Search

Introduction: The emergence of fentanyl and its analogues have contributed to a drastic rise in overdose‐related mortality in recent years. The objective of this study was to determine the number of drug checking samples containing fentanyl and fentanyl analogues using both point of care and confirmatory drug checking technologies. Methods: Point‐of‐care drug checking data, using a combination of fentanyl immunoassay strips and Fourier‐transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), were collected at harm reduction sites in Vancouver and Surrey, British Columbia. Based on current recommendations from the British Columbia Centre on Substance Use Drug Checking Project, a subset of these samples was sent for confirmatory analysis using quantitative nuclear resonance spectroscopy, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry and/or liquid chromatography‐mass spectrometry. Results: A total of 22,916 samples were tested using FTIR and fentanyl immunoassay strips, of which 6125 (29%) were positive for fentanyl and/or fentanyl analogues. FTIR identified a fentanyl analogue in five samples (all carfentanil). Of the 1467 samples sent for confirmatory analysis, fentanyl was identified in 855 (58%) and fentanyl analogues in 85 (6%), including: carfentanil (n = 56), acetyl fentanyl (n = 15), furanyl fentanyl (n = 9) and cyclopropyl fentanyl (n = 5). Discussion and Conclusion: Our research found that FTIR does not consistently distinguish between fentanyl and its analogues at point of care and that highly sensitive confirmatory drug checking technologies are needed to identify fentanyl analogues. These findings underscore the limitations of current drug checking technologies and the importance of using both point of care and confirmatory drug checking initiatives for monitoring changes in the drug supply. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The proliferation of fentanyl and its analogs in illegal, unregulated drug markets remains a major driver of the overdose crisis in North America. Drug checking services have been implemented as a harm reduction strategy to address the crisis. However, little is known about their potential utility as a mechanism for monitoring population-level risk of overdose stemming from changing fentanyl concentration in unregulated drugs over time. Therefore, this study assessed the relationship between median fentanyl concentration in expected opioid drug checking samples and the death rate due to illicit drug toxicity over time in Vancouver, Canada. Monthly population-based rates of death due to illicit drug toxicity were drawn from provincial coroner records. Monthly median percent fentanyl concentration was calculated using a validated quantification model from point-of-care Fourier-transform infrared spectra among expected opioid samples that tested positive for fentanyl at community drug checking services. A time-series analysis using generalized additive modeling was conducted to examine the association between monthly median fentanyl concentration and monthly death rate due to illicit drug toxicity, controlling for calendar month. Analyses were conducted in 2021–2022. Between January 2019 and October 2020, 577 deaths due to illicit drug toxicity occurred in Vancouver, and the observed monthly rate ranged from 1.75 to 7.65 deaths per 100,000 population. A significant, positive association was observed between monthly median fentanyl concentration and monthly death rate due to illicit drug toxicity, adjusting for calendar month (chi-square=52.21, p <0.001). Findings suggest a role for point-of-care drug checking as a tool for monitoring evolving overdose risk at the population level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Point-of-care drug checking services, wherein individuals can check the content and purity of their drugs, have emerged as a public health intervention to address the fentanyl crisis; however, there have been no rigorous evaluations of the technologies against reference standard laboratory techniques.Methods: Two point-of-care technologies, fentanyl immunoassay strips and Fourier-Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, were implemented at two supervised injection sites in Vancouver, Canada. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and false negative rate for both testing methods as compared to a laboratory reference standard.Results: Between October 2017 and 2018, 331 samples were sent for confirmatory testing. Immunoassay strips had a sensitivity of 87.5% and specificity of 95.2%, with a false negative rate of 12.5%. FTIR spectroscopy had a sensitivity of 72.1% and specificity of 99.0%, with a false negative rate of 27.9%.Conclusion: As expected, while FTIR spectroscopy can quantify concentrations on a wide array of compounds, it can only do so above the detection limit. Using FTIR spectroscopy and immunoassay strips in combination has the potential to offset the limitations of each technology when used alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]