Peer-to-peer injection: Demographic, drug use, and injection-related risk factors

Characterizing Use of Supervised Consumption Services among Street-involved Youth and Young Adults in the Context of an Overdose Crisis

In response to an increase in overdose deaths, there was a rapid scale-up of supervised consumption services (SCS), including federally sanctioned SCS and low-barrier SCS known as overdose prevention sites (OPS), in Vancouver, Canada, beginning in December 2016. However, little is known about the use of such services among adolescents and young adults (AYA) in this context. We therefore sought to characterize factors associated with the use of federally sanctioned SCS and OPS among street-involved AYA who inject drugs in Vancouver during an overdose crisis. From December 2016 to March 2020, data were collected from a prospective cohort of street-involved AYA aged 14 to 26 at baseline. Using multivariable generalized estimating equation analyses, we identified factors associated with recent use of federally sanctioned SCS and OPS, respectively. Among 298 AYA who inject drugs, 172 (57.8%) and 149 (50.0%) reported using federally sanctioned SCS and OPS during the study period, respectively. In multivariable analyses, public injecting, negative police interactions, and residing or spending time ≥ weekly in the Downtown Eastside neighborhood were all positively associated with the use of federally sanctioned SCS and OPS, respectively. Additionally, ≥ daily unregulated opioid use and residential eviction were positively associated with federally sanctioned SCS use, while requiring help injecting was inversely associated. Self-identified female or non-binary gender was also positively associated with OPS use (all p < 0.05). Both federally sanctioned SCS and OPS successfully engaged AYA at heightened risk of adverse health outcomes. However, the lack of accommodation of AYA who require manual assistance with injecting at federally sanctioned SCS may be inhibiting service engagement.

Factors associated with injury and blood-borne infection risk when providing assisted injection among people who inject drugs

OBJECTIVE

Prior research has associated assisted injection with risk behaviors, but other risks such as injury, missed veins, and incidental exposures to blood-borne infections during an injection episode have not been assessed. In the following, we present the frequency of these other risks and determine factors associated with missing a vein and incidental blood exposure among people who inject drugs (PWID).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from PWID who were recruited using targeted sampling in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California, during 2016 and 2017. The analytic sample consist of 336 participants who reported providing injection assistance in the last 6 months. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed for reporting the following risks: missing a vein; getting the recipient's blood on the injection provider; and getting blood on clothes or surfaces.

RESULTS

In the last 6 months, the most common negative consequences were getting blood on clothes or surfaces (40%), getting the recipient's blood on the injection provider (23%), and missing a vein (17%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, missing the vein was significantly associated with higher odds of assisting a leg injection while getting the injection recipient's blood on the provider or getting blood on clothes or nearby surfaces was associated with higher odds of assisting a groin injection injecting in the groin.

CONCLUSION

Providing injection assistance can result in incidental blood exposures and injury, particularly when injecting in sensitive locations on the body. Harm reduction interventions to reduce risks associated with this practice are essential to improving the well-being of PWID.

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.

Correlates of Transactional Sex and Violent Victimization among Men Who Inject Drugs in Los Angeles and San Francisco, California

Men who inject drugs (MWID) and engage in transactional sex (i.e., receive money or drugs in exchange for sex) are vulnerable to HIV and violence. However, MWID who engage in transactional sex have been less studied than women. We examine factors associated with transactional sex among MWID in Los Angeles and San Francisco and whether transactional sex is associated with violent victimization. MWID were recruited using targeted sampling methods in 2011-2013 and completed surveys that covered demographics, drug use, HIV risk, violence, transactional sex, and other items. Multivariable logistic regression was used to (1) determine factors independently associated with transactional sex and (2) determine if transactional sex was independently associated with violence victimization in the last 6 months among MWID. An interaction term between income source and sexual identity was included in the transactional sex model. Of the 572 male PWID in the sample, 47 (8%) reported transactional sex in the past 6 months. Self-reported HIV infection was 7% for MWID who did not report transactional sex, 17% for MWID who reported transactional sex, and 24% for MWID who reported transactional sex and reported gay or bisexual identity. In multivariable analysis, transactional sex was positively associated with gay or bisexual identity (GB without illegal income adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 5.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.86-14.27; GB with illegal income AOR = 13.55, CI = 4.57-40.13), coerced sex in the last 12 months (AOR = 11.66, CI = 1.94-70.12), and violent victimization in the last 12 months (AOR = 2.31, CI = 1.13-4.75). Transactional sex was negatively associated with heroin injection (last 30 days) (AOR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.18-0.78). Transactional sex was independently associated with violent victimization in the last 12 months (AOR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.00-4.14) while controlling for confounders. MWID who engaged in transactional sex are at elevated risk for HIV and multiple forms of violent victimization. Interventions focused on this at-risk subpopulation are urgently needed and should include access to substance use disorder treatment, victimization services, and harm reduction services across the HIV care continuum.

Peer-assisted injection as a harm reduction measure in a supervised consumption service: a qualitative study of client experiences

Background

Peer assistance is an emerging area of study in injection drug use. When Canada’s first supervised consumption site (SCS) opened in 2003 in Vancouver, Canada, clients were prohibited from injecting their peers; only recently has this practise been introduced as a harm reduction measure at these sites. In 2018, Health Canada granted federal exemption to allow peer-assisted injection at certain SCS sites, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Literature pertaining to peer-assisted injection addresses several topics: interpersonal relationships between the injection provider and recipient; the role of pragmatism; trust and expertise; and gender relations.

Methods

In this qualitative study, participants (n = 16) were recruited to be interviewed about their experiences in a peer-assisted injection program (PAIP) at one SCS regulated by Health Canada. Interview data were transcribed and thematically analyzed. Quantitative administrative data were used to provide context and to describe the study population, comprised of people in the PAIP (n = 248).

