Search

Background and Aims: Not all people experiencing opioid dependence benefit from oral opioid agonist treatment. The aim of this study was to examine perceptions of (supervised) injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT) (described as 'an opioid similar to heroin self-injected at a clinic several times a day') among people who regularly use opioids and determine how common iOAT eligibility criteria accord with interest in iOAT., Design: Cross-sectional survey SETTING: Sydney, Melbourne and Hobart, Australia PARTICIPANTS: A total of 344 people (63% male) who use opioids regularly and had ever injected opioids, interviewed December 2017-March 2018. The mean age of participants was 41.5 years [standard deviation (SD) = 8.5]., Measurements: Primary outcome measures were interest in iOAT, factors associated with interest and the proportion of participants who would be eligible using common criteria from trials and guidelines. We examined willingness to travel for iOAT, medication preferences and perspectives on whom should receive iOAT., Findings: Overall, 53% of participants (n = 182) believed that iOAT would be a good treatment option for them. Participants who believed that iOAT was a good treatment option for them were more likely to be male [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10-2.82], have used heroin in the past month (aOR = 6.03, 95% CI = 2.86-12.71), currently regularly inject opioids (aOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.16-2.91) and have met ICD-10 criteria for opioid dependence (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.65-7.24). Those interested in iOAT had commenced more treatment episodes (aOR =1.06, 95% CI = 1.00-1.12). Among those interested in iOAT (n = 182), 26% (n = 48) met common eligibility criteria for iOAT., Conclusions: Interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment does not appear to be universal among people who regularly use opioids. Among study participants who expressed interest in injectable opioid agonist treatment, most did not meet common eligibility criteria., (© 2020 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

A pilot study was initiated in 2018 under the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling (GAPS) Network named GAPS-Megacities. This study included 20 megacities/major cities across the globe with the goal of better understanding and comparing ambient air levels of persistent organic pollutants and other chemicals of emerging concern, to which humans residing in large cities are exposed. The first results from the initial period of sampling are reported for 19 cities for several classes of flame retardants (FRs) including organophosphate esters (OPEs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and halogenated flame retardants (HFRs) including new flame retardants (NFRs), tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD). The two cities, New York (USA) and London (UK) stood out with ∼3.5 to 30 times higher total FR concentrations as compared to other major cities, with total concentrations of OPEs of 15,100 and 14,100 pg/m 3 , respectively. Atmospheric concentrations of OPEs significantly dominated the FR profile at all sites, with total concentrations in air that were 2-5 orders of magnitude higher compared to other targeted chemical classes. A moderately strong and significant correlation (r = 0.625, p < 0.001) was observed for Gross Domestic Product index of the cities with total OPEs levels. Although large differences in FR levels were observed between some cities, when averaged across the five United Nations regions, the FR classes were more evenly distributed and varied by less than a factor of five. Results for Toronto, which is a 'reference city' for this study, agreed well with a more in-depth investigation of the level of FRs over different seasons and across eight sites representing different urban source sectors (e.g. traffic, industrial, residential and background). Future sampling periods under this project will investigate trace metals and other contaminant classes, linkages to toxicology, non-targeted analysis, and eventually temporal trends. The study provides a unique urban platform for evaluating global exposome., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)