Cost-effectiveness of drug consumption rooms in France: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: People who inject drugs (PWID) experience many health problems which result in a heavy economic and public health burden. To tackle this issue, France opened two drug consumption rooms (DCRs) in Paris and Strasbourg in 2016. This study assessed their long-term health benefits, costs and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: We developed a model to simulate two fictive cohorts for each city (n=2,997 in Paris and n=2,971 in Strasbourg) i) PWID attending a DCR over the period 2016-2026, ii) PWID attending no DCR. The model accounted for HIV and HCV infections, skin abscesses and related infective endocarditis, drug overdoses and emergency department visits. We estimated the number of health events and associated costs over 2016-2026, the lifetime number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The numbers of abscesses and associated infective endocarditis, drug overdoses, and emergency department visits decreased significantly in PWID attending DCRs (-77%, -69%, and -65%, respectively) but the impact on HIV and HCV infections was modest (-11% and -6%, respectively). This resulted in savings of €6.6 (Paris) and €5.8 (Strasbourg) millions of medical costs. The ICER of DRCs was €30,600/QALY (Paris) and €9,200/QALY (Strasbourg). In scenario analysis where drug consumption spaces are implemented inside existing harm reduction structures, these ICERs decreased to €21,400/QALY and €2,500/QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that DCRs are highly effective and efficient to prevent harms in PWID in France, and advocate extending this intervention to other cities by adding drug consumption spaces inside existing harm reduction centers.

Supervised Inhalation Sites: Preventing Overdose and Reducing Health Inequities among People Who Use Drugs.

Policy and research on the implementation of services for people who inhale drugs lag behind similar efforts for people who inject drugs, limiting access to adequate harm reduction resources for people who inhale drugs. This commentary considers why supervised inhalation sites (SIS) are needed, highlights operational characteristics of four existing services, and advocates for future SIS research. Our hope is to encourage the expansion of SIS worldwide for overdose prevention and reduction of health inequities. Given the limited literature regarding SIS, more extensive study of these programs is warranted to incorporate inhalation into the implementation of supervised consumption sites to provide fair opportunities for all people who use drugs to do so safely without fear of stigma and overdose.

Acceptability of supervised injection facilities among persons who inject drugs in upstate New York.

BACKGROUND: Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) provide spaces where persons who inject drugs (PWID) can inject under medical supervision and access harm reduction services. Though SIFs are not currently sanctioned in most of the US, such facilities are being considered for approval in several Upstate New York communities. No data exist from PWID in Upstate New York, and little from outside major US urban centers, on willingness to use SIFs and associated factors. METHODS: This analysis included 285 PWID (mean age = 38.7; 57.7% male; 72.3% non-Hispanic white) recruited for a study on hepatitis C prevalence among PWID in Upstate New York, where participants were recruited from syringe exchange programs (n = 80) and able to refer other PWID from their injection networks (n = 223). Participants completed an electronic questionnaire that included a brief description of SIFs and assessed willingness to use SIFs. We compared sociodemographic characteristics, drug use/harm reduction history, healthcare experience, and stigma between participants who were willing vs. unwilling to use such programs. RESULTS: Overall, 67.4% were willing to use SIFs, 18.3% unwilling, and 14.4% unsure. Among those reporting being willing or unwilling, we found higher willingness among those who were currently homeless (91.8% vs. 74.6%; p = 0.004), who had interacted with police in the past 12 months (85.7% vs. 74.5%; p = 0.04), and who were refused service within a healthcare setting (100% vs. 77.1%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Our results support SIF acceptability in several Upstate New York PWID communities, particularly among those reporting feelings of marginalization. A large proportion reported being unsure about usage of SIFs, suggesting room for educating PWID on the potential benefits of this service. Our results support SIF acceptability in Upstate New York and may inform programming for underserved PWID, should SIFs become available.

