Evaluating fentanyl test strips as a harm reduction strategy in rural and urban counties: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-related fatalities are a leading cause of death in Ohio and nationally, with an increasing number of overdoses attributable to fentanyl. Rapid fentanyl test strips can identify fentanyl and some fentanyl analogs in urine samples and are increasingly being used to check illicit drugs for fentanyl before they are used. Fentanyl test strips are a promising harm reduction strategy; however, little is known about the real-world acceptability and impact of fentanyl test strip use. This study investigates fentanyl test strip distribution and education as a harm reduction strategy to prevent overdoses among people who use drugs. METHODS: The research team will recruit 2400 individuals ≥ 18 years with self-reported use of illicit drugs or drugs purchased on the street within the past 6 months. Recruitment will occur at opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution programs in 16 urban and 12 rural Ohio counties. Participating sites will be randomized at the county level to the intervention or non-intervention study arm. A brief fentanyl test strip educational intervention and fentanyl test strips will be provided to participants recruited from sites in the intervention arm. These participants will be eligible to receive additional fentanyl test strips for 2 years post-enrollment. Participants recruited from sites in the non-intervention arm will not receive fentanyl test strip education or fentanyl test strips. All participants will be followed for 2 years post-enrollment using biweekly, quarterly, and 6-month surveys. Primary outcomes include (1) identification of perceived barriers and facilitating factors associated with incorporating fentanyl test strip education and distribution into opioid overdose education and naloxone distribution programs; (2) differences in knowledge and self-efficacy regarding how to test drugs for fentanyl and strategies for reducing overdose risk between the intervention and non-intervention groups; and (3) differences in non-fatal and fatal overdose rates between the intervention and non-intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Findings from this cluster randomized controlled trial will contribute valuable information about the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of integrating fentanyl test strip drug checking in rural and urban communities in Ohio and help guide future overdose prevention interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05463341. Registered on July 19, 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05463341.

Strategies used to reduce harms associated with fentanyl exposure among rural people who use drugs: multi-site qualitative findings from the rural opioid initiative.

AIM: Illicitly manufactured fentanyl and its analogs are the primary drivers of opioid overdose deaths in the United States (U.S.). People who use drugs may be exposed to fentanyl or its analogs intentionally or unintentionally. This study sought to identify strategies used by rural people who use drugs to reduce harms associated with unintentional fentanyl exposure. METHODS: This analysis focused on 349 semi-structured qualitative interviews across 10 states and 58 rural counties in the U.S conducted between 2018 and 2020. Interview guides were collaboratively standardized across sites and included questions about drug use history (including drugs currently used, frequency of use, mode of administration) and questions specific to fentanyl. Deductive coding was used to code all data, then inductive coding of overdose and fentanyl codes was conducted by an interdisciplinary writing team. RESULTS: Participants described being concerned that fentanyl had saturated the drug market, in both stimulant and opioid supplies. Participants utilized strategies including: (1) avoiding drugs that were perceived to contain fentanyl, (2) buying drugs from trusted sources, (3) using fentanyl test strips, 4) using small doses and non-injection routes, (5) using with other people, (6) tasting, smelling, and looking at drugs before use, and (7) carrying and using naloxone. Most people who used drugs used a combination of these strategies as there was an overwhelming fear of fatal overdose. CONCLUSION: People who use drugs living in rural areas of the U.S. are aware that fentanyl is in their drug supply and use several strategies to prevent associated harms, including fatal overdose. Increasing access to harm reduction tools (e.g., fentanyl test strips, naloxone) and services (e.g., community drug checking, syringe services programs, overdose prevention centers) should be prioritized to address the polysubstance-involved overdose crisis. These efforts should target persons who use opioids and other drugs that may contain fentanyl.

An individual-based dynamic model to assess interventions to mitigate opioid overdose risk.

