Outrage and algorithms: Shifting drug-related stigma in a digital world.

Illicit drug dependence is one of the most stigmatised health conditions worldwide and the harmful impacts of stigma for people who use drugs are well documented. The use of stigmatising language about drugs in traditional media is also well documented. The increasing use of digital media platforms has revolutionised the way we communicate, and extended the reach of our messages. However, there are issues specific to the ways in which these platforms operate that have the potential to increase drug-related stigma. This paper outlines the importance of language, narrative, and imagery in reducing this stigma. It discusses the challenges digital media platforms present to achieving this goal, including the use of engagement strategies that trigger fear and increase stigma, the potential for amplifying stigmatising messages by using algorithms, and the potential for dissemination of misinformation. Key strategies to frame conversations about drug use are presented including 1) appeal to values of fairness and equity rather than scaring people; 2) avoid correcting misinformation as it strengthens unhelpful stigmatising frames of drug use; and 3) create a new narrative, focusing on the diversity of experiences of people who use drugs. Internationally we are at a critical juncture with respect to drug policy reform, and efforts to reduce drug-related stigma are central to building support for these reforms. The extensive reach of digital media platforms represents an important opportunity to communicate about illicit drug use. The challenge is to do so in a way that minimises stigma. If we are to achieve change, a narrative that puts values, people, health care and equity at the centre of the conversation is critical.

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.

Adapting harm reduction services during COVID-19: lessons from the supervised injecting facilities in Australia.

The COVID-19 crisis has had profound impacts on health service provision, particularly those providing client facing services. Supervised injecting facilities and drug consumption rooms across the world have been particularly challenged during the pandemic, as have their client group-people who consume drugs. Several services across Europe and North America closed due to difficulties complying with physical distancing requirements. In contrast, the two supervised injecting facilities in Australia (the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre-MSIC-in Sydney and the North Richmond Community Health Medically Supervised Injecting Room-MSIR-in Melbourne) remained open (as at the time of writing-December 2020). Both services have implemented a comprehensive range of strategies to continue providing safer injecting spaces as well as communicating crucial health information and facilitating access to ancillary services (such as accommodation) and drug treatment for their clients. This paper documents these strategies and the challenges both services are facing during the pandemic. Remaining open poses potential risks relating to COVID-19 transmission for both staff and clients. However, given the harms associated with closing these services, which include the potential loss of life from injecting in unsafe/unsupervised environments, the public and individual health benefits of remaining open are greater. Both services are deemed 'essential health services', and their continued operation has important benefits for people who inject drugs in Sydney and Melbourne.

Substances injected at the Sydney supervised injecting facility: A chemical analysis of used injecting equipment and comparison with self-reported drug type.

Providing information about substances injected can reduce the negative impact of illicit drug consumption and support people who inject drugs to make informed decisions. In Australia, information about drugs injected relies largely on periodic self-report surveys. For the first time, the analysis of the residual content of used injecting equipment was conducted in a supervised injecting facility (SIF) located in Sydney, Australia. The aim was to gain a better understanding of the substances injected by clients through: (1) chemical analyses of the content of used syringes; (2) comparison of these results with clients' self-reported drug use; and (3) assessing the usefulness of analysing other injecting equipment to detect substances used. During one week in February 2019, syringes and other injecting equipment were collected at the Sydney SIF. Their residual content was analysed by gas-chromatography/mass-spectrometry. Heroin was the most commonly detected substance (present in 51% of syringes), followed by methamphetamine (22%) and oxycodone (10%). In addition to the main psychoactive substance, cutting agents reported in the literature were also detected in used syringes. The main psychoactive substance identified by laboratory analysis reliably corresponded with users' self-reported drug type. Analytical confirmation of substances injected allows for the provision of better targeted harm reduction messaging based on timely and objective data. The approach used is amenable to clients and feasible in the Australian SIF context. Upscaling and wider implementation could be done through Needle and Syringe Programs, and would support the early detection of harmful substances entering drug markets and better inform harm reduction strategies.

