Overdose responses among rural people who use drugs: A multi-regional qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to distribute naloxone have equipped more people with the ability to reverse opioid overdoses but people who use drugs are often reluctant to call 911 due to concerns for legal repercussions. Rural communities face unique challenges in reducing overdose deaths compared to urban communities, including limited access to harm reduction services as well as greater concerns about stigma and privacy. METHODS: The Rural Opioid Initiative was funded in 2017 to better understand the health-related harms associated with the opioid crisis in rural US communities and consists of eight studies spanning ten states and 65 counties. Each study conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with people who use drugs to understand contextual factors influencing drug use and health behaviors. We analyzed qualitative data from seven studies with data available at the time of analysis to understand peer response to overdose. RESULTS: Of the 304 participants interviewed, 55% were men, 70% were white, 80% reported current injection drug use, and 60% reported methamphetamine use. Similar to what has been found in studies focused on urban settings, people who use drugs in rural communities use a range of strategies to reverse overdoses, including non-evidence-based approaches. Several reported that multiple doses of naloxone are needed to reverse overdose. Three themes emerged around the willingness to call 911, including (1) hesitancy to call 911 for fear of legal consequences, (2) negative perceptions or experiences with law enforcement officers, and (3) efforts to obtain medical intervention while avoiding identification/law enforcement involvement. CONCLUSION: People who use drugs employ multiple strategies to attempt overdose reversal, including non-evidence-based approaches. Greater education about the most effective and least harmful strategies is needed. Reluctance to call 911 is rooted in concerns about potential legal consequences as well as perceptions about law enforcement officers, which may be heightened in rural communities where people who use drugs are more easily identified by law enforcement. People who use drugs will go to great strides to connect their peers to needed medical services, suggesting that comprehensive interventions to reduce interactions with law enforcement officers and eliminate legal consequences for reporting overdoses are critical.

Overdose prevention activities led by local public health departments, 2019-2023.

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose deaths in the United States increased to historic levels in recent years, with provisional estimates indicating more than 111,000 deaths in the 12 months ending July 2023. In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Division of Overdose Prevention in collaboration with the National Association of City and County Health Officials, funded local health departments (LHDs) to work on overdose prevention activities. This paper aims to: 1) describe the overdose prevention activities that LHDs implemented during the four eighteen-month funding cycles; 2) identify programmatic successes and areas of opportunity for LHDs to consider when implementing future overdose prevention activities; and to 3) inform policy considerations and future overdose prevention programming at the local level. METHODS: We used programmatic data to identify overdose prevention activities implemented by 45 LHDs. Activities were double-coded according to the social-ecological model and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Overdose Prevention Strategies and Guiding Principles. We analyzed final codes to identify distribution and overlap of the Strategies and Guiding Principles across the social ecological model co-occurrences. RESULTS: Approximately 55.9% (n=123) of the 220 overdose prevention activities that were coded took place at the community level, 32.3% (n=71) at the individual level, 8.6% (n=19) at the relationship level, and 3.2% (n=7) at the policy level. Most of the activities were coded as coordination, collaboration, and integration (n=52, 23.6%), harm reduction (n=51, 23.1%), data and evidence (n=47, 21.4%) or reducing stigma (n=24, 10.9%). Few activities were related to primary prevention (n=14, 6.4%), equity (n=14, 6.4%), recovery support (n=11, 5.0%), and evidence-based treatment (n=7, 3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Localities have primarily implemented activities focused on the community and individual levels, with most of these centered around coordination, collaboration, and integration; harm reduction; or data and evidence. This study identified gaps in overdose prevention for LHDs related to treatment and health equity and that more interventions should be implemented at the relationship and policy levels. Continuing these efforts is important as LHDs explore opportunities to enhance and expand their work in various strategy areas across the social ecology. Findings from this study may be used to inform localities as they design and implement future overdose prevention activities.

Vaccines as Immunotherapies for Substance Use Disorders.

