Search

Abstract Background Shifts in the US drug supply, including the proliferation of synthetic opioids and emergence of xylazine, have contributed to the worsening toll of the overdose epidemic. Drug checking services offer a critical intervention to promote agency among people who use drugs (PWUD) to reduce overdose risk. Current drug checking methods can be enhanced to contribute to supply-level monitoring in the USA, overcoming the selection bias associated with existing supply monitoring efforts and informing public health interventions. Methods As a group of analytical chemists, public health researchers, evaluators, and harm reductionists, we used a semi-structured guide to facilitate discussion of four different approaches for syringe service programs (SSPs) to offer drug checking services for supply-level monitoring. Using thematic analysis, we identified four key principles that SSPs should consider when implementing drug checking programs. Results A number of analytical methods exist for drug checking to contribute to supply-level monitoring. While there is likely not a one-size-fits-all approach, SSPs should prioritize methods that can (1) provide immediate utility to PWUD, (2) integrate seamlessly into existing workflows, (3) balance individual- and population-level data needs, and (4) attend to legal concerns for implementation and dissemination. Conclusions Enhancing drug checking methods for supply-level monitoring has the potential to detect emerging threats in the drug supply and reduce the toll of the worsening overdose epidemic.

Abstract Background Significant heterogeneity exists among people who use drugs (PWUD). We identify distinct profiles of syringe service program (SSP) clients to (a) evaluate differential risk factors across subgroups and (b) inform harm reduction programming. Methods Latent class analysis (LCA) was applied to identify subgroups of participants (N = 3418) in a SSP in Columbus, Ohio, from 2019 to 2021. Demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, housing status) and drug use characteristics (substance[s] used, syringe gauge, needle length, using alone, mixing drugs, sharing supplies, reducing use, self-reported perceptions on the impact of use, and treatment/support resources) were used as indicators to define latent classes. A five-class LCA model was developed, and logistic regression was then employed to compare risk factors at program initiation and at follow-up visits between latent classes. Results Five latent classes were identified: (1) heterosexual males using opioids/stimulants with housing instability and limited resources for treatment/support (16.1%), (2) heterosexual individuals using opioids with stable housing and resources for treatment/support (33.1%), (3) individuals using methamphetamine (12.4%), (4) young white individuals using opioids/methamphetamine (20.5%), and (5) females using opioids/cocaine (17.9%). Class 2 served as the reference group for logistic regression models, and at the time of entry, class 1 was more likely to report history of substance use treatment, overdose, HCV, sharing supplies, and mixing drugs, with persistently higher odds of sharing supplies and mixing drugs at follow-up. Class 3 was more likely to report history of overdose, sharing supplies, and mixing drugs, but outcomes at follow-up were comparable. Class 4 was the least likely to report history of overdose, HCV, and mixing drugs, but the most likely to report HIV. Class 5 was more likely to report history of substance use treatment, overdose, HCV, sharing supplies, and mixing drugs at entry, and higher reports of accessing substance use treatment and testing positive for HCV persisted at follow-up. Conclusions Considerable heterogeneity exists among PWUD, leading to differential risk factors that may persist throughout engagement in harm reduction services. LCA can identify distinct profiles of PWUD accessing services to tailor interventions that address risks, improve outcomes, and mitigate disparities.