Uptake of wheel-filtration among clients of a supervised injecting facility: Can structured education work?

Reducing harm through the development of good preparation practices for the injection of slow release morphine sulphate capsules

BACKGROUND

It is not always easy to advise people who inject drugs (PWID) on how to prepare their drugs in a way that is associated with reduced harm. This is particularly true for pharmaceutical drugs that are not meant to be injected. Our objective was to find "good preparation practices" for slow release morphine sulphate capsules, namely preparation methods that reduce harm, that are evidence-based and acceptable to PWID.

METHODS

In the laboratory, morphine sulphate capsules were prepared using both a cold and lukewarm preparation technique, two contact and stirring durations (1 min and 20 s) and 4 different filters (cotton filter, Sterifilt, Sterifilt+ and a wheel filter). The following outcomes were compared: particle reduction and morphine content in the filtrate, as well as filtration ease and time.

RESULTS

The lukewarm method and a stirring and contact time of 1 min were associated with a considerably higher morphine yield than both the cold method and the stirring time of only 20 s. Moreover, the suspension obtained was easy to filter using membrane filters. Particle reduction was important with all three membrane filters tested. Using the lukewarm method, morphine recovery was 86% for the wheel filter, 89% for the Sterifilt and 99% for the Sterifilt+.

CONCLUSIONS

The provision of a method that is easy to use, reduces harms associated to the injection of insoluble particles and recovers virtually all the active drug has a large chance to be adopted by people who use drugs. This type of "best practices" can be provided by drug workers and by people who use drugs to actively promote harm reduction.

Substances injected at the Sydney supervised injecting facility: A chemical analysis of used injecting equipment and comparison with self-reported drug type

Providing information about substances injected can reduce the negative impact of illicit drug consumption and support people who inject drugs to make informed decisions. In Australia, information about drugs injected relies largely on periodic self-report surveys. For the first time, the analysis of the residual content of used injecting equipment was conducted in a supervised injecting facility (SIF) located in Sydney, Australia. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the substances injected by clients through: (1) chemical analyses of the content of used syringes; (2) comparison of these results with clients' self-reported drug use; and (3) assessing the usefulness of analysing other injecting equipment to detect substances used. During one week in February 2019, syringes and other injecting equipment were collected at the Sydney SIF. Their residual content was analysed by gas-chromatography/mass-spectrometry. Heroin was the most commonly detected substance (present in 51% of syringes), followed by methamphetamine (22%) and oxycodone (10%). In addition to the main psychoactive substance, cutting agents reported in the literature were also detected in used syringes. The main psychoactive substance identified by laboratory analysis reliably corresponded with users' self-reported drug type. Analytical confirmation of substances injected allows for the provision of better targeted harm reduction messaging based on timely and objective data. The approach used is amenable to clients and feasible in the Australian SIF context. Upscaling and wider implementation could be done through Needle and Syringe Programs, and would support the early detection of harmful substances entering drug markets and better inform harm reduction strategies.

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

ISSUES

Drug consumptions rooms (DCR) and supervised injecting facilities (SIF) are expanding internationally. Previous reviews have not systematically addressed evaluation methodologies.

APPROACH

Results from systematic searches of scientific databases in English until June 2017 were coded for paper type, country and year of publication. For evaluation papers, study outcome, methodology/study design and main indicators of DCR/SIF 'exposure' were recorded.

KEY FINDINGS

Two hundred and nineteen eligible peer-reviewed papers were published since 1999: the majority from Canada (n = 117 papers), Europe (n = 36) and Australia (n = 32). Fifty-six papers reported evaluation outcomes. Ecological study designs (n = 10) were used to assess the impact on overdose, public nuisance and crime; modelling techniques (n = 6) estimated impact on blood-borne diseases, overdose deaths and costs. Papers using individual-level data included four prospective cohorts (n = 28), cross-sectional surveys (n = 7) and service records (n = 5). Individual-level data were used to assess safer injecting practice, uptake into health and social services and all the other above outcomes except for impact on crime and costs. Four different indicators of DCR/SIF attendance were used to measure service 'exposure'.

IMPLICATIONS

Research around DCRs/SIFs has used ecological, modelling, cross-sectional and cohort study designs. Further research could involve systematic inclusion of a control group of people who are eligible but do not access SIFs, validation of self-reported proportion of injections at SIFs or a stepped-wedge or a cluster trial comparing localities.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies appropriate for DCR/SIF evaluation have been established and can be readily replicated from the existing literature. Research on operational aspects, implementation and transferability is also warranted.

Intravenous fentanyl use among people who inject drugs in Australia

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

There is a current epidemic of pharmaceutical opioid (PO) misuse, particularly fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, globally. Fentanyl is a highly potent synthetic opioid with rapid onset and significantly higher risk of overdose compared with other opioids. Contexts and correlates of fentanyl use among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Australia are under-researched.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The Australian Needle Syringe Program Survey is conducted annually. Consenting PWID complete a self-administered questionnaire and provide a capillary dried blood spot for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus antibody testing. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions determined correlates of recent (last 6 months) fentanyl injection in 2014.

RESULTS

Recent fentanyl injection was reported by 8% (n = 193) of the total sample. Among the 848 PWID who recently injected POs, 23% injected fentanyl. Compared with PO injectors who had not injected fentanyl, those who had injected fentanyl were significantly more likely to identify as Indigenous Australian [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04, 2.51; P = 0.034], inject daily or more frequently (AOR 1.92; 95% CI 1.30, 2.83; P = 0.005), inject in public (AOR 1.43; 95% CI 1.01, 2.02; P = 0.042) and to have overdosed in the past year (AOR 2.16; 95% CI 1.48, 3.13; P < 0.001), but were significantly less likely to receptively share syringes (AOR 0.56; 95% CI 0.36, 0.87; P = 0.010).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl injectors in Australia are significantly more likely to identify as Indigenous, report frequent injection, inject in public and experience overdose. Increased access to harm reduction interventions, including naloxone distribution, wheel filters and supervised injection facilities, are likely to benefit this population.