When Knowledge and Experience Do Not Help: A Study of Nonfatal Drug Overdoses.

: With recent increases in overdose deaths in Australia, there is renewed interest in understanding the factors that contribute to overdose. We examine the experiences of persons who report a nonfatal drug overdose. Fifty people who inject drugs (PWID) and who had accidently overdosed in the past 12 months were recruited and interviewed at 1 of 4 Needle and Syringe Program sites during September and October 2013.Participants were typically male, middle-aged, with long injecting histories. Half of the participants reported mainly injecting pharmaceutical opioids. Most overdoses occurred at home with others present. An ambulance was called for only 38% of cases and 26% were admitted to a hospital emergency department. Police were seldom involved, and there were no complaints about the involvement of police at the time of the overdose.Participants commonly had a history of overdosing, and most were on prescription medications for physical and/or mental health problems. Poly drug use was common for those reporting an accidental overdose. Benzodiazepines (eg, Xanax or Valium) were implicated in just over half of the overdoses.Most of those reporting a recent overdose also report a past history of previous overdoses. Most of those reporting a previous overdose continue to use substances in ways they are aware contribute to the risk of an overdose.

Differences in polysubstance use patterns and drug-related outcomes between people who inject drugs receiving and not receiving opioid substitution therapies.

AIMS: To test if polysubstance use profiles and drug-related outcomes differ between those receiving and not receiving opioid substitution therapies (OST) among people who inject drugs (PWID). DESIGN: An annual cross-sectional, sentinel sample of PWID across Australia. SETTING: Data came from 3 years (2011-13) of the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2673 participants who injected drugs from the combined national IDRS samples of 2011 (n = 868), 2012 (n = 922) and 2013 (n = 883). MEASUREMENTS: Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to summarize participants' self-reported use of 18 types of substances, with the resulting polysubstance use profiles then associated with participant experience of a number of drug-related outcomes. FINDINGS: Polysubstance use profiles exhibiting a broad range of substance use were generally at increased risk of negative drug-related outcomes, whether or not participants were receiving OST, including thrombosis among OST receivers [odds ratio (OR) = 2.13, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 1.09-4.17], injecting with used needles among OST receivers and non-receivers, respectively (OR = 2.78, 95% CI = 1.50-5.13; OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.34-3.45) and violent criminal offences among OST receivers and non-receivers, respectively (OR =2.30, 95% CI = 1.16-4.58; OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.14-3.07). An important exception was non-fatal overdose which was related specifically to a class of PWID who were not receiving OST and used morphine frequently (OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.06-3.17) CONCLUSION: Regardless of opioid substitution therapies usage, people who inject drugs who use a broad-range of substances experience greater levels of injecting-related injuries and poorer health outcomes and are more likely to engage in criminal activity than other groups of people who inject drugs.

Can differences in the type, nature or amount of polysubstance use explain the increased risk of non-fatal overdose among psychologically distressed people who inject drugs?

BACKGROUND: This study investigates whether the type, nature or amount of polysubstance use can explain the increased risk of non-fatal overdose among people who inject drugs with severe psychological distress. METHODS: Data came from three years (2011-2013) of the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS), an annual sentinel sample of injecting drug users across Australia (n=2673). Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used on 14 drug types to construct five latent factors, each representing a type of polysubstance use. Tests of measurement invariance were carried out to determine if polysubstance use profiles differed between those with and without severe psychological distress. Next, we regressed non-fatal overdose on the polysubstance use factors with differences in the relationships tested between groups. FINDINGS: Among those with severe psychological distress a polysubstance use profile characterised by heroin, oxycodone, crystal methamphetamine and cocaine use was associated with greater risk of non-fatal overdose. Among those without severe psychological distress, two polysubstance use profiles, largely characterised by opioid substitution therapies and prescription drugs, were protective against non-fatal overdose. CONCLUSION: The types of polysubstance use profiles did not differ between people who inject drugs with and without severe psychological distress. However, the nature of use of one particular polysubstance profile placed the former group at a strongly increased risk of non-fatal overdose, while the nature of polysubstance use involving opioid substitution therapies was protective only among the latter group. The findings identify polysubstance use profiles of importance to drug-related harms among individuals with psychological problems.

Is low BMI associated with specific drug use among injecting drug users?

Body mass index (BMI) of a sample of people who regularly inject drugs (N = 781) was examined to gauge the impact of specific types of drug use. Cross-sectional interviews were undertaken in 2010 as part of a national monitoring program funded by the Australian Government. Latent class analysis identified three groups of drug users, with heroin users at 3.4 times the risk of being underweight compared with amphetamine users, and amphetamine users were at almost twice the odds of being obese compared with lower level morphine users. Nutrition should play a part in harm minimization.

