Attitudes about prescribing take-home naloxone to injection drug users for the management of heroin overdose: a survey of street-recruited injectors in the San Francisco Bay Area

Naloxone, an injectable opiate antagonist, can immediately reverse an opiate overdose and prevent overdose death. We sought to determine injection drug users’ (IDUs) attitudes about being prescribed take-home naloxone. During November 1999 to February 2000, we surveyed 82 street-recruited IDUs from the San Francisco Bay Area of California who had experienced one or more heroin overdose events. We used a questiomaire that included structured and open-ended questions. Most respondents (89%) had witnessed an overdose, and 90% reported initially attempting lay remedies in an effort to help companions survive. Only 51% reported soliciting emergency assistance (calling 911) for the last witnessed overdose, with most hesitating due to fear of police involvement. Of IDUs surveyed, 87% were strongly in favor of participating in an overdose management training program to receive take-home naloxone and training in resuscitation techniques. Nevertheless, respontdents expressed a variety of concerning attitudes. If provided naloxone, 35% predicted that they might feel comfortable using greater amounts of heroin, 62% might be less inclined to call 911 for an overdose, 30% might leave an overdose victim after naloxone resuscitation, and 46% might not be able to dissuade the victim from using heroin again to alleviate with drawal symptoms induced by naloxone. Prescribing take-home naloxone to IDUs with training in its use and in resuscitation techniques may represent a life-saving, peer-based adjunct to accessing emergency services. Nevertheless, strategies for overcoming potential risks associated with the use of take-home naloxone would need to be emphasized in an overdose management training program.     

Naloxone distribution and cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for injection drug users to prevent heroin overdose death: A pilot intervention study

Fatal heroin overdose has become a leading cause of death among injection drug users (IDUs). Several recent feasibility studies have concluded that naloxone distribution programs for heroin injectors should be implemented to decrease heroin overdose deaths, but there have been no prospective trials of such programs in North America. This pilot study was undertaken to investigate the safety and feasibility of training injection drug using partners to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and administer naloxone in the event of heroin overdose. During May and June 2001, 24 IDUs (12 pairs of injection partners) were recruited from street settings in San Francisco. Participants took part in 8-hour training in heroin overdose prevention, CPR, and the use of naloxone. Following the intervention, participants were prospectively followed for 6 months to determine the number and outcomes of witnessed heroin overdoses, outcomes of participant interventions, and changes in participants’ knowledge of overdose and drug use behavior. Study participants witnessed 20 heroin overdose events during 6 months follow-up. They performed CPR in 16 (80%) events, administered naloxone in 15 (75%) and did one or the other in 19 (95%). All overdose victims survived. Knowledge about heroin overdose management increased, whereas heroin use decreased. IDUs can be trained to respond to heroin overdose emergencies by performing CPR and administering naloxone. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this peer intervention to prevent fatal heroin overdose.     

An observational prospective cohort study of naloxone use at witnessed overdoses,Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan, Ukraine

ObjectiveTo determine whether participation in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Stop Overdose Safely (S-O-S) take-home naloxone training project in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine resulted in naloxone use at witnessed opioid overdoses.MethodsAn observational prospective cohort study was performed by recruiting participants in the implementation of the S-O-S project, which was developed as part of the broader S-O-S initiative. Training included instruction on overdose responses and naloxone use. Study participants were followed for 6 months after completing training. The primary study outcome was participants’ naloxone use at witnessed overdoses, reported at follow-up.FindingsBetween 400 and 417 S-O-S project participants were recruited in each country. Overall, 84% (1388/1646) of participants were interviewed at 6-month follow-up. The percentage who reported witnessing an overdose between baseline and follow-up was 20% (71/356) in Tajikistan, 33% (113/349) in Kyrgyzstan, 37% (125/342) in Ukraine and 50% (170/341) in Kazakhstan. The percentage who reported using naloxone at their most recently witnessed overdose was 82% (103/125) in Ukraine, 89% (152/170) in Kazakhstan, 89% (101/113) in Kyrgyzstan and 100% (71/71) in Tajikistan.ConclusionImplementation of the UNODC–WHO S-O-S training project in four low- to middle-income countries resulted in the reported use of take-home naloxone at around 90% of witnessed opioid overdoses. The percentage varied between countries but was generally higher than found in previous studies. Take-home naloxone is particularly important in countries where emergency medical responses to opioid overdoses may be limited.     

