Evaluation of a fentanyl drug checking service for clients of a supervised injection facility, Vancouver, Canada

BackgroundBritish Columbia, Canada, is experiencing a public health emergency related to opioid overdoses driven by consumption of street drugs contaminated with illicitly manufactured fentanyl. This cross-sectional study evaluates a drug checking intervention for the clients of a supervised injection facility (SIF) in Vancouver.MethodsInsite is a facility offering supervised injection services in Vancouver’s Downtown East Side, a community with high levels of injection drug use and associated harms, including overdose deaths. During July 7, 2016, to June 21, 2017, Insite clients were offered an opportunity to check their drugs for fentanyl using a test strip designed to test urine for fentanyl. Results of the drug check were recorded along with information including the substance checked, whether the client intended to dispose of the drug or reduce the dose and whether they experienced an overdose. Logistic regression models were constructed to assess the associations between drug checking results and dose reduction or drug disposal. Crude odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported.ResultsAbout 1% of the visits to Insite during the study resulted in a drug check. Out of 1411 drug checks conducted by clients, 1121 (79.8%) were positive for fentanyl. Although most tests were conducted post-consumption, following a positive pre-consumption drug check, 36.3% (n = 142) of participants reported planning to reduce their drug dose while only 11.4% (n = 50) planned to dispose of their drug. While the odds of intended dose reduction among those with a positive drug check was significantly higher than those with a negative result (OR = 9.36; 95% CI 4.25–20.65), no association was observed between drug check results and intended drug disposal (OR = 1.60; 95% CI 0.79–3.26). Among all participants, intended dose reduction was associated with significantly lower odds of overdose (OR = 0.41; 95% CI 0.18–0.89).ConclusionsAlthough only a small proportion of visits resulted in a drug check, a high proportion (~ 80%) of the drugs checked were contaminated with fentanyl. Drug checking at harm reduction facilities such as SIFs might be a feasible intervention that could contribute to preventing overdoses in the context of the current overdose emergency.

[1]  F. Dubois-Arber,et al.  Supervised injection services: what has been demonstrated? A systematic literature review. , 2014, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[2]  A. Hess,et al.  Management. , 2020, Anesthesiology.

[3]  J. Lees,et al.  Subcutaneous fentanyl and sufentanil infusion substitution for morphine intolerance in cancer pain management , 1995, PAIN®.

[4]  Erin K. Gibson,et al.  Notes from the Field: Furanyl-Fentanyl Overdose Events Caused by Smoking Contaminated Crack Cocaine - British Columbia, Canada, July 15-18, 2016. , 2016, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[5]  S. Rourke,et al.  Willingness to use drug checking within future supervised injection services among people who inject drugs in a mid-sized Canadian city. , 2018, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[6]  Jeff Powell,et al.  An overview of forensic drug testing methods and their suitability for harm reduction point-of-care services , 2017, Harm Reduction Journal.

[7]  J. Rehm,et al.  Interventions to reduce harm associated with adolescent substance use , 2007, The Lancet.

[8]  Neil Boyd.  Lessons from INSITE, Vancouver's supervised injection facility: 2003–2012 , 2013 .

[9]  Peter Kreiner,et al.  The prescription opioid and heroin crisis: a public health approach to an epidemic of addiction. , 2015, Annual review of public health.

[10]  P. Esseiva,et al.  Drug residues in used syringes in Switzerland: A comparative study. , 2018, Drug testing and analysis.

[11]  T. Brunt,et al.  Monitoring new psychoactive substances (NPS) in The Netherlands: data from the drug market and the Poisons Information Centre. , 2015, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[12]  M. Schaub,et al.  Drug Checking: A prevention measure for a heterogeneous group with high consumption frequency and polydrug use - evaluation of zurich's drug checking services , 2011, Harm reduction journal.

[13]  J. Buxton,et al.  The Rise of Overdose Deaths Involving Fentanyl and the Value of Early Warning , 2015 .

[14]  John Halpin,et al.  Deaths Involving Fentanyl, Fentanyl Analogs, and U-47700 — 10 States, July–December 2016 , 2017, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[15]  Björn Johnson,et al.  Long-term self-treatment with methadone or buprenorphine as a response to barriers to opioid substitution treatment: the case of Sweden , 2015, Harm Reduction Journal.

[16]  Daniel Martins,et al.  Drug testing in Europe: monitoring results of the Trans European Drug Information (TEDI) project. , 2017, Drug testing and analysis.

[17]  Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden,et al.  Service , 2018, Wirtschaftsinformatik Manag..

[18]  E. Wood,et al.  Substance use patterns associated with recent exposure to fentanyl among people who inject drugs in Vancouver, Canada: A cross-sectional urine toxicology screening study. , 2018, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[19]  T. Brunt.  Drug checking as a harm reduction tool for recreational drug users: opportunities and challenges. , 2017 .

[20]  T. Kerr,et al.  A public health approach to opioid addiction in North America , 2018, The Lancet.

[21]  Jill Barr-Walker,et al.  Fentanyl, fentanyl analogs and novel synthetic opioids: A comprehensive review , 2017, Neuropharmacology.

[22]  J. Ramsey,et al.  Ecstasy pill testing: harm minimization gone too far? , 2001, Addiction.

[23]  Joji Suzuki,et al.  A review: Fentanyl and non-pharmaceutical fentanyls. , 2017, Drug and alcohol dependence.

[24]  J. Montaner,et al.  Attendance at supervised injecting facilities and use of detoxification services. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  S. Comer,et al.  No evidence of compensatory drug use risk behavior among heroin users after receiving take-home naloxone. , 2017, Addictive behaviors.

[26]  Julie Latimer,et al.  Risk of fentanyl overdose among clients of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre. , 2016, The International journal on drug policy.

[27]  T. Kerr,et al.  Public Health and Public Order Outcomes Associated with Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities: a Systematic Review , 2017, Current HIV/AIDS Reports.

[28]  M. Stein,et al.  Expected and actual fentanyl exposure among persons seeking opioid withdrawal management. , 2018, Journal of substance abuse treatment.

[29]  Jonathan J Deeks,et al.  Statistical algorithms in Review Manager , 2010 .

[30]  J. Buxton,et al.  Why the FUSS (Fentanyl Urine Screen Study)? A cross-sectional survey to characterize an emerging threat to people who use drugs in British Columbia, Canada , 2015, Harm Reduction Journal.