'Why would we not want to keep everybody safe?' The views of family members of people who use drugs on the implementation of drug consumption rooms in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: People who use drugs in Scotland are currently experiencing disproportionately high rates of drug-related deaths. Drug consumption rooms (DCRs) are harm reduction services that offer a safe, hygienic environment where pre-obtained drugs can be consumed under supervision. The aim of this research was to explore family member perspectives on DCR implementation in Scotland in order to inform national policy. METHODS: Scotland-based family members of people who were currently or formerly using drugs were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews to share views on DCRs. An inclusive approach to 'family' was taken, and family members were recruited via local and national networks. A convenience sample of 13 family members were recruited and interviews conducted, audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically using the Structured Framework Technique. RESULTS: Family members demonstrated varying levels of understanding regarding the existence, role, and function of DCRs. While some expressed concern that DCRs would not prevent continued drug use, all participants were in favour of DCR implementation due to a belief that DCRs could reduce harm, including saving lives, and facilitate future recovery from drug use. Participants highlighted challenges faced by people who use drugs in accessing treatment/services that could meet their needs. They identified that accessible and welcoming DCRs led by trusting and non-judgemental staff could help to meet unmet needs, including signposting to other services. Family members viewed DCRs as safe environments and highlighted how the existence of DCRs could reduce the constant worry that they had of risk of harm to their loved ones. Finally, family members emphasised the challenge of stigma associated with drug use. They believed that introduction of DCRs would help to reduce stigma and provide a signal that people who use drugs deserve safety and care. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting the experience and views of family members makes a novel and valuable contribution to ongoing public debates surrounding DCRs. Their views can be used to inform the implementation of DCRs in Scotland but also relate well to the development of wider responses to drug-related harm and reduction of stigma experienced by people who use drugs in Scotland and beyond.

The Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services Cohort Study of People Who Inject Drugs in Toronto, Canada (OiSIS-Toronto): Cohort Profile.

The Ontario Integrated Supervised Injection Services cohort in Toronto, Canada (OiSIS-Toronto) is an open prospective cohort of people who inject drugs (PWID). OiSIS-Toronto was established to evaluate the impacts of supervised consumption services (SCS) integrated within three community health agencies on health status and service use. The cohort includes PWID who do and do not use SCS, recruited via self-referral, snowball sampling, and community/street outreach. From 5 November 2018 to 19 March 2020, we enrolled 701 eligible PWID aged 18+ who lived in Toronto. Participants complete interviewer-administered questionnaires at baseline and semi-annually thereafter and are asked to consent to linkages with provincial healthcare administrative databases (90.2% consented; of whom 82.4% were successfully linked) and SCS client databases. At baseline, 86.5% of participants (64.0% cisgender men, median ([IQR] age= 39 [33-49]) had used SCS in the previous 6 months, of whom most (69.7%) used SCS for <75% of their injections. A majority (56.8%) injected daily, and approximately half (48.0%) reported fentanyl as their most frequently injected drug. As of 23 April 2021, 291 (41.5%) participants had returned for follow-up. Administrative and self-report data are being used to (1) evaluate the impact of integrated SCS on healthcare use, uptake of community health agency services, and health outcomes; (2) identify barriers and facilitators to SCS use; and (3) identify potential enhancements to SCS delivery. Nested sub-studies include evaluation of "safer opioid supply" programs and impacts of COVID-19.

Feasibility, acceptability, concerns, and challenges of implementing supervised injection services at a specialty HIV hospital in Toronto, Canada: perspectives of people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Substance use significantly impacts health and healthcare of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV), especially their ability to remain in hospital following admission. Supervised injection services (SIS) reduce overdoses and drug-related harms, but are not often provided within hospitals/outpatient programs. Leading us to question, what are PLHIV's perceptions of hospital-based SIS? METHODS: This mixed-methods study explored feasibility and acceptability of implementing SIS at Casey House, a Toronto-based specialty HIV hospital, from the perspective of its in/outpatient clients. We conducted a survey, examining clients' (n = 92) demand for, and acceptability of, hospital-based SIS. Following this, we hosted two focus groups (n = 14) and one-on-one interviews (n = 8) with clients which explored benefits/drawbacks of in-hospital SIS, wherein participants experienced guided tours of a demonstration SIS space and/or presentations of evidence about impacts of SIS. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Among survey participants, 76.1% (n = 70) identified as cis-male and over half (n = 49;54.4%) had been a hospital client for 2 years or less. Nearly half (48.8%) knew about clients injecting in/near Casey House, while 23.6% witnessed it. Survey participants were more supportive of SIS for inpatients (76.1%) than for outpatients (68.5%); most (74.7%) reported SIS implementation would not impact their level of service use at Casey House, while some predicted coming more often (16.1%) and others less often (9.2%). Most focus group/interview participants, believed SIS would enhance safety by reducing health harms (e.g. overdose), increasing transparency between clients and clinicians about substance use, and helping retain clients in care. Debate arose about who (e.g., in/outpatients vs. non-clients) should have access to hospital-based SIS and how implementation may shift organizational priorities/resources away from services not specific to drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed widespread support of, and need for, hospital-based SIS among client stakeholders; however, attempts to reduce negative impacts on non-drug using clients need to be considered in the balance of implementation plans. Given the increased risks of morbidity and mortality for PLHIV who inject drugs as well as the problems in retaining them in care in a hospital setting, SIS is a key component of improving care for this marginalized group.