Designing, implementing and evaluating the overdose response with take-home naloxone model of care: An evaluation of client outcomes and perspectives.

INTRODUCTION AND DESIGNS: Take-home naloxone (THN) interventions are an effective response to preventing overdose deaths, however uptake across Australia remains limited. This project designed, implemented and evaluated a model of care targeting opioid users attending alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment, needle and syringe programs (NSP) and related health services targeting people who inject drugs. DESIGN AND METHODS: Service providers, consumers and regulators collaboratively designed a THN brief intervention (ORTHN, Overdose Response with Take-Home Naloxone) involving client education and supply of naloxone in pre-filled syringes, delivered by nursing, allied health and NSP workers. ORTHN interventions were implemented in over 15 services across New South Wales, Australia. The evaluation included client knowledge, attitudes, substance use and overdose experiences immediately before and 3 months after ORTHN intervention in a subsample of participants. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixteen interventions were delivered, with 145 participants recruited to the research subsample, of whom 95 completed the three-month follow up. Overdose-related attitudes amongst participants improved following ORTHN, with no evidence of increased substance use or failure to implement other 'first responses' (e.g. calling an ambulance). Nine participants (10%) reversed an overdose using THN in the follow-up period. Participants identified a willingness to access THN from a range of services. While a minority (16%) indicated they were unwilling to pay for THN, the median price that participants were willing to pay was $AUD20 (IQR $10.40). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The ORTHN model of care for THN appears an effective way to disseminate THN to people who use opioids attending AOD, NSP and related health-care settings.

Effect of Intranasal vs Intramuscular Naloxone on Opioid Overdose: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Previous unblinded clinical trials suggested that the intranasal route of naloxone hydrochloride was inferior to the widely used intramuscular route for the reversal of opioid overdose. Objective: To test whether a dose of naloxone administered intranasally is as effective as the same dose of intramuscularly administered naloxone in reversing opioid overdose. Design, Setting, and Participants: A double-blind, double-dummy randomized clinical trial was conducted at the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Centre in Sydney, Australia. Clients of the center were recruited to participate from February 1, 2012, to January 3, 2017. Eligible clients were aged 18 years or older with a history of injecting drug use (n = 197). Intention-to-treat analysis was performed for all participants who received both intranasal and intramuscular modes of treatment (active or placebo). Interventions: Clients were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatments: (1) intranasal administration of naloxone hydrochloride 800 µg per 1 mL and intramuscular administration of placebo 1 mL or (2) intramuscular administration of naloxone hydrochloride 800 µg per 1 mL and intranasal administration of placebo 1 mL. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the need for a rescue dose of intramuscular naloxone hydrochloride (800 µg) 10 minutes after the initial treatment. Secondary outcome measures included time to adequate respiratory rate greater than or equal to 10 breaths per minute and time to Glasgow Coma Scale score greater than or equal to 13. Results: A total of 197 clients (173 [87.8%] male; mean [SD] age, 34.0 [7.82] years) completed the trial, of whom 93 (47.2%) were randomized to intramuscular naloxone dose and 104 (52.8%) to intranasal naloxone dose. Clients randomized to intramuscular naloxone administration were less likely to require a rescue dose of naloxone compared with clients randomized to intranasal naloxone administration (8 [8.6%] vs 24 [23.1%]; odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.66; P = .002). A 65% increase in hazard (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.21-2.25; P = .002) for time to respiratory rate of at least 10 and an 81% increase in hazard (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.28-2.56; P = .001) for time to Glasgow Coma Scale score of at least 13 were observed for the group receiving intranasal naloxone compared with the group receiving intramuscular naloxone. No major adverse events were reported for either group. Conclusions and Relevance: This trial showed that intranasally administered naloxone in a supervised injecting facility can reverse opioid overdose but not as efficiently as intramuscularly administered naloxone can, findings that largely replicate those of previous unblinded clinical trials. These results suggest that determining the optimal dose and concentration of intranasal naloxone to respond to opioid overdose in real-world conditions is an international priority. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12611000852954.

