Changes in drug use behaviors coinciding with the emergence of illicit fentanyl among people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada

The availability of fentanyl test strips in Georgia community pharmacies

BACKGROUND

Fentanyl test strips (FTS) are increasingly being used to test counterfeit pharmaceuticals and illicit drugs for fentanyl before consumption. On July 1, 2022, Georgia legalized the distribution of FTS. One strategy for expanding FTS distribution in the community involves leveraging community pharmacies. However, less is known about FTS distribution through community pharmacies.

OBJECTIVES

This preliminary study aimed to assess the availability of FTS in Georgia community pharmacies and examine pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes regarding FTS provision.

METHODS

This study used a cross-sectional design. A randomized telephone survey of 700 pharmacies, stratified by pharmacy type, was carried out from September 2022 to January 2023. Survey questions assessed FTS stock status, pharmacists' awareness of Georgia's FTS legalization, willingness to receive FTS information, and comfort in providing FTS education. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Of the 376 survey respondents, the vast majority were not aware of the Georgia FTS legalization (82.71% [n = 311]) and did not have FTS stocked in their pharmacies (94.91% [n = 354]). While most participants were willing to receive FTS information (70.21% [n = 264]), only slightly over half reported feeling comfortable providing FTS education (54.70% [n = 205]). Multivariate analyses showed that female participants were less likely to feel comfortable providing FTS education to patients/clients at the pharmacy (adjusted odds ratio: 0.58; confidence interval: 0.36 to 0.92).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that Georgia community pharmacies may not stock FTS and that pharmacists may be unaware of the state's FTS legalization, but they are willing to receive information about FTS. Future studies should use a representative sample to design and implement strategies to support pharmacists' provision of FTS, including a destigmatization approach for those not comfortable discussing FTS.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Defining what we mean by "polysubstance use."

The rise in drug overdoses and harms associated with the use of more than one substance has led to increased use of the term "polysubstance use" among researchers, clinicians, and public health officials. However, the term retains no consistent definition across contexts. The current authors convened from disciplines including sociology, epidemiology, neuroscience, and addiction psychiatry to propose a recommended definition of polysubstance use. An iterative process considered authors' formal and informal conversations, insights from relevant symposia, talks, and conferences, as well as their own research and clinical experiences to propose the current definition. Three key concepts were identified as necessary to define polysubstance use: (1) substances involved, (2) timing, and (3) intent. Substances involved include clarifying either (1) the number and type of substances used, (2) presence of more than one substance use disorder, or (3) primary and secondary substance use. The concept of timing is recommended to use clear terms such as simultaneous, sequential, and same-day polysubstance use to describe short-term behaviors (e.g., 30-day windows). Finally, the concept of intent refers to clarifying unintentional use or exposure when possible, and greater attention to motivations of polysubstance use. These three components should be clearly defined in research on polysubstance use to improve consistency across disciplines. Consistent definitions of polysubstance use can aid in the synthesis of evidence to better address an overdose crisis that increasingly involves multiple substances.

"Just another thing for me to stress off of": Responses to unintentional fentanyl use in a community-based study of people who use opioids

The unintentional consumption of fentanyl is a serious health risk for people who use illicit drugs. In an ongoing community-based study regarding polysubstance use among people who use opioids, we found that 17 of 58 (29%) of participants who did not endorse fentanyl use in the past thirty days tested positive for fentanyl during point-of-care urinalysis (UA). This paper describes the reactions and experiences of participants who were informed they had consumed fentanyl unintentionally, as well as how the research team handled the unanticipated occurrence of discordant results. Consistent with other recent studies, we found that people learning of unintentional fentanyl use expressed strong concerns about accidental overdose. It was common for participants to reflect on recent substance use experiences that were atypical and might have involved fentanyl, as well as to examine sources of recent drug purchases. While not all participants were surprised that they had unintentionally consumed fentanyl, all felt that learning their positive results was important due to risk of overdose. Research and medical staff have an opportunity to promote awareness of possible contamination by sharing and discussing UA test results with people who use drugs in non-judgmental manner. In addition to the widely promoted harm reduction strategy of testing drugs with fentanyl test strips, self-administered point-of-care UA, particularly after an unexpected reaction to using a drug, could provide useful information for people buying and using illicit drugs.

"Just another thing for me to stress off of:" Responses to Unintentional Fentanyl Use in a Community-based Study of People who Use Opioids

The unintentional consumption of fentanyl is a serious health risk for people who use illicit drugs. In an ongoing community-based study regarding polysubstance use among people who use opioids, we found that 17 of 58 (29%) of participants who did not endorse fentanyl use in the past thirty days tested positive for fentanyl during point-of-care urinalysis (UA). This paper describes the reactions and experiences of participants who were informed they had consumed fentanyl unintentionally, as well as how the research team handled the unanticipated occurrence of discordant results. Consistent with other recent studies, we found that people learning of unintentional fentanyl use expressed strong concerns about accidental overdose. It was common for participants to reflect on recent substance use experiences that were atypical and might have involved fentanyl, as well as to examine sources of recent drug purchases. While not all participants were surprised that they had unintentionally consumed fentanyl, all felt that learning their positive results was important due to risk of overdose. Research and medical staff who routinely conduct urinalysis have an opportunity to promote awareness of possible contamination by sharing and discussing UA test results with people who use drugs in non-judgmental manner. In addition to the widely promoted harm reduction strategy of testing drugs with fentanyl test strips, self-administered UA, particularly after an unexpected reaction to using a drug, could provide useful information for people buying and using illicit drugs.

Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to the fentanyl-adulterated drug supply among people who use drugs in Oregon

INTRODUCTION

Nonpharmaceutical fentanyl has reconfigured the U.S. illicit drug market, contributing to a drastic increase in overdose drug deaths. While illicit fentanyl has subsumed the drug supply in the Northeast and Midwest, it has more recently reached the West. For this study, we explored knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among people who use drugs in Oregon in the context of the emergence of fentanyl in the drug supply.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews by phone with 34 people who use drugs in Oregon from May to June 2021. We used thematic analysis to analyze transcripts and construct themes.

RESULTS

People who use drugs knew about fentanyl, expressed doubt that fentanyl could be found in methamphetamine; believed those who were younger or less experienced were at higher risk for harm; and received information about fentanyl from drug dealers, syringe service programs, or peers (other people who use drugs). Preference for fentanyl's presence in drugs like heroin or methamphetamine was mixed. Some felt that their preference was irrelevant since fentanyl was unavoidable. Participants reported engaging in harm reduction practices, including communicating about fentanyl with dealers and peers, testing for fentanyl, using smaller quantities of drugs, switching from injecting to smoking, and using naloxone.

CONCLUSION

People who use drugs are responding to the rise of fentanyl on the West Coast and are concerned about the increasing uncertainty and hazards of the drug supply. They are willing and motivated to adopt harm reduction behaviors. Harm reduction promotion from syringe service programs and public health agencies is essential to reduce injury and death from nonpharmaceutical fentanyl.

Correlates of heroin use, pharmaceutical fentanyl misuse, and dual heroin-fentanyl use: evidence from the USA

Purpose

The emergence of fentanyl has deepened concerns about the opioid crisis. The shift has created new distinctions in patterns of opioid use, which may be important for prevention and intervention. This paper aims to examine sociodemographic correlates as well as health and substance use characteristics of different groups of opioid users.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper used the 2015–2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health to examine distinctions between groups (n = 11,142) of individuals who misuse prescription opioids, use heroin but not fentanyl, misuse pharmaceutical fentanyl but not heroin and use both heroin and fentanyl. Multinomial and logistic regression models were used to identify these distinctions.

Findings

Few sociodemographic differences emerged between the prescription opioid group and pharmaceutical fentanyl misuse group. While those who misuse fentanyl have higher odds of using other drugs and experiencing certain mental health problems than those misusing prescription pills, both the heroin and fentanyl–heroin use groups reported considerably poorer health and substance use indicators relative to those who solely misuse fentanyl. It is also notable that both heroin use groups are more highly associated with cocaine and methamphetamine use than those misusing fentanyl alone.

Research limitations/implications

While this study identifies important distinctions between the opioid use groups studied, individuals using both heroin and pharmaceutical fentanyl report the poorest health and substance use characteristics. Important differences between the fentanyl-only group and the group who consume both drugs may have implications for prevention, intervention and clinical work amid shifting patterns of opioid use.

Practical implications

Important differences between the fentanyl-only group and the group who consume both drugs may have implications for prevention, intervention and clinical work amid shifting patterns of opioid use.

Originality/value

This study highlights distinctions between pharmaceutical fentanyl users, heroin users and users of both substances.

Take-home drug checking as a novel harm reduction strategy in British Columbia, Canada

BACKGROUND

Drug checking is a harm reduction strategy used to identify components of illicitly obtained drugs, including adulterants, to prevent overdose. This study evaluated the distribution of take-home fentanyl test strips to people who use drugs (PWUD) in British Columbia, Canada. The primary aim was to assess if the detection of fentanyl in opioid samples was concordant between a take-home model and testing by trained drug checking staff.

METHODS

Take-home fentanyl test strips were distributed at ten sites providing drug checking services from April to July 2019. The fentanyl positivity of the aggregate take-home and on-site drug checking groups were compared by class of substance tested. An administered survey assessed acceptability and behaviour change.

RESULTS

1680 take-home results were obtained from 218 unique participants; 68% of samples (n=1142) were identified as opioids and 23% (n=382) were stimulant samples. During this period, 852 samples were tested using on-site drug checking. The fentanyl positivity of opioid samples was 90.0% for take-home samples and 89.1% for on-site samples (Difference 0.8% (95% CI -2.3% to 3.9%)). These results were not affected by previous experience with test strips. Fentanyl positivity of stimulants in the take-home group was higher than on-site (24.7% vs. 3.2%), but the study was underpowered to conduct statistical analysis on this sub-group. When fentanyl was detected, 27% of individuals reported behaviour change that was considered safer/positive. Greater than 95% of participants stated they would use fentanyl test strips again.