Substance use disorders (SUD) present a worldwide challenge with few effective therapies except for the relative efficacy of opioid pharmacotherapies, despite limited treatment access. However, the proliferation of illicit fentanyl use initiated a dramatic and cascading epidemic of lethal overdoses. This rise in fentanyl overdoses regenerated an interest in vaccine immunotherapy, which, despite an optimistic start in animal models over the past 50 years, yielded disappointing results in human clinical trials of vaccines against nicotine, stimulants (cocaine and methamphetamine), and opioids. After a brief review of clinical and selected preclinical vaccine studies, the "lessons learned" from the previous vaccine clinical trials are summarized, and then the newest challenge of a vaccine against fentanyl and its analogs is explored. Animal studies have made significant advances in vaccine technology for SUD treatment over the past 50 years, and the resulting anti-fentanyl vaccines show remarkable promise for ending this epidemic of fentanyl deaths.

How do we understand the value of drug checking as a component of harm reduction services? A qualitative exploration of client and provider perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Mortality related to opioid overdose in the U.S. has risen sharply in the past decade. In California, opioid overdose death rates more than tripled from 2018 to 2021, and deaths from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl increased more than seven times in those three years alone. Heightened attention to this crisis has attracted funding and programming opportunities for prevention and harm reduction interventions. Drug checking services offer people who use drugs the opportunity to test the chemical content of their own supply, but are not widely used in North America. We report on qualitative data from providers and clients of harm reduction and drug checking services, to explore how these services are used, experienced, and considered. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semi-structured key informant interviews across two samples of drug checking stakeholders: "clients" (individuals who use drugs and receive harm reduction services) and "providers" (subject matter experts and those providing clinical and harm reduction services to people who use drugs). Provider interviews were conducted via Zoom from June-November, 2022. Client interviews were conducted in person in San Francisco over a one-week period in November 2022. Data were analyzed following the tenets of thematic analysis. RESULTS: We found that the value of drug checking includes but extends well beyond overdose prevention. Participants discussed ways that drug checking can fill a regulatory vacuum, serve as a tool of informal market regulation at the community level, and empower public health surveillance systems and clinical response. We present our findings within three key themes: (1) the role of drug checking in overdose prevention; (2) benefits to the overall agency, health, and wellbeing of people who use drugs; and (3) impacts of drug checking services at the community and systems levels. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to growing evidence of the effectiveness of drug checking services in mitigating risks associated with substance use, including overdose, through enabling people who use and sell drugs to test their own supply. It further contributes to discussions around the utility of drug checking and harm reduction, in order to inform legislation and funding allocation.

Physiologic oxygen responses to smoking opioids: an observational study using continuous pulse oximetry at overdose prevention services in British Columbia, Canada.

BACKGROUND: In British Columbia, Canada, smoking is the most common modality of drug use among people who die of opioid toxicity. We aimed to assess oxygen saturation (SpO2) while people smoked opioids during a pilot study that introduced continuous pulse oximetry at overdose prevention services (OPS) sites. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study, using a participatory design. We implemented our monitoring protocol from March to August 2021 at four OPS. We included adults (≥ 18 years) presenting to smoke opioids. A sensor taped to participants' fingers transmitted real-time SpO2 readings to a remote monitor viewed by OPS staff. Peer researchers collected baseline data and observed the timing of participants' inhalations. We analyzed SpO2 on a per-event basis. In mixed-effects logistic regression models, drop in minimum SpO2 ≤ 90% in the current minute was our main outcome variable. Inhalation in that same minute was our main predictor. We also examined inhalation in the previous minute, cumulative inhalations, inhalation rate, demographics, co-morbidities, and substance use variables. RESULTS: We recorded 599 smoking events; 72.8% (436/599) had analyzable SpO2 data. Participants' mean age was 38.6 years (SD 11.3 years) and 73.1% were male. SpO2 was highly variable within and between individuals. Drop in SpO2 ≤ 90% was not significantly associated with inhalation in that same minute (OR: 1.2 [0.8-1.78], p = 0.261) or inhalation rate (OR 0.47 [0.20-1.10], p = 0.082). There was an association of SpO2 drop with six cumulative inhalations (OR 3.38 [1.04-11.03], p = 0.043); this was not maintained ≥ 7 inhalations. Demographics, co-morbidities, and drug use variables were non-contributory. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous pulse oximetry SpO2 monitoring is a safe adjunct to monitoring people who smoke opioids at OPS. Our data reflect challenges of real-world monitoring, indicating that greater supports are needed for frontline responders at OPS. Inconsistent association between inhalations and SpO2 suggests that complex factors (e.g., inhalation depth/duration, opioid tolerance, drug use setting) contribute to hypoxemia and overdose risk while people smoke opioids.