BACKGROUND: Illicit opioid overdose continues to rise in North America and is a leading cause of death. Mathematical modeling is a valuable tool to investigate the epidemiology of this public health issue, as it can characterize key features of population outcomes and quantify the broader effect of structural and interventional changes on overdose mortality. The aim of this study is to quantify and predict the impact of key harm reduction strategies at differing levels of scale-up on fatal and nonfatal overdose among a population of people engaging in unregulated opioid use in Toronto. METHODS: An individual-based model for opioid overdose was built featuring demographic and behavioural variation among members of the population. Key individual attributes known to scale the risk of fatal and nonfatal overdose were identified and incorporated into a dynamic modeling framework, wherein every member of the simulated population encompasses a set of distinct characteristics that govern demographics, intervention usage, and overdose incidence. The model was parametrized to fatal and nonfatal overdose events reported in Toronto in 2019. The interventions considered were opioid agonist therapy (OAT), supervised consumption sites (SCS), take-home naloxone (THN), drug-checking, and reducing fentanyl in the drug supply. Harm reduction scenarios were explored relative to a baseline model to examine the impact of each intervention being scaled from 0% use to 100% use on overdose events. RESULTS: Model simulations resulted in 3690.6 nonfatal and 295.4 fatal overdoses, coinciding with 2019 data from Toronto. From this baseline, at full scale-up, 290 deaths were averted by THN, 248 from eliminating fentanyl from the drug supply, 124 from SCS use, 173 from OAT, and 100 by drug-checking services. Drug-checking and reducing fentanyl in the drug supply were the only harm reduction strategies that reduced the number of nonfatal overdoses. CONCLUSIONS: Within a multi-faceted harm reduction approach, scaling up take-home naloxone, and reducing fentanyl in the drug supply led to the largest reduction in opioid overdose fatality in Toronto. Detailed model simulation studies provide an additional tool to assess and inform public health policy on harm reduction.

Fentanyl harm reduction strategies among Latinx communities in the United States: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Fueled by the prescription opioid overdose crisis and increased influx of illicitly manufactured fentanyl, fentanyl overdoses continue to be a public health crisis that has cost the US economy over $1 trillion in reduced productivity, health care, family assistance, criminal justice, and accounted for over 74,000 deaths in 2023. A recent demographic shift in the opioid crisis has led to a rise in overdose deaths among the Latinx population. Harm reduction interventions, including the use of naloxone and fentanyl test strips, have been shown to be effective measures at reducing the number of opioid overdose deaths. The aim of this scoping review is to summarize naloxone and fentanyl test strip interventions and public health policies targeted to Latinx communities. METHODS: PubMed, CINHAL, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO research databases using the keywords "fentanyl," "Latinx," "Harm Reduction," "Naloxone," and "Fentanyl Test Strips'' to identify studies published between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2023. Endnote and Covidence software were used to catalog and manage citations for review of studies. Subsequently, studies that met inclusion criteria were then summarized using resulting themes. RESULTS: Twenty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria and were further abstracted for the scoping review. Of these articles, 77.7% (n = 21) included a naloxone intervention, while only 11.1% (n = 3) included a fentanyl test strip intervention. Furthermore, 30.1% (n = 8) of these studies were Latinx targeted, and 7.7% (n = 2) of the studies were adapted for Latinx populations. Four themes, including an overall lack of knowledge and awareness, a lack of access to harm reduction or opioid overdose prevention resources, an overall lack of culturally adapted and/or targeted interventions, and restrictive and punitive policies that limit the effectiveness of protective factors were highlighted in this scoping review. CONCLUSION: Limited published research exists on the use of emerging harm reduction behaviors, such as the use of naloxone and fentanyl test strips as community intervention strategies to prevent opioid overdose deaths. Even fewer publications exist on the targeting and cultural adaptation of harm reduction interventions responsive to Latinx communities, especially those using theoretical approaches or frameworks to support these interventions. Future research is needed to assess the unique needs of Latinx populations and to develop culturally responsive programs to prevent opioid-related overdose deaths among this population.

The optimization of harm reduction services in Massachusetts through the use of GIS: Location-allocation analyses, 2019-2021.