Injection Drug Users Trained by Overdose Prevention Programs: Responses to Witnessed Overdoses

In response to the growing public health problem of drug overdose, community-based organizations have initiated overdose prevention programs (OPPs), which distribute naloxone, an opioid antagonist, and teach overdose response techniques. Injection drug users (IDUs) have been targeted for this intervention due to their high risk for drug overdose. Limited research attention has focused on factors that may inhibit or prevent IDUs who have been trained by OPPs to undertake recommended response techniques when responding to a drug overdose. IDUs (n = 30) trained by two OPPs in Los Angeles were interviewed in 2010–2011 about responses to their most recently witnessed drug overdose using an instrument containing both open and closed-ended questions. Among the 30 witnessed overdose events, the victim recovered in 29 cases while the outcome was unknown in one case. Participants responded to overdoses using a variety of techniques taught by OPPs. Injecting the victim with naloxone was the most commonly recommended response while other recommended responses included stimulating the victim with knuckles, calling 911, and giving rescue breathing. Barriers preventing participants from employing recommended response techniques in certain circumstances included prior successes using folk remedies to revive a victim, concerns over attracting police to the scene, and issues surrounding access to or use of naloxone. Practical solutions, such as developing booster sessions to augment OPPs, are encouraged to increase the likelihood that trained participants respond to a drug overdose with the full range of recommended techniques.     

Response to overdose among injection drug users

BACKGROUND: Drug overdose is a leading cause of mortality among illicit drug users. This study characterizes responses to overdose among injection drug users (IDUs) in Baltimore, Maryland, and identifies factors associated with medically inappropriate response. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 924 IDUs in an ongoing cohort study between August 2003 and September 2004. Self-reported experiences of witnessing overdose were obtained by structured interview. Multiple logistic regression identified associations between overdose information sources and medically inappropriate responses. RESULTS: Most IDUs (69.7%) reported ever witnessing an overdose. The most common responses were walking the victim around (70.8%), shaking them (64.9%), and inflicting pain (62.6%). One in four (25.8%) injected the victim with salt water. Two thirds (63.4%) called 911, but more than half delayed the call by 5 or more minutes. The most common reason cited for delaying or foregoing the 911 call was the belief that they could revive the victim themselves, followed by fear of police involvement. Most IDUs had received information on how to prevent or respond to an overdose, but most (73.2%) received this information from friends or other drug users. IDUs who got overdose information solely from lay sources were less likely to call 911 (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.94) and more likely to inject the victim with salt water (AOR = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.36-3.13) than IDUs who received no information at all. Injection drug users who received information from medical and social services providers only were less likely to delay the 911 call (AOR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.22-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate overdose responses are widespread among IDUs in Baltimore. Interventions that provide overdose education and reduce police response to overdose events may improve witness response and reduce mortality associated with drug overdose.     

Preventing opiate overdose deaths: examining objections to take-home naloxone

Opiate overdose persists as a major public health problem, contributing to significant morbidity and mortality among opiate users globally. Opiate overdose can be reversed by the timely administration of naloxone. Programs that distribute naloxone to opiate users and their acquaintances have been successfully implemented in a number of cities around the world and have shown that non-medical personnel are able to administer naloxone to reverse opiate overdoses and save lives. Objections to distributing naloxone to non-medical personnel persist despite a lack of scientific evidence. Here we respond to some common objections to naloxone distribution and their implications.     

Cost-Effectiveness of Take-Home Naloxone for the Prevention of Overdose Fatalities among Heroin Users in the United Kingdom

Background: Heroin overdose is a major cause of premature death. Naloxone is an opioid antagonist that is effective for the reversal of heroin overdose in emergency situations and can be used by nonmedical responders. Objective: Our aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of distributing naloxone to adults at risk of heroin overdose for use by nonmedical responders compared with no naloxone distribution in a European healthcare setting (United Kingdom). Methods: A Markov model with an integrated decision tree was developed based on an existing model, using UK data where available. We evaluated an intramuscular naloxone distribution reaching 30% of heroin users. Costs and effects were evaluated over a lifetime and discounted at 3.5%. The results were assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: The model estimated that distribution of intramuscular naloxone, would decrease overdose deaths by around 6.6%. In a population of 200,000 heroin users this equates to the prevention of 2,500 premature deaths at an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of £899. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. Conclusions: Our evaluation suggests that the distribution of take-home naloxone decreased overdose deaths by around 6.6% and was cost-effective with an incremental cost per QALY gained well below a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold set by UK decision-makers. The model code has been made available to aid future research. Further study is warranted on the impact of different formulations of naloxone on cost-effectiveness and the impact take-home naloxone has on the wider society.     