Cost-effectiveness of drug consumption rooms in France: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) experience many health problems which result in a heavy economic and public health burden. To tackle this issue, France opened two drug consumption rooms (DCRs) in Paris and Strasbourg in 2016. This study assessed their long-term health benefits, costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We developed a model to simulate two fictive cohorts for each city (n=2,997 in Paris and n=2,971 in Strasbourg) i) PWID attending a DCR over the period 2016-2026, ii) PWID attending no DCR. The model accounted for HIV and HCV infections, skin abscesses and related infective endocarditis, drug overdoses and emergency department visits. We estimated the number of health events and associated costs over 2016-2026, the lifetime number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The numbers of abscesses and associated infective endocarditis, drug overdoses, and emergency department visits decreased significantly in PWID attending DCRs (-77%, -69%, and -65%, respectively) but the impact on HIV and HCV infections was modest (-11% and -6%, respectively). This resulted in savings of €6.6 (Paris) and €5.8 (Strasbourg) millions of medical costs. The ICER of DRCs was €30,600/QALY (Paris) and €9,200/QALY (Strasbourg). In scenario analysis where drug consumption spaces are implemented inside existing harm reduction structures, these ICERs decreased to €21,400/QALY and €2,500/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that DCRs are highly effective and efficient to prevent harms in PWID in France, and advocate extending this intervention to other cities by adding drug consumption spaces inside existing harm reduction centers.

Reducing overdose deaths among persons with opioid use disorder in connecticut.

BACKGROUND: People in Connecticut are now more likely to die of a drug-related overdose than a traffic accident. While Connecticut has had some success in slowing the rise in overdose death rates, substantial additional progress is necessary. METHODS: We developed, verified, and calibrated a mechanistic simulation of alternative overdose prevention policy options, including scaling up naloxone (NLX) distribution in the community and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who are incarcerated (MOUD-INC) and in the community (MOUD-COM) in a simulated cohort of people with OUD in Connecticut. We estimated how maximally scaling up each option individually and in combinations would impact 5-year overdose deaths, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. All costs were assessed in 2021 USD, employing a health sector perspective in base-case analyses and a societal perspective in sensitivity analyses, using a 3% discount rate and 5-year and lifetime time horizons. RESULTS: Maximally scaling NLX alone reduces overdose deaths 20% in the next 5 years at a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); if injectable rather than intranasal NLX was distributed, 240 additional overdose deaths could be prevented. Maximally scaling MOUD-COM and MOUD-INC alone reduce overdose deaths by 14% and 6% respectively at favorable ICERS. Considering all permutations of scaling up policies, scaling NLX and MOUD-COM together is the cost-effective choice, reducing overdose deaths 32% at ICER $19,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses using a societal perspective, all policy options were cost saving and overdose deaths reduced 33% over 5 years while saving society $338,000 per capita over the simulated cohort lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: Maximally scaling access to naloxone and MOUD in the community can reduce 5-year overdose deaths by 32% among people with OUD in Connecticut under realistic budget scenarios. If societal cost savings due to increased productivity and reduced crime costs are considered, one-third of overdose deaths can be reduced by maximally scaling all three policy options, while saving money.

Implementing Canada's first national virtual phone based overdose prevention service: lessons learned from creating the National Overdose Response Service (NORS).

The opioid epidemic remains one of the largest public health crises in North America to date. While there have been many diverse strategies developed to reduce the harms associated with substance use, these are primarily concentrated within a few large urban centers. As a result, there have been increased calls for equitable access to harm reduction services for those who cannot or choose not to access in-person harm reduction services. In December 2020, Canada's National Overdose Response Service (NORS) a telephone based overdose response hotline and virtual supervised consumption service, was established in collaboration with various agencies and people with lived and living experience of substance use (PWLLE) across Canada to expand access to harm reduction services using novel Opioid Response Technology. In this manuscript we explore the lessons learned from the establishment and continued operation of the service exploring topics related to the initial establishment of the service, securing a phone line, routing technology, EMS dispatch solutions, peer and volunteer recruitment, legal and ethical support, policy and procedure development, securing funding, and marketing. Furthermore, we detail how this service has grown and changed in response to the various needs of service users.

