Estimated Number of Injection-Involved Overdose Deaths in US States From 2000 to 2020: Secondary Analysis of Surveillance Data.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, both drug overdose mortality and injection-involved drug overdose mortality have increased nationally over the past 25 years. Despite documented geographic differences in overdose mortality and substances implicated in overdose mortality trends, injection-involved overdose mortality has not been summarized at a subnational level. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the annual number of injection-involved overdose deaths in each US state from 2000 to 2020. METHODS: We conducted a stratified analysis that used data from drug treatment admissions (Treatment Episodes Data Set-Admissions; TEDS-A) and the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) to estimate state-specific percentages of reported drug overdose deaths that were injection-involved from 2000 to 2020. TEDS-A collects data on the route of administration and the type of substance used upon treatment admission. We used these data to calculate the percentage of reported injections for each drug type by demographic group (race or ethnicity, sex, and age group), year, and state. Additionally, using NVSS mortality data, the annual number of overdose deaths involving selected drug types was identified by the following specific multiple-cause-of-death codes: heroin or synthetic opioids other than methadone (T40.1, T40.4), natural or semisynthetic opioids and methadone (T40.2, T40.3), cocaine (T40.5), psychostimulants with abuse potential (T43.6), sedatives (T42.3, T42.4), and others (T36-T59.0). We used the probabilities of injection with the annual number of overdose deaths, by year, primary substance, and demographic groups to estimate the number of overdose deaths that were injection-involved. RESULTS: In 2020, there were 91,071 overdose deaths among adults recorded in the United States, and 93.1% (84,753/91,071) occurred in the 46 jurisdictions that reported data to TEDS-A. Slightly less than half (38,253/84,753, 45.1%; 95% CI 41.1%-49.8%) of those overdose deaths were estimated to be injection-involved, translating to 38,253 (95% CI 34,839-42,181) injection-involved overdose deaths in 2020. There was large variation among states in the estimated injection-involved overdose death rate (median 14.72, range 5.45-31.77 per 100,000 people). The national injection-involved overdose death rate increased by 323% (95% CI 255%-391%) from 2010 (3.78, 95% CI 3.33-4.31) to 2020 (15.97, 95% CI 14.55-17.61). States in which the estimated injection-involved overdose death rate increased faster than the national average were disproportionately concentrated in the Northeast region. CONCLUSIONS: Although overdose mortality and injection-involved overdose mortality have increased dramatically across the country, these trends have been more pronounced in some regions. A better understanding of state-level trends in injection-involved mortality can inform the prioritization of public health strategies that aim to reduce overdose mortality and prevent downstream consequences of injection drug use.

Willingness to Use Home Collection Methods to Provide Specimens for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 Research: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Innovative laboratory testing approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response are needed to conduct research to establish estimates of prevalence and incidence. Self-specimen collection methods have been successfully used in HIV and sexually transmitted infection research and can provide a feasible opportunity to scale up SARS-CoV-2 testing for research purposes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the willingness of adults to use different specimen collection modalities for themselves and children as part of a COVID-19 research study. METHODS: Between March 27 and April 1, 2020, we recruited 1435 adults aged 18 years or older though social media advertisements. Participants completed a survey that included 5-point Likert scale items stating how willing they were to use the following specimen collection testing modalities as part of a research study: home collection of a saliva sample, home collection of a throat swab, home finger-prick blood collection, drive-through site throat swab, clinic throat swab, and clinic blood collection. Additionally, participants indicated how the availability of home-based collection methods would impact their willingness to participate compared to drive-through and clinic-based specimen collection. We used Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman rank correlations to assess if willingness to use each testing modality differed by demographic variables and characteristics of interest. We compared the overall willingness to use each testing modality and estimated effect sizes with Cohen d. RESULTS: We analyzed responses from 1435 participants with a median age of 40.0 (SD=18.2) years and over half of which were female (761/1435, 53.0%). Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that they would be willing to use specimens self-collected at home to participate in research, including willingness to collect a saliva sample (1259/1435, 87.7%) or a throat swab (1191/1435, 83.1%). Willingness to collect a throat swab sample was lower in both a drive-through setting (64%) and clinic setting (53%). Overall, 69.0% (990/1435) of participants said they would be more likely to participate in a research study if they could provide a saliva sample or throat swab at home compared to going to a drive-through site; only 4.4% (63/1435) of participants said they would be less likely to participate using self-collected samples. For each specimen collection modality, willingness to collect specimens from children for research was lower than willingness to use on oneself, but the ranked order of modalities was similar. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants were willing to participate in a COVID-19 research study that involves laboratory testing; however, there was a strong preference for home specimen collection procedures over drive-through or clinic-based testing. To increase participation and minimize bias, epidemiologic research studies of SARS-CoV-2 infection and immune response should consider home specimen collection methods.

