature of drug use and the risk behaviours in this population, as well as the prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B and C.
Key messages
  • The overall prevalence of HIV among men injecting image and performance enhancing drugs was similar to that among those injecting psychoactive drugs in England and Wales. Previous prevalence studies of people who inject image and performance enhancing drugs had not detected HIV.
  • When the results of this study are compared with those of a previous study undertaken in England and Wales in the mid-1990s, they suggest that the prevalence of hepatitis B infection among injectors of image and performance enhancing drugs might have increased over time.
  • Sexual risk behaviours and psychoactive drug use were common among injectors of image and performance enhancing drugs, and the sharing of injecting equipment was also reported. The uptake of diagnostic testing for blood borne-viral infections and the vaccine against hepatitis B was low.
Strengths and limitations of this study
  • This study recruited image and performance enhancing drug users through needle and syringe programmes. Injectors of these drugs who are not in contact with these services may have a different risk profile and levels of infection.
  • Oral-fluid testing was used to detect antibodies to HIV, hepatitis B and C; however, tests on these samples for anti-HCV and anti-HBc have reduced sensitivity.
  • This is the largest study of blood-borne viruses among men who inject image and performance enhancing drugs; however, the sample size still restricts its power. Consequently, caution is needed when attempting to generalise these findings.


The vulnerability of people who inject drugs (PWID) to HIV and other infections is widely recognised; however, studies have focused on individuals who inject psychoactive drugs (such as opiates and stimulants) rather than on those who inject drugs to enhance image and performance.1–4 The number of injectors of image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) in contact with needle and syringe programmes (NSPs) has grown substantially in the UK,5 and there has been increasing concern about the use of IPEDs and the associated harms in the UK and elsewhere.3, 5–11

A range of illicit drugs can be injected with the aim of changing image and performance. These drugs range from tanning drugs, such as ‘Melanotan-II’,12 to those used in body-building, such as human growth hormone.3, 13 The most commonly injected and studied IPEDs are anabolic steroids (AS).3, 5 IPEDs are taken both orally and by injection, with some being predominantly injected and others being taken only orally. Many users of these substances also take an array of different drugs.3, 5, 14 The use, and particularly the injection of IPEDs has been associated with a range of harms including infections caused by bacteria15–19 and blood-borne viruses (BBVs).6, 20–25

In England and Wales (E&W), surveillance of HIV and viral hepatitis among PWID is undertaken through an annual unlinked-anonymous survey26, 27 targeted at injectors of psychoactive drugs. A very small number of IPED injectors participated in this survey20; among the 149 sampled during the 1990s, 2% had antibodies to the hepatitis B core antigen (anti-HBc, a marker of having ever been infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV))) and none had antibodies to HIV (anti-HIV).20 In a surveillance study of NSP clients in Australia, 1.6% (n=318) of those participating over a 10-year period reported steroid injection, with 10% having antibodies to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV) and none having anti-HIV.21 Only one other survey of IPED injectors has collected biological samples; this study purposively recruited 63 AS injectors in Victoria, Australia and found that 12% had anti-HBc, 9.5% anti-HCV and none anti-HIV.6 A second Australian study found that half of the IPED users sampled had ever experienced an injection-related health problem, with 6% having ever had an abscess.8

A number of other UK studies have recruited IPED injectors, principally AS injectors; however, none of these collected biological samples. These studies were mostly small (N<100), and typically recruited through gyms,28–33 with two recruiting gay men.34, 35 The prevalence of ever sharing injecting equipment in these studies ranged from 0.3% to 6%,20, 28–30, 32 but in one study it was 20%.33 The sharing of drug vials was more common (2.4%35; 9.9%34; 23%32). Studies elsewhere have found similar levels of equipment sharing.6, 8 IPED users also report using psychoactive drugs, particularly stimulants, though the reported injection of psychoactive drugs is rare.6, 8, 28, 35, 36 IPED users also tend to have more sexual partners than their comparison groups20, 28 and report risky sexual behaviours20, 32 and low levels of condom use,28, 34 suggesting an elevated risk for HIV infection through sexual activity.

During 2010 and 2011, in response to the increasing concerns about IPED use, a targeted survey was undertaken as part of the ongoing unlinked-anonymous survey of PWID. The aim of this survey was to describe the: (1) patterns of drug use and injecting risk; (2) sexual behaviours and (3) BBV prevalence among IPED injectors. As far as we are aware, this is the largest study, and the first outside Australia, to purposively recruit IPED injectors to measure the prevalence of anti-HIV, anti-HBc and anti-HCV.


In E&W, PWID have been recruited into a voluntary unlinked-anonymous monitoring survey since 1990, and the methodological details of this cross-sectional survey have been published previously.26, 27, 37 Briefly, agencies providing services to PWID (eg, NSPs and addiction treatment) at sentinel locations throughout E&W invite clients who have ever injected to participate. Sentinel sites are selected so as to reflect the geographic distribution and range of services offered to PWID. Those who consent to participate (overall refusal rate during 2010/2011, 4.7%) provide a biological sample and self-complete a brief questionnaire focused on psychoactive drug use.26, 27, 37 The survey has multisite ethics approval. This study purposively recruited IPED injectors through 19 sites that provided NSPs. Participants were recruited either when attending an NSP site or through outreach provision; they provided an oral-fluid sample and self-completed a short, specially developed, questionnaire focused on IPED use (types of drug used and routes of administration), related behaviours (injecting practices and sexual behaviours) and health service use.