Attitudes of Australian Heroin Users to Peer Distribution of Naloxone for Heroin Overdose: Perspectives on Intranasal Administration

Naloxone distribution to injecting drug users (IDUs) for peer administration is a suggested strategy to prevent fatal heroin overdose. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes of IDUs to administration of naloxone to others after heroin overdose, and preferences for method of administration. A sample of 99 IDUs (median age 35 years, 72% male) recruited from needle and syringe programs in Melbourne were administered a questionnaire. Data collected included demographics, attitudes to naloxone distribution, and preferences for method of administration. The primary study outcomes were attitudes of IDUs to use of naloxone for peer administration (categorized on a five-point scale ranging from “very good idea” to “very bad idea”) and preferred mode of administration (intravenous, intramuscular, and intranasal). The majority of the sample reported positive attitudes toward naloxone distribution (good to very good idea: 89%) and 92% said they were willing to participate in a related training program. Some participants raised concerns about peer administration including the competence of IDUs to administer naloxone in an emergency, victim response on wakening and legal implications. Most (74%) preferred intranasal administration in comparison to other administration methods (21%). There was no association with age, sex, or heroin practice. There appears to be strong support among Australian IDU for naloxone distribution to peers. Intranasal spray is the preferred route of administration. Kerr and Kelly are with the Joseph Epstein Centre for Emergency Medicine Research, Sunshine Hospital, St. Albans, Victoria, Australia; Kerr and Kelly are with the The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Dietze is with the Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Dietze and Jolley are with the Monash Institute of Health Services Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.     

Neighborhood-Level and Spatial Characteristics Associated with Lay Naloxone Reversal Events and Opioid Overdose Deaths

There were over 23,000 opioid overdose deaths in the USA in 2013, and opioid-related mortality is increasing. Increased access to naloxone, particularly through community-based lay naloxone distribution, is a widely supported strategy to reduce opioid overdose mortality; however, little is known about the ecological and spatial patterns of the distribution and utilization of lay naloxone. This study aims to investigate the neighborhood-level correlates and spatial relationships of lay naloxone distribution and utilization and opioid overdose deaths. We determined the locations of lay naloxone distribution sites and the number of unintentional opioid overdose deaths and reported reversal events in San Francisco census tracts (n = 195) from 2010 to 2012. We used Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare census tract characteristics across tracts adjacent and not adjacent to distribution sites and multivariable negative binomial regression models to assess the association between census tract characteristics, including distance to the nearest site, and counts of opioid overdose deaths and naloxone reversal events. Three hundred forty-two opioid overdose deaths and 316 overdose reversals with valid location data were included in our analysis. Census tracts including or adjacent to a distribution site had higher income inequality, lower percentage black or African American residents, more drug arrests, higher population density, more overdose deaths, and more reversal events (all p < 0.05). In multivariable analysis, greater distance to the nearest distribution site (up to a distance of 4000 m) was associated with a lower count of Naloxone reversals [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.51 per 500 m increase, 95% CI 0.39–0.67, p < 0.001] but was not significantly associated with opioid overdose deaths. These findings affirm that locating lay naloxone distribution sites in areas with high levels of substance use and overdose risk facilitates reversals of opioid overdoses in those immediate areas but suggests that alternative delivery methods may be necessary to reach individuals in other areas with less concentrated risk.     