Working near a supervised injection facility: A qualitative study of perspectives of firefighter-emergency medical responders.

BACKGROUND: While firefighter-emergency medical responders (FF-EMR) are important stakeholders in cities considering the implementation of a supervised injection facility (SIF), there is little information on perspectives of first responders who serve these communities. The aim of the present study was to identify FF-EMR perspectives on working near a SIF. METHODS: FF-EMRs from Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services completed an online survey that queried participant perspectives on working near a SIF. RESULTS: Four main themes were identified: positive effects, negative effects, duration of assignment, and sense of duty. Similar percentages of first responders reported positive (22.2%) and negative aspects (25.9%) of working near the SIF, while some (18.5%) indicated preference for a short-term assignment to the SIF area. FF-EMRs most commonly described a sense of duty (35.2%). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, our study is the first to identify FF-EMR perspectives related to work near a SIF. Perspectives and concerns of first responders should be considered in policy debates about implementation of new SIFs to guarantee an adequately-prepared first responder workforce.

Predicting the impact of placing an overdose prevention site in Philadelphia: a mathematical modeling approach.

BACKGROUND: Fatal overdoses from opioid use and substance disorders are increasing at an alarming rate. One proposed harm reduction strategy for reducing overdose fatalities is to place overdose prevention sites-commonly known as safe injection facilities-in proximity of locations with the highest rates of overdose. As urban centers in the USA are tackling legal hurdles and community skepticism around the introduction and location of these sites, it becomes increasingly important to assess the magnitude of the effect that these services might have on public health. METHODS: We developed a mathematical model to describe the movement of people who used opioids to an overdose prevention site in order to understand the impact that the facility would have on overdoses, fatalities, and user education and treatment/recovery. The discrete-time, stochastic model is able to describe a range of user behaviors, including the effects from how far they need to travel to the site. We calibrated the model to overdose data from Philadelphia and ran simulations to describe the effect of placing a site in the Kensington neighborhood. RESULTS: In Philadelphia, which has a non-uniform racial population distribution, choice of site placement can determine which demographic groups are most helped. In our simulations, placement of the site in the Kensington neighborhood resulted in White opioid users being more likely to benefit from the site's services. Overdoses that occur onsite can be reversed. Our results predict that for every 30 stations in the overdose prevention site, 6 per year of these would have resulted in fatalities if they had occurred outside of the overdose prevention site. Additionally, we estimate that fatalities will decrease further when referrals from the OPS to treatment are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Mathematical modeling was used to predict the impact of placing an overdose prevention site in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia. To fully understand the impact of site placement, both direct and indirect effects must be included in the analysis. Introducing more than one site and distributing sites equally across neighborhoods with different racial and demographic characteristics would have the broadest public health impact. Cities and locales can use mathematical modeling to help quantify the predicted impact of placing an overdose prevention site in a particular location.

Complicity in Harm Reduction.

At first glance, it seems difficult to object to any program that merits the label "harm reduction." If harm is bad, as everyone recognizes, then surely reducing it is good. What's the problem? The problem, we submit, is twofold. First, there's more to "harm reduction," as that term is typically used, than simply the reduction of harm. Some of the wariness about harm-reduction programs may result from the nebulous "more." Thus, part of our task is to provide a clear definition of harm reduction. Next, we turn to a second problem: a worry about complicity. Those who object to harm reduction programs fear that participation in such programs would make them complicit in activities they deem immoral. In this paper we argue that this fear is largely unwarranted. We use supervised injection sites (SISs)-safe spaces for the use of risky drugs-as our paradigmatic case of harm reduction. These SISs are generally offered in the hope of reducing harm to both the drug user and the public. For this reason, our analysis focuses on complicity in harm. We draw upon the work of Gregory Mellema as our framework. Mellema offers three ways one can be complicit in harm caused by another: by enabling, facilitating or condoning it. We argue that one who operates an SIS is not complicit in any of these ways, while also laying out the conditions that must be met if one is to argue that harm reduction entails complicity in non-consequentialist wrongdoing.