Laboratory methods

Oral-fluid specimens were collected using the OraSure device (OraSure Technologies Inc, Pennsylvania, USA). These were tested for anti-HIV using an in-house GACELISA with similar performance to GACELISA HIV 1+2 (Abbott Murex Diagnostics Ltd, Dartford, UK). Reactive specimens underwent further testing according to a proven algorithm that included a second ELISA and Western blot (sensitivity and specificity approaches 100%38). Anti-HCV testing employed a previously validated commercial enzyme-immunoassay (Ortho HCV 3.0 SAVe, Ortho Diagnostics) with 92% sensitivity and 99% specificity,39 and for anti-HBc an in-house IgG class-specific antibody capture EIA procedure was used which had an estimated sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 99% (JV Parry and A Judd, personal communication). The oral-fluid sample quality was verified by testing each sample for the presence of a predetermined minimum quantity of total IgG (1 mg/L) employing an in-house ELISA method.


Descriptive analyses were first undertaken, and then bivariate associations (p<0.05) between outcome variables (anti-HIV, anti-HBc and anti-HCV positivity, equipment sharing and condom use) and covariates (age, drug use, sexual practice and health services use; table 1) were examined using Fisher's exact (when expected cell frequencies <5) and Pearson's χ2 tests. Where possible associations were found (p<0.10), these were further examined through logistic regression models using the forward stepwise procedures to select variables, with selection based on the likelihood ratio test (p<0.05). All analyses were undertaken using SPSS V.19.


Between May 2010 and May 2011, 400 IPED injectors participated in this study; five (1.25%) women were excluded from the analyses (due to the small number). The participants’ characteristics and health service usage are summarised in table 1. Of those reporting their age (88%, n=347), a quarter (27%) were aged <25 years. During the preceding year, 45% had seen a general practitioner and 28% had taken the prescribed medication.

Drug use

Details of the participants’ IPED use during the preceding year are given in table 1. AS were the most commonly injected IPED (86%). Over half of the participants reported consuming these orally (57%), a third reported injecting growth hormone (32%) and almost a quarter reported using oral antioestrogens (23%). Overall, 65% (n=252) had taken an IPED orally during the preceding year, with 58 (23%) of these having taken two types orally, and 85 (34%) ≥3 types. Most had injected only one type of IPED during the preceding year; however, 87 (22%) had injected two types and 58 (15%) ≥3 types. Considering injecting and oral use, 71 (18%) had taken two types of IPED and 133 (34%) ≥3 during the preceding year.

Those who injected human growth hormone were more likely to be older (aged >35 years) than those who had not (37% (47/128) vs 22% (60/267), p<0.001); there were no other significant differences in the IPEDs used by age. During the preceding year, most of the participants (74%) reported that they had usually injected themselves, and the majority (88%) had injected intramuscularly (table 1).

The participants also reported psychoactive drug use (table 1), with 46% snorting cocaine and 12% snorting, drinking or swallowing amphetamine during the preceding year. Ever having injected a psychoactive drug (including heroin and cocaine) was reported by 4.8% (table 1). Those who had injected a psychoactive drug were more likely to report injecting insulin as an IPED than those who had not (21% (4/19) vs 4.8% (18/376), p=0.016); there were no other significant differences in the IPEDs used between those who had injected psychoactive drugs and those who had not.

Overall, 8.9% (95% CI 6.4% to 12%) reported having ever shared a needle/syringe or drugs vial (table 1); 27 (6.8%) had just shared a vial, 6 (1.5%) had just shared a needle/syringe and 2 (0.51%) had shared both. Factors associated with sharing are summarised in table 2. In the multivariable analysis, ever having shared a needle/syringe or drug vial was associated with having ever injected a psychoactive drug, having sought advice from an sexual health/sexual transmitted infections (SH/STI) clinic, subcutaneous injection and having snorted, drunk or swallowed amphetamine (table 2).

Sexual behaviour

Nine-tenths (89%, 350/395) reported having anal or vaginal sex in the preceding year, and 9.1% (36/395) had ≥10 partners (table 1). Considering just female partners, 20% (80/395) of respondents had ≥5 partners. Thirteen (3.3%) reported ≥1 male sexual partner during the preceding year (table 1). Those reporting male sexual partners were older than those who did not (median age 38 years, IQR 12; and 28 years, IQR 11, respectively). Those reporting male sexual partners were also more likely to have ever injected a psychoactive drug (23% (3/13) vs 4.2% (16/382), p=0.020), more likely to report snorting, drinking or swallowing amphetamine during the last year (46% (6/13) vs 11% (41/382), p=0.002), and a higher proportion reported snorting cocaine, but this was not significant (62% (8/13) vs 45% (173/382), p=0.248). Those reporting male sexual partners were also more likely to report having ever shared a needle/syringe or vial (25% (4/13) vs 8.1% (31/382), p=0.021). A higher proportion of those reporting male sexual partners reported always using condoms during the last year, but this difference was not significant (38% (5/13) vs 19% (73/382), p=0.146). There were no differences in the types of IPED used, nor in their routes of administration, between those reporting male partners and those not.

