Facilitators, barriers and lessons learnt from the first state-wide naloxone distribution conducted in West Virginia

Fentanyl and xylazine crisis: Crafting coherent strategies for opioid overdose prevention

The United States is in the throes of a severe opioid overdose epidemic, primarily fueled by the pervasive use of fentanyl and the emerging threat of xylazine, a veterinary sedative often mixed with fentanyl. The high potency and long duration of fentanyl is compounded by the added risks from xylazine, heightening the lethal danger faced by opioid users. Measures such as enhanced surveillance, public awareness campaigns, and the distribution of fentanyl-xylazine test kits, and naloxone have been undertaken to mitigate this crisis. Fentanyl-related overdose deaths persist despite these efforts, partly due to inconsistent policies across states and resistance towards adopting harm reduction strategies. A multifaceted approach is imperative in effectively combating the opioid overdose epidemic. This approach should include expansion of treatment access, broadening the availability of medications for opioid use disorder, implementation of harm reduction strategies, and enaction of legislative reforms and diminishing stigma associated with opioid use disorder.

Scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution in Kentucky: adoption and reach achieved through a "hub with many spokes" model

BACKGROUND

Scaling up overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND), an evidence-based practice for reducing opioid overdose mortality, in communities remains a challenge. Novel models and intentional implementation strategies are needed. Drawing upon the EPIS model's phases of Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (Aarons et al. in Adm Policy Ment Health 38:4-23, 2011), this paper describes the development of the University of Kentucky's unique centralized "Naloxone Hub with Many Spokes" approach to implementing OEND as part of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS-KY).

METHODS

To scale up OEND in eight Kentucky counties, implementation strategies were utilized at two levels: a centralized university-based naloxone dispensing unit ("Naloxone Hub") and adopting organizations ("Many Spokes"). Implementation strategies varied across the EPIS phases, but heavily emphasized implementation facilitation. The Naloxone Hub provided technical assistance, overdose education resources, and no-cost naloxone to partner organizations. Implementation outcomes across the EPIS phases were measured using data from internal study management trackers and naloxone distribution data submitted by partner organizations.

RESULTS

Of 209 organizations identified as potential partners, 84.7% (n = 177) engaged in the Exploration/Preparation phase by participating in an initial meeting with an Implementation Facilitator about the HCS-KY OEND program. Adoption of the HCS-KY OEND program, defined as receipt of at least one shipment of naloxone, was achieved with 69.4% (n = 145) of all organizations contacted. During the Implementation phase, partner organizations distributed 40,822 units of naloxone, with partner organizations distributing a mean of 281.5 units of naloxone (SD = 806.2). The mean number of units distributed per county was 5102.8 (SD = 3653.3; range = 1057 - 11,053) and the mean county level distribution rate was 8396.5 units per 100,000 residents (SD = 8103.1; range = 1709.5-25,296.3). Of the partner organizations that adopted the HCS-KY OEND program, 87.6% (n = 127) attended a sustainability meeting with an Implementation Facilitator and agreed to transition to the state-funded naloxone program.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate the feasibility of this "Hub with Many Spokes" model for scaling up OEND in communities highly affected by the opioid epidemic. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04111939. Registered 30 September 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04111939 .

Factors Associated with Non-Evidence-Based Overdose Responses among People Who Use Prescription Opioids Non-Medically in Rural Appalachia

Background: Opioid-related overdose deaths recently accelerated. In response, overdose education and naloxone distribution (OEND) has been implemented widely, though access remains sparse in rural Appalachia. Despite increasing OEND, risk factors for non-evidence-based overdose responses among the training-naïve remain unknown. Methods: We enrolled 169 adults who use prescription opioids non-medically and reside in rural West Virginia (August 2014-March 2015). Participants were interviewed about witnessing overdose (lifetime and prior-year), characteristics of the most recent overdose, responses to the overdose, and OEND acceptability. Logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with non-evidence-based responses to overdose. Results: Among the 73 participants who witnessed an opioid-related overdose, the majority (n = 53, 73%) reported any non-evidence-based responses. Participants were significantly more likely to report a non-evidence-based response when victims were unresponsive (OR = 3.36; 95% CI = 1.07, 10.58). Common evidence-based responses included staying with the victim until help arrived (n = 66, 90%) and calling 911 (n = 63, 86%), while the most common non-evidence-based responses were hitting or slapping the victim (n = 37, 51%) and rubbing the victim with ice or placing them in a cold shower or bath (n = 14, 19%). While most (n = 60, 82%) had never heard of OEND, the majority (n = 69, 95%) were willing to train, particularly those reporting non-evidence-based responses (n = 52, 98%). Conclusions: These findings underscore the need to expand access to OEND in rural communities and indicate OEND is acceptable to training-naïve individuals who use opioids in rural Appalachia. Given the "harm reduction deserts" in the region, approaches to expand OEND should be pursued.

Harm reduction implementation among HIV service organizations (HSOs) in the U.S. south: a policy context analysis and results from a survey of HSOs

BACKGROUND

HIV service organizations are integral to serving communities disproportionately impacted by the HIV and opioid epidemics in the U.S. South. Addressing these intersecting epidemics requires implementation of evidence-based approaches, such as harm reduction. However, little is known about the extent to which Southern HIV service organizations implement harm reduction. This manuscript examines: 1) the implementation context of harm reduction in the South, 2) Southern HIV service organization implementation of harm reduction, and 3) the impact of different contexts within the South on HIV service organization implementation of harm reduction.

METHODS

To examine implementation context, authors analyzed nation-wide harm reduction policy and drug-related mortality data. To examine HIV service organization implementation of harm reduction, authors performed frequency distributions on survey data (n = 207 organizations). Authors then constructed logistic regressions, using state mortality data and policy context as predictors, to determine what contextual factors predicted HIV service organization implementation of harm reduction.

RESULTS

Drug-related mortality data revealed an increased need for harm reduction, and harm reduction policy data revealed an increased political openness to harm reduction. Frequency distributions revealed that approximately half of the HIV service organizations surveyed reported that their organizations reflect a harm reduction orientation, and only 26% reported providing harm reduction services. Despite low utilization rates, HIV service organizations indicated a strong interest in harm reduction. Logistic regressions revealed that while increased mortality rates do not predict HIV service organization implementation of harm reduction, a harm reduction-friendly policy context does.

DISCUSSION

This study highlights how regions within a high-income country can face unique barriers to healthcare and therefore require a unique understanding of implementation context. Study findings indicate a rapidly changing implementation context where increased need meets increased political opportunity to implement harm reduction, however there is a lag in HIV service organization adoption of harm reduction. Financial resources, capacity building, and continued policy advocacy are required for increased HIV service organization adoption of harm reduction.