The increase in benzodiazepine-laced drugs and related risks in Canada: The urgent need for effective and sustainable solutions.

The overdose crisis in Canada has continuously evolved and is increasingly challenging to contain, while efforts from governments and policymakers to address it have often fallen short and resulted in unintended consequences. One of the main repercussions has been an unprecedented rise in adulterants in the illegal drug supply, including a wide array of pharmacological and psychoactive compounds and chemicals, which has resulted in a progressively toxic drug supply. Most recently, there has been a stark increase in synthetic benzodiazepine-laced opioids (i.e., 'benzodope') in some Canadian jurisdictions. This unique combination carries distinct and amplified risks for people who use drugs including fatal and non-fatal overdoses, increased dependence and withdrawal symptoms, and places them in extremely vulnerable positions. The emergence of benzodiazepines within the illicit drug supply has substantially contributed to drug-related morbidity and mortality in Canada, and has further complicated current public health initiatives and overdose prevention efforts. This reality underscores the need for effective and sustainable policy solutions to address the evolving overdose epidemic including increased knowledge and education on the specific harms of opioid and benzodiazepine co-use (especially in regards to the complexity of opioid/benzodiazepine overdoses), scaling-up harm reduction measures, and eliminating the toxic drug supply altogether.

'More of the same, but worse than before': A qualitative study of the challenges encountered by people who use drugs in Nova Scotia, Canada during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: To learn about the experiences of people who use drugs, specifically opioids, in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), in Nova Scotia, Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic through qualitative interviews with people who use drugs and healthcare providers (HCP). This study took place within the HRM, a municipality of 448,500 people [1]. During the pandemic many critical services were interrupted while overdose events increased. We wanted to understand the experiences of people who use drugs as well as their HCPs during the first year of the pandemic. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 13 people who use drugs and 6 HCPs, including physicians who work in addiction medicine (3), a pharmacist, a nurse, and a community-based opioid agonist therapy (OAT) program staff member. Participants were recruited within HRM. Interviews were held via phone or videoconference due to social distancing directives. Interviews focused on the challenges people who use drugs and HCPs faced during the pandemic as well as elicited perspectives on a safe supply of drugs and the associated barriers and facilitators to the provision of a safe supply. RESULTS: Of the 13 people who use drugs who participated in this study, ages ranged from 21-55 years (mean 40). Individuals had spent on average 17 years in HRM. Most people who use drugs (85%, n = 11) utilized income assistance, the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit, or disability support. Many had experienced homelessness (85%, n = 11) and almost half (46%, n = 6) were currently precariously housed in the shelter system. The main themes among interviews (people who use drugs and HCPs) were housing, accessing healthcare and community services, shifts in the drug supply, and perspectives on safe supply. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several challenges that people who use drugs face in general, but especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Access to services, housing support, and interventions to use safely at home were limited. As many challenges faced by people who use drugs exist outside of COVID-19, we concluded that the formal and informal interventions and changes in practice that were made to support people who use drugs should be sustained well past the end of the pandemic. The need for enhanced community supports and a safe supply of drugs, despite its complicated nature, is essential for the health and safety of people who use drugs in HRM, especially during COVID-19.

Spotting as a risk mitigation method: A qualitative study comparing organization-based and informal methods.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the similarities and differences of organization-based and informal spotting (remote supervision of substance use) from the perspectives of spotters and spottees across Canada. METHODS: Spotters and spottees who spot informally and for organizations were recruited across Ontario and Nova Scotia. We interviewed 20 informal and 10 organization-based participants by phone using semi-structured interviews between 08/2020 and 11/2020. Participants were asked about each methods benefits and limitations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Benefits of informal spotting included its ability to strengthen social connections and foster autonomy in overdose response planning. The lack of support for informal spotters created stress and burnout. Organization-based spotters enjoyed the spotting training and support provided. However, regulations surrounding having to call ambulance in overdose events deterred many people from wanting to work for or call these services. CONCLUSIONS: Both organization-based and informal spotting have a role in mitigating harms associated with the overdose crisis. Moving forward, further research is needed on how to optimize these services for all people who use drugs in varying jurisdictions internationally.

A qualitative study on overdose response in the era of COVID-19 and beyond: how to spot someone so they never have to use alone.