Use of Videos Improves Informed Consent Comprehension in Web-Based Surveys Among Internet-Using Men Who Have Sex With Men: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Web-based surveys are increasingly used to capture data essential for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention research. However, there are challenges in ensuring the informed consent of Web-based research participants. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to develop and assess the efficacy of alternative methods of administering informed consent in Web-based HIV research with men who have sex with men (MSM). METHODS: From July to September 2014, paid advertisements on Facebook were used to recruit adult MSM living in the United States for a Web-based survey about risk and preventive behaviors. Participants were randomized to one of the 4 methods of delivering informed consent: a professionally produced video, a study staff-produced video, a frequently asked questions (FAQs) text page, and a standard informed consent text page. Following the behavior survey, participants answered 15 questions about comprehension of consent information. Correct responses to each question were given a score of 1, for a total possible scale score of 15. General linear regression and post-hoc Tukey comparisons were used to assess difference (P<.001) in mean consent comprehension scores. A mediation analysis was used to examine the relationship between time spent on consent page and consent comprehension. RESULTS: Of the 665 MSM participants who completed the comprehension questions, 24.2% (161/665) received the standard consent, 27.1% (180/665) received the FAQ consent, 26.8% (178/665) received the professional consent video, and 22.0% (146/665) received the staff video. The overall average consent comprehension score was 6.28 (SD=2.89). The average consent comprehension score differed significantly across consent type (P<.001), age (P=.04), race or ethnicity (P<.001), and highest level of education (P=.001). Compared with those who received the standard consent, comprehension was significantly higher for participants who received the professional video consent (score increase=1.79; 95% CI 1.02-2.55) and participants who received the staff video consent (score increase=1.79; 95% CI 0.99-2.59). There was no significant difference in comprehension for those who received the FAQ consent. Participants spent more time on the 2 video consents (staff video median time=117 seconds; professional video median time=115 seconds) than the FAQ (median=21 seconds) and standard consents (median=37 seconds). Mediation analysis showed that though time spent on the consent page was partially responsible for some of the differences in comprehension, the direct effects of the professional video (score increase=0.93; 95% CI 0.39-1.48) and the staff-produced video (score increase=0.99; 95% CI 0.42-1.56) were still significant. CONCLUSIONS: Video-based consent methods improve consent comprehension of MSM participating in a Web-based HIV behavioral survey. This effect may be partially mediated through increased time spent reviewing the consent material; however, the video consent may still be superior to standard consent in improving participant comprehension of key study facts. TRAIL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02139566; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02139566 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oRnL261N).

Preexposure Prophylaxis Modality Preferences Among Men Who Have Sex With Men and Use Social Media in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is available as a daily pill for preventing infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Innovative methods of administering PrEP systemically or topically are being discussed and developed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess attitudes toward different experimental modalities of PrEP administration. METHODS: From April to July 2015, we recruited 1106 HIV-negative men who have sex with men through online social media advertisements and surveyed them about their likelihood of using different PrEP modalities. Participants responded to 5-point Likert-scale items indicating how likely they were to use each of the following PrEP modalities: a daily oral pill, on-demand pills, periodic injection, penile gel (either before or after intercourse), rectal gel (before/after), and rectal suppository (before/after). We used Wilcoxon signed rank tests to determine whether the stated likelihood of using any modality differed from daily oral PrEP. Related items were combined to assess differences in likelihood of use based on tissue or time of administration. Participants also ranked their interest in using each modality, and we used the modified Borda count method to determine consensual rankings. RESULTS: Most participants indicated they would be somewhat likely or very likely to use PrEP as an on-demand pill (685/1105, 61.99%), daily oral pill (528/1036, 50.97%), injection (575/1091, 52.70%), or penile gel (438/755, 58.01% before intercourse; 408/751, 54.33% after). The stated likelihoods of using on-demand pills (median score 4) and of using a penile gel before intercourse (median 4) were both higher than that of using a daily oral pill (median 4, P<.001 and P=.001, respectively). Compared with a daily oral pill, participants reported a significantly lower likelihood of using any of the 4 rectal modalities (Wilcoxon signed rank test, all P<.001). On 10-point Likert scales created by combining application methods, the reported likelihood of using a penile gel (median 7) was higher than that of using a rectal gel (median 6, P<.001), which was higher than the likelihood of using a rectal suppository (median 6, P<.001). The modified Borda count ranked on-demand pills as the most preferred modality. There was no difference in likelihood of use of PrEP (gel or suppository) before or after intercourse. CONCLUSIONS: Participants typically prefer systemic PrEP and are less likely to use a modality that is administered rectally. Although most of these modalities are seen as favorable or neutral, attitudes may change as information about efficacy and application becomes available. Further data on modality preference across risk groups will better inform PrEP development.