Search

Background: Exposure to potent synthetic opioids such as illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF) has fueled the escalating overdose crisis in the USA, particularly in the east coast. Drug checking services, which allow people who use drugs (PWUD) to learn about the contents of their drugs, remain limited and even criminalized in many states. Further, there is a persistent belief that PWUD are not willing or able to change their behaviors despite being aware of their potential exposure to fentanyl through drug use. Methods: We conducted a multi-site cross-sectional study among PWUD to assess what behaviors, if any, were employed in the case of suspected fentanyl exposure, and the correlates of engaging in harm reduction behaviors (HRB). PWUD (N = 334) were recruited in Boston (n = 80), Providence (n = 79), and in Baltimore (n = 175). At the time of the survey, no legal drug checking services were available in these cities. Results: The majority of PWUD (84%) expressed concern about fentanyl. Among those who suspected fentanyl exposure prior to using their drugs (n = 196), 39% reported employing HRB including using less of the drug (12%) or abstaining altogether (10%), using more slowly (5%), and doing a tester shot (5%). In adjusted logistic regression models, the odds (aOR) of practicing HRB after suspecting fentanyl exposure were increased among PWUD who were non-White (aOR 2.1; p = 0.004) and older (aOR 1.52 per decade of age; p < 0.001). Daily injection (aOR 0.50; p < 0.001), using drugs in public (aOR 0.58; p = 0.001), using drugs alone (aOR 0.68; p < 0.001), and experiencing multiple recent overdoses (aOR 0.55; p < 0.001) were associated with decreased odds of practicing HRB. Conclusions: These data illustrate that PWUD employ a number of practices to reduce overdose risk in a context of unknown drug purity and content. Results may also guide efforts to identify early adopters of drug checking services and engage them in peer-outreach to target the most socially and structurally vulnerable PWUD, who are not reporting behavior change, with harm reduction messaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2018, there were over 67,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States, with almost half involving illicit fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. While overall age-adjusted drug overdose deaths decreased by 4.6% from 2017 to 2018, synthetic opioid deaths increased 10.0%. This pilot study evaluates the impact of a brief fentanyl test strip (FTS) intervention to increase fentanyl awareness and reduce overdose risk.Methods: Female sex workers (FSW) reporting past month illicit opioid use were recruited between April 2018 through February 2019 in Baltimore City, Maryland. At baseline, they completed a baseline survey, and received tailored harm reduction messaging, 5 FTS and training, and a naloxone kit, then completed a survey after one month. McNemar's test was used to compare repeated measures.Results: Among N = 103, 54% were <40 years, 59% were white, and 24% had overdosed in the past year. Among 68 who completed follow-up, most (84%) used ≥1 FTS to test their drugs, 86% had ≥1 fentanyl-positive result, 57% were surprised by the result, and 69% engaged in harm reduction behaviors following the result (e.g., asked someone to check on them, did a tester shot, used a smaller amount). Significant pretest-posttest reductions in daily illicit opioid use (77% to 56%; p = 0.003), injection frequency (40% to 25%; p = 0.004), benzodiazepine use (22% to 7%; p = 0.008), and solitary drug use (96% vs. 68%; p < 0.001) were observed. No change in preferring drugs containing fentanyl was found. Some (18%) gave their FTS to others. All but three (96%) reported being likely to use FTS in the future.Conclusions: We found high FTS acceptability and reductions in drug use frequency and solitary drug use following FTS use among FSW who use drugs in Baltimore. These findings demonstrate that FTS-based interventions hold potential in reducing overdose risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overdose prevention centers (OPCs), also known as supervised injection facilities and safe consumption sites, are evidenced-based interventions for preventing overdose deaths and drug-related morbidities. The pathways to legalizing OPCs in the USA have confronted multiple social, political, and legal obstacles. We conducted a multi-site, qualitative study to explore heterogeneities in these pathways in four jurisdictions, as well as to understand stakeholder perspectives on valuable strategies for galvanizing political and public support for OPCs. Methods: From July 2022 to February 2023, we conducted 17 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with OPC policymakers, service providers, advocates, and researchers from California, New York City, Philadelphia, and Rhode Island, where efforts have been undertaken to authorize OPCs. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified and compared contextually relevant, salient approaches for increasing support for OPCs. Results: Participants described several strategies clustering around five distinct domains: (1) embedding OPC advocacy into broader overdose prevention coalitions to shape policy dialogs; (2) building rapport with a plurality of powerbrokers (e.g., lawmakers, health departments, law enforcement) who could amplify the impact of OPC advocacy; (3) emphasizing specific benefits of OPCs to different audiences in different contexts; (4) leveraging relationships with frontline workers (e.g., emergency medicine and substance use treatment providers) to challenge OPC opposition, including 'NIMBY-ism,' and misinformation; and (5) prioritizing transparency in OPC decision-making to foster public trust. Conclusion: While tailored to the specific socio-political context of each locality, multiple OPC advocacy strategies have been deployed to cultivate support for OPCs in the USA. Advocacy strategies that are multi-pronged, leverage partnerships