Perceptions of people who inject drugs towards HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in Australia.

Background People who inject drugs (PWID) are a priority for HIV prevention. This study aimed to determine perceptions, potential eligibility and willingness to use PrEP among PWID in Sydney. METHODS: Clients completed a cross-sectional survey to collect data on demographics, perceived risk of HIV and willingness to use PrEP, which were then analysed. RESULTS: Twelve (7%) of 172 HIV-negative participants were eligible for PrEP under current guidelines for injecting reasons, of whom three would also be eligible for sexual risk, leaving nine (5%) eligible for injecting reasons alone. Half had heard of PrEP and, of these, 65% would consider taking it. Most (88%) thought they would continue using needle syringe program services. A minority (8%) indicated they may be likely to share needles and syringes or be less concerned about injecting partners' HIV status (26%). CONCLUSIONS: Although PrEP will benefit a small proportion of PWID, this may equate to a significant number nationally. Policy development around PrEP incorporating affected populations will best support the community of people currently injecting to keep rates of HIV low.

"Beyond Safer Injecting"-Health and Social Needs and Acceptance of Support among Clients of a Supervised Injecting Facility.

Health and social issues in aging populations of people who inject drugs (PWID) tend to aggregate, despite risky injecting practices decreasing with age. Identifying needs and avenues of support is becoming increasingly important. We described the health and social situation among clients of a long-running supervised injecting facility (SIF) in Sydney, Australia. An interviewer-administered survey (n = 182) assessed current housing status, employment, physical and mental health, incarceration history, drug use, engagement in drug treatment, health service utilization, and willingness to accept support. Results were compared to the information provided at initial visit. Up to half of the participants transitioned between lower- and higher-risk health and social indicators over time. Willingness to accept support was greatest amongst those with higher self-perceived need. Support for mental health was a low priority, despite the high self-reporting of mental health issues. SIF clients are open to support for health and social issues, despite ongoing active drug use. Lower-threshold services such as SIFs are well-positioned to recognize and respond to deteriorating health and social issues for PWID. Facilitating care and treatment remains a challenge when the services to which people are being referred are higher-threshold with a more rigid approach.

Integrating Smoking Cessation Care into a Medically Supervised Injecting Facility Using an Organizational Change Intervention: A Qualitative Study of Staff and Client Views.

Background: Clients accessing supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) smoke at high rates. An SIF piloted an organizational change intervention to integrate smoking cessation care as routine treatment. This study aims to explore staff acceptability, perceived facilitators, and perceived barriers to implementing six core components of an organizational change intervention to integrate smoking cessation care in an SIF. Staff and client views on the acceptability, facilitators, and barriers to the provision of smoking cessation care were also examined. Methods: This paper presents findings from the qualitative component conducted post-intervention implementation. Face-to-face semi-structured staff interviews (n = 14) and two client focus groups (n = 5 and n = 4) were conducted between September and October 2016. Recruitment continued until data saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was employed to synthesise and combine respondent views and identify key themes. Results: Staff viewed the organizational change intervention as acceptable. Commitment from leadership, a designated champion, access to resources, and the congruence between the change and the facility's ethos were important facilitators of organizational change. Less engaged staff was the sole barrier to the intervention. Smoking cessation care was deemed suitable. Key facilitators of smoking cessation care included: Written protocols, ongoing training, and visually engaging information. Key barriers of smoking cessation care included: Lack of access to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) outside of business hours, practical limitations of the database, and concerns about sustainability of NRT. Conclusion: This study develops our understanding of factors influencing the implementation of an organisational change intervention to promote sustainable provision of smoking cessation care in the SIF setting.

Learning from the past, looking to the future - Is there a place for injectable opioid treatment among Australia's responses to opioid misuse?