Walk With Me: reducing harm and confronting the toxic drug poisoning crisis in small British Columbia cities through community engaged research.

In an era of escalating and intersectional crises, the toxic drug poisoning crisis stands out as a devastating and persistent phenomenon. Where we write from in British Columbia (BC), Canada, over 13,000 deaths have occurred in the eight years since the toxic drug poisoning crisis was declared a provincial health emergency. While many of these deaths have occurred in large urban centres, smaller rural communities in British Columbia are also grappling with the profound impacts of the toxic drug poisoning crisis and are struggling to provide adequate support for their vulnerable populations. In response to these challenges, the Walk With Me research project has emerged in the Comox Valley of Vancouver Island, BC, employing community-engaged methodologies grounded in pluralist knowledge production. Walk With Me seeks to understand the unique manifestations of the toxic drug poisoning crisis in small communities, identifying local harm reduction interventions that can foster community resilience, and aiming to catalyze sustainable change by amplifying the voices of those directly affected by the crisis to advocate for policy changes. This paper outlines the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of the Walk With Me project as a harm reduction initiative, which holds community partnerships and diverse ways of knowing at its heart. It presents the community-engaged research framework used by the project to address overlapping health and social crises, offering practical examples of its application in various research projects across sites and organizations. The paper concludes with a reflection on the impacts of Walk With Me to date, highlighting the lessons learned, challenges encountered, and opportunities for future research and action. Overall, this article captures the urgent need for community-engaged approaches to address the toxic drug poisoning crisis and other multidimensional crises facing society, particularly in smaller and rural communities, underscoring the potential for meaningful change through collaborative, grassroots efforts.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Bystander Naloxone Training Course.

Introduction: Bystander provision of naloxone is a key modality to reduce opioid overdose-related death. Naloxone training courses are available, but no standardized program exists. As part of a bystander empowerment course, we created and evaluated a brief naloxone training module. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of a naloxone training course, which was paired with Stop the Bleed training for hemorrhage control and was offered to administrative staff in an office building. Participants worked in an organization related to healthcare, but none were clinicians. The curriculum included the following topics: 1) background about the opioid epidemic; 2) how to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose; 3) actions not to take when encountering an overdose victim; 4) the correct steps to take when encountering an overdose victim; 5) an overview of naloxone products; and 6) Good Samaritan protection laws. The 20-minute didactic section was followed by a hands-on session with nasal naloxone kits and a simulation mannequin. The course was evaluated with the Opioid Overdose Knowledge (OOKS) and Opioid Overdose Attitudes (OOAS) scales for take-home naloxone training evaluation. We used the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare scores pre- and post-course. Results: Twenty-eight participants completed the course. The OOKS, measuring objective knowledge about opioid overdose and naloxone, had improved scores from a median of 73.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.3%-79.9%) to 91.5% (IQR 85.4%-95.1%), P < 0.001. The three domains on the OOAS score also showed statistically significant results. Competency to manage an overdose improved on a five-point scale from a median of 2.5 (IQR 2.4-2.9) to a median of 3.7 (IQR 3.5-4.1), P < 0.001. Concerns about managing an overdose decreased (improved) from a median of 2.3 (IQR 1.9-2.6) to median 1.8 (IQR 1.5-2.1), P < 0.001. Readiness to intervene in an opioid overdose improved from a median of 4 (IQR 3.8-4.2) to a median of 4.2 (IQR 4-4.2), P < 0.001. Conclusion: A brief course designed to teach bystanders about opioid overdose and naloxone was feasible and effective. We encourage hospitals and other organizations to use and promulgate this model. Furthermore, we suggest the convening of a national consortium to achieve consensus on program content and delivery.

High-dose naloxone formulations are not as essential as we thought.

