A content analysis of legal policy responses to xylazine in the illicit drug supply in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Xylazine is a veterinary sedative that is quickly spreading in the U.S. illicit drug supply and is increasingly associated with fatal overdoses and severe wounds. In response, xylazine has been deemed an emerging public health threat and several policy initiatives have been introduced to combat its spread and negative broad health impact. We aimed to synthesize trends in all-time U.S. policy responses to xylazine in the drug supply. METHODS: In April 2024, we systematically identified and categorized proposed and enacted policy initiatives that related to human xylazine consumption by searching LexisNexis and Thomas Reuters Westlaw legal databases. RESULTS: Of 58 unique policy initiatives, most were introduced in 2023 (n = 37/58, 64 %) and concentrated in Northeastern states. Penalties for xylazine possession, often tied to state drug scheduling changes, were the most common provision (n = 34/58; 59 %) and Schedule III was the most frequently proposed scheduling level (n = 17/30; 57 %). Other provisions included proposals to enhance: test strip access (n = 11/58; 19 %), public awareness and education (n = 3/58; 5 %), xylazine-specific research (n = 4/58; 7 %), and surveillance (n = 8/58; 14 %). CONCLUSION: U.S. state and federal policy responses to xylazine grew rapidly in 2023, were most concentrated in states affected most by xylazine, and scheduling was the most commonly proposed policy approach. Research measuring policy effects should be prioritized as policies are implemented.

Exploring trauma and wellbeing of people who use drugs after witnessing overdose: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The national overdose crisis is often quantified by overdose deaths, but understanding the traumatic impact for those who witness and respond to overdoses can help elucidate mental health needs and opportunities for intervention for this population. Many who respond to overdoses are people who use drugs. This study adds to the literature on how people who use drugs qualitatively experience trauma resulting from witnessing and responding to overdose, through the lens of the Trauma-Informed Theory of Individual Health Behavior. METHODS: We conducted 60-min semi-structured, in-depth phone interviews. Participants were recruited from six states and Washington, DC in March-April 2022. Participants included 17 individuals who witnessed overdose(s) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The interview guide was shaped by theories of trauma. The codebook was developed using a priori codes from the interview guide; inductive codes were added during content analysis. Transcripts were coded using ATLAS.ti. RESULTS: A vast majority reported trauma from witnessing overdoses. Participants reported that the severity of trauma varied by contextual factors such as the closeness of the relationship to the person overdosing or whether the event was their first experience witnessing an overdose. Participants often described symptoms of trauma including rumination, guilt, and hypervigilance. Some reported normalization of witnessing overdoses due to how common overdoses were, while some acknowledged overdoses will never be "normal." The impacts of witnessing overdose on drug use behaviors varied from riskier substance use to increased motivation for treatment and safer drug use practices. CONCLUSION: Recognizing the traumatic impact of witnessed overdoses is key to effectively addressing the full range of sequelae of the overdose crisis. Trauma-informed approaches should be central for service providers when they approach this subject with clients, with awareness of how normalization can reduce help-seeking behaviors and the need for psychological aftercare. We found increased motivation for behavior change after witnessing, which presents opportunity for intervention.

Changes in opioid treatment programs and harm reduction provider services during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from 10 states.

Harm reduction and opioid treatment programs (OTPs) modified service delivery based on rapid changes to state and federal regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is little evidence on how these regulations changed the delivery of medication for opioid use disorder and harm reduction services and whether certain regulations should be made permanent. This study explores how harm reduction OTPs across the United States leveraged changes in regulations and responded to impacts of COVID-19 to continue providing services and perspectives on future legislation that regulates their practice and practice sites. The COVID Harm Reduction and Treatment programs Survey study administered a survey that included closed-ended and free-response questions to 22 sites between August 2020 and January 2021. Program demographics and responses to survey items pertaining to site and service modifications were tabulated and proportions reported. A qualitative descriptive method was used to analyze free-response questions. All (100%) surveyed providers reported the need to modify their services. The majority (68%) reported an increase or no change in client volume; 68% reported increases in naloxone services and 77% reported increases in syringe services programs. Qualitative themes included (a) flexibility in reaching clients due to regulatory changes, (b) benefits and drawbacks of telehealth, and (c) increased vulnerabilities of their clients during the pandemic. Despite difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic, harm reduction and OTP sites found that regulatory changes provided flexibility in service delivery and that they were better able to serve their clients. Future policies should bolster these sites to continue to provide low-barrier and high-quality services. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Attitudes and beliefs about Vermont's 2021 buprenorphine decriminalization law among residents who use illicit opioids.

