Camille Zolopa , Thomas D. Brothers , Pascale Leclerc , Jean-François Mary , Carole Morissette , Julie Bruneau , Natasha K. Martin , Elaine Hyshka , Sarah Larney
{"title":"加拿大蒙特利尔,2018-2022年受监管注射场所客户特征及需要过量干预的相关因素","authors":"Camille Zolopa , Thomas D. Brothers , Pascale Leclerc , Jean-François Mary , Carole Morissette , Julie Bruneau , Natasha K. Martin , Elaine Hyshka , Sarah Larney","doi":"10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Supervised injection sites (SIS) offer a hygienic environment in which people can inject drugs under observation; as such, these harm reduction services have been on the forefront of the overdose epidemic. We sought to understand factors predictive of an overdose requiring an emergency response intervention at SIS in Montréal, Canada.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used administrative data from all four Montréal SIS from 1 March 2018 – 31 October 2022 to first calculate the rate of onsite overdose requiring intervention (e.g., naloxone or oxygen administration, nurse or paramedic assessment, etc.) and descriptive statistics. We then used a logistic regression model, with generalized estimating equations to adjust for clients’ repeat visits, to test associations between onsite overdose intervention and client gender, age, drug injected (fentanyl vs other opioid vs non-opioid), most frequent injection location, frequency of injecting, duration of injecting, housing stability, attendance at multiple SIS, and time period (before or after 15 March 2020).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During the observation period, Montréal SIS received 122,509 visits from 2,127 unique clients. The rate of overdose requiring intervention was 8.16 (95 % CI 7.66, 8.68) per 1000 visits. While 278 (13 %) of clients experienced an onsite overdose intervention, these clients accounted for 64,267 (52 %) SIS visits. Transgender clients (aOR = 2.28, 95 % CI 1.18, 4.41, compared to men) and clients younger than 25 were at greater risk of experiencing an onsite overdose requiring intervention (e.g., clients 35–44 had an aOR = 0.44, 95 % CI 0.30, 0.64, compared to clients younger than 25). Injecting most often in a public place was associated with greater risk of an onsite overdose requiring intervention (aOR = 3.62, 95 % CI 3.04, 4.30), while reporting unstable housing (aOR = 0.56, 95 % CI 0.47, 0.66) and attending more than one SIS (aOR = 0.13, 95 % CI 0.10, 0.16) predicted lesser risk. Compared to clients who reported injecting daily, greater risk of overdose requiring intervention was observed among those who reported injecting 3–6 days a week (aOR = 1.48, 95 % CI 1.18, 1.85), 1–2 days a week (aOR = 2.43, 95 % CI 1.90, 3.11), and “occasionally” (aOR = 2.60, 95 % CI 2.13, 3.18), but not those who reported not injecting in the past several months (aOR = 0.44, 95 % CI 0.25, 0.79). Compared to clients who had been injecting for five or more years, an injection duration of 1–4 years was associated with reduced risk of an overdose requiring intervention (aOR = 0.79, 95 % CI 0.64, 0.98), while those newer (<1 year) to injecting were at greater risk of such an intervention (aOR = 2.11, 95 % CI 1.50, 2.97). Compared to clients intending to inject fentanyl, we observed a lower risk of an overdose requiring intervention for those injecting other opioids (aOR = 0.22, 95 % CI 0.18, 0.26) or non-opioids (aOR = 0.06, 95 % CI 0.04, 0.08). Injecting after 15 March 2020 was also associated with greater risk (aOR = 1.99, 95 % CI 1.65, 2.41).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Across four Montréal SIS, site visits with an overdose requiring intervention were associated with transgender identity, younger age, stable housing, intending to inject fentanyl, injecting less frequently than daily, injecting for either more than five years or less than a year, single site attendance, and injecting most often in a public place. Montréal SIS serve a diverse clientele who inject drugs, with differing risks of onsite overdose.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48364,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Drug Policy","volume":"137 ","pages":"Article 104711"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics of supervised injection site clients and factors associated with requiring overdose intervention, Montreal, Canada, 2018–2022\",\"authors\":\"Camille Zolopa , Thomas D. Brothers , Pascale Leclerc , Jean-François Mary , Carole Morissette , Julie Bruneau , Natasha K. Martin , Elaine Hyshka , Sarah Larney\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104711\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Supervised injection sites (SIS) offer a hygienic environment in which people can inject drugs under observation; as such, these harm reduction services have been on the forefront of the overdose epidemic. We sought to understand factors predictive of an overdose requiring an emergency response intervention at SIS in Montréal, Canada.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used administrative data from all four Montréal SIS from 1 March 2018 – 31 October 2022 to first calculate the rate of onsite overdose requiring intervention (e.g., naloxone or oxygen administration, nurse or paramedic assessment, etc.) and descriptive statistics. We then used a logistic regression model, with generalized estimating equations to adjust for clients’ repeat visits, to test associations between onsite overdose intervention and client gender, age, drug injected (fentanyl vs other opioid vs non-opioid), most frequent injection location, frequency of injecting, duration of injecting, housing stability, attendance at multiple SIS, and time period (before or after 15 March 2020).