Declining trends in the rates of assisted injecting: a prospective cohort study

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.

Women in the 2019 hepatitis C cascade of care: findings from the British Columbia Hepatitis Testers cohort study

BACKGROUND

Women living with hepatitis C virus (HCV) are rarely addressed in research and may be overrepresented within key populations requiring additional support to access HCV care and treatment. We constructed the HCV care cascade among people diagnosed with HCV in British Columbia, Canada, as of 2019 to compare progress in care and treatment and to assess sex/gender gaps in HCV treatment access.

METHODS

The BC Hepatitis Testers Cohort includes 1.7 million people who tested for HCV, HIV, reported cases of hepatitis B, and active tuberculosis in BC from 2000 to 2019. Test results were linked to medical visits, hospitalizations, cancers, prescription drugs, and mortality data. Six HCV care cascade stages were identified: (1) antibody diagnosed; (2) RNA tested; (3) RNA positive; (4) genotyped; (5) initiated treatment; and (6) achieved sustained virologic response (SVR). HCV care cascade results were assessed for women, and an 'inverse' cascade was created to assess gaps, including not being RNA tested, genotyped, or treatment initiated, stratified by sex.

RESULTS

In 2019, 52,638 people with known sex were anti-HCV positive in BC; 37% (19,522) were women. Confirmatory RNA tests were received by 86% (16,797/19,522) of anti-HCV positive women and 83% (27,353/33,116) of men. Among people who had been genotyped, 68% (6756/10,008) of women and 67% (12,640/18,828) of men initiated treatment, with 94% (5023/5364) of women and 92% (9147/9897) of men achieving SVR. Among the 3252 women and 6188 men not yet treated, higher proportions of women compared to men were born after 1975 (30% vs. 21%), had a mental health diagnosis (42% vs. 34%) and had used injection drugs (50% vs. 45%). Among 1619 women and 2780 men who had used injection drugs and were not yet treated, higher proportions of women than men used stimulants (64% vs. 57%), and opiates (67% vs. 60%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women and men appear to be equally engaged into the HCV care cascade; however, women with concurrent social and health conditions are being left behind. Treatment access may be improved with approaches that meet the needs of younger women, those with mental health diagnoses, and women who use drugs.

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.

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.

Drug consumption rooms: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies

ISSUES

Drug consumptions rooms (DCR) and supervised injecting facilities (SIF) are expanding internationally. Previous reviews have not systematically addressed evaluation methodologies.

APPROACH

Results from systematic searches of scientific databases in English until June 2017 were coded for paper type, country and year of publication. For evaluation papers, study outcome, methodology/study design and main indicators of DCR/SIF 'exposure' were recorded.

KEY FINDINGS

Two hundred and nineteen eligible peer-reviewed papers were published since 1999: the majority from Canada (n = 117 papers), Europe (n = 36) and Australia (n = 32). Fifty-six papers reported evaluation outcomes. Ecological study designs (n = 10) were used to assess the impact on overdose, public nuisance and crime; modelling techniques (n = 6) estimated impact on blood-borne diseases, overdose deaths and costs. Papers using individual-level data included four prospective cohorts (n = 28), cross-sectional surveys (n = 7) and service records (n = 5). Individual-level data were used to assess safer injecting practice, uptake into health and social services and all the other above outcomes except for impact on crime and costs. Four different indicators of DCR/SIF attendance were used to measure service 'exposure'.

IMPLICATIONS

Research around DCRs/SIFs has used ecological, modelling, cross-sectional and cohort study designs. Further research could involve systematic inclusion of a control group of people who are eligible but do not access SIFs, validation of self-reported proportion of injections at SIFs or a stepped-wedge or a cluster trial comparing localities.

CONCLUSIONS

Methodologies appropriate for DCR/SIF evaluation have been established and can be readily replicated from the existing literature. Research on operational aspects, implementation and transferability is also warranted.

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

BACKGROUND

Peer-to-peer injection (either providing or receiving an injection to/from a person who injects drugs [PWID]) is common (19%-50%) among PWID. Most studies of peer-to-peer injection have focused on receiving injection assistance, with fewer examining providing injection assistance and none considering characteristics of PWID who do both. We examined characteristics of PWID by peer-to-peer injection categories (receiving, providing, both, and neither) and determined if these behaviors were associated with receptive and distributive syringe sharing.

METHODS

Los Angeles and San Francisco PWID (N = 777) were recruited using targeted sampling methods and interviewed during 2011-2013. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine characteristics associated with peer-to-peer injection categories and logistic regression was used to examine if peer-to-peer categories were independently associated with distributive and receptive syringe sharing.

RESULTS

Recent peer-to-peer injection was reported by 42% of PWID (18% provider; 14% recipient; 10% both). In multinomial regression analysis, PWID reporting any peer-to-peer injection were more likely to inject with others than those who did neither. Injection providers and those who did both were associated with more frequent injection, illegal income source, and methamphetamine injection while injection recipients were associated with fewer years of injection. Injection providers were younger, had more years of injecting, and were more likely to inject heroin than PWID who did neither. In multivariate analyses, we found that providers and PWID who did both were significantly more likely to report receptive and distributive syringe sharing than PWID who did neither.

CONCLUSION

Peer-to-peer injection is associated with HIV/HCV risk. Current prevention strategies may not sufficiently address these behaviors. Modification of existing interventions and development of new interventions to better respond to peer-to-peer injection is urgently needed.