BACKGROUND: Fatal opioid-related overdoses (OOD) continue to be a leading cause of preventable death across the US. Opioid Overdose Education and Naloxone Distribution programs (OENDs) play a vital role in addressing morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use, but access to such services is often inequitable. We utilized a geographic information system (GIS) and spatial analytical methods to inform prioritized placement of OEND services in Massachusetts. METHODS: We obtained addresses for OEND sites from the Massachusetts Department of Public Health and address-level fatal OOD data for January 2019 to December 2021 from the Massachusetts Registry of Vital Records and Statistics. Using location-allocation approaches in ArcGIS Pro, we created p-median models using locations of existing OEND sites and fatal OOD counts to identify areas that should be prioritized for future OEND placement. Variables included in our analysis were transportation mode, distance from public schools, race and ethnicity, and location feasibility. RESULTS: Three Massachusetts communities - Athol, Dorchester, and Fitchburg - were identified as priority sites for new OEND locations using location-allocation models based on capacity to maximize OOD prevention. Communities identified by the models for OEND placement had similar demographics and overdose rates (42.8 per 100,000 vs 40.1 per 100,000 population) to communities with existing OEND programs but lower naloxone kit distribution rates (2589 doses per 100,000 vs 3704 doses per 100,000). Further models demonstrated differential access based on location and transportation. CONCLUSION: Our analyses identified key areas of Massachusetts with greatest need for OEND services. Further, these results demonstrate the utility of using spatial epidemiological methods to inform public health recommendations.

Using qualitative system dynamics modeling to understand overdose bystander behavior in the context of Connecticut's Good Samaritan Laws and identify effective policy options.

BACKGROUND: Good Samaritan Laws are a harm reduction policy intended to facilitate a reduction in fatal opioid overdoses by enabling bystanders, first responders, and health care providers to assist individuals experiencing an overdose without facing civil or criminal liability. However, Good Samaritan Laws may not be reaching their full impact in many communities due to a lack of knowledge of protections under these laws, distrust in law enforcement, and fear of legal consequences among potential bystanders. The purpose of this study was to develop a systems-level understanding of the factors influencing bystander responses to opioid overdose in the context of Connecticut's Good Samaritan Laws and identify high-leverage policies for improving opioid-related outcomes and implementation of these laws in Connecticut (CT). METHODS: We conducted six group model building (GMB) workshops that engaged a diverse set of participants with medical and community expertise and lived bystander experience. Through an iterative, stakeholder-engaged process, we developed, refined, and validated a qualitative system dynamics (SD) model in the form of a causal loop diagram (CLD). RESULTS: Our resulting qualitative SD model captures our GMB participants' collective understanding of the dynamics driving bystander behavior and other factors influencing the effectiveness of Good Samaritan Laws in the state of CT. In this model, we identified seven balancing (B) and eight reinforcing (R) feedback loops within four narrative domains: Narrative 1 - Overdose, Calling 911, and First Responder Burnout; Narrative 2 - Naloxone Use, Acceptability, and Linking Patients to Services; Narrative 3 - Drug Arrests, Belief in Good Samaritan Laws, and Community Trust in Police; and Narrative 4 - Bystander Naloxone Use, Community Participation in Harm Reduction, and Cultural Change Towards Carrying Naloxone. CONCLUSIONS: Our qualitative SD model brings a nuanced systems perspective to the literature on bystander behavior in the context of Good Samaritan Laws. Our model, grounded in local knowledge and experience, shows how the hypothesized non-linear interdependencies of the social, structural, and policy determinants of bystander behavior collectively form endogenous feedback loops that can be leveraged to design policies to advance and sustain systems change.

A simple heuristic for allocating opioid settlement funding to reduce overdose mortality in the United States.

As resolution for opioid-related claims and litigation against pharmaceutical manufacturers and other stakeholders, state and local governments are newly eligible for millions of dollars of settlement funding to address the overdose crisis in the United States. To inform effective use of opioid settlement funds, we propose a simple framework that highlights the principal determinants of overdose mortality: the number of people at risk of overdose each year, the average annual number of overdoses per person at risk, and the average probability of death per overdose event. We assert that the annual number of overdose deaths is a function of these three determinants, all of which can be modified through public health intervention. Our proposed heuristic depicts how each of these drivers of drug-related mortality - and the corresponding interventions designed to address each term - operate both in isolation and in conjunction. We intend for this framework to be used by policymakers as a tool for identifying and evaluating public health interventions and funding priorities that will most effectively address the structural forces shaping the overdose crisis and reduce overdose deaths.

