Insights from Drug Checking Programs: Practicing Bootstrap Public Health Whilst Tailoring to Local Drug User Needs.

The year 2021 was the most deadly year for overdose deaths in the USA and Canada. The stress and social isolation stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with a flood of fentanyl into local drug markets created conditions in which people who use drugs were more susceptible to accidental overdose. Within territorial, state, and local policy communities, there have been longstanding efforts to reduce morbidity and mortality within this population; however, the current overdose crisis clearly indicates an urgent need for additional, easily accessible, and innovative services. Street-based drug testing programs allow individuals to learn the composition of their substances prior to use, averting unintended overdoses while also creating low threshold opportunities for individuals to connect to other harm reduction services, including substance use treatment programs. We sought to capture perspectives from service providers to document best practices around fielding community-based drug testing programs, including optimizing their position within a constellation of other harm reduction services to best serve local communities. We conducted 11 in-depth interviews from June to November 2022 via Zoom with harm reduction service providers to explore barriers and facilitators around the implementation of drug checking programs, the potential for integration with other health promotion services, and best practices for sustaining these programs, taking the local community and policy landscape into account. Interviews lasted 45-60 min and were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to reduce the data, and transcripts were discussed by a team of trained analysts. Several key themes emerged from our interviews: (1) the instability of drug markets amid an inconsistent and dangerous drug supply; (2) implementing drug checking services in dynamic environments in response to the rapidly changing needs of local communities; (3) training and ongoing capacity building needed to create sustainable programs; and (4) the potential for integrating drug checking programs into other services. There are opportunities for this service to make a difference in overdose deaths as the contours of the drug market itself have changed over time, but a number of challenges remain to implement them effectively and sustain the service over time. Drug checking itself represents a paradox within the larger policy context, putting the sustainability of these programs at risk and challenging the potential to scale these programs as the overdose epidemic worsens.

Disease-related stigma among people who inject drugs in Toronto amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Stigma overwhelmingly affects people who inject drugs. The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges for people who inject drugs, who are already stigmatized as being "dangerous and spreading disease." The present study explored ways in which stigma was experienced by a sample of people who inject drugs in Toronto, Canada following COVID-related public health precaution measures. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with people who inject drugs (n = 24) recruited from supervised consumption sites in Toronto, Canada. The semi-structured interview guide focused on the impact of COVID-19 on participants' health and social well-being. Interviews took place six-months after initial COVID-19 precautions (September-October 2020). We used thematic analysis to examine findings, with stigma being an emergent theme. Results: Participants described heightened acts of stigma after COVID-19 restrictions were implemented, including feeling treated as "diseased" and the cause of COVID-19's spread. They reported being less likely to receive emergency care during events such as overdoses. Participants perceived increased disease-related stigma evident through actions of stigma, including amplified dehumanization by the public, others avoiding all contact with them, and more discrimination by police and hospital systems. Conclusion: Participants provided specific examples of how stigmatizing behaviors harmed them after COVID-19 precautions began. It is plausible that stigma contributed to the dramatic increase in fatal overdoses, difficulty accessing housing, and further difficulty accessing needed healthcare in our setting. Integrating evidence-based harm reduction approaches in areas where stigma is evident might offset harms stemming from disease-related stigma and mitigate these harms during future public health emergencies.