Naloxone is an effective FDA-approved opioid antagonist for reversing opioid overdoses. Naloxone is available to the public and can be administered through intramuscular (IM), intravenous (IV), and intranasal spray (IN) routes. Our literature review investigates the adequacy of two doses of standard IM or IN naloxone in reversing fentanyl overdoses compared to newer high-dose naloxone formulations. Moreover, our initiative incorporates the experiences of people who use drugs, enabling a more practical and contextually-grounded analysis. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of fentanyl overdoses can be successfully reversed using two standard IM or IN dosages. Exceptions include cases of carfentanil overdose, which necessitates ≥ 3 doses for reversal. Multiple studies documented the risk of precipitated withdrawal using ≥ 2 doses of naloxone, notably including the possibility of recurring overdose symptoms after resuscitation, contingent upon the half-life of the specific opioid involved. We recommend distributing multiple doses of standard IM or IN naloxone to bystanders and educating individuals on the adequacy of two doses in reversing fentanyl overdoses. Individuals should continue administration until the recipient is revived, ensuring appropriate intervals between each dose along with rescue breaths, and calling emergency medical services if the individual is unresponsive after two doses. We do not recommend high-dose naloxone formulations as a substitute for four doses of IM or IN naloxone due to the higher cost, risk of precipitated withdrawal, and limited evidence compared to standard doses. Future research must take into consideration lived and living experience, scientific evidence, conflicts of interest, and the bodily autonomy of people who use drugs.

Evaluation of Strategies to Enhance Community-Based Naloxone Distribution Supported by an Opioid Settlement.

Importance: Many US states are substantially increasing community-based naloxone distribution, supported in part through settlements from opioid manufacturers and distributors. Objectives: To evaluate the potential impact of increased naloxone availability on opioid overdose deaths (OODs) and explore strategies to enhance this impact by integrating interventions to address solitary drug use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This decision analytical modeling study used PROFOUND (Prevention and Rescue of Fentanyl and Other Opioid Overdoses Using Optimized Naloxone Distribution Strategies), a previously published simulation model, to forecast annual OODs between January 2023 and December 2025. The simulated study population included individuals from Rhode Island who misused opioids and stimulants and were at risk for opioid overdose. Exposures: The study modeled expanded naloxone distribution supported by the state's opioid settlement (50 000 naloxone nasal spray kits each year). Two approaches to expanding naloxone distribution were evaluated: one based on historical spatial patterns of naloxone distribution (supply-based approach) and one based on the spatial distribution of individuals at risk (demand-based approach). In addition, hypothetical interventions to enhance the likelihood of witnessed overdoses in private or semiprivate settings were considered. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual number of OODs and ratio of fatal to nonfatal opioid overdoses. Results: Modeling results indicated that distributing more naloxone supported by the state's opioid settlement could reduce OODs by 6.3% (95% simulation interval [SI], 0.3%-13.7%) and 8.8% (95% SI, 1.8%-17.5%) in 2025 with the supply-based and demand-based approaches, respectively. However, increasing witnessed overdoses by 20% to 60% demonstrated greater potential for reducing OODs, ranging from 8.5% (95% SI, 0.0%-20.3%) to 24.1% (95% SI, 8.6%-39.3%). Notably, synergistic associations were observed when combining both interventions: increased naloxone distribution with the 2 approaches and a 60% increase in witnessed overdoses could reduce OODs in 2025 by 33.5% (95% SI, 17.1%-50.4%) and 37.4% (95% SI, 19.6%-56.3%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions to address solitary drug use are needed to maximize the impact of continued efforts to increase community-based naloxone distribution, which may be particularly important for jurisdictions that have strong community-based naloxone distribution programs.

How Ohio public library systems respond to opioid-related substance use: a descriptive analysis of survey results.