Community-Based Cluster-Randomized Trial to Reduce Opioid Overdose Deaths.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based practices for reducing opioid-related overdose deaths include overdose education and naloxone distribution, the use of medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder, and prescription opioid safety. Data are needed on the effectiveness of a community-engaged intervention to reduce opioid-related overdose deaths through enhanced uptake of these practices. METHODS: In this community-level, cluster-randomized trial, we randomly assigned 67 communities in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio to receive the intervention (34 communities) or a wait-list control (33 communities), stratified according to state. The trial was conducted within the context of both the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic and a national surge in the number of fentanyl-related overdose deaths. The trial groups were balanced within states according to urban or rural classification, previous overdose rate, and community population. The primary outcome was the number of opioid-related overdose deaths among community adults. RESULTS: During the comparison period from July 2021 through June 2022, the population-averaged rates of opioid-related overdose deaths were similar in the intervention group and the control group (47.2 deaths per 100,000 population vs. 51.7 per 100,000 population), for an adjusted rate ratio of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.76 to 1.09; P = 0.30). The effect of the intervention on the rate of opioid-related overdose deaths did not differ appreciably according to state, urban or rural category, age, sex, or race or ethnic group. Intervention communities implemented 615 evidence-based practice strategies from the 806 strategies selected by communities (254 involving overdose education and naloxone distribution, 256 involving the use of medications for opioid use disorder, and 105 involving prescription opioid safety). Of these evidence-based practice strategies, only 235 (38%) had been initiated by the start of the comparison year. CONCLUSIONS: In this 12-month multimodal intervention trial involving community coalitions in the deployment of evidence-based practices to reduce opioid overdose deaths, death rates were similar in the intervention group and the control group in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and the fentanyl-related overdose epidemic. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; HCS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04111939.).

Community-led approaches to making naloxone available in public settings: Implementation experiences in the HEALing communities study.

BACKGROUND: Expanding public naloxone access is a key strategy to reduce opioid overdose fatalities. We describe tailored community-engaged, data-driven approaches to install and maintain naloxone housing units (naloxone boxes) in New York State and estimate the cost of these approaches. METHODS: Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we collected data from administrative records and key informant interviews that documented the unique processes employed by four counties enrolled in the HEALing Communities Study to install and maintain naloxone housing units. We conducted a prospective micro-costing analysis to estimate the cost of each naloxone housing unit strategy from the community perspective. RESULTS: While all counties used a coalition to guide action planning for naloxone distribution, we identified unique approaches to implementing naloxone housing units: 1) County-led with technology expansion; 2) County-led grassroots; 3) Small-scale rural opioid overdose prevention program (OOPP) contract and 4) Comprehensive OOPP contract including overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) to individuals. The first two county-led approaches had lower cost per naloxone dose disbursed ($28-$38) compared to outsourcing to an OOPP ($183-$266); costs depended on services added to installing and maintaining units, such as OEND. Barriers included competing demands on public health resources (i.e., COVID-19) and stigma toward naloxone and opioid use disorder. Geographic access was a barrier in rural areas whereas existing infrastructure was a facilitator in urban counties. The policy landscape in New York State, which provides free naloxone kits and financial support to OOPPs, facilitated implementation in all counties. CONCLUSIONS: If a community has the resources, installing and maintaining naloxone housing units in-house can be less expensive than contracting with an outside partner. However, contracts that include OEND may be more effective at reaching target populations. Financial support from health departments and legislative authorization are important facilitators to making naloxone available in public settings.