CONCLUSIONS

Take-home fentanyl test strips used by PWUD on opioid samples can provide similar results to formal drug checking services and are a viable addition to existing overdose prevention strategies. Use of this strategy for detection of fentanyl in stimulant samples requires further evaluation. This intervention was well accepted and in some participants was associated with positive behaviour change.

A new quantitative drug checking technology for harm reduction: Pilot study in Vancouver, Canada using paper spray mass spectrometry

Introduction

Drug checking services for harm reduction and overdose prevention have been implemented in many jurisdictions as a public health intervention in response to the opioid overdose crisis. This study demonstrates the first on‐site use of paper spray mass spectrometry for quantitative drug checking to address the limitations of current on‐site drug testing technologies.

Methods

Paper spray mass spectrometry was used to provide on‐site drug checking services at a supervised consumption site in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada during a 2‐day pilot test in August 2019. The method included the targeted quantitative measurement of 49 drugs and an untargeted full scan to assist in identifying unknown/unexpected components.

Results

During the pilot, 113 samples were submitted for analysis, with 88 (78%) containing the client expected substance. Fentanyl was detected in 45 of 59 expected fentanyl samples, and in 50 (44%) samples overall at a median concentration of 3.6% (w/w%). The synthetic precursor of fentanyl, 4‐anilino‐N‐phenethyl‐piperidine (4‐ANPP), was found in 74.0% of all fentanyl samples at a median concentration of 2.2%, suggesting widespread poor manufacturing practices. Etizolam was detected in 10 submitted samples anticipated to be fentanyl at a median concentration of 2.5%. No clients submitting these samples expected etizolam or a benzodiazepine in their sample. In three instances, it was co‐measured with fentanyl, and in seven cases it was detected alone.

Discussion and Conclusions

The quantitative capabilities and low detection limits demonstrated by paper spray mass spectrometry offer distinct benefits over existing on‐site drug checking methods and harm reduction services.

Correlations between Changes in Medical Opioid Dispensing and Contributions of Fentanyl to Opioid-Related Overdose Fatalities: Exploratory Analyses from Canada

Canada is experiencing an epidemic of opioid-related mortality, with increasing yet heterogeneous fatality patterns from illicit/synthetic (e.g., fentanyl) opioids. The present study examined whether differential provincial reductions in medical opioid dispensing following restrictive regulations (post-2010) were associated with differential contributions of fentanyl to opioid mortality. Annual provincial opioid dispensing totals in defined daily doses/1000 population/day, and change rates in opioid dispensing for the 10 provinces for (1) 2011-2018 and (2) "peak-year" to 2018 were derived from a pan-Canadian pharmacy-based dispensing panel. Provincial contribution rates of fentanyl to opioid-related mortality (2016-2019) were averaged. Correlation values (Pearson's R) between provincial changes in opioid dispensing and the relative fentanyl contributions to mortality were computed for the two scenarios. The correlation between province-based changes in opioid dispensing (2011-2018) and the relative contribution of fentanyl to total opioid deaths (2016-2019) was -0.70 (t = 2.75; df = 8; p = 0.03); the corresponding correlation for opioid dispensing changes ("peak-year" to 2018) was -0.59 (t = -2.06; df = 8; p = 0.07). Provincial reductions in medical opioid dispensing indicated (near-)significant correlations with fentanyl contribution rates to opioid-related death totals. Differential reductions in pharmaceutical opioid availability may have created supply voids for nonmedical use, substituted with synthetic/toxic (e.g., fentanyl) opioids and leading to accelerated opioid mortality. Implications of these possible unintended adverse consequences warrant consideration for public health policy.

Brorphine-Investigation and quantitation of a new potent synthetic opioid in forensic toxicology casework using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry

New synthetic opioids continue to appear as novel psychoactive substances (NPS) on illicit drug markets. Isotonitazene emerged in mid-2019, becoming the most prevalent NPS opioid in the United States within a few months. Notification by the Drug Enforcement Administration of its intent to schedule isotonitazene in mid-2020 led to its decline in popularity and replacement with a new NPS opioid: brorphine. Brorphine is a potent synthetic opioid, but little information was previously available regarding its toxicity or involvement in impairment and death. Our laboratory developed an assay for the identification and quantitative confirmation of brorphine using standard addition. Quantitative analysis was performed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). In vitro and in vivo metabolism studies were performed using pooled human liver microsomes and authentic biological specimens, respectively, with analysis by liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF-MS). Brorphine was confirmed in 20 authentic forensic cases, commonly found in combination with fentanyl (100%) and flualprazolam (80%). The average concentration of brorphine in blood was 2.5 ± 3.1 ng/mL (median: 1.1 ng/mL, range: 0.1-10 ng/mL). The average concentration of brorphine in urine was 4.6 ± 7.6 ng/mL (median: 1.6 ng/mL, range: 0.2-23 ng/mL). The majority of cases originated from Midwestern states. Metabolism was verified to included N-dealkylation and hydroxylation. Detailed case histories and autopsy findings are presented herein. The prevalence of brorphine continues to increase in the United States. Forensic scientists should remain aware of the ongoing emergence of new opioids, especially those outside a standard scope of toxicology testing.