TY - JOUR
T1 - Monitoring for fentanyl within Australian supervised injecting facilities
T2 - Findings from feasibility testing of novel methods and collaborative workshops
AU - Nielsen, Suzanne
AU - Barratt, Monica
AU - Hiley, Sarah
AU - Bartlett, Mark
AU - Latimer, Julie
AU - Jauncey, Marianne
AU - Roux, Claude
AU - Morelato, Marie
AU - Clark, Nico
AU - Kowalski, Michala
AU - Gilbert, Michael
AU - Francia, Leanne
AU - Shipton, Alexandra
AU - Gerostamoulos, Dimitri
AU - Glowacki, Linda
AU - Lam, Tina
N1 - Funding Information:
This research is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia via research grant from the National Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs . SN is the recipients of a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Research Fellowship (#1163961 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023
PY - 2023/5
Y1 - 2023/5
N2 - Background: Australia is yet to see widespread fentanyl-contaminated heroin, despite the established presence of fentanyl in other countries. International mortality trends alongside a local cluster of fentanyl-related deaths prompted interest in developing methods to monitor for fentanyl and other potentially harmful novel psychoactive substances (NPS) in Australia. Methods: We tested novel methods to monitor for fentanyl and other NPS. From 2017-2021, clients from supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, contributed urine screens (UDS) with BTNX Rapid Response™ fentanyl test strips (FTS) paired with surveys, and injecting equipment associated with opioid overdoses for laboratory analysis. A single site piloted drug checking using FTS with laboratory confirmation. Two workshops were conducted with SIF staff, content experts and people with lived experience to determine how results can inform practices within SIFs. Results: Of the 911 UDS with FTS conducted, less than 1% (n=8) yielded positive results that were not explained by self-reported pharmaceutical fentanyl use, with two laboratory confirmed fentanyl positive results. Injecting equipment from 59 overdoses was tested and neither fentanyl nor other NPS were identified. Drug checking with FTS (n=34) indicated the presence of fentanyl on three tests. Two specimens were subsequently sent for laboratory testing and classified as false positives as the presence of fentanyl was not confirmed. Workshop participants (n=21) felt routine monitoring with FTS currently had limited value. A process for using pre-defined signals to trigger surveillance was developed. Conclusion: The high false positive rates with FTS, relative to the small number of positive results and potential for them to undermine confidence in FTS emphasised the need for confirmatory testing. The role of routine surveillance was unclear within the current low-fentanyl context, however, a process was developed to upscale testing should signals of increased fentanyl prevalence in the Australian heroin market emerge.
AB - Background: Australia is yet to see widespread fentanyl-contaminated heroin, despite the established presence of fentanyl in other countries. International mortality trends alongside a local cluster of fentanyl-related deaths prompted interest in developing methods to monitor for fentanyl and other potentially harmful novel psychoactive substances (NPS) in Australia. Methods: We tested novel methods to monitor for fentanyl and other NPS. From 2017-2021, clients from supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) in Melbourne and Sydney, Australia, contributed urine screens (UDS) with BTNX Rapid Response™ fentanyl test strips (FTS) paired with surveys, and injecting equipment associated with opioid overdoses for laboratory analysis. A single site piloted drug checking using FTS with laboratory confirmation. Two workshops were conducted with SIF staff, content experts and people with lived experience to determine how results can inform practices within SIFs. Results: Of the 911 UDS with FTS conducted, less than 1% (n=8) yielded positive results that were not explained by self-reported pharmaceutical fentanyl use, with two laboratory confirmed fentanyl positive results. Injecting equipment from 59 overdoses was tested and neither fentanyl nor other NPS were identified. Drug checking with FTS (n=34) indicated the presence of fentanyl on three tests. Two specimens were subsequently sent for laboratory testing and classified as false positives as the presence of fentanyl was not confirmed. Workshop participants (n=21) felt routine monitoring with FTS currently had limited value. A process for using pre-defined signals to trigger surveillance was developed. Conclusion: The high false positive rates with FTS, relative to the small number of positive results and potential for them to undermine confidence in FTS emphasised the need for confirmatory testing. The role of routine surveillance was unclear within the current low-fentanyl context, however, a process was developed to upscale testing should signals of increased fentanyl prevalence in the Australian heroin market emerge.
KW - Drug checking
KW - Fentanyl
KW - Heroin
KW - Immunoassay
KW - Sentinel surveillance
KW - Supervised injecting facilities
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85151836477&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104015
DO - 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104015
M3 - Article
C2 - 37043848
AN - SCOPUS:85151836477
SN - 0955-3959
VL - 115
JO - International Journal of Drug Policy
JF - International Journal of Drug Policy
M1 - 104015
ER -