How do we understand the value of drug checking as a component of harm reduction services? A qualitative exploration of client and provider perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Mortality related to opioid overdose in the U.S. has risen sharply in the past decade. In California, opioid overdose death rates more than tripled from 2018 to 2021, and deaths from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl increased more than seven times in those three years alone. Heightened attention to this crisis has attracted funding and programming opportunities for prevention and harm reduction interventions. Drug checking services offer people who use drugs the opportunity to test the chemical content of their own supply, but are not widely used in North America. We report on qualitative data from providers and clients of harm reduction and drug checking services, to explore how these services are used, experienced, and considered. METHODS: We conducted in-depth semi-structured key informant interviews across two samples of drug checking stakeholders: "clients" (individuals who use drugs and receive harm reduction services) and "providers" (subject matter experts and those providing clinical and harm reduction services to people who use drugs). Provider interviews were conducted via Zoom from June-November, 2022. Client interviews were conducted in person in San Francisco over a one-week period in November 2022. Data were analyzed following the tenets of thematic analysis. RESULTS: We found that the value of drug checking includes but extends well beyond overdose prevention. Participants discussed ways that drug checking can fill a regulatory vacuum, serve as a tool of informal market regulation at the community level, and empower public health surveillance systems and clinical response. We present our findings within three key themes: (1) the role of drug checking in overdose prevention; (2) benefits to the overall agency, health, and wellbeing of people who use drugs; and (3) impacts of drug checking services at the community and systems levels. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to growing evidence of the effectiveness of drug checking services in mitigating risks associated with substance use, including overdose, through enabling people who use and sell drugs to test their own supply. It further contributes to discussions around the utility of drug checking and harm reduction, in order to inform legislation and funding allocation.

High-dose naloxone formulations are not as essential as we thought.

Naloxone is an effective FDA-approved opioid antagonist for reversing opioid overdoses. Naloxone is available to the public and can be administered through intramuscular (IM), intravenous (IV), and intranasal spray (IN) routes. Our literature review investigates the adequacy of two doses of standard IM or IN naloxone in reversing fentanyl overdoses compared to newer high-dose naloxone formulations. Moreover, our initiative incorporates the experiences of people who use drugs, enabling a more practical and contextually-grounded analysis. The evidence indicates that the vast majority of fentanyl overdoses can be successfully reversed using two standard IM or IN dosages. Exceptions include cases of carfentanil overdose, which necessitates ≥ 3 doses for reversal. Multiple studies documented the risk of precipitated withdrawal using ≥ 2 doses of naloxone, notably including the possibility of recurring overdose symptoms after resuscitation, contingent upon the half-life of the specific opioid involved. We recommend distributing multiple doses of standard IM or IN naloxone to bystanders and educating individuals on the adequacy of two doses in reversing fentanyl overdoses. Individuals should continue administration until the recipient is revived, ensuring appropriate intervals between each dose along with rescue breaths, and calling emergency medical services if the individual is unresponsive after two doses. We do not recommend high-dose naloxone formulations as a substitute for four doses of IM or IN naloxone due to the higher cost, risk of precipitated withdrawal, and limited evidence compared to standard doses. Future research must take into consideration lived and living experience, scientific evidence, conflicts of interest, and the bodily autonomy of people who use drugs.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Bystander Naloxone Training Course.

Introduction: Bystander provision of naloxone is a key modality to reduce opioid overdose-related death. Naloxone training courses are available, but no standardized program exists. As part of a bystander empowerment course, we created and evaluated a brief naloxone training module. Methods: This was a retrospective evaluation of a naloxone training course, which was paired with Stop the Bleed training for hemorrhage control and was offered to administrative staff in an office building. Participants worked in an organization related to healthcare, but none were clinicians. The curriculum included the following topics: 1) background about the opioid epidemic; 2) how to recognize the signs of an opioid overdose; 3) actions not to take when encountering an overdose victim; 4) the correct steps to take when encountering an overdose victim; 5) an overview of naloxone products; and 6) Good Samaritan protection laws. The 20-minute didactic section was followed by a hands-on session with nasal naloxone kits and a simulation mannequin. The course was evaluated with the Opioid Overdose Knowledge (OOKS) and Opioid Overdose Attitudes (OOAS) scales for take-home naloxone training evaluation. We used the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare scores pre- and post-course. Results: Twenty-eight participants completed the course. The OOKS, measuring objective knowledge about opioid overdose and naloxone, had improved scores from a median of 73.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 68.3%-79.9%) to 91.5% (IQR 85.4%-95.1%), P < 0.001. The three domains on the OOAS score also showed statistically significant results. Competency to manage an overdose improved on a five-point scale from a median of 2.5 (IQR 2.4-2.9) to a median of 3.7 (IQR 3.5-4.1), P < 0.001. Concerns about managing an overdose decreased (improved) from a median of 2.3 (IQR 1.9-2.6) to median 1.8 (IQR 1.5-2.1), P < 0.001. Readiness to intervene in an opioid overdose improved from a median of 4 (IQR 3.8-4.2) to a median of 4.2 (IQR 4-4.2), P < 0.001. Conclusion: A brief course designed to teach bystanders about opioid overdose and naloxone was feasible and effective. We encourage hospitals and other organizations to use and promulgate this model. Furthermore, we suggest the convening of a national consortium to achieve consensus on program content and delivery.