Among those who reported sex during the preceding year, 14% (95% CI 11% to 18%, 48/350) had always used condoms. Factors associated with condom use are given in table 2. Always using condoms among those who had had sex during the preceding year was associated in the multivariable analysis with having had a male sexual partner and having not snorted cocaine (table 2).

BBV prevalence

Overall, 1.5% (95% CI 0.7% to 3.3%; n=6) had anti-HIV, 8.8% (95% CI 6.4% to 12%) had ever been infected with hepatitis B (26 anti-HBc positive, adjusted for test sensitivity of 0.75) and 5.5% (95% CI 3.7% to 8.2%) with hepatitis C (20 anti-HCV positive, adjusted for test sensitivity of 0.92). Covariates associated with anti-HIV, anti-HBc or anti-HCV positivity are given in table 3. In the multivariable analysis, anti-HIV positivity was associated with having male sexual partners in the preceding year, ever having an abscess/sore/open wound at the injection site, and having sought advice from an SH/STI clinic in the preceding year (table 3). Having anti-HBc was associated in the multivariable analysis with having obtained advice from an SH/STI clinic and having not injected oneself subcutaneously in the preceding year (table 3). Anti-HCV positivity was associated with having ever injected a psychoactive drug and having taken a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) in the preceding year in the multivariable analysis (table 3).

After excluding those who reported either sex with men or having ever injected a psychoactive drug, 0.8% had anti-HIV (95% CI 0.28% to 2.4%, 3/366), 8.0% anti-HBc (95% CI 5.6% to 11%, adjusted for test sensitivity, 22/366) and 4.7% anti-HCV (95% CI 2.9% to 7.3%, adjusted for test sensitivity, 16/366), with 10% (95% CI 7.7% to 14%, 38/366) having one or more of these three markers. In this group, having anti-HIV was found to be associated only with ever having had an abscess/wound at an injection site (8% (2/25) vs 0.29% (1/341) for those who had not, p=0.013), and having anti-HBc was only associated with having sought advice from an SH/STI clinic in the preceding year (16% (9/56) vs 4.2% (13/310) for those who had not, p=0.002). The use of three types of IPEDs was associated with having anti-HCV: having taken a PDE5i (21% (5/24) vs 3.2% (11/342) for those who had not, p=0.002); having injected insulin as an IPED (18% (3/17) vs 3.7% (13/349) for those who had not, p=0.032); and having injected a less commonly used IPED (17% (3/18) vs 3.7% (13/348) for those who had not, p=0.037).

In total, 47 (12%, 95% CI 9.1% to 15%) were positive for one or more of the anti-HIV, anti-HBc and anti-HCV, with 43 having just one of these markers and four having two or more of these markers. Two had anti-HBc and anti-HCV, one of these reported injected psychoactive drugs, and neither reported having had sex with men. One, who reported sex with men and injecting psychoactive drugs, had anti-HIV and anti-HBc; the remaining participant had all three markers and did not report either sex with men or injecting psychoactive drugs.

Uptake of interventions related to the three BBV infections was poor. Overall, only 23% reported receiving a dose of HBV vaccine, 31% ever having a diagnostic HIV test and 22% having an HCV test (table 1).


IPED injectors are at risk of infection with HIV as well as other BBVs. This is the first prevalence study to have found HIV among IPED injectors, with the prevalence at 1.5%, similar to that found among injectors of psychoactive drugs in England and Wales (1.2%, 201140). However, anti-HBc and anti-HCV—at 8.8% and 5.5%, respectively—are lower than among psychoactive drug injectors (16% and 43%, respectively, 201140). The prevalence of all three BBVs in this sample would appear to be higher than that found in the general UK population.41, 42 Once those who reported either sex with men or injecting psychoactive drugs were excluded, 10% had been infected with one or more of HIV, hepatitis B and C.

It is important to consider the limitations of this study. The comparative rarity, marginalisation and illicit nature of injecting drug use impede the construction of a sampling frame, making the representativeness of our sample impossible to measure. This study used an established methodology for recruiting PWID through specialist services26, 27; however, the robustness of this approach for IPED injectors is unknown and cannot currently be assessed due to the very limited knowledge on the size and nature of this group.3, 5 The use of NSPs to access this group was a pragmatic approach; community-based recruitment approaches, such as Respondent Driven Sampling and Time-Location Sampling, that are often advocated for hard to reach populations43 are possible alternatives. However, these are likely to be difficult to implement with this group due to the diversity of the drugs used, the clandestine and close-knit nature of this group and because drug use usually takes place in private settings (such as homes or gyms).3, 5 The findings here also rely on self-reported behaviours—though their reliability has not been assessed among IPED users, these have been found to be reliable for psychoactive drug injectors44, 45—and infection with BBVs has been determined by laboratory-based biological data from the testing of oral-fluid samples. While oral-fluid testing is highly sensitive for anti-HIV, the sensitivity is reduced for anti-HCV and anti-HBc.39 While this is the largest study of BBVs in this population, the sample size still restricts its power, and consequently caution is needed when attempting to generalise these findings to the wider population of IPED injectors.