Willingness to Use Safe Consumption Spaces among Opioid Users at High Risk of Fentanyl Overdose in Baltimore, Providence, and Boston.

Safe consumption spaces (SCS) are evidence-based interventions that reduce drug-related morbidity and mortality operating in many countries. However, SCS are yet to be widely implemented in the USA despite the escalating overdose epidemic. The aim of this multi-city study was to identify the factors associated with willingness to use a SCS among people who use drugs (PWUD) in Baltimore, Providence, and Boston, stratified by injection drug use status. Our secondary aim was to characterize the anticipated barriers to accessing SCS if they were to be implemented in these cities. PWUD were invited to complete a cross-sectional survey in 2017. The analysis was restricted to 326 opioid users (i.e., heroin, fentanyl, and non-medical opioid pill use). The majority (77%) of participants expressed willingness to use a SCS (Baltimore, 78%; Providence, 68%; Boston. 84%). Most respondents were male (59%), older than 35 years (76%), non-white (64%), relied on public/semi-public settings to inject (60%), had a history of overdose (64%), and recently suspected fentanyl contamination of their drugs (73%). A quarter (26%) preferred drugs containing fentanyl. Among injectors, female gender, racial minority status, suspicion of drugs containing fentanyl, and drug use in public/semi-public settings were associated with higher willingness to use a SCS; prior arrest was associated with lower willingness. Among non-injectors, racial minority status, preference for fentanyl, and drug use in public/semi-public settings were associated with higher willingness, whereas recent overdose held a negative association. The most commonly anticipated barriers to accessing a SCS in the future were concerns around arrest (38%), privacy (34%), confidentiality/trust/safety (25%), and cost/time/transportation (16%). These data provide evidence of high SCS acceptability among high-risk PWUD in the USA, including those who prefer street fentanyl. As SCS are implemented in the USA, targeted engagement efforts may be required to reach individuals exposed to the criminal justice system.

Potential use of supervised injection services among people who inject drugs in a remote and mid-size Canadian setting.

BACKGROUND: While supervised injection services (SIS) feasibility research has been conducted in large urban centres across North America, it is unknown whether these services are acceptable among people who inject drugs (PWID) in remote, mid-size cities. We assessed willingness to use SIS and expected frequency of SIS use among PWID in Thunder Bay, a community in Northwestern, Ontario, Canada, serving people from suburban, rural and remote areas of the region. METHODS: Between June and October 2016, peer research associates administered surveys to PWID. Sociodemographic characteristics, drug use and behavioural patterns associated with willingness to use SIS and expected frequency of SIS use were estimated using bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Design preferences and amenities identified as important to provide alongside SIS were assessed descriptively. RESULTS: Among 200 PWID (median age, IQR: 35, 28-43; 43% female), 137 (69%) reported willingness to use SIS. In multivariable analyses, public injecting was positively associated with willingness to use (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR): 4.15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.08-8.29). Among those willing to use SIS, 87 (64%) said they would always/usually use SIS, while 48 (36%) said they would sometime/occasionally use SIS. In multivariable analyses, being female (AOR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.06-5.65) and reporting injecting alone was positively associated with higher expected frequency of use (AOR: 2.59; 95% CI: 1.02-6.58). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that SIS could play a role in addressing the harms of injection drug use in remote and mid-sized settings particularly for those who inject in public, as well as women and those who inject alone, who report higher expected frequency of SIS use. Design preferences of local PWID, in addition to differences according to gender should be taken into consideration to maximize the uptake of SIS, alongside existing health and social service provisions available to PWID.

