High concordance between urine toxicology results and self-reported fentanyl use in Nevada and New Mexico.

BACKGROUND: Co-use of stimulants and opioids is often deliberate. However, the possibility remains that some people are unintentionally consuming fentanyl. To advance understanding of overdose risk, we examined the rate of concordance between self-reported fentanyl use and corresponding urine toxicology screen results. METHODS: Between August 2022-August 2023, 411 participants (adults who reported any non-medical drug use in the past three months) in Nevada and New Mexico completed a cross-sectional survey, of whom 64% (n = 270; the analytical sample) also completed a urine toxicology screen, which detects fentanyl use in the past three days. Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated using self-reported past three-day fentanyl use (yes/no) and urine toxicology screen results for the presence of fentanyl (positive/negative). RESULTS: Of the 270 participants who provided a urine sample, 268 are included in the descriptive statistics (two with inconclusive urine toxicology screen results were excluded). Of the 268 participants, 146 (54.5%) had a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen result, 122 (45.5%) had a fentanyl-negative urine toxicology screen result, 137 (51.1%) reported past three-day fentanyl use, and 130 (48.5%) reported no past three-day fentanyl use. Only 6.9% of those with a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen did not report recent fentanyl use. The sensitivity of self-reported fentanyl use was 93%, specificity was 97%, positive predictive value was 97%, and negative predictive value was 92%. DISCUSSION: The rate of unanticipated exposure to fentanyl (that is, positive urine screen and negative self-report) in this sample was low, at 6.9%. This runs counter to the national narrative that there is widespread unknown contamination of fentanyl in the drug supply. CONCLUSION: Future research is needed to further explore how people who use multiple substances interpret their overdose risk and what harm reduction methods they employ.

Safety strategies and harm reduction for methamphetamine users in the era of fentanyl contamination: A qualitative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In the United States, methamphetamine use is increasing and the context of its use has changed, with reports of illicitly manufactured fentanyl being mixed with methamphetamine (either deliberately or inadvertently). We explore risk-mitigating actions taken by people who use drugs to protect their health when using methamphetamine in that context. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 48 adults (18+) who used methamphetamine in the past three months at two sites in Nevada, USA and two sites in New Mexico, USA. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Respondents described two rationales for employing harm reduction strategies. First, to prevent harm from methamphetamine containing illicit fentanyl, and second, to maintain their general wellbeing while using methamphetamine. Regarding methamphetamine containing illicit fentanyl, our findings highlight how respondents employ primary strategies like buying from trusted sources and secondary strategies such as spotting and selective use of harm reduction tools (i.e., fentanyl test strips) to reduce risks. To maintain their general wellbeing, participants reduced their use of methamphetamine as reasonably as possible, and used other substances like marijuana and alcohol alongside methamphetamine to counter the unwanted side effects of methamphetamine (i.e., hallucinations and paranoia). Use of these harm reduction strategies varied within situational and social contexts, and respondents usually developed these strategies based on their lived experiences. CONCLUSION: Our findings uniquely demonstrate that people who use methamphetamine prioritize community driven, trust-based strategies within their social networks to mitigate risks in a fentanyl-contaminated drug environment. Additionally, our results indicate that harm reduction behaviors are influenced by multilevel risk environments, which include social, physical, economic, and political factors. Overall, these results highlight the potential for targeted interventions at the network level, which are responsive to complexities and shifts in drug market dynamics- such as illicit fentanyl in methamphetamine.

A qualitative study of interest in and preferences for potential medications to treat methamphetamine use disorder.

INTRODUCTION: We examined acceptability of and preferences for potential medications for treating methamphetamine use disorder (MUD) among people who use methamphetamine and examined how benefits and drawbacks of methamphetamine use affect perceived acceptability and preferences. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews as part of a larger study in 2019-2020. The interview assessed patterns of substance use (including methamphetamine), benefits and drawbacks of methamphetamine use, and interest in a medication to treat MUD. Analysis used an inductive thematic approach, guided by three primary questions: (1) would participants be interested in taking a potential medication for MUD?; (2) what effects would they would like from such a medication?; and (3) what would their ideal treatment route and schedule be (e.g. daily pill, monthly injection)?. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 people reporting methamphetamine use in the past 3 months (10 from Reno, Nevada, USA and 10 from Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, USA). Seven used exclusively methamphetamine, while thirteen used other substances in addition to methamphetamine. Most were enthusiastic about a potential medication to treat MUD. Of those who were not interested (n = 5), all indicated no current concerns about their methamphetamine use. Perceived functional benefits of methamphetamine use (i.e., energy, counteracting opioid sedation, and improved social and emotional wellbeing) informed preferences for a replacement-type medication that would confer the same benefits while mitigating drawbacks (e.g., psychosis, hallucinations, withdrawal). Opinions on preferred dosing varied, with some preferring longer acting medications for convenience, while others preferred daily dosing that would align with existing routines. CONCLUSION: Participants were excited about a potential for a medication to treat MUD. Their preferences were informed by the functional role of methamphetamine in their lives and a desire to maintain the stimulant effects while mitigating harms of illicit methamphetamine. Treatment outcomes that emphasize functioning and wellbeing, rather than abstinence, should be explored.