The levels of HIV and anti-HBc are higher than in the only previous UK study to measure these in IPED injectors. Undertaken >10 years ago using a similar methodology, this found no HIV and an anti-HBc prevalence of 2%;20 suggesting that the prevalence of these infections among IPED injectors might have increased over time. Exposure to BBVs among IPED injectors appears to be associated with sexual risks and the injection of psychoactive drugs; although injecting psychoactive drugs is rare among IPED injectors, unprotected sex with multiple partners is common. The sharing of injecting equipment or drug vials among IPED injectors at 8.9% is much less common than among injectors of psychoactive drugs (in 2011, 37% of psychoactive drug injectors reported recently sharing injecting equipment40). Though exposure was not associated with sharing in the multivariate analyses in this study, BBV transmission through IPED injection cannot be excluded as this study may have lacked sufficient power to detect this.

The associations between having HIV and the use of SH/STI clinics and having male sexual partners suggest that HIV transmission among IPED injectors might be related to sexual activity. This association may reflect AS use by some HIV positive gay and bisexual men to mask the longer-term effects of HIV infection.35 The association with having an abscess/wound at the injection site probably reflects the greater vulnerability of PWID with HIV to injection-related bacterial infections.46, 47 The association between exposure to HBV and having obtained advice from an SH/STI clinic is again suggestive of a role for sexual risk in infection, particularly as sexual transmission is the main route by which HBV is now acquired within the UK.48 The association between having anti-HBc and not injecting subcutaneously suggests that certain patterns of IPED use might be related to increased risk, as some IPEDs are only injected subcutaneously and others only intramuscularly, and many users take several types.3, 8, 12–14 Exposure to HCV, however, would appear to be associated with the injection of psychoactive drugs, an association that has been previously noted6; this finding might reflect more frequent injecting in this subgroup. Sexual activity may also play a role, assuming that the use of PDE5i is related to improving or maintaining sexual performance. These associations all require further investigation.

The level sharing found here was in line with that in previous studies of injecting risk among IPED users.20, 28–30, 32, 33, 35 The association between sharing and subcutaneous injection suggests that sharing—like HBV exposure—may be associated with certain patterns of IPED use. As in previous studies of IPED injectors, sexual activity was common and condom use was poor.20, 28, 34 Condom use was higher among those with male sexual partners and lower among those who reported snorting cocaine. The more frequent use of condoms by gay and bisexual men probably reflects an awareness of their increased HIV risk.42 The association with cocaine use might possibly be related to its use as a sexual stimulant, with this possibly related to attempts to counteract the reduced libido experienced on discontinuation of AS use or in the periods between courses of AS use (‘off-cycles’).14 In part, this effect may be as a result of the decrease in endogenous testosterone production,49 which is why IPED users self-treat with human chorionic gonadotrophin in an attempt to stimulate endogenous production, with PDE5i used to symptomatically treat erectile dysfunction.5, 14, 50 Increased libido following AS administration is also reported by users,14, 33, 34, 51 with similar effects being reported following the use of drugs such as melanotan-II.12

Associations were found between psychoactive drug use and sharing and poor condom use. IPED users who also use psychoactive drugs may be a higher risk—or perhaps less risk averse—subgroup. While this needs further investigation, it suggests—considering the substantial levels of psychoactive drug use found here and in previous studies6, 8, 28, 35, 36—that those using IPED and psychoactive drugs should be an important target group for harm reduction interventions.

This study indicates that those providing services to PWID—particularly NSPs, outreach services and general practitioners—should be alert to the needs of those who use IPEDs. In particular, they need to be aware of the range of drugs that may be used by this group and of the associated injecting practices, as these differ from those of psychoactive drug injectors. Considering the BBV prevalence and levels of risk found, specialist services for PWID need to engage with IPED users and ensure that they have access to appropriate injecting equipment and targeted harm reduction advice. They should also ensure that this group has access to testing for BBVs, hepatitis B vaccinations, sexual health services and condoms.

Our findings suggest that sexual risk and the use, and particularly the injection, of psychoactive drugs are possibly the most important factors associated with BBV transmission among IPED injectors. The transmission of HIV and other BBVs through the injecting of IPED cannot be excluded, and this is certainly possible as equipment sharing does occur. However, the participants in this study were largely recruited through NSPs providing injecting equipment and advice. IPED injectors not in contact with NSPs may have a different risk profile and infection risk. Even so, our findings suggest the need for targeted interventions to address sexual health needs, psychoactive drug use and the injection practices among IPED injectors. Considering the limitations of this study, a larger study recruiting from a wider range of settings and collecting dried-blood samples is needed to more fully examine prevalence and, in particular, the associated risk factors and thus the role of IPED injection in transmission of HIV and other BBVs.

Supplementary Material Author's manuscript
Reviewer comments


Contributors: MEB, AK, JM, AM and VH developed the modified questionnaire used with the IPED injectors. AM undertook the day-to-day co-ordination of the survey of IPED injectors, with support from MEB and VH. The ongoing monitoring survey was managed by VH and FN. Development of the laboratory tests and processes employed was led by JP, who managed their application to this study. All authors contributed to the writing of the paper, with writing and analyses led by VH.

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: None.

Ethics approval: London MREC.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.

