Search

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies.Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February–December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without anindividual prescription.Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97–5.01, P < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76–4.20, P < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99–0.99, P < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025–0.98, P < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant.Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order.

Aim: Illicitly manufactured fentanyl and its analogs are the primary drivers of opioid overdose deaths in the United States (U.S.). People who use drugs may be exposed to fentanyl or its analogs intentionally or unintentionally. This study sought to identify strategies used by rural people who use drugs to reduce harms associated with unintentional fentanyl exposure. Methods: This analysis focused on 349 semi-structured qualitative interviews across 10 states and 58 rural counties in the U.S conducted between 2018 and 2020. Interview guides were collaboratively standardized across sites and included questions about drug use history (including drugs currently used, frequency of use, mode of administration) and questions specific to fentanyl. Deductive coding was used to code all data, then inductive coding of overdose and fentanyl codes was conducted by an interdisciplinary writing team. Results: Participants described being concerned that fentanyl had saturated the drug market, in both stimulant and opioid supplies. Participants utilized strategies including: (1) avoiding drugs that were perceived to contain fentanyl, (2) buying drugs from trusted sources, (3) using fentanyl test strips, 4) using small doses and non-injection routes, (5) using with other people, (6) tasting, smelling, and looking at drugs before use, and (7) carrying and using naloxone. Most people who used drugs used a combination of these strategies as there was an overwhelming fear of fatal overdose. Conclusion: People who use drugs living in rural areas of the U.S. are aware that fentanyl is in their drug supply and use several strategies to prevent associated harms, including fatal overdose. Increasing access to harm reduction tools (e.g., fentanyl test strips, naloxone) and services (e.g., community drug checking, syringe services programs, overdose prevention centers) should be prioritized to address the polysubstance-involved overdose crisis. These efforts should target persons who use opioids and other drugs that may contain fentanyl. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The United States' (US) opioid overdose epidemic has evolved into a combined stimulant/opioid epidemic, a pattern driven in part by mitigating opioid overdose risk, variable substance availability, and personal preferences. This study aimed to investigate the association between self-reported substance preference (heroin or methamphetamine) and behavioral/health outcomes among individuals who used both heroin and methamphetamine in the rural US. Methods: The Rural Opioid Initiative is a consortium of 8 research cohorts from 10 states and 65 rural counties that recruited individuals reporting past 30-day injection of any substance or opioid substance use by any route from 1/2018 to 3/2020. Analyses were restricted to participants ⩾18 years, who self-reported either heroin or methamphetamine as their preferred substance and past 30-day use of both heroin and methamphetamine. We examined cross-sectional associations between preferred substance (heroin versus methamphetamine) and behavioral and health outcomes using random effects meta-analysis with adjusted regression models. Results: Among 1239 participants, 61% (n = 752) reported heroin as their preferred substance. Adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, methamphetamine preference was associated with lower prevalence ratios for current naloxone possession (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.68; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] = 0.59-0.78; P -value ⩽.001), of ever being told they had the hepatitis C virus (HCV; aPR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61-0.85; P -value ⩽.001) and a personal history of overdose (aPR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.73-0.90; P -value ⩽.001). Conclusion: In our study analyzing associations between preferred substance and various behavioral and health outcomes amongst people who use both heroin and methamphetamine, a majority of participants preferred heroin. Methamphetamine preference was associated with lower prevalence of naloxone possession, ever being told they had HCV, and prior history of an overdose. This study underscores the need for targeted harm reduction services for people who prefer methamphetamine in rural areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issues: To date, there has been no synthesis of research addressing the scale and nuances of the opioid epidemic in racial/ethnic minority populations in the United States that considers the independent and joint impacts of dynamics such as structural disadvantage, provider bias, health literacy, cultural norms and various other risk factors. Approach: Using the "risk environment" framework, we conducted a scoping review on PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar of peer‐reviewed literature and governmental reports published between January 2000 and February 2024 on the nature and scale of opioid use, opioid prescribing patterns, and fatal overdoses among racial/ethnic minorities in the United States, while also examining macro, meso and individual‐level risk factors. Key Findings: Results from this review illuminate a growing, but fragmented, literature lacking standardisation in racial/ethnic classification and case reporting, specifically in regards to Indigenous and Asian subpopulations. This literature broadly illustrates racial/ethnic minorities' increasing nonmedical use of opioids, heightened burdens of fatal overdoses, specifically in relation to polydrug use and synthetic opioids, with notable elevations among Black/Latino subgroups, in addition uneven opioid prescribing patterns. Moreover, the literature implicates a variety of unique risk environments corresponding to dynamics such as residential segregation, provider bias, overpolicing, acculturative stress, patient distrust, and limited access to mental health care services and drug treatment resources, including medications for opioid use disorder. Implications: There has been a lack of rigorous, targeted study on