Characterising differences between self-reported and wastewater-identified drug use at two consecutive years of an Australian music festival.

BACKGROUND: In the context of drug prohibition, potential adulteration and variable purity pose additional health risks for people who use drugs, with these risks often compounded by the outdoor music festival environment. Ahead of the imminent implementation of drug checking services in Queensland, Australia, this study aims to characterise this problem using triangulated survey and wastewater data to understand self-reported and detected drug use among attendees of a multi-day Queensland-based music festival in 2021 and 2022. METHODS: We administered an in-situ survey focusing on drug use at the festival to two convenience samples of 136 and 140 festival attendees in 2021 and 2022 respectively. We compared survey findings to wastewater collected concurrently from the festival's site-specific wastewater treatment plant, which was analysed using Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry. RESULTS: Most survey respondents (82 % in 2021, 92 % in 2022) reported using or intending to use an illicit drug at the festival. Some respondents reported potentially risky drug use practices such as using drugs found on the ground (2 % in 2021, 4 % in 2022). Substances detected in wastewater but not surveys include MDEA, mephedrone, methylone, 3-MMC, alpha-D2PV, etizolam, eutylone, and N,N-dimethylpentylone. CONCLUSION: Many substances detected in wastewater but not self-reported in surveys likely represent substitutions or adulterants. These findings highlight the benefits of drug checking services to prevent harms from adulterants and provide education on safer drug use practices. These findings also provide useful information on socio-demographic characteristics and drug use patterns of potential users of Queensland's future drug checking service.

Monitoring for fentanyl within Australian supervised injecting facilities: Findings from feasibility testing of novel methods and collaborative workshops.

BACKGROUND: Australia is yet to see widespread fentanyl-contaminated heroin, despite the established presence of fentanyl in other countries. International mortality trends alongside a local cluster of fentanyl-related deaths prompted interest in developing methods to monitor for fentanyl and other potentially harmful novel psychoactive substances (NPS) in Australia. METHODS: We tested novel methods to monitor for fentanyl and other NPS. From 2017-2021, clients from supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, contributed urine screens (UDS) with BTNX Rapid Response™ fentanyl test strips (FTS) paired with surveys, and injecting equipment associated with opioid overdoses for laboratory analysis. A single site piloted drug checking using FTS with laboratory confirmation. Two workshops were conducted with SIF staff, content experts and people with lived experience to determine how results can inform practices within SIFs. RESULTS: Of the 911 UDS with FTS conducted, less than 1% (n=8) yielded positive results that were not explained by self-reported pharmaceutical fentanyl use, with two laboratory confirmed fentanyl positive results. Injecting equipment from 59 overdoses was tested and neither fentanyl nor other NPS were identified. Drug checking with FTS (n=34) indicated the presence of fentanyl on three tests. Two specimens were subsequently sent for laboratory testing and classified as false positives as the presence of fentanyl was not confirmed. Workshop participants (n=21) felt routine monitoring with FTS currently had limited value. A process for using pre-defined signals to trigger surveillance was developed. CONCLUSION: The high false positive rates with FTS, relative to the small number of positive results and potential for them to undermine confidence in FTS emphasised the need for confirmatory testing. The role of routine surveillance was unclear within the current low-fentanyl context, however, a process was developed to upscale testing should signals of increased fentanyl prevalence in the Australian heroin market emerge.

Infrequent detection of unintentional fentanyl use via urinalysis among people who regularly inject opioids in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The current phase of the North American 'opioid crisis' is characterised by illicit fentanyl use; however, the presence of illicit fentanyl in Australia is unknown. This study aimed to monitor unintentional fentanyl consumption in Australia. DESIGN: Rapid urine drug screens (UDS) paired with surveys conducted within supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) and confirmatory laboratory testing. SETTING: Sydney and Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Clients who used heroin within the past 2 days (n = 911 tests, 2017-2021). Participants were demographically similar to the overall client base (median age 43, 72% male). MEASUREMENTS: UDS were conducted using BTNX Rapid Response fentanyl urine strip tests with cross-reactivity to numerous fentanyl analogues. Positive urine samples were analysed using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Surveys covered past 3 day drug use and lifetime report of fentanyl in heroin. FINDINGS: Two percent of participants reported intentional use of fentanyl, mostly through fentanyl patches. Of the 911 rapid UDS conducted, 17 (1.9%) yielded positive results. Eight of these (all from Melbourne) were not explained by survey-reported fentanyl use in the past 3 days. Of these 8 unexplained positives, confirmatory laboratory analysis was conducted on 6, with 4 deemed to be false positives, and 2 confirmed for the presence of fentanyl. This represents the first confirmation of unintended use of fentanyl type substances in this population. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence of unintentional fentanyl use among people in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia who regularly inject heroin, suggesting that, currently, there is very little illicit fentanyl in Australian drug markets accessed by supervised injecting facilities attendees. This study demonstrates the feasibility of quick onsite testing to cost-effectively screen large samples for fentanyl; however, the high false positive rate emphasises the need for confirmation of positive tests through advanced analytical techniques.

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

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Wheel-filtration of pharmaceutical opioid tablets is a recognised harm reduction strategy, but uptake of the practice among people who inject drugs is low. The study aimed to: (i) examine perceptions of filtration practices; (ii) provide structured education on wheel-filtration; and (iii) assess uptake of the practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: Frequent opioid tablet injectors (n = 30) attending a supervised injecting facility in Sydney, Australia, received hands-on instruction on wheel-filtration based on recommended practice. Pre-education, post-education and follow-up questionnaires were administered. RESULTS: Wheel-filtration was generally regarded as better than cotton-filtration (the typical method) in terms of perceived effects on health, ease of use and overall drug effect. Sixty-eight percent of those who said they would try wheel-filtration after the education had actually done so. Of those who usually used cotton-filtration, over half (60%) had used wheel-filtration two weeks later. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of safer preparation methods for pharmaceutical opioid tablets increases after structured education in wheel-filtration. Findings suggest that SIFs are an effective site for this kind of education. Supervised injecting facility workers are uniquely positioned to provide harm reduction education at the time of injection. [Steele M, Silins E, Flaherty I, Hiley S, van Breda N, Jauncey M. Uptake of wheel-filtration among clients of a supervised injecting facility: Can structured education work? Drug Alcohol Rev 2018;37:116-120].

'It's Fast, It's Quick, It Stops Me Being Sick': How to influence preparation of opioid tablets for injection.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Injection of pharmaceutical opioids (PO) among people who inject drugs has increased in many countries. The common method for preparing PO tablets for injection uses heat, resulting in greater particulate matter and therefore increased risk of local infection risk and damage to veins and organs. A cold preparation process has fewer risks, but this preparation method is not commonly used. This study seeks to explore how people who inject PO learn to prepare injections and how health promotion efforts could influence practice. DESIGN AND METHODS: Between March and December 2013, qualitative interviews were undertaken with 33 clients of Sydney's Medically Supervised Injecting Centre who inject PO tablets regarding sources of knowledge and current preparation methods for injection of POs. RESULTS: Overwhelmingly, the most commonly reported source of knowledge around injection of tablets was others who inject. Most participants reported heating the solution as the quickest way to administer the drug. Attitudes to the use of wheel filters varied, with some participants reporting that they would use the filters if they were shown how, while others reported a number of barriers to using filters, including complexity of use. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Harnessing the power of social connections may provide avenues for education about safer injecting of tablets, including the use of wheel filters. Further work is required to debunk myths about the relative potencies of cold versus hot drug solution. Collaborations between harm reduction workers and peer workers would assist in knowledge dissemination regarding safer injecting practices.