with stakeholders at multiple levels, and tailor communications to different audiences and settings could yield the greatest impact in increasing support for, and diffusing opposition to, future OPC implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Limited research has examined pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) interest among people who inject drugs (PWID). To date, few studies have examined the relationship between PrEP eligibility and PrEP interest among PWID.Methods: Data were from an anonymous, cross-sectional survey of Baltimore Syringe Services Program (SSP) clients and non-client peers, restricted to HIV-uninfected participants (N = 265). Participants were classified as PrEP eligible/ineligible based on injection related criteria outlined in the CDC's PrEP guidelines. Participants were asked if they were previously aware of PrEP, would be interested in taking PrEP, and the ease of taking PrEP daily. Participants self-reported their sociodemographic characteristics, health diagnoses, and recent drug use, overdose, and drug treatment history. We estimated bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models to test for significant predictors of interest in PrEP.Results: One-quarter of PWID had previously heard of PrEP and 63% of the sample was interested in taking PrEP. Only two respondents were currently taking PrEP. The majority (89%) thought taking PrEP every day would be easy. In the presence of other variables, PrEP interest was associated with PrEP eligibility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.46; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.34,4.50) and the number of medical diagnoses (aOR = 1.16; 95% CI:1.01,1.33) CONCLUSIONS: Most PWID were unaware of PrEP but interested in taking it. PWID who were eligible for PrEP are more likely to be interested in taking it. Having co-morbid conditions was an important correlate of PrEP interest. These results underscore the importance of providers across the healthcare sector engaging PWID in discussions about PrEP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The opioid epidemic is one of the greatest public health crises of our times, driven increasingly by synthetic opioids such as fentanyl in the heroin supply. The implementation of drug checking in community settings has the potential to reduce the burden of fatal overdose, provide harm reduction education around safer drug consumption, and increase health access among people who use drugs (PWUD). To inform program development, we explored stakeholder opinions on drug checking technologies and implementation considerations.Methods: This study, from the larger FORECAST study, utilized semi-structured in-depth interviews (n = 32) with a range of stakeholders in Baltimore, Boston, and Providence, many of whom were service providers. Stakeholders represented various roles and levels in organization types including harm reduction, public health, peer groups, and advocates. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were coded using a priori codes; the coded text was analyzed for key themes.Results: Stakeholders responded positively to drug checking technology, though they shared apprehensions regarding service implementation. Primary topics requiring consideration included: utility in fentanyl endemic areas, trust and rapport between providers and PWUD, legality and policy concerns. Additional considerations included: technology accuracy, cost, ease of distribution, and service delivery setting.Conclusions: Stakeholders overwhelmingly supported the concept of drug checking with the goals of providing needed risk reduction information and resources to PWUD and serving as a point for greater engagement in services. Programs need to be tailored to local circumstances. Law enforcement buy-in and policy change will be critical aspects of providing drug checking services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rural communities in the United States have been disproportionately affected by the opioid crisis. Little research has explored the relationship between polysubstance use and overdose experiences among people who inject drugs (PWID) in rural communities. We sought to identify classes of polysubstance drug use among rural PWID and evaluate the associations between polysubstance drug use classes, recent overdose experiences, and receipt of take-home naloxone (THN).Methods: We surveyed 420 PWID (June-July 2018) who had injected drugs in the previous 6 months in Cabell County, West Virginia. Participants were recruited from the local syringe services program and through street-based recruitment. We conducted a latent class analysis using 9 measures of injection and non-injection drug use and tested for associations with having experienced an overdose in the past 6 months and having received THN in the past 6 months.Results: We identified four substance use classes in our sample: polydrug/polyroute use (35.0% of the sample), polyroute stimulant/injection opioid use (33.3%), polyroute stimulant use (20.3%), and injection opioid use (11.3%). Overall, 42.6% of the sample had experienced an overdose in the past 6 months. The classes differed in terms of overdose (χ=91.53, p<0.001), with the polydrug/polyroute use class having the highest probability of overdose and the polyroute stimulants class having the lowest. Only 46.5% of participants had received THN, and probabilities differed between classes (χ=21.93, p<0.001). The polyroute stimulants/injection opioid use and polydrug/polyroute use classes had the highest levels of THN receipt while the polyroute stimulants use class had the least.Conclusion: Among rural PWID in West Virginia, polysubstance use was prevalent and associated with overdose and THN acquisition. These analyses demonstrate the importance of scaling up naloxone distribution in rural settings. Overdose prevention initiatives are reaching persons at high risk of overdose, but expansion of services is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]