racial/ethnic minorities who use opioids, but evidence highlights burgeoning increases in usage, especially polydrug/synthetic opioid use, and disparities in prescriptions and fatal overdose risk‐phenomena tied to multi‐level forms of entrenched disenfranchisement. Conclusion: There is a need for further research on the complex, overlapping risk environments of racial/ethnic minorities who use opioids, including deeper inclusion of Indigenous and Asian individuals, and efforts to generate greater methodological synergies in population classification and reporting guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People who nonmedically use drugs (PWUD) face intricate social issues that suppress self-actualization, communal integration, and overall health and wellness. "Strengths-based" approaches, an under-used pedagogy and practice in addiction medicine, underscore the significance of identifying and recognizing the inherent and acquired skills, attributes, and capacities of PWUD. A strengths-based approach engenders client affirmation and improves their capacity to reduce drug use-related harms by leveraging existing capabilities. Exploring this paradigm, we conducted and analyzed interviews with 46 PWUD who were clients at syringe services programs in New York City and rural southern Illinois, two areas with elevated rates of opioid-related morbidity and mortality, to assess respondents' perceived strengths. We located two primary thematic modalities in which strengths-based ethos is expressed: individuals (1) being and advocate and resource for harm reduction knowledge and practices and (2) engaging in acts of continuous self-actualization. These dynamics demonstrate PWUD strengths populating and manifesting in complex ways that both affirm and challenge humanist and biomedical notions of individual agency, as PWUD refract enacted, anticipated, and perceived stigmas. In conclusion, programs that blend evidence-based, systems-level interventions on drug use stigma and disenfranchisement with meso and micro-level strengths-based interventions that affirm and leverage personal identity, decision-making capacity, and endemic knowledge may help disrupt health promotion cleavages among PWUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The United States' (US) opioid overdose epidemic has evolved into a combined stimulant/opioid epidemic, a pattern driven in part by mitigating opioid overdose risk, variable substance availability, and personal preferences. This study aimed to investigate the association between self-reported substance preference (heroin or methamphetamine) and behavioral/health outcomes among individuals who used both heroin and methamphetamine in the rural US., Methods: The Rural Opioid Initiative is a consortium of 8 research cohorts from 10 states and 65 rural counties that recruited individuals reporting past 30-day injection of any substance or opioid substance use by any route from 1/2018 to 3/2020. Analyses were restricted to participants ⩾18 years, who self-reported either heroin or methamphetamine as their preferred substance and past 30-day use of both heroin and methamphetamine. We examined cross-sectional associations between preferred substance (heroin versus methamphetamine) and behavioral and health outcomes using random effects meta-analysis with adjusted regression models., Results: Among 1239 participants, 61% (n = 752) reported heroin as their preferred substance. Adjusting for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, methamphetamine preference was associated with lower prevalence ratios for current naloxone possession (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 0.68; 95% Confidence Interval [95% CI] = 0.59-0.78; P -value ⩽ .001), of ever being told they had the hepatitis C virus (HCV; aPR = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.61-0.85; P -value ⩽ .001) and a personal history of overdose (aPR = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.73-0.90; P -value ⩽ .001)., Conclusion: In our study analyzing associations between preferred substance and various behavioral and health outcomes amongst people who use both heroin and methamphetamine, a majority of participants preferred heroin. Methamphetamine preference was associated with lower prevalence of naloxone possession, ever being told they had HCV, and prior history of an overdose. This study underscores the need for targeted harm reduction services for people who prefer methamphetamine in rural areas., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Introduction: To expand access to naloxone, the state of Illinois implemented a standing order allowing registered pharmacies to dispense the drug without an individual prescription. To participate under the standing order, pharmacies were required to opt in through a formal registration process. In our study we aimed to evaluate the availability and price of naloxone at registered pharmacies., Methods: This was a prospective, de-identified, cross-sectional telephone survey. Trained interviewers posed as potential customers and used a standardized script to determine the availability of naloxone between February-December, 2019. The primary outcome was defined as a pharmacy indicating it carried naloxone, currently had naloxone in stock, and was able to dispense it without an individual prescription., Results: Of 948 registered pharmacies, 886 (93.5%) were successfully contacted. Of those, 792 (83.4%) carried naloxone, 659 (74.4%) had naloxone in stock, and 472 (53.3%) allowed purchase without a prescription. Naloxone nasal spray (86.4%) was the formulation most commonly stocked. Chain pharmacies were more likely to carry naloxone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-5.01, P  < 0.01) and have naloxone in stock (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.76-4.20, P  < 0.01), but no more likely to dispense it without a prescription. Pharmacies in higher population areas (aOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-0.99, P  < 0.05) and rural areas adjacent to metropolitan areas (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 025-0.98, P  < 0.05) were less likely to have naloxone available without a prescription. Associations of naloxone availability based on other urbanicity designations, overdose count, and overdose rate were not significant., Conclusion: Among pharmacies in Illinois that formally registered to dispense naloxone without a prescription, the availability of naloxone remains limited. Additional interventions may be needed to maximize the potential impact of a statewide standing order., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.