Professor of Public Health
areas of expertise
Viv Hope joined Public Health Institute in November 2016 as Professor of Public Health. Prior to that Viv was a Principal Scientist at Public Health England and also a Senior Lecturer at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He has also held positions at Imperial College London and the University of Birmingham.
The focus of Viv’s work has been on the health harms, particularly infections, associated with drug use and sexual health. His other interests include homelessness and LGBT health.
University of Bath, Bath, United Kingdom, PhD
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, MMedSci
Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, United Kingdom, BSc (Hons)
Professor Vivian Hope's Papers
Low levels of hepatitis C diagnosis and testing uptake among people who inject image and performance enhancing drugs in England and Wales, 2012-15
Drug and Alcohol Dependence Volume 179, 1 October 2017, Pages 83-86, 2017.
Abstract: Introduction: People injecting image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) have traditionally not been perceived as being at high risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. However, recent studies indicate the HCV antibody (anti-HCV) prevalence in this group is 10-times that in the general population. HCV testing uptake and undiagnosed infections are examined using data from a voluntary unlinked-anonymous survey. Method: People injecting IPEDs across England and Wales completed a short bio-behavioural survey (2012–15). Anti-HCV status and self-reports of HCV testing were used in the analysis. Results: The participants median age was 31 years, 98% were men, 14% had also injected psychoactive drugs and the anti-HCV prevalence was 4.8% (N = 564). Among those who had never injected psychoactive drugs the anti-HCV prevalence was 1.4%; among those who had recently injected psychoactive drugs (preceding 12 months) prevalence was 39% and among those who had done this previously 14% (p < 0.001). Overall, 37% had been tested for HCV: among those who had recently injected psychoactive drugs 78% had been tested, as had 56% of those who had injected psychoactive drugs previously; 33% of those never injecting psychoactive drugs were tested (p < 0.001). Overall, 44% of those with anti-HCV were aware of this; however, only 14% of those who had never injected psychoactive drugs were aware. Conclusions: One-in-twenty people who inject IPEDs have anti-HCV. HCV infections among those who had never injected psychoactive drugs were mostly undiagnosed, though this group had a lower prevalence. Targeted HCV testing interventions are also needed for those injecting IPEDs.
Is the recent emergence of mephedrone injecting in the United Kingdom associated with elevated risk behaviours and blood borne virus infection?
Professor Vivian Hope, Katelyn Cullen, Josie Smith, Lucy Jessop, John V. Parry, Fortune Ncube
Euro Surveill. 2016 May 12;21(19), 2016.
Abstract: The recent, and rapid, emergence of injection of the short-acting stimulant mephedrone (4-methylmethcathione) has resulted in concerns about increased infection risks among people who inject drugs (PWID). Data from the bio-behavioural surveillance of PWID in the United Kingdom were analysed to examine the impact of mephedrone injection on infections among PWID. During the year preceding the survey, 8.0% of PWID (163/2,047) had injected mephedrone. In multivariable analyses, those injecting mephedrone were younger, less likely to have injected opiates, and more likely to have injected cocaine or amphetamines, used needle/syringe programmes or sexual health clinics, been recruited in Wales and Northern Ireland or shared needles/syringes. There were no differences in sexual risks. Those injecting mephedrone more often had hepatitis C antibodies (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-2.12), human immunodeficiency virus (AOR = 5.43; 95% CI: 1.90-15.5) and overdosed (AOR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.12-2.57). There were no differences in the frequency of injecting site infections or prevalence of hepatitis B. The elevated levels of risk and infections are a concern considering its recent emergence. Mephedrone injection may currently be focused among higher-risk or more vulnerable groups. Targeted responses are needed to prevent an increase in harm.
BMJ-British Medical Journal, 2016.
We welcome the news item on the role of harm reduction in the ‘fight’ against HIV1 and we broadly agree with the findings of the report The Case for a Harm Reduction Decade: Progress, Potential and Paradigm Shifts.2 Clearly harm reduction for people who inject drugs (PWID) is having a positive impact on HIV in places such as the Ukraine, Nepal and parts of China and Kenya. This is supported by evidence of the long term impact of harm reduction approaches in controlling HIV among PWID in the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Australia. The increased benefits of even a modest proportional shift in resource from the so called ‘War on Drugs’ to evidence based harm reduction policies is a compelling argument. However, in addition to addressing the needs of established drug injecting populations such as heroin and stimulant injectors, we must also get ahead of the curve in relation to emerging patterns of injecting drug use to reduce the number of new cases of HIV. The injection of image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) has been largely overlooked in relation to blood borne virus risks. IPEDs are a collective term for anabolic steroids, growth hormones, other drugs to increase musculature and associated ancillary drugs, together with peptide hormones such as melanotan II (a synthetic melanocortin analogue) and other drugs that are used for enhancement purposes. A recent meta-analysis and meta-regression of 187 studies on anabolic steroid use indicated a global lifetime prevalence of 3.3%.3 IPED users are growing as a client group in many countries with long standing provision of needle and syringe programmes, such as Australia4 and the United Kingdom where many services now report that over half of their clients inject IPEDs.5 Furthermore, in the United Kingdom there is conclusive evidence of HIV being present within this group of PWID, with an HIV prevalence of 1.5%6 amongst men injecting IPEDs, a level that is comparable to that among those injecting opioids and/or stimulants in the UK. Finally, there is evidence that people using IPED are a very sexually active population with low rates of condom use suggesting a risk of HIV transmission through their sexual networks.6 The use of IPEDs and in particular the injection of anabolic steroids by men, must be viewed as a serious public health concern requiring the attention of policy makers. Addressing the needs of emerging and often hidden populations of PWID should be part of the focus for harm reduction interventions. 1 BMJ 2016;352:i1479 2 Harm Reduction International. The case for a harm reduction decade: progress, potential and paradigm shifts. 2016. www.ihra.net/harm-reduction-decade 3 Sagoe D, Molde H, Andreassen CS, et al. The global epidemiology of anabolic-androgenic steroid use: a meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis. Ann Epidemiol 2014;24:383-98. 4 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 Rev. 2013;32:205-7. 5 Kimergård A, McVeigh J. Variability and dilemmas in harm reduction for anabolic steroid users in the UK: a multi-area interview study. Harm Reduct J 2014;11:19. 6 Hope VD, McVeigh J, Marongiu A, et al. 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. BMJ Open 2013;3:e003207.