In the 1990s, a trial of prescribing pharmaceutical heroin for people with opioid-dependence had support from Australian State Health Ministers. However, in 1997 the proposal was vetoed by the federal Prime Minister in face of a negative tabloid media campaign. The debate then shifted to abstinence-orientated treatments. Later on, reduced heroin availability took opioid-related harms away from public sight. In this commentary, we aimed to explore the current need and the options to implement such program, lately referred to as supervised injectable opioid treatment (SIOT), in Australia. We argue that with the aging populations of opioid-dependent people who have not benefited from existing treatment options, increased misuse of prescription opioids, rising overdose rates, and the risk of unfolding overdose crisis, it seems timely to pilot SIOT here. Since the 1990s, seven RCTs as summarised in two systematic literature reviews, demonstrated that SIOT is effective for treatment-resistant opioid dependence. A sustainable SIOT model should, however, respond to key concerns related to its delivery, such as the lack of a patient exit strategy and the high cost of indefinite treatment. Evidence from long-term studies seem to support the notion that SIOT could be provided as a medium duration treatment (as opposed to short-term or indefinite), with the clear aim to stabilise patients, gradually wean them off injectable medication and transfer to opioid assisted treatment (OAT). Also, SIOT could be integrated into the existing public OAT clinics in Australia. This would reduce costs, but also provide a more patient-centred response to opioid dependence and further improve the acceptability and efficiency of OAT. The controversy that developed in the past should be mitigated by advances in research since the first Australian enquiry, use of a registered medication (open-label hydromorphone) rather than pharmaceutical heroin, and setting up clear treatment aims.

Overdose Risk and Client Characteristics Associated With the Injection of Buprenorphine at a Medically Supervised Injecting Center in Sydney, Australia.

Background: Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone (BNX) were developed to improve the safety profile of opioid substitution treatment (OST) and reduce diversion and injection, yet continue to be injected, despite the risk of harm. Previous studies examining injection of these substances have relied on self-reported injection and overdose. Using data from the Uniting Medically Supervised Injecting Center (MSIC) in Sydney, this study aimed to assess the overdose risk associated with the use of buprenorphine and BNX and identify factors associated with injecting. Methods: Client data routinely collected from MSIC, a drug consumption room where clients can legally inject drugs under supervision, was used. Odds ratios (OR) to assess the risk of overdose and their associated 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated and compared to other substances. Univariate analysis using χ-square and multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine characteristics associated with buprenorphine and BNX injection. Results: Data from 1,020,782 injections by 15,832 individuals were analyzed. Risk of overdose was low for buprenorphine compared to other substances (OR 0.16; 95%CI: 0.07-0.19) and no overdoses occurred when BNX was injected. Injection of both buprenorphine and BNX was associated with male gender, homelessness, no income/reliance upon government payments, and prior imprisonment. Conclusions: Buprenorphine and BNX continue to be injected, albeit in small numbers. This is the first study to report on injection and overdose risk using direct observation, and has confirmed the lower overdose risk. MSIC clients who inject buprenorphine and BNX tend to be marginalized and may benefit from targeted harm reduction measures.

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies.

ISSUES: Drug consumptions rooms (DCR) and supervised injecting facilities (SIF) are expanding internationally. Previous reviews have not systematically addressed evaluation methodologies. APPROACH: Results from systematic searches of scientific databases in English until June 2017 were coded for paper type, country and year of publication. For evaluation papers, study outcome, methodology/study design and main indicators of DCR/SIF 'exposure' were recorded. KEY FINDINGS: Two hundred and nineteen eligible peer-reviewed papers were published since 1999: the majority from Canada (n = 117 papers), Europe (n = 36) and Australia (n = 32). Fifty-six papers reported evaluation outcomes. Ecological study designs (n = 10) were used to assess the impact on overdose, public nuisance and crime; modelling techniques (n = 6) estimated impact on blood-borne diseases, overdose deaths and costs. Papers using individual-level data included four prospective cohorts (n = 28), cross-sectional surveys (n = 7) and service records (n = 5). Individual-level data were used to assess safer injecting practice, uptake into health and social services and all the other above outcomes except for impact on crime and costs. Four different indicators of DCR/SIF attendance were used to measure service 'exposure'. IMPLICATIONS: Research around DCRs/SIFs has used ecological, modelling, cross-sectional and cohort study designs. Further research could involve systematic inclusion of a control group of people who are eligible but do not access SIFs, validation of self-reported proportion of injections at SIFs or a stepped-wedge or a cluster trial comparing localities. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologies appropriate for DCR/SIF evaluation have been established and can be readily replicated from the existing literature. Research on operational aspects, implementation and transferability is also warranted.

Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) as a setting to address hepatitis C - findings from an international online survey.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence of Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) among people who inject drugs (PWID) is high. Risky injecting behaviours have been found to decrease in drug consumption rooms (DCRs) and supervised injecting facilities (SIFs), yet HCV prevention and treatment in these settings have not been extensively explored. METHODS: To determine the range and scope of HCV prevention and treatment options in these services, we assessed DCR/SIF operational features, their clients' characteristics and the HCV-related services they provide. A comprehensive online survey was sent to the managers of the 91 DCRs/SIFs that were operating globally as of September 2016. A descriptive cross-country analysis of the main DCR/SIF characteristics was conducted and bivariate logistic models were used to assess factors associated with enhanced HCV service provision. RESULTS: Forty-nine valid responses were retrieved from DCRs/SIFs in all countries where they were established at the time of the survey (Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Switzerland). Internationally, the operational capacities of DCRs/SIFs varied in terms of funding, location, size and staffing, but their clients all shared common features of vulnerability and marginalisation. Estimated HCV prevalence rates were around 60%. Among a range of health and social services and referrals to other programs, most DCRs/SIFs provided HCV testing onsite (65%) and/or offered liver monitoring or disease management (54%). HCV treatment onsite was offered or was planned to be offered by 21% of DCRs/SIFs. HCV testing onsite was associated with provision of other services addressing blood-borne diseases and HCV treatment was linked to the provision of OST. HCV disease management was associated with employing a nurse at a DCR/SIF and HCV treatment was associated with employing a medical doctor. CONCLUSIONS: DCRs/SIFs offer easy-to-access HCV-related services for PWID. The availability of onsite medical professionals and provision of support and education to non-medical staff are key to enhanced provision of HCV-related services in DCRs/SIFs. Funding and support for HCV treatment at the community level, via low-threshold services such as DCRs/SIFs, are worthy of action.

Urine drug screening for early detection of unwitting use of fentanyl and its analogues among people who inject heroin in Sydney, Australia.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: North America has witnessed a dramatic rise in fatal opioid overdoses due to the unwitting consumption of non-pharmaceutical fentanyl and its analogues. While some of the drivers of this crisis-including profitability and access to high-potency opioids through internet sources-also apply in Australia, to our knowledge, there have been no ongoing surveillance studies of local populations. Therefore, this pilot study aimed to detect unintentional fentanyl consumption among people who inject heroin through instant urine screening, and determine the feasibility and acceptability of voluntary urinalysis of clients at the Medically Supervised Injecting Centre, Kings Cross, Sydney. DESIGN AND METHODS: Brief surveys and urine drug screens were conducted with 67 participants in Wave 1 (October 2017) and 51 participants in Wave 2 (March 2018). Urine samples were tested with BTNX Rapid Response™ fentanyl urine strip test at a detection level of 20 ng/mL norfentanyl. These strips also cross-react to numerous fentanyl analogues. RESULTS: There were no cases where positive urine tests suggested unwitting fentanyl use detected in this study. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: These negative findings contrast sharply with similar Canadian studies. While no cases of fentanyl-laced heroin use have been detected so far, we have demonstrated that this surveillance design is low-cost, feasible and scalable approach to monitoring the considerable public-health threat of undetected fentanyl and its analogues in Australia. Further validation of cross-reactivity of test strips would strengthen this method.