MSM who are also in the IDU population further have been reported to have increased violence, which should be considered in HIV prevention efforts .
Therefore, the IDU and NIDU populations should be separated to clearly define the best intervention methods for these differing groups at risk of contracting HIV.
Future studies should include HIV testing and measurement of HIV seroconversion to fully elucidate intervention effects.
In the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the incidence of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnoses continues to remain high, with certain sociodemographic groups experiencing increased rates of HIV compared to the general population.
Some have reported that IDU populations require increased HIV testing and implementation of alternative programs to reduce sexual and drug use risk behaviors .
IDU populations also have higher transmission rates of HIV than NIDU populations due to widespread needle sharing practices, high rate of new injector initiation, and unsafe syringe cleaning practices [6, 7].
Given the increased risk of HIV infection in substance users, universal interventions are needed to approach risk reduction.
Universal interventions meaning prevention intervention efforts designed to reach the entire population of substance users rather than target specific subgroups of the population and focusing primarily on prevention of those who are not already HIV positive.
Reasons for the increased risk of contracting HIV in these particular sociodemographic groups may include lack of HIV and substance use education, lack of access to healthcare, discrimination, and increased stigma .
Furthermore, intravenous drug user (IDU) populations have different prevention needs than non-intravenous drug user (NIDU) populations.