Harm Reduction Journal最新文献

In this article the authors offer their perspective on the changes in the Dutch harm reduction field. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the Netherlands emerged as a leader in harm reduction services, driven by grassroots movements like the Medisch-sociale Dienst Heroïne Gebruikers (MDHG) (Medisch-sociale Dienst Heroïne Gebruikers (MDHG) translates to Medical-Social Service Heroin Users in English) in Amsterdam and Junkiebond in Rotterdam. These organisations advocated for health-centred policies, initiated needle exchange programmes, and created safe consumption spaces. Their efforts led to significant public health improvements and policy shifts towards harm reduction, reducing HIV and hepatitis rates among people who use drugs. By the 1980s, harm reduction became institutionalised within local health and social care systems, leading to notable declines in drug-related harm and crime. However, from the 2000s, a shift towards security and crime prevention emerged, influenced by socio-political changes. Increased criminal justice measures and budget cuts for harm reduction services strained the system, making it harder to address emerging drug trends and the complex needs of people who use drugs. Despite challenges, there is renewed momentum for reform, particularly at the local level, advocating for the responsible regulation of psychoactive substances. Amsterdam Mayor Femke Halsema's 2024 conference on drug regulation exemplifies this shift, calling for policies that address prohibition failures and centre harm reduction. International bodies like the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights support this approach, emphasising a health and rights-based framework. As the Netherlands navigates these evolving dynamics, there is a pressing need to reinvest in harm reduction infrastructure, ensuring it meets diverse community needs and reaffirms its foundational rights-affirming principles.

Background: Despite the widespread use of the phrase "harm reduction" and the proliferation of programs based on its principles during the current opioid epidemic, what it means in practice is not universally agreed upon. Harm reduction strategies have expanded from syringe and needle exchange programs that emerged in the mid-1980s primarily in response to the HIV epidemic, to include medication for opioid use disorder, supervised consumption rooms, naloxone distribution, and drug checking technologies such as fentanyl test strips. Harm reduction can often be in tension with abstinence and recovery models to address substance use, and people who use drugs may also hold competing views of what harm reduction means in practice. Street-based outreach workers are increasingly incorporated into harm reduction programs as part of efforts to engage with people more fully in various stages of drug use and nonuse.

Method: This paper explores how peer outreach workers, called "members," in a street-based naloxone distribution program define and practice harm reduction. We interviewed 15 members of a street-based harm reduction organization in an urban center characterized by an enduring opioid epidemic. Inductive data analysis explored harm reduction as both a set of principles and a set of practices to understand how frontline providers define and enact them.

Results: Analysis revealed that when members talked about their work, they often conceptualized harm reduction as a collection of ways members and others can "save lives" and support people who use drugs. They also framed harm reduction as part of a "path toward recovery." This path was complicated and nonlinear but pursued a common goal of life without drug use and its residual effects. These findings suggest the need to develop harm reduction programs that incorporate both harm reduction and recovery to best meet the needs of people who use drugs and align with the value systems of implementers.

Background: Xylazine is an increasingly common adulterant in the North American unregulated drug supply that is associated with adverse health outcomes (e.g., skin infections, overdose). However, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding how xylazine was initially identified and how syringe services program (SSP) staff and clients (people who use drugs) responded to its emergence.

Methods: From June-July 2023, we conducted qualitative interviews with medical (e.g., clinicians) and frontline SSP staff (e.g., outreach workers) and adult clients with a history of injection drug use at a Miami-based SSP. Inductive memos identified emergent codes; thematic analysis involving team consensus established final themes.

Results: From interviews with SSP staff (n = 8) and clients (n = 17), xylazine emergence was identified at different times, in various ways. Initially, during summer 2022, clients identified a "tranquilizer-like substance" that worsened sedation and withdrawal and caused wounds. SSP medical staff later identified this adulterant as xylazine by treating new medical cases and through diverse information-sharing networks that included professional societies and news sources; however, frontline SSP staff and clients needed additional educational resources about xylazine and its side effects. With limited guidance on how to reduce harm from xylazine, SSP clients altered their drug consumption routes, reduced drug use, and relied on peers' experiences with the drug supply to protect themselves. Some individuals also reported preferring xylazine-adulterated opioids and increasing their drug use, including the use of stimulants to avoid over sedation.