BACKGROUND: Public libraries in the United States have experienced increases in opioid-related substance use in their communities and on their premises. This includes fatal and non-fatal overdose events. Some libraries have adopted response measures in their branches to deter substance use or prevent overdose. A small number of libraries around the nation have decided to stock the opioid antagonist naloxone (Narcan) for staff to administer to patrons who experience overdose. This response measure has generated extensive media attention. Although Ohio ranks fourth in age-adjusted drug mortality rate in the United States, there has been no investigation of whether Ohio libraries are observing opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose events, or which measures they have adopted in response to these activities. We conducted a multimethod survey with Ohio public library directors to identify the response measures they have adopted. We present descriptive findings from the quantitative and qualitative items in our survey. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional 54-item multimethod survey of public library system directors (one per system) in Ohio. Directors of each of Ohio's public library systems were invited to participate via email. RESULTS: Of 251 library systems, 56 responded (22.3% response rate), with 34 respondents (60.7%) indicating awareness of opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises. Most (n = 43, 76.8%) did not stock naloxone in their buildings. Over half (n = 34, 60.7%) reported implementing one or more non-naloxone response measures. These measures focus on improving security for staff and patrons, deterring opioid-related transactions (purchases and exchanges) and consumption, and providing educational events on substance use. Nearly half (n = 25, 47.2%) partner with community organizations to provide opioid response measures. A similar proportion reported adequate funding to respond to opioid-related substance use (n = 23, 45.1%), and most (n = 38, 74.5%) reported adequate support from their boards and communities. Few respondents have implemented evaluations of their response measures. CONCLUSIONS: Ohio public libraries are responding to evidence of opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises with a range of measures that focus on substance use prevention and deterrence. Most Ohio library systems do not stock naloxone. Respondents indicated they prefer to call 911 and let first responders handle overdose events. The majority of respondents indicated their library systems have political capacity to respond to evidence of opioid-related substance use on their premises, but have limited operational and functional capacity. Findings suggest the need to revisit assumptions that public libraries are willing to stock naloxone to respond to overdose events, and that libraries have the resources to respond robustly to opioid-related transactions, consumption, and/or overdose on their premises.

Substance use patterns, sociodemographics, and health profiles of harm reduction service recipients in Burlington, Vermont.

BACKGROUND: Understanding current substance use practices is critical to reduce and prevent overdose deaths among individuals at increased risk including persons who use and inject drugs. Because individuals participating in harm reduction and syringe service programs are actively using drugs and vary in treatment participation, information on their current drug use and preferred drugs provides a unique window into the drug use ecology of communities that can inform future intervention services and treatment provision. METHODS: Between March and June 2023, 150 participants in a harm reduction program in Burlington, Vermont completed a survey examining sociodemographics; treatment and medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) status; substance use; injection information; overdose information; and mental health, medical, and health information. Descriptive analyses assessed overall findings. Comparisons between primary drug subgroups (stimulants, opioids, stimulants-opioids) of past-three-month drug use and treatment participation were analyzed using chi-square and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Most participants reported being unhoused or unstable housing (80.7%) and unemployed (64.0%) or on disability (21.3%). The drug with the greatest proportion of participants reporting past three-month use was crack cocaine (83.3%). Fentanyl use was reported by 69.3% of participants and xylazine by 38.0% of participants. High rates of stimulant use were reported across all participants independent of whether stimulants were a participant's primary drug. Fentanyl, heroin, and xylazine use was less common in the stimulants subgroup compared to opioid-containing subgroups (p < .001). Current- and past-year MOUD treatment was reported by 58.0% and 77.3% of participants. Emergency rooms were the most common past-year medical treatment location (48.7%; M = 2.72 visits). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate high rates of polysubstance use and the underrecognized effects of stimulant use among people who use drugs-including its notable and increasing role in drug-overdose deaths. Crack cocaine was the most used stimulant, a geographical difference from much of the US where methamphetamine is most common. With the increasing prevalence of fentanyl-adulterated stimulants and differences in opioid use observed between subgroups, these findings highlight the importance and necessity of harm reduction interventions (e.g., drug checking services, fentanyl test strips) and effective treatment for individuals using stimulants alongside MOUD treatment.

