Search

BackgroundSkin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among people who inject drugs (PWID). International data indicate up to one third of PWID have experienced an SSTI within the past month. Complications include sepsis, endocarditis and amyloid A (AA) amyloidosis. AA amyloidosis is a serious sequela of chronic SSTI among PWID. Though there is a paucity of literature reporting on AA amyloidosis among PWID, what has been published suggests there is likely a causal relationship between AA amyloidosis and injecting-related SSTI. If left untreated, AA amyloidosis can lead to renal failure; premature mortality among diagnosed PWID is high. Early intervention may reverse disease. Despite the high societal and individual burden of SSTI among PWID, empirical evidence on the barriers and facilitators to injecting-related SSTI prevention and care or the feasibility and acceptability of AA amyloidosis screening and treatment referral are limited. This study aims to fill these gaps and assess the prevalence of AA amyloidosis among PWID.MethodsCare and Prevent is a UK National Institute for Health Research-funded mixed-methods study. In five phases (P1-P5), we aim to assess the evidence for AA amyloidosis among PWID (P1); assess the feasibility of AA amyloidosis screening, diagnostic and treatment referral among PWID in London (P2); investigate the barriers and facilitators to AA amyloidosis care (P3); explore SSTI protection and risk (P4); and co-create harm reduction resources with the affected community (P5). This paper describes the conceptual framework, methodological design and proposed analysis for the mixed-methods multi-phase study.ResultsWe are implementing the Care and Prevent protocol in London. The systematic review component of the study has been completed and published. Care and Prevent will generate an estimate of AA amyloidosis prevalence among community recruited PWID in London, with implications for the development of screening recommendations and intervention implementation. We aim to recruit 400 PWID from drug treatment services in London, UK.ConclusionsCare and Prevent is the first study to assess screening feasibility and the prevalence of positive proteinuria, as a marker for AA amyloidosis, among PWID accessing drug treatment services. AA amyloidosis is a serious, yet under-recognised condition for which early intervention is available but not employed.