Implementation contexts and the impact of policing on access to supervised consumption services in Toronto, Canada: a qualitative comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Supervised consumption services (SCS) are being implemented across Canada in response to a variety of drug-related harms. We explored the implementation context of newly established SCS in Toronto and the role of policing in shaping program access by people who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: We conducted one-to-one qualitative semi-structured interviews with 24 PWID. Participants were purposively recruited. Ethnographic observations were conducted at each of the study sites as well as in their respective neighbourhoods. Relevant policy documents were also reviewed. RESULTS: Policing was overwhelmingly discussed by participants from both SCS sites. However, participant responses varied depending on the site in question. Subthemes from participant responses on policing at site #1 described neighbourhood police presence and fears of police harassment and drug arrests before, during, or after accessing SCS. Conversely, subthemes from participant responses on policing at site #2 described immunity and protection from police while using the SCS, as well as a lack of police presence or fears of police harassment and arrests. These differences in implementation contexts were largely shaped by differences in local neighbourhoods and drug scenes. Police policies highlighted federal laws protecting PWID within SCS, but also the exercise of discretion when applying the rule of law outside of these settings. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' perspectives on, and experiences with, policing as they relate to accessing SCS were shaped by the implementation contexts of each SCS site and how neighbourhoods, drug scenes, and differences in policing practices affected service use. Our findings also demonstrate the disconnect between the goals of policing and those of SCS. Until larger structural barriers are addressed (e.g. criminalization), future SCS programming should consider the impact of policing on the SCS implementation context to improve client experience with, and access to, SCS.

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.

Ambulance-attended opioid overdoses: An examination into overdose locations and the role of a safe injection facility.

Background: Although the United States and numerous other countries are amidst an opioid overdose crisis, access to safe injection facilities remains limited. Methods: We used prospective data from ambulance journals in Oslo, Norway, to describe the patterns, severity, and outcomes of opioid overdoses and compared these characteristics among various overdose locations. We also examined what role a safe injection facility may have had on these overdoses. Results: Based on 48,825 ambulance calls, 1054 were for opioid overdoses from 465 individuals during 2014 and 2015. The rate of calls for overdoses was 1 out of 48 of the total ambulance calls. Males made up the majority of the sample (n = 368, 79%), and the median age was 35 (range: 18-96). Overdoses occurred in public locations (n = 530, 50.3%), the safe injection facility (n = 353, 33.5%), in private homes (n = 83, 7.9%), and other locations (n = 88, 8.3%). Patients from the safe injection facility and private homes had similarly severe initial clinical symptoms (Glasgow Coma Scale median =3 and respiratory frequency median =4 breaths per minute) when compared with other locations, yet the majority from the safe injection facility did not require further ambulance transport to the hospital (n = 302, 85.6%). Those overdosed in public locations (odds ratio [OR] = 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17-2.35), and when the safe injection facility was closed (OR =1.4, 95% CI =1.04-1.89), were more likely to receive transport for further treatment. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the opening hours at the safe injection facility and the overdose location may impact the likelihood of ambulance transport for further treatment.

Evaluation of a fentanyl drug checking service for clients of a supervised injection facility, Vancouver, Canada.

BACKGROUND: British Columbia, Canada, is experiencing a public health emergency related to opioid overdoses driven by consumption of street drugs contaminated with illicitly manufactured fentanyl. This cross-sectional study evaluates a drug checking intervention for the clients of a supervised injection facility (SIF) in Vancouver. METHODS: Insite is a facility offering supervised injection services in Vancouver's Downtown East Side, a community with high levels of injection drug use and associated harms, including overdose deaths. During July 7, 2016, to June 21, 2017, Insite clients were offered an opportunity to check their drugs for fentanyl using a test strip designed to test urine for fentanyl. Results of the drug check were recorded along with information including the substance checked, whether the client intended to dispose of the drug or reduce the dose and whether they experienced an overdose. Logistic regression models were constructed to assess the associations between drug checking results and dose reduction or drug disposal. Crude odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported. RESULTS: About 1% of the visits to Insite during the study resulted in a drug check. Out of 1411 drug checks conducted by clients, 1121 (79.8%) were positive for fentanyl. Although most tests were conducted post-consumption, following a positive pre-consumption drug check, 36.3% (n = 142) of participants reported planning to reduce their drug dose while only 11.4% (n = 50) planned to dispose of their drug. While the odds of intended dose reduction among those with a positive drug check was significantly higher than those with a negative result (OR = 9.36; 95% CI 4.25-20.65), no association was observed between drug check results and intended drug disposal (OR = 1.60; 95% CI 0.79-3.26). Among all participants, intended dose reduction was associated with significantly lower odds of overdose (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.18-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Although only a small proportion of visits resulted in a drug check, a high proportion (~ 80%) of the drugs checked were contaminated with fentanyl. Drug checking at harm reduction facilities such as SIFs might be a feasible intervention that could contribute to preventing overdoses in the context of the current overdose emergency.