Implementation opportunities and challenges to piloting a community-based drug-checking intervention for sexual and gender minority men in Vancouver, Canada: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In response to the overdose crisis, a collaborative group of two community-based organizations, a health authority and a research institute in Vancouver, Canada, implemented a pilot community-based drug checking (CBDC) intervention for sexual and gender minority (SGM) men. This study identified key factors that influenced the implementation of the CBDC intervention, including opportunities and challenges. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with seven pertinent parties involved in the CBDC, including policymakers, researchers and representatives from community-based organizations. These interviews were coded and analyzed using domains and constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: While drug-related stigma was identified as a challenge to deliver drug checking services, participants described the context of the overdose crisis as a key facilitator to engage collaboration between relevant organizations (e.g., health authorities, medical health officers, community organizations) to design, resource and implement the CBDC intervention. The implementation of the CBDC intervention was also influenced by SGM-specific needs and resources (e.g., lack of information about the drug supply). The high level of interest of SGM organizations in providing harm reduction services combined with the need to expand drug checking into community spaces represented two key opportunities for the CBDC intervention. Here, SGM organizations were recognized as valued partners that fostered a broader culture of harm reduction. Participants' emphasis that knowing the composition of one's drugs is a "right to know", particularly in the context of a highly contaminated illicit drug market, emerged as a key implementation factor. Lastly, participants emphasized the importance of involving SGM community groups at all stages of the implementation process to ensure that the CBDC intervention is appropriately tailored to SGM men. CONCLUSIONS: The context of the overdose crisis and the involvement of SGM organizations were key facilitators to the implementation of a drug checking intervention in SGM community spaces. This study offers contextualized understandings about how SGM knowledge and experiences can contribute to implement tailored drug checking interventions.

"It didn't hurt me": patients' and providers' perspectives on unsupervised take-home doses, drug diversion, and overdose risks in the provision of medication for opioid use disorder during COVID-19 in San Juan, Puerto Rico.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinics offering medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) needed to rapidly introduce unsupervised take-home dosing, while relapsing patients and patients unable to enter treatment faced increased risks of fentanyl-related overdose deaths and other drug-related harms. Based on a qualitative study of people who inject drugs (PWID) receiving MOUD treatment and MOUD staff in Puerto Rico, this paper documents the lived experiences of patients and providers during this period and the risk perceptions and management strategies to address substance misuse and drug diversion attributable to unsupervised take-home-dose delivery. METHODS: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with patients (N = 25) and staff (N = 25) in two clinics providing MOUD in San Juan, Puerto Rico, during 2022. Patients and staff were receiving or providing treatment during the pandemic, and patients reported injection drug use during the past thirty days. RESULTS: Patients were overwhelmingly male (84%), unmarried (72%), and unemployed (52%), with almost half (44%) injecting one to three times a day. Mean time in treatment was 7 years. Staff had a mean age of 46 years with more than half of the sample (63%) female. The majority of patients believed that unsupervised take-home dosing had no significant effect on their treatment adherence or engagement. In contrast, providers expressed concerns over the potential for drug diversion and possible increased risks of patient attrition, overdose episodes, and poor treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the importance of insider perspectives on harm-reduction changes in policy implemented during a health crisis. Of note is the finding that staff disagreed among themselves regarding the potential harms of diversion and changes in drug testing protocols. These different perspectives are important to address so that future pandemic policies are successfully designed and implemented. Our study also illuminates disagreement in risk assessments between patients and providers. This suggests that preparation for emergency treatment plans requires enhanced communication with patients to match treatments to the context of lived experience.

Is a randomised controlled trial of take home naloxone distributed in emergency settings likely to be feasible and acceptable? Findings from a UK qualitative study exploring perspectives of people who use opioids and emergency services staff.

OBJECTIVE: Distribution of take-home naloxone (THN) by emergency services may increase access to THN and reduce deaths and morbidity from opioid overdose. As part of a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of distribution of THN kits and education within ambulance services and Emergency Departments (EDs), we used qualitative methods to explore key stakeholders' perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of delivering the trial. METHODS: We undertook semi-structured interviews and focus groups with 26 people who use opioids and with 20 paramedics and ED staff from two intervention sites between 2019 and 2021. Interviews and focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: People using opioids reported high awareness of overdose management, including personal experience of THN use. Staff perceived emergency service provision of THN as a low-cost, low-risk intervention with potential to reduce mortality, morbidity and health service use. Staff understood the trial aims and considered it compatible with their work. All participants supported widening access to THN but reported limited trial recruitment opportunities partly due to difficulties in consenting patients during overdose. Procedural problems, restrictive recruitment protocols, limited staff buy-in and patients already owning THN limited trial recruitment. Determining trial effectiveness was challenging due to high levels of alternative community provision of THN. CONCLUSIONS: Distribution of THN in emergency settings was considered feasible and acceptable for stakeholders but an RCT to establish the effectiveness of THN delivery is unlikely to generate further useful evidence due to difficulties in recruiting patients and assessing benefits.