Background: Management of opioid withdrawal in hospital settings is crucial to improve treatment completion and health outcomes among patients who use opioids, such as heroin. Evidence-based clinical guidelines can support responsive provision of opioid substitution therapy (OST). In England there is no standardised application of guidance for substance dependence management across National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals. A recent review of NHS hospital policies identified varying approaches to managing opioid withdrawal and procedural barriers to timely medication., Objective: To develop a clinical guideline for opioid withdrawal management in acute NHS hospital trusts to be tested and evaluated as part of the iHOST (Improving Hospital Opioid Substitution Therapy) research intervention., Methods: We undertook a deliberative guideline development process. The University London College Hospital (UCLH) substance dependence guideline was used as a template, with key points of revision informed by evidence review, consultations with hospital staff and people with opioid dependence. A multidisciplinary working group deliberated evidence statements to develop recommendations. These were reviewed by an oversight committee comprising representatives from key stakeholder organisations. The team authored the guideline with iterative review by the oversight committee, key stakeholders and UCLH clinical governance committees., Results: Deliberation focused on three key domains: (1) identifying opioid dependence and promptly continuing existing OST prescriptions; (2) initiating or re-titrating OST; (3) ensuring safety and continuity of care at discharge. Changes to the UCLH guideline included removal of mandatory urine drug testing prior to OST; increasing initial methadone titration dose; and provision for a higher day-one titration dose when specific safety criteria are met. A new titration schedule for sublingual buprenorphine was incorporated. Discharge planning to ensure continuity of community care and reduce risk of opioid overdose was emphasised, with allowance for bridging prescriptions of OST and naloxone provision on hospital discharge., Conclusion: The iHOST clinical guideline aims to remove procedural barriers to opioid withdrawal management for hospital inpatients. It is intended to be implemented by other NHS hospitals, which could improve access to OST and reduce discrepancies in treatment access and completion., Study Registration: ISRCTN47320412 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN47320412 ., Competing Interests: Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate The iHOST study received ethics approval from NHS Ethics (IRAS 310856) and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (Ref 27895). Informed written consent was provided by participants for all audio recorded focus group sessions. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Over 180,000 people use crack cocaine in England, yet provision of smoking equipment to support safer crack use is prohibited under UK law. Pipes used for crack cocaine smoking are often homemade and/or in short supply, leading to pipe sharing and injuries from use of unsafe materials. This increases risk of viral infection and respiratory harm among a marginalised underserved population. International evaluations suggest crack pipe supply leads to sustained reductions in pipe sharing and use of homemade equipment; increased health risk awareness; improved service access; reduction in injecting and crack-related health problems. In this paper, we introduce the protocol for the NIHR-funded SIPP (Safe inhalation pipe provision) project and discuss implications for impact., Methods: The SIPP study will develop, implement and evaluate a crack smoking equipment and training intervention to be distributed through peer networks and specialist drug services in England. Study components comprise: (1) peer-network capacity building and co-production; (2) a pre- and post-intervention survey at intervention and non-equivalent control sites; (3) a mixed-method process evaluation; and (4) an economic evaluation. Participant eligibility criteria are use of crack within the past 28 days, with a survey sample of ~ 740 for each impact evaluation survey point and ~ 40 for qualitative process evaluation interviews. Our primary outcome measure is pipe sharing within the past 28 days, with secondary outcomes pertaining to use of homemade pipes, service engagement, injecting practice and acute health harms., Anticipated Impact: SIPP aims to reduce crack use risk practices and associated health harms; including through increasing crack harm reduction awareness among service providers and peers. Implementation has only been possible with local police approvals. Our goal is to generate an evidence base to inform review of the legislation prohibiting crack pipe supply in the UK. This holds potential to transform harm reduction service provision and engagement nationally., Conclusion: People who smoke crack cocaine in England currently have little reason to engage with harm reduction and drug services. Little is known about this growing population. This study will provide insight into population characteristics, unmet need and the case for legislative reform., Trial Registration: ISRCTN12541454  https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12541454., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The use of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) and associated image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) is now a global phenomenon. There is a need to develop evidence to support the development of interventions to prevent the commencement of use, to minimise the potential harms or to support those in their cessation of use. While the United Kingdom (UK) is no exception to this issue, its public health and legislative response to the phenomenon differs to other countries and requires the examination of research specific to the UK. Therefore, a scoping review has been conducted to examine the recent relevant literature to help inform the development and evaluation of effective interventions to reduce the harmful use of IPEDs., Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was developed for multiple bibliographic databases, supported by and iterative citation searching process and complimented by expert input from the Anabolic Steroid UK Network. Research conducted by or UK academics or within the UK were eligible, if published in the previous five years., Results: In total 87 eligible outputs were identified, including 26 review articles, 25 qualitative papers and 24 quantitative papers. together with small numbers of clinical studies/case reports (6) and commentaries/correspondence (6). The most common topics of research were public health, treatment and harm reduction (41), followed by studies focusing on epidemiology, sub-groups of people using IPEDs and motivations for use (34). The studies illustrated the diverse populations of people who use a range of enhancement drugs including concomitant psychoactive drug use. A number of papers focused on blood borne viruses and associated issues, while others reported on the uptake of needle and syringe programmes. No effectiveness evaluations related to any aspect of treatment, harm reduction or other intervention were published during study period., Conclusion: There is a need for the development of effectiveness evaluations of current interventions and any future service provision for people using image and performance enhancing drugs. While there have been no studies of this nature to date, this review illustrates the rich data that has been gathered through diverse methodologies, that will assist in the development of future effectiveness evaluations., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Background: The United Kingdom is experiencing an increase in drug-related deaths and serious bacterial infections among its most vulnerable citizens. Cuts to essential services, coupled with a growing homeless population, create a challenging environment to tackle this public health crisis. In this paper, we highlight an underexplored environmental constraint faced by people living and injecting drugs on the streets. Access to water for injection is restricted in the UK, due to legislative and financial barriers. Austerity measures, such as public toilet closures, further restrict the ability of people made homeless to access clean water and protect themselves from health harms., Methods: We generated questionnaire (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 32) data with people who inject drugs in London for the Care and Prevent study. Participants provided detail on their life history; drug use, injecting and living environments; health conditions and care seeking practices., Findings: A high proportion of the survey sample reported lifetime history of street homelessness (78%), bacterial infections (65%) and related hospitalisation (30%). Qualitative accounts highlight unsafe, potentially dangerous, injection practices in semi-public spaces. Multiple constraints to sourcing sterile water for injection preparation were reported. Alternatives to sterile water included puddle water, toilet cistern water, whisky, cola soda and saliva. Participants who injected heroin and crack cocaine together unanimously reported adding water at two stages during injection preparation: first, adding water as a vehicle for heroin (which was then heated); second, adding cold water to the heroin mixture prior to adding the crack cocaine. This new finding of a stage addition of solvent may represent an additional risk of infection., Conclusion: Currently, harm reduction equipment and resources for safe injecting are not meeting the needs of people who inject drugs who are street homeless or unstably housed. Preparation of injections with non-sterile water sources could precipitate bacterial and fungal infections, particularly when used without the application of heat. It is crucial that water for injection, also skin cleaning, is made available for the unstably housed and that harm reduction messaging is tailored to speak to the everyday realities of people who prepare and inject drugs in public spaces.

Background: Venous access is a priority for people who inject drugs (PWID). Damage and scarring of peripheral veins can exacerbate health harms, such as skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), and promote transitions to femoral and subcutaneous injecting. Brown heroin available in Europe requires acidification for injection preparation. In this paper, we present mixed-methods data to explore our hypothesis of a link between overly acidic injection solutions, venous damage and SSTI risk., Methods: We present a structured survey (n = 455) and in-depth qualitative interview (n = 31) data generated with PWID in London for the Care & Prevent study. Participants provided life history data and detail on injecting environments and drug preparation practices, including the use of acidifiers. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted using a logistic regression for binary outcomes to explore associations between outcomes and excessive acidifier use. Grounded theory principles informed inductive qualitative analysis. Mixed-methods triangulation was iterative with results comparison informing the direction and questions asked of further analyses., Results: Of the 455 participants, most (92%) injected heroin and/or crack cocaine, with 84% using citric as their primary acid for drug preparation. Overuse of acidifier was common: of the 418 who provided an estimate, 36% (n = 150) used more than ½ a sachet, with 30% (n = 127) using a whole sachet or more. We found associations between acidifier overuse, femoral injecting and DVT, but not SSTI. Qualitative accounts highlight the role of poor heroin quality, crack cocaine use, information and manufacturing constraints in acidifier overuse. Painful injections and damage to peripheral veins were common and often attributed to the use of citric acid., Conclusions: To reduce injecting-related injury and associated consequences, it is crucial to understand the interplay of environmental and practice-based risks underpinning venous damage among PWID. Overuse of acidifier is a modifiable risk factor. In the absence of structural supports such as safe injecting facilities or the prescribing of pharmaceutical diamorphine, there is an urgent need to revisit injecting paraphernalia design and distribution in order to alleviate health harms and distress among the most marginalised.