Reducing overdose deaths among persons with opioid use disorder in connecticut.

BACKGROUND: People in Connecticut are now more likely to die of a drug-related overdose than a traffic accident. While Connecticut has had some success in slowing the rise in overdose death rates, substantial additional progress is necessary. METHODS: We developed, verified, and calibrated a mechanistic simulation of alternative overdose prevention policy options, including scaling up naloxone (NLX) distribution in the community and medications for opioid use disorder (OUD) among people who are incarcerated (MOUD-INC) and in the community (MOUD-COM) in a simulated cohort of people with OUD in Connecticut. We estimated how maximally scaling up each option individually and in combinations would impact 5-year overdose deaths, life-years, and quality-adjusted life-years. All costs were assessed in 2021 USD, employing a health sector perspective in base-case analyses and a societal perspective in sensitivity analyses, using a 3% discount rate and 5-year and lifetime time horizons. RESULTS: Maximally scaling NLX alone reduces overdose deaths 20% in the next 5 years at a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER); if injectable rather than intranasal NLX was distributed, 240 additional overdose deaths could be prevented. Maximally scaling MOUD-COM and MOUD-INC alone reduce overdose deaths by 14% and 6% respectively at favorable ICERS. Considering all permutations of scaling up policies, scaling NLX and MOUD-COM together is the cost-effective choice, reducing overdose deaths 32% at ICER $19,000/QALY. In sensitivity analyses using a societal perspective, all policy options were cost saving and overdose deaths reduced 33% over 5 years while saving society $338,000 per capita over the simulated cohort lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: Maximally scaling access to naloxone and MOUD in the community can reduce 5-year overdose deaths by 32% among people with OUD in Connecticut under realistic budget scenarios. If societal cost savings due to increased productivity and reduced crime costs are considered, one-third of overdose deaths can be reduced by maximally scaling all three policy options, while saving money.

Opioid Overdose Knowledge Among Adolescents and Young Adults.

This cross-sectional study examines awareness of opioid overdose, the ability to administer naloxone, and the willingness to help during an overdose on college campuses across the US.

Acceptability and anticipated effectiveness of a safe supply of opioids, among people who inject opioids in King County, WA.

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose mortality in the US has exceeded one million deaths over the last two decades. A regulated opioid supply may help prevent future overdose deaths by reducing exposure to the unregulated opioid supply. We examined the acceptability, delivery model preference, and anticipated effectiveness of different regulated opioid models among people in the Seattle area who inject opioids. METHODS: We enrolled people who inject drugs in the 2022 Seattle-area National HIV Behavior Surveillance (NHBS) survey. Participants were recruited between July and December 2022 using respondent-driven sampling. Participants who reported injecting opioids (N = 453) were asked whether regulated opioids would be acceptable, their preferred model of receiving regulated opioids, and the anticipated change in individual overdose risk from accessing a regulated opioid supply. RESULTS: In total, 369 (81 %) participants who injected opioids reported that a regulated opioid supply would be acceptable to them. Of the 369 who found a regulated opioid supply to be acceptable, the plurality preferred a take-home model where drugs are prescribed (35 %), followed closely by a dispensary model that required no prescription (28 %), and a prescribed model where drugs need to be consumed on site (13 %), a model where no prescription is required and drugs can be accessed in a community setting with a one-time upfront payment was the least preferred model (5 %). Most participants (69 %) indicated that receiving a regulated opioid supply would be "a lot less risky" than their current supply, 20 % said, "a little less risky", 10 % said no difference, and 1 % said a little or a lot more risky. CONCLUSION: A regulated opioid supply would be acceptable to most participants, and participants reported it would greatly reduce their risk of overdose. As overdose deaths continue to increase in Washington state pragmatic and effective solutions that reduce exposure to unregulated drugs are needed.

Statewide efforts to address the opioid epidemic: Results from a national survey of single state agencies.