Opinion of health professionals and drug users before the forthcoming opening of the first drug consumption room in Paris: a quantitative cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: On the brink of the opening of the first French drug consumption room in Paris, the general opinion of the local involved health care professionals and drug users was not known. The objective of this study was to determine their expectations and to search for influencing factors. METHOD: We carried out a quantitative cross-sectional study. A multiple choice questionnaire was proposed to the surrounding willing general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists, to the emergency doctors of Lariboisière hospital, and to the professionals of the harm reduction facilities and their drug users (PWUD). For each question, there was a choice between seven answers, from "- 3" (very negative impact) to "+ 3" (very positive impact). The influence of the characteristics of each group on its mean answers was explored by Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and Spearman's tests. RESULTS: The median expectations among the groups of responding GPs (N = 62), other health care professionals (N = 82), and PWUD (N = 57) were mainly positive. They thought that the drug consumption room (DCR) would improve the health of PWUD, reduce their at-risk behaviors, would not increase drug use or drug dealing in the neighborhood, and would reduce nuisance in the public space. Only the group of GPs expressed that the DCR could decrease the quietness of the neighborhood, and only the group of PWUD had higher expectations that the DCR would decrease the number of arrests and the number of violent behavior. GPs' expectations were significantly better in terms of health improvement of PWUD and reducing their precariousness if they had a previous experience in addiction medicine (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.004 and p = 0.019), with a longer practice (Spearman's rho, p = 0.021 and p = 0.009), and if they were currently prescribing opioid substitution treatments (Mann-Whitney, p = 0.030 and p = 0.002). Among non-GPs, those who were working in addiction medicine centers had significantly better expectations than pharmacists, and the professionals of the local emergency department had intermediate expectations. CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals and drug users had a positive opinion of the to-be-created Parisian drug consumption room. Experience in addiction medicine influenced positively health professionals' expectations.

The willingness of people who inject drugs in Boston to use a supervised injection facility.

BACKGROUND: In Massachusetts, the number of opioid-related deaths has increased 350% since 2000. In the setting of increasing overdose deaths, one potential intervention is supervised injection facilities (SIFs). This study explores willingness of people who inject drugs in Boston to use a SIF and examines factors associated with willingness. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 237 people who inject drugs and utilize Boston's needle exchange program (NEP). The drop-in NEP provides myriad harm reduction services and referrals to addiction treatment. The survey was mostly self-administered (92%). RESULTS: Results showed positive willingness to use a SIF was independently associated with use of heroin as main substance (odds ratio [OR]: 5.47; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-15.4; P = .0004), public injection (OR: 5.09; 95% CI: 1.8-14.3; P = .002), history of seeking substance use disorder (SUD) treatment (OR: 4.99; 95% CI: 1.2-21.1; P = .05), having heard of SIF (OR: 4.80; 95% CI: 1.6-14.8; P = .004), Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 4.22; 95% CI: 0.9-18.8; P = .04), frequent NEP use (OR: 4.18; 95% CI: 1.2-14.7; P = .02), current desire for SUD treatment (OR: 4.15; 95% CI: 1.2-14.7; P = .03), hepatitis C diagnosis (OR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.2-10.1; P = .02), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis (OR: 3.27; 95% CI: 1.3-8.4; P = .01), report of at least 1 chronic medical diagnosis (hepatitis C, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV], hypertension, or diabetes) (OR: 3.27; 95% CI: 1.2-8.9; P = .02), and comorbid medical and mental health diagnoses (OR: 2.93; 95% CI: 1.2-7.4; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents (91.4%) reported willingness to use a SIF. Respondents with substance use behavior reflecting high risk for overdose were significantly more likely to be willing to use a SIF. Respondents with behaviors that contribute to public health burden of injection drug use were also significantly more likely to be willing to use a SIF. Results indicate that this intervention would be well utilized by individuals who could most benefit from the model. As part of a broader public health approach, SIFs should be considered to reduce opioid overdose mortality, decrease public health burden of the opioid crisis, and promote access to addiction treatment and medical care.