Conclusions: Xylazine's emergence characterizes the current era of unprecedented shifts in the unregulated drug supply. We found that xylazine spurred important behavioral changes among people who use drugs (e.g., transitioning from injecting to smoking). Incorporating these experiences into early drug warning surveillance systems and scaling up drug-checking services and safer smoking supply distribution could help mitigate significant health harms caused by xylazine and other emergent adulterants.

This commentary outlines the development of an Inclusion Collaborative in a large health district in Sydney, New South Wales Australia. The Collaborative grew out of ongoing efforts to reduce stigma associated with blood borne viruses while recognising that there are many health conditions and situations where people feel judged when attending services for health care. The formation of the Collaborative drew in health workers in other sectors to create a critical mass of voices calling for stigma reduction, move beyond siloed responses to stigma and to reframe conversations about stigma to a more positive description of "inclusion". The involvement of consumer representatives (paid for their time) was a key principle of the Collaborative. The members of the Collaborative identified the common experience of their clients being 'othered' by the mainstream services and that services can be unwelcoming or not supportive of difference, and therefore create a significant barrier to accessing healthcare. The group considered ways to highlight these issues among colleagues from mainstream services and community members who were not 'othered'. The Collaborative designed and carried out a range of activities including a Festival of Inclusion, a series of seeding grants for staff and consumer-focused initiatives, promotion of diversity days and an audit of compliance with strategic priorities. The Inclusion Collaborative is an example of a structured approach for efforts to reducing stigma that draws on the ambitions of many parts of a large, complex public health service to deliver better outcomes for its staff and consumers.

Background: 2-Benzylbenzimidazole 'nitazene' opioids pose a growing threat to public health. Nitazene analogues are increasingly found mixed with or (mis)sold as heroin and in falsified (non-)opioid medications, posing a great risk of intoxication in users (un)knowingly exposed to these potent opioids. Lateral flow immunoassay nitazene test strips (NTS; BTNX Rapid Response™) became commercially available in Q1 2024, with the aim to enable rapid detection of nitazene analogues in drug samples. As only limited independent data is available on the performance of these strips, this lab-based study aimed at evaluating their potential for drug checking applications.

Methods: Following dilution of drug standards in water, the NTS readouts were analyzed independently by two individuals and by ImageJ. The limit of detection for isotonitazene was determined using two manufacturing lots of NTS. Cross-reactivity with 32 other nitazene analogues was evaluated. Six sourced drug samples were tested to explore the ability of NTS to detect the presence of a nitazene analogue in authentic samples.

Results: The limits of detection for isotonitazene were 2000 or 3000 ng/mL, depending on the lot. Twenty-four of the 33 tested nitazene analogues cross-reacted with the NTS at concentrations ≤ 9000 ng/mL. Structural analysis indicated that either substitution or removal of the 5-nitro group, or lengthening the linker between the two aromatic rings, generally hampered detection. All six authentic drug samples consistently tested positive, with no observed false negatives.

Conclusions: This study provides a better understanding of the potential of NTS for drug checking purposes. Our findings indicate that NTS can theoretically alert to the presence of most nitazene analogues that have emerged on recreational drug markets. However, 'desnitazenes' (lacking the 5-nitro group) may yield false negative results due to low cross-reactivity. Although factors like specificity, lot-to-lot variability, nitazene analogue content in drug samples, solubility, and different testing conditions should be considered, our study results indicate that, at least under the conditions evaluated here (using reference standards and sourced powders), NTS are capable of detecting the presence of a wide range of nitazene analogues. Hence, NTS may alert users of the presence of nitazene analogues in drug samples.