The authors are grateful to all the people who injected image and performance enhancing drugs and took part in the survey, as well as to the various services across England and Wales who assisted with their recruitment. The authors would like to thank the support staff who worked on the survey and those who undertook the laboratory work. The survey was undertaken by the Health Protection Agency (now part of Public Health England) which is funded through the Department of Health.

1. Aceijas C,Stimson GV,Hickman M,et al. Global overview of injecting drug use and HIV infection among injecting drug users. AIDSYear: 2004;18:2295–30315577542
2. Nelson PK,Mathers BM,Cowie B,et al. Global epidemiology of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in people who inject drugs: results of systematic reviews. LancetYear: 2011;378:571–8321802134
3. Evans-Brown M,McVeigh J,Perkins C,et al. Human enhancement drugs: the emerging challenges to public health. Liverpool: North West Public Health Observatory, Year: 2012
4. McVeigh J,Evans-Brown M,Bellis MA. Human enhancement drugs and the pursuit of perfection. AdiccionesYear: 2012;24:185–9022868973
5. Advisory Council on the Misuse of DrugsConsideration of the anabolic steroids. Home Office, Year: 2010
6. Iversen J,Topp L,Wand H,et al. Are people who inject performance and image-enhancing drugs an increasing population of Needle and Syringe Program attendees?Drug Alcohol RevYear: 2012;122(3): 195–200.10.1111/j.1465-3362.2012.00499.x
7. Aitken C,Cheryl D,Kay S. Pumping iron, risking infection? Exposure to hepatitis C, hepatitis B and HIV among anabolic-androgenic steroid injectors in Victoria, Australia. Drug Alcohol DependYear: 2002;65:303–811841901
8. Larance B,Degenhardt L,Copeland J,et al. Injecting risk behaviour and related harm among men who use performance- and image-enhancing drugs. Drug Alcohol RevYear: 2008;27:679–8618825549
9. Christiansen AV. Testing citizens training recreationally in gyms. In: McNamee M,Møller V, eds. Doping and anti-doping policy in sport. Abingdon: Routledge, Year: 2011:126–41
10. Mulcahey MK,Schiller JR,Hulstyn MJ. Anabolic steroid use in adolescents: identification of those at risk and strategies for prevention. Phys SportsmedYear: 2010;38:105–1320959703
11. Castillo Castillo EM,Comstock RD. Prevalence of use of performance-enhancing substances among United States adolescents. Pediatr Clin North AmYear: 2007;54:663–7517723869
12. Evans-Brown M,Dawson RT,Chandler M,et al. Use of melanotan I and II in the general population. BMJYear: 2009;338:b56619224885
13. Evans-Brown M,McVeigh J. Injecting human growth hormone as a performance-enhancing drug—perspectives from the United Kingdom. J Subst UseYear: 2009;14:267–88
14. Llewellyn W. William Llewellyn's anabolics. 10 ednJupiter, FL: Molecular Nutrition, Year: 2010
15. Marquis CP,Maffulli N. Anabolic steroid related abscess—a risk worth taking? Inj ExtraYear: 2006;37:451–4
16. Gautschi OP,Zellweger R. Images in clinical medicine. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus abscess after intramuscular steroid injection. N Engl J MedYear: 2006;355:71316914707
17. Dunn F. Two cases of biceps injury in bodybuilders with initially misleading presentation. Emerg Med JYear: 2002;19:461–212205009
18. Al Al-Ismail K,Torreggiani WC,Munk PL,et al. Gluteal mass in a bodybuilder: radiological depiction of a complication of anabolic steroid use. Eur RadiolYear: 2002;12:1366–912042941
19. Evans NA. Local complications of self administered anabolic steroid injections. Br J Sports MedYear: 1997;31:349–509429018
20. Crampin AC,Lamagni TL,Hope VD,et al. The risk of infection with HIV and hepatitis B in individuals who inject steroids in England and Wales. Epidemiol InfectYear: 1998;121:381–69825789
21. Day CA,Topp L,Iversen J,et al. Collaboration of Australian NSPs. Blood-borne virus prevalence and risk among steroid injectors: results from the Australian Needle and Syringe Program Survey. Drug Alcohol RevYear: 2008;27:559–6118608447
22. Henrion R,Mandelbrot L,Delfieu D. Contamination par le VIH a la suite dinjections danabolisants. Presse MedYear: 1992;21:2181532092
23. Scott MJ,Scott MJ Jr. HIV infection associated with injections of anabolic steroids. JAMAYear: 1989;262:207–82739012
24. Rich JD,Dickinson BP,Merriman NA,et al. Hepatitis C virus infection related to anabolic-androgenic steroid injection in a recreational weight lifter. Am J GastroenterolYear: 1998;93:15989732964
25. Sklarek HM,Mantovani RP,Erens E,et al. AIDS in a bodybuilder using anabolic steroids. N Engl J MedYear: 1984;311:17016504112