BACKGROUND: In July 2021, Vermont removed all criminal penalties for possessing 224mg or less of buprenorphine. METHODS: Vermont residents (N=474) who used illicit opioid drugs or received treatment for opioid use disorder in the past 90 days were recruited for a mixed-methods survey on the health and criminal legal effects of decriminalization. Topics assessed included: motivations for using non-prescribed buprenorphine, awareness of and support for decriminalization, and criminal legal system experiences involving buprenorphine. We examined the frequencies of quantitative measures and qualitatively summarized themes from free-response questions. RESULTS: Three-quarters of respondents (76%) reported lifetime use of non-prescribed buprenorphine. 80% supported decriminalization, but only 28% were aware buprenorphine was decriminalized in Vermont. Respondents described using non-prescribed buprenorphine to alleviate withdrawal symptoms and avoid use of other illicit drugs. 18% had been arrested while in buprenorphine, with non-White respondents significantly more likely to report such arrests (15% v 33%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Decriminalization of buprenorphine may reduce unnecessary criminal legal system involvement, but its health impact was limited by low awareness at the time of our study.

Intersecting substance use treatment and harm reduction services: exploring the characteristics and service needs of a community-based sample of people who use drugs.

BACKGROUND: Substance use treatment and harm reduction services are essential components of comprehensive strategies for reducing the harms of drug use and overdose. However, these services have been historically siloed, and there is a need to better understand how programs that serve people who use drugs (PWUD) are integrating these services. In this study, we compared treatment and harm reduction services offered by a multistate sample of substance use service providers and assessed how well they align with characteristics and needs of clients they serve early in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of programs that deliver harm reduction and/or treatment services in ten US states. Program directors participated in a survey assessing the services offered at their program. We also recruited clients of these programs to participate in a survey assessing a range of sociodemographic and health characteristics, substance use behaviors, and health service utilization. We then cross-compared client characteristics and behaviors relative to services being offered through these programs. RESULTS: We collected and analyzed data from 511 clients attending 18 programs that we classified as either offering treatment with medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) (N = 6), syringe service programs (SSP) (N = 8), or offering both MOUD and SSP (N = 4). All programs delivered a range of treatment and harm reduction services, with MOUD & SSP programs delivering the greatest breadth of services. There were discrepancies between services provided and characteristics and behaviors reported by clients: 80% of clients of programs that offered MOUD without SSP actively used drugs and 50% injected drugs; 40% of clients of programs that offered SSP without MOUD sought drug treatment services. Approximately half of clients were unemployed and unstably housed, but few programs offered direct social services. CONCLUSIONS: In many ways, existing programs are not meeting the service needs of PWUD. Investing in innovative models that empower clients and integrate a range of accessible and flexible treatment, harm reduction and social services can pave the way for a more effective and equitable service system that considers the long-term health of PWUD.

Jail-based treatment for opioid use disorder in the era of bail reform: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to implementation of a state-wide medication treatment initiative.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, few carceral facilities offered medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD). Although more facilities are adopting MOUD, much remains to be learned about addressing implementation challenges related to expansion of MOUD in carceral settings and linkage to care upon re-entry. This is particularly important in jails, where individuals cycle rapidly in and out of these facilities, especially in jurisdictions beginning to implement bail reform laws (i.e., laws that remove the requirement to pay bail for most individuals). Increasing access to MOUD in these settings is a key unexplored challenge. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we interviewed staff from county jails across New Jersey, a state that has implemented state-wide efforts to increase capacity for MOUD treatment in jails. We analyzed themes related to current practices used to engage individuals in MOUD while in jail and upon re-entry; major challenges to delivering MOUD and re-entry services, particularly under bail reform conditions; and innovative strategies to facilitate delivery of these services. RESULTS: Jail staff from 11 New Jersey county jails participated in a baseline survey and an in-depth qualitative interview from January-September 2020. Responses revealed that practices for delivering MOUD varied substantially across jails. Primary challenges included jails' limited resources and highly regulated operations, the chaotic nature of short jail stays, and concerns regarding limited MOUD and resources in the community. Still, jail staff identified multiple facilitators and creative solutions for delivering MOUD in the face of these obstacles, including opportunities brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Despite challenges to the delivery of MOUD, states can make concerted and sustained efforts to support opioid addiction treatment in jails. Increased use of evidence-based clinical guidelines, greater investment in resources, and increased partnerships with health and social service providers can greatly improve reach of treatment and save lives.