BACKGROUND: Spotting is an informal practice among people who use drugs (PWUD) where they witness other people using drugs and respond if an overdose occurs. During COVID-19 restrictions, remote spotting (e.g., using a telephone, video call, and/or a social media app) emerged to address physical distancing requirements and reduced access to harm reduction and/or sexually transmitted blood borne infection (STBBI's) prevention services. We explored spotting implementation issues from the perspectives of spotters and spottees. METHODS: Research assistants with lived/living expertise of drug use used personal networks and word of mouth to recruit PWUD from Ontario and Nova Scotia who provided or used informal spotting. All participants completed a semi-structured, audio-recorded telephone interview about spotting service design, benefits, challenges, and recommendations. Recordings were transcribed and thematic analysis was used. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 individuals between 08/2020-11/2020 who were involved in informal spotting. Spotting was provided on various platforms (e.g., telephone, video calls, and through texts) and locations (e.g. home, car), offered connection and community support, and addressed barriers to the use of supervised consumption sites (e.g., location, stigma, confidentiality, safety, availability, COVID-19 related closures). Spotting calls often began with setting an overdose response plan (i.e., when and who to call). Many participants noted that, due to the criminalization of drug use and fear of arrest, they preferred that roommates/friends/family members be called instead of emergency services in case of an overdose. Both spotters and spottees raised concerns about the timeliness of overdose response, particularly in remote and rural settings. CONCLUSION: Spotting is a novel addition to, but not replacement for, existing harm reduction services. To optimize overdose/COVID-19/STBBI's prevention services, additional supports (e.g., changes to Good Samaritan Laws) are needed. The criminalization of drug use may limit uptake of formal spotting services.

Evaluation of an emergency safe supply drugs and managed alcohol program in COVID-19 isolation hotel shelters for people experiencing homelessness.

BACKGROUND: During a COVID-19 outbreak in the congregate shelter system in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, a healthcare team provided an emergency "safe supply" of medications and alcohol to facilitate isolation in COVID-19 hotel shelters for residents who use drugs and/or alcohol. We aimed to evaluate (a) substances and dosages provided, and (b) outcomes of the program. METHODS: We reviewed medical records of all COVID-19 isolation hotel shelter residents during May 2021. The primary outcome was successful completion of 14 days isolation, as directed by public health orders. Adverse events included (a) overdose; (b) intoxication; and (c) diversion, selling, or sharing of medications or alcohol. RESULTS: Seventy-seven isolation hotel residents were assessed (mean age 42 ± 14 years; 24% women). Sixty-two (81%) residents were provided medications, alcohol, or cigarettes. Seventeen residents (22%) received opioid agonist treatment (methadone, buprenorphine, or slow-release oral morphine) and 27 (35%) received hydromorphone. Thirty-one (40%) residents received prescriptions stimulants. Six (8%) residents received benzodiazepines and forty-two (55%) received alcohol. Over 14 days, mean daily dosages increased of hydromorphone (45 ± 32 - 57 ± 42 mg), methylphenidate (51 ± 28 - 77 ± 37 mg), and alcohol (12.3 ± 7.6 - 13.0 ± 6.9 standard drinks). Six residents (8%) left isolation prematurely, but four returned. During 1059 person-days, there were zero overdoses. Documented concerns regarding intoxication occurred six times (0.005 events/person-day) and medication diversion/sharing three times (0.003 events/person-day). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 isolation hotel residents participating in an emergency safe supply and managed alcohol program experienced high rates of successful completion of 14 days isolation and low rates of adverse events.

"The times they are a-changin'": Addressing common misconceptions about the role of safe supply in North America's overdose crisis

Reply by the current author to the comments made by Kathleen M. Carroll et al. (see record 2021-06968-004), Brandon del Pozo (see record 2021-06968-005) and Anna Lembke (see record 2021-06968-006) on the original article (see record 2021-06968-003). We appreciate the authors' commentaries engaging with our perspective article on the potential roles for drug decriminalization and safe supply in response to the syndemic of HIV, hepatitis C, overdose, and COVID-19 among people who use drugs (PWUD). They have each raised some commonly expressed concerns regarding the relative benefits and risks of safe supply;however, considering the life-or-death importance of this topic, we feel it is necessary to address these arguments head-on. Here, we discuss how the crisis has changed over the last 20 years and how the urgent responses we detailed are desperately needed. We push back on the idea that harm reduction implementation needs to be done in a piecemeal way and that only certain types of treatment should be used. Last, we discuss the importance of implementing a range of responses that address the needs of PWUD. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Addressing the Syndemic of HIV, Hepatitis C, Overdose, and COVID-19 Among People Who Use Drugs: The Potential Roles for Decriminalization and Safe Supply.

People who use drugs (PWUD) face concurrent public health emergencies from overdoses, HIV, hepatitis C, and COVID-19, leading to an unprecedented syndemic. Responses to PWUD that go beyond treatment--such as decriminalization and providing a safe supply of pharmaceutical-grade drugs--could reduce impacts of this syndemic. Solutions already implemented for COVID-19, such as emergency safe-supply prescribing and providing housing to people experiencing homelessness, must be sustained once COVID-19 is contained. This pandemic is not only a public health crisis but also a chance to develop and maintain equitable and sustainable solutions to the harms associated with the criminalization of drug use.