26. Hope VD,Judd A,Hickman M,et al. HIV prevalence among injecting drug users in England and Wales 1990 to 2003: evidence for increased transmission in recent years. AIDSYear: 2005;19:1207–1415990575
27. Hope VD,Rogers PA,Jordan L,et al. Sustained increase in the sharing of needles and syringes among drug users in England and Wales. AIDSYear: 2002;16:2494–612461431
28. Korkia P,Stimson G. Anabolic steroid use in Great Britain: an exploratory investigation. Final report to the Department of Health for England, Scotland and Wales. The Centre for Research on Drugs and Health Behaviour. October. Year: 1993
29. Lenehan P,Bellis MA,McVeigh J. A study of anabolic steroid use in the North West of England. J Perform Enhanc DrugsYear: 1996;1:57–70
30. Pates R,Barry C. Steroid use in Cardiff: a problem for whom? J Perform Enhanc DrugsYear: 1996;1:92–7
31. Burton C. Anabolic steroid use among the gym population in Clwyd. Pharm JYear: 1996;256:557–9
32. Midgley S,Heather N,Best D,et al. Risk behaviours for HIV and hepatitis infection among anabolic-androgenic steroid users. AIDS CareYear: 2000;12:163–7010827856
33. Grace FM,Baker JS,Davies B. Anabolic androgenic steroid use in recreational gym users: a regional sample of the Mid-Glamorgan area. J Subst UseYear: 2001;6:189–95
34. Bolding G,Sherr L,Maguire M,et al. HIV risk behaviours among gay men who use anabolic steroids. AddictionYear: 1999;94:1829–3510717961
35. Bolding G,Sherr L,Elford J. Use of anabolic steroids and associated health risks among gay men attending London gyms. AddictionYear: 2002;97:195–20311860391
36. Ip EJ,Barnett MJ,Tenerowicz MJ,et al. The anabolic 500 survey: characteristics of male users versus nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids for strength training. PharmacotherapyYear: 2011;31:757–6621923602
37. Noone A,Durante AJ,Brady AR,et al. HIV infection in injecting drug users attending centres in England and Wales, 1990-1991. AIDSYear: 1993;7:1501–78280418
38. Connell JA,Parry JV,Mortimer PP,et al. Novel assay for the detection of immunoglobulin G antihuman immunodeficiency virus in untreated saliva and urine. J Med VirolYear: 1993;41:159–648283178
39. Judd A,Parry J,Hickman M,et al. Evaluation of a modified commercial assay in detecting antibody to hepatitis C virus in oral fluids and dried blood spots. J Med VirolYear: 2003;71:49–5512858408
40. Health Protection Agency, Health Protection Services and Microbiology ServicesUnlinked anonymous monitoring survey of people who inject drugs in contact with specialist services: data tables. London: Health Protection Agency, Year: 2012
41. European Centre for Disease Prevention and ControlHepatitis B and C in the EU neighbourhood: prevalence, burden of disease and screening policies. Stockholm: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Year: 2010
42. Health Protection AgencyHIV in the United Kingdom: 2012 Report. Colindale: Health Protection Services, Year: 2012
43. Magnani R,Sabin K,Saidel T,et al. Review of sampling hard-to-reach and hidden populations for HIV surveillance. AIDSYear: 2005;19(Suppl 2):S67–7215930843
44. Latkin CA,Vlahov D,Anthony JC. Socially desirable responding and self-reported HIV infection risk behaviors among intravenous drug users. AddictionYear: 1993;88:517–268485429
45. De Irala J,Bigelow C,McCusker J,et al. Reliability of self-reported human immunodeficiency virus risk behaviors in a residential drug treatment population. Am J EpidemiolYear: 1996;143:725–328651235
46. Lloyd-Smith E,Kerr T,Hogg RS,et al. Prevalence and correlates of abscesses among a cohort of injection drug users. Harm Reduct JYear: 2005;2:2416281979
47. Spijkerman IJ,Van Ameijden EJ,Mientjes GH,et al. Human immunodeficiency virus infection and other risk factors for skin abscesses and endocarditis among injection drug users. J Clin EpidemiolYear: 1996;49:1149–548826995
48. Health Protection Agency, Health Protection Scotland, Public Health Wales, Public Health Agency Northern IrelandShooting up: infections among people who inject drugs in the UK 2011. London: Health Protection Agency, Year: 2012
49. Grimes DA,Lopez LM,Gallo MF,et al. Steroid hormones for contraception in men. Cochrane Database Syst RevYear: 2007;(2):CD00431617443545
50. Evans-Brown M,McVeigh J. Anabolic steroid use in the general population of the United Kingdom. In: Møller V,McNamee MJ,Dimeo P eds Elite sport, doping and public health. Syddansk: University Press of Southern Denmark, Year: 2009:75–97
51. Bahrke MS,Yesalis CE. Abuse of anabolic androgenic steroids and related substances in sport and exercise. Curr Opin PharmacolYear: 2004;4(6):614–2015525553

