RESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 2015, Bristol (South West England) experienced a large increase in cases of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection in people who inject drugs (PWID). AIM: We aimed to characterise and estimate the prevalence of MRSA colonisation among PWID in Bristol and test evidence of a clonal outbreak. METHODS: PWID recruited through an unlinked-anonymous community survey during 2016 completed behavioural questionnaires and were screened for MRSA. Univariable logistic regression examined associations with MRSA colonisation. Whole-genome sequencing used lineage-matched MRSA isolates, comparing PWID (screening and retrospective bacteraemia samples from 2012-2017) with non-PWID (Bristol screening) in Bristol and national reference laboratory database samples. RESULTS: The MRSA colonisation prevalence was 8.7% (13/149) and was associated with frequently injecting in public places (odds ratio (OR): 5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI):1.34-22.70), recent healthcare contact (OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.34-13.80) and injecting in groups of three or more (OR: 15.8; 95% CI: 2.51-99.28). People reporting any one of: injecting in public places, injection site skin and soft tissue infection or hospital contact accounted for 12/13 MRSA positive cases (sensitivity 92.3%; specificity 51.5%). Phylogenetic analysis identified a dominant clade associated with infection and colonisation among PWID in Bristol belonging to ST5-SCCmecIVg. CONCLUSIONS: MRSA colonisation in Bristol PWID is substantially elevated compared with general population estimates and there is evidence of clonal expansion, community-based transmission and increased infection risk related to the colonising strain. Targeted interventions, including community screening and suppression therapy, education and basic infection control are needed to reduce MRSA infections in PWID.
Assuntos
Bacteriemia/epidemiologia , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/epidemiologia , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina/isolamento & purificação , Infecções Estafilocócicas/epidemiologia , Abuso de Substâncias por Via Intravenosa/complicações , Adulto , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/microbiologia , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/transmissão , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina/efeitos dos fármacos , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente à Meticilina/genética , Epidemiologia Molecular , Tipagem Molecular , Filogenia , Prevalência , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Risco , Abuso de Substâncias por Via Intravenosa/epidemiologia , Inquéritos e Questionários , Reino Unido/epidemiologia , Sequenciamento Completo do GenomaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Crack use is higher in the United Kingdom (UK) than other European countries. Crack is a stimulant with a short half-life, requiring frequent injection to maintain its euphoric effects, thus increasing the risk of blood borne viruses (BBVs) and skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs). We assessed trends in the prevalence of current crack injection among people who inject drugs (PWID) and investigated harms and other factors associated with its use. METHODS: We used data from the annual Unlinked Anonymous Monitoring Survey of PWID, which recruits people who have ever injected psychoactive drugs through specialist services. Participants provide a biological sample and self-complete a questionnaire. We included participants from England and Wales who had injected in the past month. We examined trends in crack injection over time (2011-2021) and factors associated with crack injection using multivariable logistic regression (2019-2021). RESULTS: The proportion of people self-reporting crack injection in the past month almost doubled between 2011-2020/21, from 34 % (416/1237) to 57 % (483/850). Crack injection was more frequently reported by males than females (adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95 % confidence interval: 1.15-1.87) and injected alongside heroin (6.67, 4.06-10.97) more frequently than alone. Crack injection was independently associated with injecting equipment sharing (1.64, 1.30-2.07), groin injection (2.03, 1.60-2.56) in the past month, overdosing in the past year (1.90, 1.42-2.53), homelessness in the past year (1.42, 1.14-1.77) and ever having hepatitis C infection (1.64, 1.31-2.06). CONCLUSION: Crack injection has increased significantly over the past decade in England and Wales. People injecting crack are more likely to engage in behaviours that increase the risk of BBV and SSTI acquisition, such as needle/syringe sharing, groin injection and polydrug use. Harm reduction and drug treatment services should adapt to support the needs of this growing population of people injecting stimulants.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: People who inject image and performance enhancing drugs (IPEDs) are often the largest group using needle and syringe programmes (NSPs) in the UK. NSP providers report these clients repeatedly collecting large amounts of equipment for others. The extent of secondary distribution of injecting equipment is unknown. METHODS: Data from national surveillance of people injecting IPEDs were used. Participants completed a questionnaire and provided a dried-blood spot sample. Data from two biennial surveys was combined; repeat participants were excluded. Self-reported data was used to explore the extent of secondary distribution. RESULTS: Of the participants, 87% (467) reported NSP use; median age was 31 years; 98% were male. A third (34%, 157) reported collecting equipment for others. Of those collecting for others, 154 reported how many people they had collected for: 55% had collected for one person, 27% for 2-9 people, 5% for 10-19 and 13% for 20 or more (no difference by psychoactive drug use). Those vaccinated for hepatitis B were more likely (22% [15/68] vs 6% [5/86], p = 0.003), and those reporting redness/swelling at an injection site were less likely to collect equipment for at least 20 others (8% [8/106] vs 25% [12/48], p = 0.003). Overall, 154 people collected equipment for 639-1569 people injecting IPEDs. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary distribution of injecting equipment is common among those injecting IPEDs and using NSPs. Whilst not allowing for rotational collection within groups, our analysis suggests that many of those injecting IPEDs are not in direct contact with NSPs. Innovation approaches for harm reduction interventions are needed.