Purpose of review Recent breakthroughs in HIV-prevention science led us to evaluate the current state of combination HIV prevention for injection drug users (IDUs). We review the recent literature focusing on possible reasons why coverage of prevention interventions for HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and tuberculosis among IDUs remains dismal. We make recommendations for future HIV research and policy. Recent findings IDUs disproportionately under-utilize voluntary HIV counseling and testing (VCT), primary care and antiretroviral therapy (ART), especially in countries that have the largest burden of HIV among IDUs. IDUs present later in the course of HIV infection and experience greater morbidity and mortality. Why are IDUs under-represented in HIV-prevention research, access to treatment for both HIV and addiction, and access to HIV combination prevention? Possible explanations include addictophobia, apathy, and inattention, which we describe in the context of recent literature and events. Summary This commentary discusses the current state of HIV-prevention interventions for IDUs including VCT, needle and syringe program (NSP), opioid substitution therapy (OST), ART and pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis (PrEP), and discusses ways to work towards true combination HIV prevention for IDU populations. Communities need to overcome tacit assumptions that IDUs can navigate through systems that are maintained as separate silos, and begin to take a rights-based approach to HIV prevention to ensure that IDUs have equitable access to life-saving prevention and treatments.

We compared social network characteristics of African American men who have sex with men only (MSMO) with social network characteristics of African American men who have sex with men and women (MSMW). Study participants were 234 African American men who have sex with men who completed a baseline social network assessment for a pilot behavioral HIV prevention intervention in Baltimore, Maryland, from 2006 through 2009. We surveyed the men to elicit the characteristics of their social networks, and we used logistic regression models to assess differences in network characteristics. MSMO were significantly more likely than were MSMW to be HIV-positive (52% vs 31%). We found no differences between MSMO and MSMW in the size of kin networks or emotional and material support networks. MSMW had denser sexual networks, reported more concurrent and exchange partners, used condoms with more sexual partners, and reported interaction with a larger number of sexual partners at least once a week. Although there were many similarities in the social and sexual network characteristics of MSMO and MSMW, differences did exist. HIV prevention interventions should address the unique needs of African American MSMW.