Take-Home Emergency Naloxone to Prevent Heroin Overdose Deaths after Prison Release: Rationale and Practicalities for the N-ALIVE Randomized Trial

The naloxone investigation (N-ALIVE) randomized trial commenced in the UK in May 2012, with the preliminary phase involving 5,600 prisoners on release. The trial is investigating whether heroin overdose deaths post-prison release can be prevented by prior provision of a take-home emergency supply of naloxone. Heroin contributes disproportionately to drug deaths through opiate-induced respiratory depression. Take-home emergency naloxone is a novel preventive measure for which there have been encouraging preliminary reports from community schemes. Overdoses are usually witnessed, and drug users themselves and also family members are a vast intervention workforce who are willing to intervene, but whose responses are currently often inefficient or wrong. Approximately 10% of provided emergency naloxone is thought to be used in subsequent emergency resuscitation but, as yet, there have been no definitive studies. The period following release from prison is a time of extraordinarily high mortality, with heroin overdose deaths increased more than sevenfold in the first fortnight after release. Of prisoners with a previous history of heroin injecting who are released from prison, 1 in 200 will die of a heroin overdose within the first 4 weeks. There are major scientific and logistical challenges to assessing the impact of take-home naloxone. Even in recently released prisoners, heroin overdose death is a relatively rare event: hence, large numbers of prisoners need to enter the trial to assess whether take-home naloxone significantly reduces the overdose death rate. The commencement of pilot phase of the N-ALIVE trial is a significant step forward, with prisoners being randomly assigned either to treatment-as-usual or to treatment-as-usual plus a supply of take-home emergency naloxone. The subsequent full N-ALIVE trial (contingent on a successful pilot) will involve 56,000 prisoners on release, and will give a definitive conclusion on lives saved in real-world application. Advocates call for implementation, while naysayers raise concerns. The issue does not need more public debate; it needs good science.     

Characteristics of persons who inject drugs and who witness opioid overdoses in Vietnam: a cross-sectional analysis to inform future overdose prevention programs

Background

Persons who use opioids have a high risk of overdose and associated mortality. In Vietnam, little is known about the characteristics of this population and the persons who are witness to those overdoses. One approach to combatting fatal overdose has been the use of peer interventions in which a friend or injecting partner administers overdose reversal medication, but availability in Vietnam of these medications is limited to pilot programs with aims to expand in the future (Le Minh and V.F. Go, Personal Communication, 2016). The primary objective of this paper is to explore the characteristics associated with witnessing three or more overdoses in a lifetime.

Methods

This cross-sectional analysis used baseline data from a four-arm randomized control trial conducted in Thai Nguyen, Vietnam, known as the Prevention for Positives project. One thousand six hundred seventy-three PWID were included in the analysis. We conducted bivariable and multivariable logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with witnessing three or more overdoses in a lifetime. Characteristics explored included education, employment, marital status, risky drug use behaviors, locations for accessing syringes, recent overdose, history of incarceration, drug treatment, and having slept outside in the past 3 months.

Results

Seventy-two percent (n = 1203) of participants had witnessed at least one overdose in their lifetime, and 46% had witnessed three or more overdoses (n = 765). In the multivariable model, having less than secondary education (AOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.57, 0.86), having slept outside in the past 3 months (AOR 1.77; 95% CI 1.31, 2.40), having a history of incarceration (AOR 1.33; 95% CI 1.07, 1.65), having a history of drug treatment (AOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.12, 1.77), experiencing a recent non-fatal overdose (AOR 3.84; 95% CI 2.36, 6.25), injecting drugs daily (AOR 1.79; 95% CI 1.45, 2.20), receptive needle sharing (AOR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04, 1.63), and number of years injecting (AOR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02, 1.07) were significantly associated with witnessing three or more overdoses.

Conclusions

Targeted interventions are needed to train persons witnessing an overdose to administer overdose-reversal medication. This includes targeting persons prior to release from prisons, drug treatment centers, and those accessing syringe exchange programs. Additional research should assess the burden of witnessing an overdose as well as locations for medication distribution. Assessments of the training capacity and needs for implementing these programs among drug using peers in Vietnam are of the utmost importance.