Results

PAIP clients made up 17.4% of all SCS clients. PAIP clients were more likely to be female and Indigenous. Injection providers expressed being moved by compassion to help others inject. While their desire to assist was pragmatic, they felt a significant burden of responsibility for the outcomes. Other prominent factors related to the injection provider-recipient relationship were social connection, trust, safety, social capital, and reciprocity. Participants also made suggestions for improving the PAIP which included adding more inhalation rooms so that if someone was unable to inject they could smoke in a safe place instead. Additionally, being required by law to divide drugs outside of the SCS, prior to preparing and using in the site, created unsafe conditions for clients.

Conclusions

Regular use of the SCS, and access to its resources, enabled participants to lower their risk through smoking and to practice lower-risk injections. At the federal level, there is considerable room to advocate for allowing clients to divide drugs safely within the SCS, and to increase capacity for safer alternatives such as inhalation.

Assisted injection within supervised injection services: Uptake and client characteristics among people who require help injecting in a Canadian setting

BACKGROUND

People who require help injecting illicit drugs experience elevated rates of a range of health-related harms, including overdose and acquisition of blood-borne pathogens. In response, some supervised injection services (SIS) in Canada have begun to permit clients to be physically injected by fellow clients or staff members. However, little is known about uptake and characteristics of clients who engage in this practice. We therefore sought to examine factors associated with receiving injection assistance at SIS among people who require help injecting drugs in Vancouver, Canada.

METHODS

Data were drawn from two community-recruited prospective cohort studies of people who inject drugs (PWID). We used multivariable generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses with time-updated covariates to identify factors associated with self-reported receipt of injection assistance at SIS.

RESULTS

Between June 2017 and December 2018, 319 individuals who reported having recently required help injecting were included in the study. Of these, 160 (51.0%) were women and the median age was 42 years at baseline. In total, 54 (16.9%) participants reported receiving injection assistance at a SIS at least once over an average of 3.3 months of follow-up. In multivariable GEE analyses, recent homelessness (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] = 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13 - 3.66), fentanyl injection (AOR = 3.45; 95% CI: 1.42 - 8.41), non-fatal overdose (AOR = 1.86; 95% CI: 1.02 - 3.38) and enrolment in methadone maintenance therapy (AOR = 1.89; 95% CI: 1.03 - 3.47) were associated with increased odds of receiving injection assistance at SIS.

CONCLUSION

Although uptake of assisted injection at SIS was relatively low among this sample of people who require help injecting, this practice was associated with several indicators of structural vulnerability and drug-related risk. These findings suggest that accommodating assisted injection within SIS may be providing opportunities to engage and reduce harms among higher-risk subpopulations of PWID in this setting.

HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Prevention Awareness, Willingness, and Perceived Barriers among People Who Inject Drugs in Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA, 2016-2018

BACKGROUND

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV prevention is indicated for people who inject drugs (PWID), yet most studies do not focus on PWID. This study examines factors associated with PrEP awareness and willingness, and identifies perceived barriers to PrEP among PWID. Methods: PWID were interviewed in Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA from 2016 to 2018. We analyzed data from self-reported HIV-negative participants who had injected drugs within the past 6 months (n = 469). Questions on PrEP included awareness, willingness, barriers, and uptake. Multiple logistic regression models of factors associated with awareness of, and willingness to, take PrEP were developed. Descriptive statistics on perceived PrEP barriers are reported. Results: Among HIV-negative PWID, 40% were aware of PrEP, 59% reported willingness to take PrEP, and 2% were currently taking PrEP. In multivariable analysis, PrEP awareness was associated with study site and sexual minority status, higher educational attainment, and HIV testing in the last 6 months. Willingness to take PrEP was associated with self-reported risk (paying sex partner in the last 6 months, sharing drug paraphernalia, and being injected by another PWID) and perceived HIV risk. The most common perceived barriers to PrEP were copays, concerns about increased HIV or sexually transmitted risk with PrEP, and concerns about reduction of medication efficacy without daily use. Conclusion: PrEP awareness among PWID remains inadequate. Willingness to take PrEP was moderate and was most desired by PWID who engaged in high-risk behaviors. Interventions to increase PrEP awareness and willingness, and to facilitate PrEP uptake among PWID are needed.

Factors Associated with Frequency of Recent Initiation of Others into Injection Drug Use Among People Who Inject Drugs in Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA, USA, 2016-17

Objective: Drug injection initiation is often assisted by a person who injects drugs (PWID). How often PWID provide this assistance has not been examined. We examine frequency of injection initiation assistance and factors associated with high (4+) and low frequency (1-3) initiation assistance as compared to no initiation assistance among PWID. Methods: Participants were 979 Californian PWID. PWID were interviewed about providing injection initiation assistance in the last 6 months among other items. Multinomial regression analysis was used to examine factors associated with levels of frequency of injection initiation assistance. Results: Among participants, 132 (14%) had initiated 784 people into injection (mean = 5.94 [standard deviation = 20.13]; median = 2, interquartile range = 1,4) in the last 6 months. PWID engaged in high frequency initiation (26% of sample) assisted 662 new initiates (84% of total). Using multinomial regression analysis with no initiating as the referent group, we found that high frequency initiating was statistically associated with higher injection frequency, having a paying sex partner, taking someone to a shooting gallery, and providing injection assistance. Lower frequency initiation was statistically associated with having a paying sex partner, illegal income source, and providing injection assistance. Conclusion: Differences between high and low frequency initiators were not found. Sex work and assisting with drug injection were linked to initiating others. Individual-level interventions that reduce this behavior among PWID and structural interventions such as safe consumption sites and opioid medication treatments that interrupt the social process of injection initiation should be considered as ways to reduce injection initiations.