[TableWrap ID: BMJOPEN2013003207TB1] Table 1 

Characteristics of male injectors of the IPEDs sampled

 Age, years Under25 27% 106
25-34 34% 134
35 and over 27% 107
Median (IQR) 28 (13)
Not reported 12% 48
 Had ever been in prison 16% 63
Health service use
 Had ever used a Needle and Syringe Programme 75% 298
 Had seen a general practitioner in the last year about their health 45% 178
 Had you got advice at an Accident & Emergency / Walk-in in the last year 16% 64
 Had taken/used prescribed medication in last year 28% 111
 Had sought advice from a sexual health / sexually transmitted infections clinic in the last year 17% 68
 Had been vaccinated against hepatitis B 23% 90
 Had had a blood test for hepatitis C 22% 85
 Had had a blood test for HIV 31% 122
Symptom of injury or infection at injection site
 Had ever had redness at an injection site 43% 168
 Had ever had an injection site abscess/sore/open wound 6.80% 27
Image and performance enhancing drug use, last year
 Years since first used an image and performance enhancing drug 0-4 36% 141
5+ 32% 128
Median (IQR) 4 (8)
Not reported 32% 126
 Oral anabolic steroids 57% 226
 Oral anti-oestrogens 23% 92
 Oral clenbuterol 15% 60
 Oral ephedrine 20% 78
 Oral thyroid hormones 9% 37
 Oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i; “Viagra/Calias”) 6.6% 26
 Oral other image and performance enhancing drug (inc. Diuretics, 2,4–dinitrophenol and Pro/designer) 12% 46
 Injected anabolic steroids 86% 340
 Injected growth hormone 32% 128
 Injected human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) 16% 62
 Injected insulin injected 5.6% 22
 Injected melanotan 8.6% 34
 Injected other image and performance enhancing drug (inc. ethryopoetin, insulin–like growth factor 1 and nalbuphine hydrochloride) 5.1% 20
Use of other illicit drugs
 Ever injected illicit drug other than an image and performance enhancing drug. 4.8% 19
 Snorted cocaine in the last year 46% 181
 Snorted, drunk or swallowed amphetamine in last year 12% 47
Injecting practice
 Who usually injected you, last year? Someone else 17% 68
Myself 74% 294
Not reported 8.4% 33
 Intramuscular injection in the last year 88% 346
 Subcutaneous injection in the last year 39% 154
 Ever shared needle, syringe or vial 8.9% 35
Sexual behaviour
 Number of sexual partners last year One 38% 152
Two or more 47% 187
Not reported/no sex 14% 56
 Gender of sexual partners last year Male partner(s) 3.3% 13
No male partners 82% 323
Not reported/no sex 15% 59
 Always condom (anal/vaginal sex) or no sex last year 20% 78

[TableWrap ID: BMJOPEN2013003207TB2] Table 2 

Factors associated with risk behaviours among the IPEDs sampled

Total Yes
Unadjusted odds ratio with 95% CI
Adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI
Ever shared a needle, syringe or vial 395 35 8.9%
Number of sexual partners in the last year
 One 152 8 5.3% 0.3 0.12 0.94 *
 Two or more 187 19 10% 0.7 0.28 1.6
 Not reported/no sex 56 8 14% 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.088
Gender of sexual partners in the last year
 Male partner(s) 13 4 31% 5.5 1.6 19 *
 No male partners 323 24 7.4% 1.0
 Not reported/no sex 59 7 12% 1.7 0.69 4.1
Pearson χ2test p= 0.010
Injected illicit drugs other than IPED
 Yes 19 7 37% 7.2 2.6 20 6.3 2.1 19
 No/not reported 376 28 7.4% 1.0 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.001
Have you got advice from a SH/STI clinic in the last year?
 Yes 68 11 16% 2.4 1.1 5.2 2.2 1.0 5.1
 No/not sure 327 24 7.3% 1.0 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.020
Injected growth hormone (as IPED)
 Yes 128 18 14% 2.4 1.2 4.8 *
 No 267 17 6.4% 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.012
Injected Insulin (as IPED)
 Yes 22 5 23% 3.4 1.2 9.8 *
 No 373 30 8.0% 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.035
Subcutaneous injection in the last year?
 Yes 154 21 14% 2.6 1.3 5.2 3.0 1.4 6.5
 No/not sure 241 14 6% 1.0 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.008
Snorted cocaine in the last year?
 Yes 181 22 12% 2.1 1.0 4.4 *
 No 214 13 6.1% 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.034
Snorted, drunk or swallowed amphetamine in the last year?
 Yes 47 11 23% 4.1 1.9 9.1 4.1 1.7 9.8
 No 348 24 6.9% 1.0 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.0002
Always used condom for anal/vaginal sex 350 48 14%
Gender of sexual partners in the last year
 Male partner(s) 13 5 38% 8.1 0.8 83 14 1.3 155
 No male partners 323 42 13% 1.9 0.25 15 2.8 0.35 22
 Not reported 14 1 7.1% 1.0 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.025
Have you ever had a blood test for hepatitis C?
 Yes 82 17 21% 3.2 1.1 9 *
 No 201 26 13% 1.8 0.68 5.0
 Not sure 67 5 7.5% 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.057
Injected anabolic steroids
 Yes 304 46 15% 3.9 0.92 17 4.2 0.96 18
 No 46 2 4.3% 1.0 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.048
Intramuscular injection in the last year?
 Yes 310 46 15% 3.3 0.77 14 *
 No/not sure 40 2 5.0% 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.089
Snorted cocaine in the last year?
 Yes 162 11 7% 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.12 0.52
 No 188 37 20% 1.0 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.0005

*Not in final model.

IPED, image and performance enhancing drugs; SH/STI, sexual health or sexual transmitted infections clinic.