Access to tablet injectable opioid agonist therapy in rural and smaller urban settings in British Columbia, Canada: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Rural and smaller urban settings in Canada are disproportionately impacted by the overdose crisis, highlighting the need for novel public health interventions within these jurisdictions. Tablet injectable opioid agonist therapy (TiOAT) programs have been implemented in select rural communities as a means to address drug-related harms. However, little is known about the accessibility of these novel programs. Therefore, we conducted this study to understand the rural context and factors that affected access of TiOAT programs. METHODS: Between October 2021 to April 2022, individual qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 individuals enrolled in a TiOAT program at participating rural and smaller urban sites in British Columbia, Canada. Interview transcripts were coded using NVivo 12 and data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: TiOAT access varied considerably. TiOAT delivery in rural settings is complicated due to geographic challenges. Participants who were homeless and staying at a nearby shelter or those in centrally-located supportive housing had minimal issues compared to those living in more affordable housing on the outskirts of town with limited transportation options. Dispensing policies that required daily-witnessed ingestion multiple times daily were challenging for most. Only one site provided evening take-home doses whereas participants at the other site could only resort to the illicit opioid supply to address withdrawal outside of program hours. Participants described the clinics as providing a positive and familial social environment compared to experiences of stigma elsewhere. Medication interruptions did occur when participants were in hospital and custodial settings, leading to withdrawal, program discontinuation, and overdose risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the beneficial ways in which health services tailored for people who use drugs can create a stigma-free environment with an emphasis on social bonds. Other factors such as transportation access, dispensing policies, and access in rural hospitals and custodial settings produced unique challenges for rural people who use drugs. Public health authorities in rural and smaller settings should consider these factors when designing, implementing, and scaling up future substance use services, including TiOAT programs.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence of opioid agonist therapy discontinuation in Ontario, Canada: A population-based time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the impact of COVID-19, which includes the declaration of a state of emergency and subsequent release of pandemic-specific OAT guidance (March 17, 2020 to March 23, 2020) on the prevalence of OAT discontinuation. METHODS: We conducted a population-based time series analysis using interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models among Ontario residents who were stable (>60 days of continuous use) and not yet stable on OAT. Specifically, we examined whether COVID-19 impacted the weekly percentage of individuals who discontinued OAT, overall and stratified by treatment type (methadone vs. buprenorphine/naloxone). Additionally, we compared demographic characteristics and patient outcomes among people stable on OAT who discontinued treatment during (March 17, 2020 to November 30, 2020) and prior (July 3, 2019 to March 16, 2020) to the pandemic. RESULTS: The weekly prevalence of OAT discontinuation across the study period ranged between 0.6% and 1.1%, among those stable on treatment compared to 7.3% and 16.6%, among those not stable on treatment. Following COVID-19, there was no significant change in the percentage of Ontarians who discontinued OAT, regardless of whether they were stabilized on treatment. Among those stable on OAT, a similar proportion of patients restarted therapy and experienced opioid-related harm following an OAT discontinuation. However, mortality following OAT discontinuation must be noted, as approximately 1.4% and 0.8% of people who discontinued methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone respectively, died within 30 days of discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: Trends in the prevalence of OAT discontinuation did not significantly change during the first eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluating interventions to facilitate opioid agonist treatment access among people who inject drugs in Toronto, Ontario during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, following a provincial COVID-19 emergency declaration, modifications to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) were introduced in Ontario, Canada to promote treatment access amid the pandemic and ongoing opioid overdose crisis. Modifications included federal exemptions to facilitate OAT prescription re-fills, extensions, and deliveries and interim treatment guidance emphasizing take-home (non-observed) doses and reduced urine drug screening for OAT patients. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series study using health administrative data from September 17th, 2019-September 21st, 2020, on 359 people who inject drugs with suspected opioid use disorder in Toronto, Ontario. We used segmented regression analyses to evaluate the joint effects of the provincial COVID-19 emergency declaration, federal OAT exemptions, and interim treatment guidance-all implemented between March 17th-23rd, 2020-on the weekly proportion of participants enrolled in OAT (i.e., ≥1 day(s) covered with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone), with an opioid-related overdose (based on emergency department visits and hospitalizations), and who died (all-cause), and the weekly proportion of OAT-enrolled participants receiving take-home doses (i.e., ≥1 day(s) covered) and undergoing urine drug screening. RESULTS: Post-implementation, the interventions were associated with immediate absolute changes in OAT enrollment (+1.95%; 95% CI=0.04%-3.85%), receipt of take-home doses (+18.3%; 95% CI=13.2%-23.4%), and urine drug screening (-22.4%; 95% CI=[-26.9%]-[-17.9%]) and a gradual absolute increase of 0.56% in urine drug screening week-to-week (95% CI=0.27%-0.86%) beyond the pre-implementation trend. At 26 weeks post-implementation, OAT enrollment and urine drug screening approached pre-implementation levels whereas the increase in take-home doses was largely sustained (+15.0%; 95% CI=4.33%-25.6%). No post-implementation increases in opioid-related overdoses were observed. Death was not modelled (low event frequency). CONCLUSION: Changes to OAT provision following provincial COVID-19 restrictions were associated with an immediate and sustained increase in take-home dose coverage among OAT-enrolled participants, without corresponding increases in opioid-related overdoses among all participants.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the provision of take-home doses of opioid agonist therapy in Ontario, Canada: A population-based time-series analysis.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the Ontario government declared a state of emergency due to the growing risk of COVID-19. In response, new guidance for the management of opioid agonist therapy (OAT) was released, which included the expansion of eligibility for take-home doses. We investigated the impact of these changes on trends in the distribution of take-home doses of OAT. METHODS: We conducted a population-based time series analysis among residents of Ontario, Canada who were dispensed OAT between June 25, 2019 and November 30, 2020. For each week of the study period, we calculated the percentage of people dispensed (a) methadone and (b) buprenorphine/naloxone by the number of take-home doses received. We used interventional autoregressive integrated moving average models to estimate changes in the percentage of people dispensed each category of take-home doses in the weeks following the declaration of the state of emergency and release of the OAT dispensing guidance. RESULTS: Following the state of emergency and release of the OAT dispensing guidance, there was a significant increase in the percentage of Ontarians dispensed 7 to 13 (3.6% increase; p = 0.033) and 14 or more (0.8% increase; p<0.001) take-home doses of methadone, and in the percentage of people dispensed 7 to 13 (4.3% increase; p = 0.001), 14 to 27 (2.8% increase; p<0.001), and 28 or more (0.3% increase; p = 0.008) take-home doses of buprenorphine/naloxone. There were significant decreases in the percentage of Ontarians receiving daily dispensed buprenorphine/naloxone (-3.1%; p = 0.001), as well as the percentage dispensed 1 to 6 take-home doses of methadone (-4.5%; p = 0.001) and buprenorphine/naloxone (-4.9%; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The new guidance for dispensing OAT in Ontario resulted in increases in the duration of take-home doses of methadone and buprenorphine/naloxone supplied. However, given that changes were small, strategies to improve retention in OAT and ensure equitable access to take-home dosing should continue.

The Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Cohort Study of People Who Inject Drugs in Toronto, Canada (OiSIS-Toronto): Cohort Profile.

The Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services cohort in Toronto, Canada (OiSIS-Toronto) is an open prospective cohort of people who inject drugs (PWID). OiSIS-Toronto was established to evaluate the impacts of supervised consumption services (SCS) integrated within three community health agencies on health status and service use. The cohort includes PWID who do and do not use SCS, recruited via self-referral, snowball sampling, and community/street outreach. From 5 November 2018 to 19 March 2020, we enrolled 701 eligible PWID aged 18+ who lived in Toronto. Participants complete interviewer-administered questionnaires at baseline and semi-annually thereafter and are asked to consent to linkages with provincial healthcare administrative databases (90.2% consented; of whom 82.4% were successfully linked) and SCS client databases. At baseline, 86.5% of participants (64.0% cisgender men, median ([IQR] age= 39 [33-49]) had used SCS in the previous 6 months, of whom most (69.7%) used SCS for <75% of their injections. A majority (56.8%) injected daily, and approximately half (48.0%) reported fentanyl as their most frequently injected drug. As of 23 April 2021, 291 (41.5%) participants had returned for follow-up. Administrative and self-report data are being used to (1) evaluate the impact of integrated SCS on healthcare use, uptake of community health agency services, and health outcomes; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to SCS use; and (3) identify potential enhancements to SCS delivery. Nested sub-studies include evaluation of "safer opioid supply" programs and impacts of COVID-19.