Changes in supervised drug-injecting practices following a community-based educational intervention: A longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs face several health issues because of unsafe injecting practices. We aimed to evaluate changes in supervised drug-injecting practices following the implementation of a face-to-face educational intervention. METHODS: The national study ANRS-AERLI was conducted in 17 harm reduction (HR) facilities in France between 2011 and 2013. Eight offered the intervention and nine did not. We conducted a pre-post analysis focusing on injecting practices data, collected in the 8 HR facilities providing the intervention. The intervention consisted of providing face-to-face educational sessions including direct observation of injecting practices, counseling about safer injecting, and shared discussion. Injecting practices were collected following a checklist and classified as safe or unsafe. To assess changes in injecting practices, practices were compared before (at baseline) and after at least one educational session. FINDINGS: Mixed logistic models showed that the 78 participants included were more likely to improve in the following drug-use steps: setting up a clean preparation area (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 3.4, 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) = 1.6-7.6), hand washing (AOR = 7.2, 95% CI = 3.1-16.4), skin cleaning (AOR = 5.6, 95% CI = 2.5-12.1), choice of safe injection site (AOR = 6.5, 95% CI = 1.5-28.8) and post-injection bleeding management (AOR = 12.8, 95% CI = 5.5-29.9). Furthermore, participants were less likely to lick their needles before injecting (AOR = 8.1, 95% CI = 1.5-43.4) and to perform booting/flushing (AOR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.2-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: The AERLI intervention seems to be effective in increasing safe drug-injecting practices.

Profile, risk practices and needs of people who inject morphine sulfate: Results from the ANRS-AERLI study.

AIMS: In France, a non-negligible proportion of opioid-dependent individuals inject morphine sulfate. Although it has not yet been officially approved as an opioid substitution treatment (OST), some physicians can prescribe its use for people in methadone or buprenorphine treatment failure. Longitudinal data from the ANRS-AERLI study, which evaluated an educational intervention for safer injection called AERLI, provided us the opportunity to better characterize the profile, risk practices and needs of people who inject morphine sulfate (MSI), through comparison with other injectors, and to identify correlates of HIV/HCV risk practices in this group. METHODS: The national multisite ANRS-AERLI study assessed the impact of AERLI offered in volunteer harm reduction (HR) centers ("with intervention") (n = 113) through comparison with standard HR centers ("without intervention") (n = 127). All participants were scheduled to be followed up for 12 months and have 3 telephone interviews: at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. We compared MSI (n = 79) with other opioid injectors (n = 161) and then used a mixed logistic model to identify factors associated with HIV/HCV risk practices among MSI. FINDINGS: Of the 240 eligible participants, 79 were regular MSI. They were less likely to use cocaine, crack or buprenorphine and to receive OST than other participants. Conversely, MSI were more likely to inject drugs more than three times a day and to report HIV/HCV risk practices. Among MSI, multivariate analysis showed that those receiving morphine sulfate as an OST were less likely to report such practices than other participants (aOR [95%CI] = 0.11 [0.02-0.61]). CONCLUSION: Our results show that while MSI use fewer stimulants, they have more HIV/HCV risk practices than other injectors. However, when MSI are prescribed morphine sulfate as a treatment, these practices tend to decrease. Our findings suggest the importance of increasing access to morphine sulfate as a new OST in France.

[Chemical content of street cannabis]. / Nature du cannabis collecté au niveau des usagers.

INTRODUCTION: There is little information available about the real content of cannabis consumed in France. OBJECTIVE: To assess the chemical content, including adulterants and contaminants, and potency of cannabis samples obtained from end-users. METHODS: Samples of resins considered by users to produce "unusual" effects were collected from habitual consumers and chemically analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-seven samples were obtained. Average THC content was 8.8%. The effects reported by users were consistent with the THC content. Apart from an unidentified fatty substance found in two samples, no adulteration was found. DISCUSSION: This study, which relied on volunteers, enabled us to collect samples considered abnormal by experienced users. It did not confirm the numerous anecdotes of adulteration. CONCLUSION: We suggest that this study should be widened to monitor the current chemical contents of cannabis derivatives available in France. The impact of providing users with the results remains to be evaluated.