Drug detection dogs in Australia: more bark than bite?

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Canines are often used by police for drug detection and deterrence. However, their effectiveness has been questioned. This paper aims to describe the experience of regular illicit drug users when in contact with drug detection dogs. DESIGN AND METHODS: Regular ecstasy users (n = 2127) were interviewed across Australia between 2008 and 2010 as part of the Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System. RESULTS: Over the 3 year period, there was increased visibility of drug detection dogs by regular ecstasy users. New South Wales was the jurisdiction with the most reported sightings, mainly occurring at festivals or live music events. Despite this police presence, however, detection and deterrence rates remained low. Approximately two-thirds of participants who had seen the drug detection dogs had drugs in their possession at the most recent sighting, yet less than 7% were positively identified by dogs. Further, the majority of participants in possession of drugs took no actions after sighting the dogs, whereas a small group hastily consumed the drugs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The low proportion of reported positive notifications from the dogs by the participants who had drugs on them at the time of sighting questions the accuracy and effectiveness of this procedure. Despite the increased visibility of police drug detection dogs, regular ecstasy users continue to use and be in possession of illicit drugs in public, suggesting a limited deterrence effect. The hasty consumption of drugs upon sighting the dogs also raises health concerns.

Emerging psychoactive substance use among regular ecstasy users in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The past decade has seen the development of an array of emerging psychoactive substances (EPS), however, there is minimal information on the extent of their use outside Europe. This study aimed to determine the extent of use of EPS from stimulant (such as mephedrone) and psychedelic classes (such as 5-methoxy-dimethyltryptamine [5-MeO-DMT]) among an Australian sample of regular ecstasy users (REU). Further, to determine if consumers of these drugs represent a distinct subgroup of REU. METHODS: Australian national cross-sectional surveys of 693 regular (at least monthly) ecstasy users conducted during 2010. RESULTS: More than one quarter (28%) of REU had used an EPS in the past six months, most commonly from the stimulant class (20%, typically mephedrone, 17%) rather than the psychedelic class (13%). Demographics and risk behaviours of REU that used stimulant EPS were largely no different from non-EPS consuming REU. Those using psychedelic EPS were distinct, initiating ecstasy use earlier, more frequently using multiple substances (cannabis, inhalants, GHB, ketamine) and more commonly experiencing legal, psychological and social problems. CONCLUSIONS: Psychedelic EPS use appears largely restricted to a distinct subset of REU with high-level non-injecting polydrug use, but use appears generally limited. The demographic similarity of stimulant EPS consumers with 'mainstream' REU, in conjunction with positive responses to the psychoactive effects of these drugs and declining ecstasy purity, suggests strong potential for stimulant EPS to expand further into ecstasy markets. Such drugs may have a greater public health impact than ecstasy, and merit careful monitoring into the future.

AOD treatment agencies: does religious affiliation influence service delivery?

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Religious organisations have been involved in delivering alcohol and other drug (AOD) services since Australian colonial times and are a familiar presence in the AOD sector. However, there is concern in some sectors that AOD services delivered by religious organisations might be influenced by religious ideology, at the expense of evidence-based service provision. DESIGN AND METHODS: A national, cross-sectional survey of non-government AOD agencies was undertaken using a mailed questionnaire. All non-government AOD agencies in Australia, providing at least one face-to-face specialist AOD service, were invited to participate. Agency goals and activities were assessed using the Drug and Alcohol Program Treatment Inventory, which has eight distinct treatment orientations: 12-step, therapeutic community, cognitive behavioural therapy, psychodynamic, family, rehabilitation, dual diagnosis and medical. RESULTS: There was a high degree of uniformity in treatment orientations with religiously affiliated agencies having similar goals and activities to non-religiously affiliated agencies. Cognitive behavioural therapy was most commonly provided and 12-step the least provided. Religiously affiliated agencies were significantly more likely to favour the 12-step orientation in both goals and activities. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Concerns that the religious affiliation of non-government organisations might influence AOD service delivery in Australia appear to be overstated. Factors contributing to the observed uniformity of care may include a more strategic, federal approach; and an increasing emphasis on best practice within the sector. The lack of discernable differentiation between religiously affiliated and non-religiously affiliated non-government organisations may also be attributable to changes in the way services are delivered by many religious organisations.