Public Health and Public Order Outcomes Associated with Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities: a Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Supervised drug consumption facilities (SCFs) have increasingly been implemented in response to public health and public order concerns associated with illicit drug use. We systematically reviewed the literature investigating the health and community impacts of SCFs. RECENT FINDINGS: Consistent evidence demonstrates that SCFs mitigate overdose-related harms and unsafe drug use behaviours, as well as facilitate uptake of addiction treatment and other health services among people who use drugs (PWUD). Further, SCFs have been associated with improvements in public order without increasing drug-related crime. SCFs have also been shown to be cost-effective. This systematic review suggests that SCFs are effectively meeting their primary public health and order objectives and therefore supports their role within a continuum of services for PWUD. Additional studies are needed to better understand the potential long-term health impacts of SCFs and how innovations in SCF programming may help to optimize the effectiveness of this intervention.

Supervised injection facilities in Canada: past, present, and future.

Canada has long contended with harms arising from injection drug use. In response to epidemics of HIV infection and overdose in Vancouver in the mid-1990s, a range of actors advocated for the creation of supervised injection facilities (SIFs), and after several unsanctioned SIFs operated briefly and closed, Canada's first sanctioned SIF opened in 2003. However, while a large body of evidence highlights the successes of this SIF in reducing the health and social harms associated with injection drug use, extraordinary efforts were needed to preserve it, and continued activism by local people who inject drugs (PWID) and healthcare providers was needed to promote further innovation and address gaps in SIF service delivery. A growing acceptance of SIFs and increasing concern about overdose have since prompted a rapid escalation in efforts to establish SIFs in cities across Canada. While much progress has been made in that regard, there is a pressing need to create a more enabling environment for SIFs through amendment of federal legislation. Further innovation in SIF programming should also be encouraged through the creation of SIFs that accommodate assisted injecting, the inhalation of drugs. As well, peer-run, mobile, and hospital-based SIFs also constitute next steps needed to optimize the impact of this form of harm reduction intervention.

Willingness to use a supervised injection facility among young adults who use prescription opioids non-medically: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Supervised injection facilities (SIFs) are legally sanctioned environments for people to inject drugs under medical supervision. SIFs currently operate in ten countries, but to date, no SIF has been opened in the USA. In light of increasing overdose mortality in the USA, this study evaluated willingness to use a SIF among youth who report non-medical prescription opioid (NMPO) use. METHODS: Between January 2015 and February 2016, youth with recent NMPO use were recruited to participate in the Rhode Island Young Adult Prescription Drug Study (RAPiDS). We explored factors associated with willingness to use a SIF among participants who had injected drugs or were at risk of initiating injection drug use (defined as having a sex partner who injects drugs or having a close friend who injects). RESULTS: Among 54 eligible participants, the median age was 26 (IQR = 24-28), 70.4% were male, and 74.1% were white. Among all participants, when asked if they would use a SIF, 63.0% answered "Yes", 31.5% answered "No", and 5.6% were unsure. Among the 31 participants reporting injection drug use in the last six months, 27 (87.1%) reported willingness to use a SIF; 15 of the 19 (78.9%) who injected less than daily reported willingness, while all 12 (100.0%) of the participants who injected daily reported willingness. Compared to participants who were unwilling or were unsure, participants willing to use a SIF were also more likely to have been homeless in the last six months, have accidentally overdosed, have used heroin, have used fentanyl non-medically, and typically use prescription opioids alone. CONCLUSIONS: Among young adults who use prescription opioids non-medically and inject drugs or are at risk of initiating injection drug use, more than six in ten reported willingness to use a SIF. Established risk factors for overdose, including homelessness, history of overdose, daily injection drug use, heroin use, and fentanyl misuse, were associated with higher SIF acceptability, indicating that young people at the highest risk of overdose might ultimately be the same individuals to use the facility. Supervised injection facilities merit consideration to reduce overdose mortality in the USA.