Increased Uptake of HCV Testing through a Community-Based Educational Intervention in Difficult-to-Reach People Who Inject Drugs: Results from the ANRS-AERLI Study.

AIMS: The community-based AERLI intervention provided training and education to people who inject drugs (PWID) about HIV and HCV transmission risk reduction, with a focus on drug injecting practices, other injection-related complications, and access to HIV and HCV testing and care. We hypothesized that in such a population where HCV prevalence is very high and where few know their HCV serostatus, AERLI would lead to increased HCV testing. METHODS: The national multisite intervention study ANRS-AERLI consisted in assessing the impact of an injection-centered face-to-face educational session offered in volunteer harm reduction (HR) centers ("with intervention") compared with standard HR centers ("without intervention"). The study included 271 PWID interviewed on three occasions: enrolment, 6 and 12 months. Participants in the intervention group received at least one face-to-face educational session during the first 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of this analysis was reporting to have been tested for HCV during the previous 6 months. Statistical analyses used a two-step Heckman approach to account for bias arising from the non-randomized clustering design. This approach identified factors associated with HCV testing during the previous 6 months. FINDINGS: Of the 271 participants, 127 and 144 were enrolled in the control and intervention groups, respectively. Of the latter, 113 received at least one educational session. For the present analysis, we selected 114 and 88 participants eligible for HCV testing in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the intervention group, 44% of participants reported having being tested for HCV during the previous 6 months at enrolment and 85% at 6 months or 12 months. In the control group, these percentages were 51% at enrolment and 78% at 12 months. Multivariable analyses showed that participants who received at least one educational session during follow-up were more likely to report HCV testing, compared with those who did not receive any intervention (95%[CI] = 4.13[1.03;16.60]). CONCLUSION: The educational intervention AERLI had already shown efficiency in reducing HCV at-risk practices and associated cutaneous complications and also seems to have a positive impact in increasing HCV testing in PWID.

Innovative community-based educational face-to-face intervention to reduce HIV, hepatitis C virus and other blood-borne infectious risks in difficult-to-reach people who inject drugs: results from the ANRS-AERLI intervention study.

AIMS: To study the effectiveness of an educational intervention on risks associated with drug injection, comparing primary [unsafe HIV-hepatitis C virus (HCV) practices] and secondary (local complications at injecting site) end-points in harm reduction (HR) programmes offering this intervention versus HR programmes not offering it. DESIGN: This non-random clustered intervention study was conducted in nine intervention groups (programmes offering the intervention) and eight control groups (programmes not offering it). Each participant was followed-up through a telephone interview at enrolment and at 6 and 12 months. SETTING: The study took place in 17 cities throughout France. PARTICIPANTS: Of the 271 participants, 144 were enrolled into the intervention group and 127 in the control group. Of the latter, 113 received at least one educational session. INTERVENTION: A series of participant-centred face-to-face educational sessions. Each session included direct observation by trained non-governmental organization (NGO) staff or volunteers of participants' self-injecting the psychoactive product they used habitually; analysis by the trained NGO staff or volunteers of the participant's injecting practices, identification of injection-related risks and explanation of safer injecting practices; and an educational exchange on the individual participant's injection practices and the questions he or she asked. MEASUREMENTS: Primary and secondary outcomes were 'at least one unsafe HIV-HCV practice' and at least one injection-related complication (derived from a checklist). FINDINGS: The proportion of participants with at least one unsafe HIV-HCV practice in the intervention group decreased significantly, from 44% at M0 to 25% at M6, as well as complications at the injection site (from 66 to 39% at M12), while in the control group it remained mainly stable. Multivariate probit analyses showed that the intervention group experienced a significant reduction in unsafe HIV-HCV practices at M6 [coefficient, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.73 (-1.47 to 0.01)] and in injection-related complications at M12 [coefficient, 95% CI = -1.01 (-1.77 to -0.24)], compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: An inexpensive and easily implemented educational intervention on risks associated with drug injection reduces significantly unsafe HIV-HCV transmission practices and injection-related complications.