Colocating Syringe Services, COVID-19 Vaccination, And Infectious Disease Testing: Baltimore's Experience.

People who inject drugs face many challenges that contribute to poor health outcomes, including drug overdose, HIV, and hepatitis C infections. These conditions require high-quality prevention and treatment services. Syringe services programs are evidence-based harm reduction programs, and they have established track records with people who inject drugs, earning them deep trust within this population. In Baltimore, Maryland, although many syringe support services were limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, the health department's syringe services programs remained operational, allowing for the continuation of harm reduction services, including naloxone distribution. This evaluation describes a collaborative effort to colocate infectious disease testing and COVID-19 vaccination with a syringe services program. Our evaluation demonstrated that colocation of important services with trusted community partners can facilitate engagement and is essential for service uptake. Maintaining adequate and consistent funding for these services is central to program success. Colocation of other services within syringe services programs, such as medications for opioid use disorder, wound care, and infectious disease treatment, would further expand health care access for people who inject drugs.

Evaluation of fentanyl test strip distribution in two Mid-Atlantic syringe services programs.

BACKGROUND: Fentanyl test strip (FTS) programs are designed to promote fentanyl awareness and reduce overdose risk by providing people who use drugs (PWUD) with a method of testing drugs for the presence of fentanyl prior to use. In 2018, two large syringe services programs (SSP) in the U.S. Mid-Atlantic-one in Baltimore City, Maryland and one in the state of Delaware-began distributing FTS. We evaluated the implementation of these programs. METHODS: A convenience sample of SSP clients was surveyed in Baltimore City (urban) and Delaware (urban, suburban and rural) to assess FTS utilization patterns and drug use behaviors. Data were collected and analyzed in 2019. RESULTS: We surveyed N = 123 PWUD in Baltimore and N = 102 in Delaware. Collectively, 20,000 strips were distributed over six months. In both locations, high FTS utilization was reported (70% in Baltimore; 77% in Delaware) and clients reported testing a range of drugs including heroin, fentanyl and cocaine. Following utilization, 23% and 69% of respondents in Baltimore and Delaware adopted risk reduction behaviors (e.g., using less than intended, going slower, doing tester shot, asking someone to check on them). When asked about their level of interest in future FTS use, 49% and 74% reported being interested or very interested, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that FTS programs could be helpful in promoting fentanyl awareness and risk reduction among PWUD and in monitoring the evolving drug supply in areas where comprehensive community-based drug checking programs have not been established.

PrEP awareness, eligibility, and interest among people who inject drugs in Baltimore, Maryland.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has examined pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) interest among people who inject drugs (PWID). To date, few studies have examined the relationship between PrEP eligibility and PrEP interest among PWID. METHODS: Data were from an anonymous, cross-sectional survey of Baltimore Syringe Services Program (SSP) clients and non-client peers, restricted to HIV-uninfected participants (N = 265). Participants were classified as PrEP eligible/ineligible based on injection related criteria outlined in the CDC's PrEP guidelines. Participants were asked if they were previously aware of PrEP, would be interested in taking PrEP, and the ease of taking PrEP daily. Participants self-reported their sociodemographic characteristics, health diagnoses, and recent drug use, overdose, and drug treatment history. We estimated bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models to test for significant predictors of interest in PrEP. RESULTS: One-quarter of PWID had previously heard of PrEP and 63% of the sample was interested in taking PrEP. Only two respondents were currently taking PrEP. The majority (89%) thought taking PrEP every day would be easy. In the presence of other variables, PrEP interest was associated with PrEP eligibility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.46; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.34,4.50) and the number of medical diagnoses (aOR = 1.16; 95% CI:1.01,1.33) CONCLUSIONS: Most PWID were unaware of PrEP but interested in taking it. PWID who were eligible for PrEP are more likely to be interested in taking it. Having co-morbid conditions was an important correlate of PrEP interest. These results underscore the importance of providers across the healthcare sector engaging PWID in discussions about PrEP.