[TableWrap ID: BMJOPEN2013003207TB3] Table 3 

Factors associated the blood-borne virus infections among the IPEDs sampled

Total Positive
Unadjusted odds ratio with 95% CI
Adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI
HIV 395 6 1.5%
Age, years*
 Aged<35 or age unknown 287 1 0.3% 1.0 *
 Aged 35 or over 102 5 4.9% 14 1.62 122
Fisher's exact test p= 0.006
Gender of sexual partners in the last year*
 Male sexual partner 13 3 23% 38 6.79 211 *
 No male partner/no sex 382 3 0.8% 1
Fisher's exact test p= 0.001
Gender of sexual partners in the last year and age (in years)*
 Male sexual partner 13 3 23% 85 8.13 893 79 4.29 1450
 No Male partners, aged <35 or age not reported 285 1 0.4% 1.0 1.0
 No male partners, aged 35 or over 97 2 2.1% 6 0.54 67 9 0.59 135
Pearson χ2test p< 0.001
Injected illicit drugs other than IPED
 Yes 19 2 11% 11 1.87 63.95
 No/not reported 376 4 1.1% 1
Fisher's exact test p= 0.029
Ever had an abscess/sore/open wound at the injection site?
 Yes 27 2 7.4% 7.3 1.27 41.69 77 3.27 1795
 No/not sure 368 4 1.1% 1.0 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.057
Taken or used any prescribed medication in the last year?
 Yes 111 5 4.5% 13 1.54 116
 No/not sure 284 1 0.4% 1
Fisher's exact test p= 0.008
Have you got advice from a SH/STI clinic in the last year?
 Yes 68 4 5.9% 10 1.82 56.6 24 1.03 542
 No/not sure 327 2 0.6% 1 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.009
Have you ever been vaccinated against hepatitis B?
 Yes 90 4 4.4% 7.0 1.27 39.1
 No/not sure 305 2 0.7% 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.026
Have you ever had a blood test for hepatitis C?
 Yes 81 4 4.7% 7.6 1.37 42.3
 No/not sure 308 2 0.9% 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.021
Have you ever had a blood test for HIV?
 Yes 122 4 3.3% 4.6 0.83 25.4
 No/not sure 273 2 0.7% 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.076
Ever shared a needle, syringe or vial?
 Yes 35 2 5.7% 5.4 0.95 30.6
 No/not sure 360 4 1.1% 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.091
Anti-HBc 395 26 6.6%
Have you got advice from a SH/STI clinic in the last year?
 Yes 68 10 14.7% 1.0 1.0
 No/not sure 327 16 4.9% 3.4 1.4 7.7 3.8 1.6 8.9
Fisher's exact test p= 0.006
Subcutaneous injection in the last year?
 Yes 154 6 3.9% 1.0 1.0
 No/not sure 241 20 8.3% 2.2 0.88 5.7 2.6 0.99 6.7
Pearson χ2test p= 0.085
Anti-HCV 395 20 5.1%
Age, years
 Under 25 106 4 3.8% 1.0
 25–34 134 3 2.2% 0.58 0.13 2.7
 35 and over 107 10 9.3% 2.6 0.80 8.7
 Not Reported 48 3 6.3% 1.7 0.37 7.9
Pearson χ2test p= 0.078
Injected illicit drugs other than IPED
 Yes 19 3 15.8% 4.0 1.1 15 4.4 1.1 17.2
 No/not Sure 376 17 4.5% 1.0 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.064
Taken or used any prescribed medication in the last year?
 Yes 111 10 9.0% 2.7 1.1 7
 No/not sure 284 10 3.5% 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.025
Have you ever had a blood test for hepatitis C?
 Yes 85 8 9.4% 1.7 0.55 5.6
 No 221 7 3.2% 0.5 0.17 1.8
 Not sure 89 5 5.6% 1.0
Pearson χ2test p= 0.080
Taken PDE5i: Viagra/cialis
 Yes 26 5 19% 5.6 1.9 17 6.0 1.9 18
 No 369 15 4.1% 1.0 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.007
Injected insulin (as IPED)
 Yes 22 4 18% 5.0 1.5 16
 No 373 16 4.3% 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.019
Other injected IPED (inc. EPO, IGF-1 and Nubain)
 Yes 20 3 15% 3.7 0.99 14
 No 375 17 4.5% 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.073
Ever shared a needle, syringe or vial?
 Yes 35 4 11% 2.8 0.87 8.8
 No/not sure 360 16 4% 1.0
Fisher's exact test p= 0.090

*Combined variable entered into the final model due to an interaction between age and reporting male sexual partners: with 77% of those with male sexual partners aged over 35 years compared with 25% of those not reporting male sexual partners.

†Not in the final model.

SH/STI, sexual health or sexual transmitted infections clinic; Anti-HCV, antibodies to the hepatitis C virus; Anti-HBc, antibodies to the hepatitis B core antigen; EPO, erythropoietin; IGF-1, insulin–like growth factor 1; IPED, image and performance enhancing drugs; PDE5i, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor.

Article Categories:
    • Research
Article Categories:
  • 1506
  • 1842
  • 1724
  • 1692
  • 1681
  • 1706

Keywords: Injecting Drug Use, Prevalence, Image and Performance Enhancing Drugs, HIV, Viral Hepatitis.

Previous Document:  Ultrasound-assisted magnetic SPE based on Fe3 O4 -grafted graphene for the determination of polychlo...
Next Document:  Stakeholder experiences with general practice pharmacist services: a qualitative study.