BACKGROUND: Single State Agencies (SSAs) are at the forefront of efforts to address the nation's opioid epidemic, responsible for allocating billions of dollars in federal, state, and local funds to ensure service quality, promote best practices, and expand access to care. Federal expenditures to SSAs have more than tripled since the early years of the epidemic, yet, it is unclear what initiatives SSAs have undertaken to address the crisis and how they are financing these efforts. METHODS: This study used data from an internet-based survey of SSAs, conducted by the University of Chicago Survey Lab from January to December 2021 (response rate of 94 %). The survey included a set of 14 items identifying statewide efforts to address the opioid epidemic and six funding sources. We calculated the percentage of SSAs that supported each statewide effort and the percentage of SSAs reporting use of each source of funding across the 14 statewide efforts. RESULTS: Treatment of opioid-related overdose figured most prominently among statewide efforts, with all SSAs providing funding for naloxone distribution and all but one SSA supporting naloxone training. Recovery support services, Project ECHO, and Hub and Spoke models were supported by the vast majority of SSAs. Statewide efforts related to expanding access to medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) received somewhat less support, with 45 % of SSAs supporting mobile methadone/MOUD clinics/programs and 70 % supporting buprenorphine in emergency departments. A relatively low proportion of SSAs (54 %) provided support for syringe services programs. State Opioid Response (SOR) funds were the most common funding source reported by SSAs (57 % of SSAs), followed by block grant funds (19 %) and other state funding (15 %). CONCLUSION: Results highlight a range of SSA efforts to address the nation's opioid epidemic. Limited adoption of efforts to expand access to MOUD and harm reduction services may represent missed opportunities. The uncertainty over reauthorization of the SOR grant post-2025 also raises concerns over sustainability of funding for many of these statewide initiatives.

A Practical Guide to Implementing an Evidenced-Based Hands-On Naloxone Training.

Synthetic opioids contribute to the majority of opioid overdose-related deaths in the United States. Expansion of naloxone training to community laypersons is one strategy to mitigate opioid overdose-related deaths. A hands-on naloxone training demonstrated efficacy in improving opioid knowledge and overdose response in baccalaureate nursing students, Greek-affiliated students, and rural clinicians and staff post-training. The purpose of this practical guide is to provide detailed steps to implement an evidence-based hands-on naloxone training for laypersons in community settings. The hands-on naloxone training consisted of five components: evaluator training, a validated pre-post opioid knowledge questionnaire, an opioid lecture, a performance evaluation, and a satisfaction survey. Post-training, trainees demonstrated increased knowledge related to opioids and overdose response, and they felt comfortable administering naloxone to someone experiencing an opioid overdose. Researchers, educators, and community health nurses can adapt this evidence-based practical guide to train peers and acquaintances who are likely to witness an opioid overdose. Virtual training and multi-lingual protocols should be considered to successfully train diverse groups of community laypersons. An active hands-on naloxone training can improve confidence for community health nurses and other health care professionals, and it may reduce delays in response time and naloxone administration. Nurses can use this hands-on training to educate students, families, community members, and stakeholders how to respond to an opioid overdose event.

Economic Evaluations of Establishing Opioid Overdose Prevention Centers in 12 North American Cities: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Overdose prevention centers (OPCs) provide a safe place where people can consume preobtained drugs under supervision so that a life-saving medical response can be provided quickly in the event of an overdose. OPCs are programs that are established in Canada and have recently become legally sanctioned in only a few United States jurisdictions. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review that summarizes and identifies gaps of economic evidence on establishing OPCs in North America to guide future expansion of OPCs. RESULTS: We included 16 final studies that were evaluated with the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Drummond checklists. Eight studies reported cost-effectiveness results (eg, cost per overdose avoided or cost per quality-adjusted life-year), with 6 also including cost-benefit; 5 reported only cost-benefit results, and 3 cost offsets. Health outcomes primarily included overdose mortality outcomes or HIV/hepatitis C virus infections averted. Most studies used mathematical modeling and projected OPC outcomes using the experience of a single facility in Vancouver, BC. CONCLUSIONS: OPCs were found to be cost-saving or to have favorable cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit ratios across all studies. Future studies should incorporate the experience of OPCs established in various settings and use a greater diversity of modeling designs.