Offering Emergency Buprenorphine Without a Prescription

Assisted injection provider practices and motivations in Los Angeles and San Francisco California 2016-18

BACKGROUND

Assisted injection is a high-risk and common practice among people who inject drugs (PWID) and occurs for diverse reasons according to qualitative research. To develop interventions for reducing assisted injection risks, it is important to understand the practices of PWID who provide injection assistance, including their motivations for providing assistance.

METHODS

Using follow-up data from an efficacy trial among PWID recruited in Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA (n=601), we present descriptive statistics on motivations for providing injection assistance and use multivariable logistic regression modelling to examine factors associated with these motivations.

RESULTS

PWID provided injection assistance most commonly to friends and acquaintances. A quarter provided assistance on a daily basis. The most common motivations for providing assistance were skill and injury prevention. PWID also provided assistance to stop pestering and for compensation in money or drugs. In separate models examining factors associated with the five main motivations, we found injury prevention to be associated with skill injecting others, neck injection, methamphetamine use, and recycling income. Pestering was associated with injury prevention, neck and hand injection, speedball use, and syringe selling. Skill was associated with injury prevention, neck and hand injection, being physically assaulted, and age. Providing assistance for money was associated with providing assistance for food or drugs, armpit injections, being female, and providing assistance more frequently. Providing assistance for drugs was associated with compensation in food or money, goofball injection, selling drugs, and panhandling.

CONCLUSION

Providing injection assistance is associated with injection needs of recipients and drug scene participation. We urgently need new interventions for reducing assisted injection risks. Since injection providers report being motivated by skill and to prevent injury, interventions such as training in safer injection techniques are likely to be met with enthusiasm.

Down the drain: Reconsidering routine urine drug testing during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic and the move to telemedicine for office-based opioid treatment have made the practice of routine urine drug tests (UDT) obsolete. In this commentary we discuss how COVID-19 has demonstrated the limited usefulness and possible harms of routine UDT. We propose that practitioners should stop using routine UDT and instead use targeted UDT, paired with clinical reasoning, as part of a patient-centered approach to care.

•

The COVID-19 pandemic made the practice of “routine” urine drug testing obsolete in office-based opioid treatment

•

Requiring routine urine drug testing has limited benefits and possible harms

•

Urine drug testing should be targeted rather than routine and complement patient-centered office-based opioid treatment

Opioid withdrawal symptoms, frequency, and pain characteristics as correlates of health risk among people who inject drugs

OBJECTIVE

Opioid withdrawal symptoms are widely understood to contribute to health risk but have rarely been measured in community samples of opioid using people who inject drugs (PWID).

METHODS

Using targeted sampling methods, 814 PWID who reported regular opioid use (at least 12 uses in the last 30 days) were recruited and interviewed about demographics, drug use, health risk, and withdrawal symptoms, frequency, and pain. Multivariable regression models were developed to examine factors associated with any opioid withdrawal, withdrawal frequency, pain severity, and two important health risks (receptive syringe sharing and non-fatal overdose).

RESULTS

Opioid withdrawal symptoms were reported by 85 % of participants in the last 6 months, with 29 % reporting at least monthly withdrawal symptoms and 35 % reporting at least weekly withdrawal symptoms. Very or extremely painful symptoms were reported by 57 %. In separate models, we found any opioid withdrawal (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.75, 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 1.52, 5.00) and weekly or more opioid withdrawal frequency (AOR = 1.94; 95 % CI = 1.26, 3.00) (as compared to less than monthly) to be independently associated with receptive syringe sharing while controlling for confounders. Any opioid withdrawal (AOR = 1.71; 95 % CI = 1.04, 2.81) was independently associated with nonfatal overdose while controlling for confounders. In a separate model, weekly or more withdrawal frequency (AOR = 1.69; 95 % CI = 1.12, 2.55) and extreme or very painful withdrawal symptoms (AOR = 1.53; 95 % CI = 1.08, 2.16) were associated with nonfatal overdose as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal symptoms among PWID increase health risk. Treatment of withdrawal symptoms is urgently needed and should include buprenorphine dispensing.