     

云南省部分地区注射吸毒者海洛因过量情况及影响因素分析

目的 了解云南省部分地区注射吸毒者(IDU)海洛因过量情况及其影响因素。方法 采用横断面调查的方法,于2015年7-8月对云南省红河州和德宏州的4个美沙酮维持治疗(MMT)门诊和2个州强制戒毒所的IDU进行问卷调查,内容包括社会人口学特征、毒品使用情况、过去1年海洛因过量情况以及最近1次海洛因过量情况等。对过去1年发生过海洛因过量的相关因素进行logistic回归分析。结果 共340名IDU符合入选标准,男性占85.3%(290/340),年龄为(37.7±8.7)岁,汉族占65.6%(223/340),HIV阳性检出率为49.4%(167/338),过去6个月使用过新型毒品占22.6%(77/340)。自吸毒以来,曾有过海洛因过量的比例为41.8%(142/340),海洛因过量次数M=3次。在过去1年中海洛因过量发生率为15.6%(53/340),M=1次。发生海洛因过量的年龄为(36.7±8.4)岁,吸毒年限为(16.5±7.6)年,男性占83.0%(44/53)。发生海洛因过量的主要原因为增加海洛因用量(26.4%,14/53)和多药滥用(28.3%,15/53)。非条件logistic回归模型分析显示:过去1年参加过MMT(OR=0.534,95%CI:0.290~0.980)可降低海洛因过量的风险,而过去6个月共用针具(OR=2.735,95%CI:1.383~5.407)和刚出戒毒所不满1年(OR=2.881,95%CI:1.226~6.767)会增加海洛因过量的风险。结论 云南省IDU过去1年海洛因过量发生率较高。需要持续促进该地IDU参加MMT并加强预防和应对吸毒过量宣传教育,特别是对戒毒所吸毒人员出所前的宣传教育,同时应建立针对吸毒人员的戒毒所与MMT门诊转介机制。     

The concepts of risk and prevention from the perspective of injecting drug users

This paper provides an exploratory analysis, using a qualitative approach, to perceptions by injecting drug users (IDUs) on: (a) risks associated with injecting practices; (b) risks of HIV/AIDS; and (c) prevention of HIV/AIDS. The study was conducted in five harm reduction programs in Brazil (the AjUDE-Brasil Project). Forty semi-structured interviews were carried out. The study focuses on the concept of "risk". IDUs were mainly concerned over becoming ill and exposure to overdose and violence. IDUs dealt with individual problems in very specific ways in order to minimize them. They admitted that they were well informed about HIV/AIDS but lacked knowledge on reinfection and other bloodborne diseases. IDUs intended to follow guidelines established by health campaigns, but their addiction usually made it difficult. IDUs also suggested alternative harm reduction strategies and displayed a peculiar reading of concepts concerning sharing their injecting paraphernalia.     

Do Supervised Injecting Facilities Attract Higher-Risk Injection Drug Users?

BACKGROUND: In Western Europe and elsewhere, medically supervised safer injection facilities (SIFs) are increasingly being implemented for the prevention of health- and community-related harms among injection drug users (IDUs), although few evaluations have been conducted, and there have been questions regarding SIFs' ability to attract high-risk IDUs. We examined whether North America's first SIF was attracting IDUs who were at greatest risk of overdose and blood-borne disease infection. METHODS: We examined data from a community-recruited cohort study of IDUs. The prevalence of SIF use was determined based on questionnaire data obtained after the SIF's opening, and we determined predictors of initiating future SIF use based on behavioral information obtained from questionnaire data obtained before the SIF's opening. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare characteristics of IDUs who did and did not subsequently initiate SIF use. RESULTS: Overall, 400 active injection drug users returned for follow-up between December 1, 2003 and May 1, 2004, among whom 178 (45%) reported ever using the SIF. When we examined behavioral data collected before the SIF's opening, those who initiated SIF use were more likely to be aged <30 years (odds ratio [OR]=1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.0-2.7], p=0.04); public injection drug users (OR=2.6, 95% CI=1.7-3.9, p<0.001); homeless or residing in unstable housing (OR=1.7, 95% CI=1.2-2.7, p=0.008); daily heroin users (OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.3-3.2, p=0.001); daily cocaine users (OR=1.6, 95% CI=1.1-2.5, p=0.025); and those who had recently had a nonfatal overdose (OR=2.7, 95% CI=1.2-6.1, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that the SIF attracted IDUs who have been shown to be at elevated risk of blood-borne disease infection and overdose, and IDUs who were contributing to the public drug use problem and unsafe syringe disposal problems stemming from public injection drug use.