Patterns of and Rationale for the Co-use of Methamphetamine and Opioids: Findings From Qualitative Interviews in New Mexico and Nevada.

Introduction: Methamphetamine use and methamphetamine-involved deaths have increased dramatically since 2015, and opioid-related deaths now frequently involve methamphetamine. Nevada and New Mexico are states with elevated rates of opioid and methamphetamine use. In this paper, we report results from a qualitative analysis that examined patterns of methamphetamine and opioid co-use over participants' lifespan, factors that influence those patterns, and implications for health outcomes among users. Methods: Project AMPED was a multisite, mixed-methods study of methamphetamine use in Northern New Mexico and Northern Nevada. Between December 2019 and May 2020, qualitative interview participants were asked to describe their patterns of and reasons for co-administration of opioids and methamphetamine. Results: We interviewed 21 people who reported using methamphetamine in the past 3 months. Four primary patterns of methamphetamine and opioid co-use were identified: [1] using both methamphetamine and heroin, either simultaneously or sequentially (n = 12), [2] using methamphetamine along with methadone (n = 4), [3] using prescription opioids and methamphetamine (n = 1), and [4] using only methamphetamine (n = 4). Among those who used methamphetamine and heroin simultaneously or sequentially, motivations drew from a desire to enhance the effect of one drug or another, to feel the "up and down" of the "perfect ratio" of a goofball, or to mitigate unwanted effects of one or the other. Among those who used methamphetamine and methadone, motivations focused on alleviating the sedative effects of methadone. Conclusion: To address the emergent trend of increasing methamphetamine-related deaths, researchers, health care professionals, and community health workers must acknowledge the decision-making processes behind co-use of opioids and methamphetamine, including the perceived benefits and harms of co-use. There is an urgent need to address underlying issues associated with drug use-related harms, and to design interventions and models of treatment that holistically address participants' concerns.

"It's called overamping": experiences of overdose among people who use methamphetamine.

BACKGROUND: The USA is experiencing increases in methamphetamine use and methamphetamine-related or attributed deaths. In the current study, we explore qualitative narratives of methamphetamine overdose and strategies used by people who use drugs to reduce the undesirable effects associated with methamphetamine use. METHODS: We conducted 21 qualitative interviews with people over the age of 18 who reported using methamphetamine in the previous 3 months in Nevada and New Mexico. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Respondents described a constellation of psychological and physical symptoms that they characterized as "overamping," experienced on a continuum from less to more severe. Reports of acute, fatal methamphetamine overdose were rare. Few reported seeking medical attention for undesirable effects (usually related to psychological effects). General self-care strategies such as sleeping and staying hydrated were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: When asked directly, our respondents claimed that acute, fatal methamphetamine overdose is rare or even impossible. However, they described a number of undesirable symptoms associated with overconsumption of methamphetamine and had few clinical or harm reduction strategies at their disposal. Addressing this current wave of drug-related deaths will require attention to the multiple factors that structure experiences of methamphetamine "overdose," and a collaborative effort with PWUDs to devise effective harm reduction and treatment strategies.

The mobile emergency recovery intervention trial (MERIT): Protocol for a 3-year mixed methods observational study of mobile recovery outreach teams in Nevada's emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration awarded State Targeted Response grants to support states' efforts to address the opioid epidemic. In Nevada, one component of this grant was mobile recovery outreach teams (MROTs) that utilized peer recovery support specialists to provide care for qualifying patients in emergency departments (EDs). The Mobile Emergency Recovery Intervention Trial (MERIT) is a mixed methods study to assess the feasibility/acceptability and effectiveness of the MROT intervention. This protocol mainly describes the R33 research activities and outcomes. The full protocol can be found protocols.io. METHODS: Data will be derived from state-level data sets containing de-identified emergency department visits, substance use disorder treatment records, and mortality files; in-person mixed methods interviews; participant observation; and self-report process evaluation forms. Primary outcomes include Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT) initiation and non-fatal overdose; secondary outcomes include MAT retention and fatal overdose. Quantitative hypotheses will be tested using generalized linear mixed effects models, Bayesian hierarchical models, and marginal Cox models. Qualitative interview data will be analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis procedure. DISCUSSION: It is impossible to conduct a randomized controlled trial of the effectiveness of the MROTs, given the ethical and logistical considerations of this intervention.This study's innovative design employs a mixed methods formative phase to examine feasibility and acceptability, and a quasi-experimental outcomes evaluation phase employing advanced statistical methods to mitigate bias and suggest causal inference regarding the effectiveness of the MROTs.Innovative interventions have been deployed in many states; evidence regarding their effectiveness is lacking, but critical to informing an effective public health response to the opioid epidemic.

Factors Associated With Calling 911 for an Overdose: An Ethnographic Decision Tree Modeling Approach.

