Acceptability of safe drug consumption spaces among people who inject drugs in rural West Virginia.

AIM: Safe consumption spaces (SCS) are indoor environments in which people can use drugs with trained personnel on site to provide overdose reversal and risk reduction services. SCS have been shown to reduce fatal overdoses, decrease public syringe disposal, and reduce public drug consumption. Existing SCS research in the USA has explored acceptability for the hypothetical use of SCS, but primarily among urban populations of people who inject drugs (PWID). Given the disproportionate impact of the opioid crisis in rural communities, this research examines hypothetical SCS acceptability among a rural sample of PWID in West Virginia. METHODS: Data were drawn from a 2018 cross-sectional survey of PWID (n = 373) who reported injection drug use in the previous 6 months and residence in Cabell County, West Virginia. Participants were asked about their hypothetical use of a SCS with responses dichotomized into two groups, likely and unlikely SCS users. Chi-square and t tests were conducted to identify differences between likely and unlikely SCS users across demographic, substance use, and health measures. RESULTS: Survey participants were 59.5% male, 83.4% non-Hispanic White, and 79.1% reported likely hypothetical SCS use. Hypothetical SCS users were significantly (p < .05) more likely to have recently (past 6 months) injected cocaine (38.3% vs. 25.7%), speedball (41.0% vs. 24.3%), and to report preferring drugs containing fentanyl (32.5% vs. 20.3%). Additionally, likely SCS users were significantly more likely to have recently experienced an overdose (46.8% vs. 32.4%), witnessed an overdose (78.3% vs. 60.8%), and received naloxone (51.2% vs. 37.8%). Likely SCS users were less likely to have borrowed a syringe from a friend (34.6% vs. 48.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Rural PWID engaging in high-risk behaviors perceive SCS as an acceptable harm reduction strategy. SCS may be a viable option to reduce overdose fatalities in rural communities.

Are preterm birth and very low birth weight rates altered in the early COVID (2020) SARS-CoV-2 era?

Objective: We evaluated the prevalence of preterm birth (PTB) and very low birth weight (VLBW) during Jan-Dec 2,020 (early COVID era) at 5 hospitals (2 in West Virginia, 3 in California) compared to Jan 2017-Dec 2019 (pre-COVID) inclusive of 2 regional perinatal centers (1 in Huntington, WV and 1 in San Jose, CA) and 3 community hospitals (1 each in Cabell, Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties). Design/methods: We examined PTB and VLBW rates of live births at 5 US hospitals from Jan 2017-Dec 2020. We compared PTB and VLBW rates in 2020 to 2017-2019 using Poisson regression and rate ratio with a 95% confidence interval. We stratified live births by gestational age (GA) (<37, 33-36, and <33 weeks) and birth weight (≤1,500 g, >1,001 g to ≤1,500 g, ≤1,000 g). We examined PTB rates at 4 of the hospitals during Jan-Dec 2020 and compared them to the prior period of Jan 2017-Dec 2019 using Statistical Process Control (SPC) for quarterly data. Results: We examined PTB and VLBW rates in 34,599 consecutive live births born Jan 2017-Dec 2019 to rates of 9,691 consecutive live births in 2020. There was no significant change in PTB (<37 weeks GA) rate, 10.6% in 2017-2019 vs. 11.0% in 2020 (p = 0.222). Additionally, there was no significant change when comparing VLBW rates in 2017-2019 to 2020, 1.4% in 2017-2019 vs. 1.5% in 2020 (p = 0.832). Conclusion: We found no significant change in the rates of PTB or VLBW when combining the live birth data of 5 US hospitals in 3 different counties.