Objectives. To identify factors that influence when people who use drugs (PWUDs) call 911 for an overdose. Methods. We conducted 45 qualitative interviews and 180 surveys with PWUDs who had recently witnessed overdoses in Southern California from 2017 to 2019. We used conditional inference tree and random forest models to generate and validate a model to predict whether 911 would be called. Results. Our model had good in- (83%) and out-of-sample (84%) predictive accuracy. Three aspects of the social and policy environment influenced calling 911 for an overdose: the effectiveness of response strategies employed, the behavior of other bystanders, and whether the responder believes it is their responsibility to call. Conclusions. Even in the presence of policies that provide some protections, PWUDs are faced with difficult decisions about calling 911 and must weigh their own safety against that of an overdose victim. Potential interventions include strengthening training and safety planning for PWUDs, bolstering protections for PWUDs when they call 911, and separating law enforcement response from emergency medical response to overdoses.

"It's Gonna be a Lifeline": Findings From Focus Group Research to Investigate What People Who Use Opioids Want From Peer-Based Postoverdose Interventions in the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Postoverdose interventions that deploy peer recovery support specialists to emergency departments (EDs) are a promising response to opioid overdoses among patients presenting in EDs. The objective of this study was to elicit patients' perspectives regarding the feasibility and acceptability of such an intervention and to ensure that their perspectives are represented in intervention design, implementation, and evaluation. METHOD: In 2019 the study investigators conducted focus groups with people who use opioids to elicit perspectives about a postoverdose intervention delivered in the ED by using a semistructured interview guide that asked about feasibility, acceptability, perceived benefits, and concerns. Focus groups were digitally recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for emerging themes. RESULTS: Nine focus groups with 30 people who use opioids were conducted. Key findings that could improve feasibility and acceptability of the intervention include the following: the importance of balancing the urgency of seeing patients quickly with a need to accommodate the experience of precipitated withdrawal symptoms; the need to address privacy concerns; and the need to address concerns related to cost, insurance coverage, and sustainability. Perceived benefits of the intervention included the ability of the peer recovery support specialist to provide advocacy and support, serve as a model of hope and encouragement for behavior change, and fill key service gaps. CONCLUSION: Postoverdose interventions in the ED provide the opportunity to integrate harm reduction-based interventions into traditional biomedical care facilities. These interventions can fill gaps in services and provide additional care and comfort for people who use opioids, but design, implementation, and evaluation should be informed by a patient-centered care perspective.

"Another tool for the tool box? I'll take it!": Feasibility and acceptability of mobile recovery outreach teams (MROT) for opioid overdose patients in the emergency room.

Drug poisoning deaths involving opioids have increased exponentially in the United States. Post-overdose outreach to patients in the emergency room (ER) is a promising strategy for increasing uptake of medication assisted treatment and reducing subsequent overdose. We conducted a mixed methods study to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile recovery outreach team (MROT) program for opioid overdose patients presenting in Nevada's ERs, which was funded by the SAMHSA Opioid State Targeted Response (STR) grant. We interviewed 25 ER staff using quantitative questions informed by Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory and qualitative questions regarding their experiences caring for overdose patients, perceived benefits, and concerns about the MROT program. Respondents expressed strong support and enthusiasm for the program, identified advantages of the program relative to standard of care, highlighted logistical issues that must be addressed prior to implementation, and illustrated how the MROT program is compatible with their personal and professional values. Our results suggest that the STR-funded MROT program could reduce burden and stress among ER staff and improve patient outcomes, but must be informed by formative research that addresses issues of logistical complexity and cultural compatibility.

Post-overdose interventions triggered by calling 911: Centering the perspectives of people who use drugs (PWUDs).

BACKGROUND: Opioid overdose deaths have increased exponentially in the United States. Bystander response to opioid overdose ideally involves administering naloxone, providing rescue breathing, and calling 911 to summon emergency medical assistance. Recently in the US, public health and public safety agencies have begun seeking to use 911 calls as a method to identify and deliver post-overdose interventions to opioid overdose patients. Little is known about the opinions of PWUDs about the barriers, benefits, or potential harms of post-overdose interventions linked to the 911 system. We sought to understand the perspectives of PWUDs about a method for using 911 data to identify opioid overdose cases and trigger a post-overdose intervention. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted three focus groups with 11 PWUDs in 2018. Results are organized into 4 categories: willingness to call 911 (benefits and risks of calling), thoughts about a technique to identify opioid overdoses in 911 data (benefits and concerns), thoughts about the proposed post-overdose intervention (benefits and concerns), and recommendations for developing an ideal post-overdose intervention. For most participants, calling 911 was synonymous with "calling the police" and law enforcement-related fears were pervasive, limiting willingness to engage with the 911 system. The technique to identify opioid overdoses and the proposed post-overdose intervention were identified as potentially lifesaving, but the benefits were balanced by concerns related to law enforcement involvement, intervention timing, and risks to privacy/reputation. Nearly universally, participants wished for a way to summon emergency medical assistance without triggering a law enforcement response. CONCLUSIONS: The fact that the 911 system in the US inextricably links emergency medical assistance with law enforcement response inherently problematizes calling 911 for PWUDs, and has implications for surveillance and intervention. It is imperative to center the perspectives of PWUDs when designing and implementing interventions that rely on the 911 system for activation.