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>During the observation period, Montréal SIS received 122,509 visits from 2,127 unique clients. The rate of overdose requiring intervention was 8.16 (95 % CI 7.66, 8.68) per 1000 visits. While 278 (13 %) of clients experienced an onsite overdose intervention, these clients accounted for 64,267 (52 %) SIS visits. Transgender clients (aOR = 2.28, 95 % CI 1.18, 4.41, compared to men) and clients younger than 25 were at greater risk of experiencing an onsite overdose requiring intervention (e.g., clients 35–44 had an aOR = 0.44, 95 % CI 0.30, 0.64, compared to clients younger than 25). Injecting most often in a public place was associated with greater risk of an onsite overdose requiring intervention (aOR = 3.62, 95 % CI 3.04, 4.30), while reporting unstable housing (aOR = 0.56, 95 % CI 0.47, 0.66) and attending more than one SIS (aOR = 0.13, 95 % CI 0.10, 0.16) predicted lesser risk. Compared to clients who reported injecting daily, greater risk of overdose requiring intervention was observed among those who reported injecting 3–6 days a week (aOR = 1.48, 95 % CI 1.18, 1.85), 1–2 days a week (aOR = 2.43, 95 % CI 1.90, 3.11), and “occasionally” (aOR = 2.60, 95 % CI 2.13, 3.18), but not those who reported not injecting in the past several months (aOR = 0.44, 95 % CI 0.25, 0.79). Compared to clients who had been injecting for five or more years, an injection duration of 1–4 years was associated with reduced risk of an overdose requiring intervention (aOR = 0.79, 95 % CI 0.64, 0.98), while those newer (<1 year) to injecting were at greater risk of such an intervention (aOR = 2.11, 95 % CI 1.50, 2.97). Compared to clients intending to inject fentanyl, we observed a lower risk of an overdose requiring intervention for those injecting other opioids (aOR = 0.22, 95 % CI 0.18, 0.26) or non-opioids (aOR = 0.06, 95 % CI 0.04, 0.08). Injecting after 15 March 2020 was also associated with greater risk (aOR = 1.99, 95 % CI 1.65, 2.41).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Across four Montréal SIS, site visits with an overdose requiring intervention were associated with transgender identity, younger age, stable housing, intending to inject fentanyl, injecting less frequently than daily, injecting for either more than five years or less than a year, single site attendance, and injecting most often in a public place. Montréal SIS serve a diverse clientele who inject drugs, with differing risks of onsite overdose.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48364,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Drug Policy\",\"volume\":\"137 \",\"pages\":\"Article 104711\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Drug Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395925000106\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SUBSTANCE ABUSE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Drug Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0955395925000106","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SUBSTANCE ABUSE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:监督注射点(SIS)提供一个卫生的环境,人们可以在观察下注射药物;因此,这些减少危害的服务一直处于过量流行的前沿。我们试图了解在加拿大montrsamal的SIS需要紧急反应干预的药物过量的预测因素。方法:我们使用2018年3月1日至2022年10月31日所有四个montracimal SIS的管理数据,首先计算现场过量需要干预的比率(例如纳洛酮或氧气给药,护士或护理人员评估等)和描述性统计。然后,我们使用逻辑回归模型,使用广义估计方程来调整客户的重复就诊,以测试现场过量干预与客户性别、年龄、注射药物(芬太尼与其他阿片类药物与非阿片类药物)、最频繁的注射位置、注射频率、注射持续时间、住房稳定性、多次SIS的出席率和时间段(2020年3月15日之前或之后)之间的关系。结果:在观察期间,montrsamal SIS收到了来自2,127个独立客户的122,509次访问。用药过量需要干预的比率为每1000次就诊8.16例(95% CI 7.66, 8.68)。278名(13%)患者经历了现场过量干预,这些患者占64,267次(52%)SIS就诊。与男性相比,跨性别客户(aOR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.18, 4.41)和25岁以下的客户经历现场过量需要干预的风险更大(例如,35-44岁的客户与25岁以下的客户相比,aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.30, 0.64)。最常在公共场所注射与现场过量需要干预的风险较高相关(aOR = 3.62, 95% CI 3.04, 4.30),而报告不稳定住房(aOR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.47, 0.66)和参加一次以上SIS (aOR = 0.13, 95% CI 0.10, 0.16)预测风险较低。与报告每天注射的客户相比,报告每周注射3-6天(aOR = 1.48, 95% CI 1.18, 1.85),每周注射1-2天(aOR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.90, 3.11)和“偶尔”(aOR = 2.60, 95% CI 2.13, 3.18)的客户有更大的过量需要干预的风险,但报告过去几个月未注射的客户没有过量需要干预的风险(aOR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.25, 0.79)。与注射5年或5年以上的患者相比,注射时间为1-4年的患者需要干预的风险降低(aOR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.64, 0.98),而那些注射时间较短的患者(结论:在四个montracal SIS中,过量需要干预的现场访问与变性身份,年龄较小,稳定的住房,有意注射芬太尼,注射频率低于每天,注射超过五年或不到一年,单一地点出席,以及最常在公共场所注射有关。montrsamal SIS为注射毒品的不同客户提供服务,他们有不同的现场过量风险。
Characteristics of supervised injection site clients and factors associated with requiring overdose intervention, Montreal, Canada, 2018–2022
Background
Supervised injection sites (SIS) offer a hygienic environment in which people can inject drugs under observation; as such, these harm reduction services have been on the forefront of the overdose epidemic. We sought to understand factors predictive of an overdose requiring an emergency response intervention at SIS in Montréal, Canada.
Methods
We used administrative data from all four Montréal SIS from 1 March 2018 – 31 October 2022 to first calculate the rate of onsite overdose requiring intervention (e.g., naloxone or oxygen administration, nurse or paramedic assessment, etc.) and descriptive statistics. We then used a logistic regression model, with generalized estimating equations to adjust for clients’ repeat visits, to test associations between onsite overdose intervention and client gender, age, drug injected (fentanyl vs other opioid vs non-opioid), most frequent injection location, frequency of injecting, duration of injecting, housing stability, attendance at multiple SIS, and time period (before or after 15 March 2020).
Results
During the observation period, Montréal SIS received 122,509 visits from 2,127 unique clients. The rate of overdose requiring intervention was 8.16 (95 % CI 7.66, 8.68) per 1000 visits. While 278 (13 %) of clients experienced an onsite overdose intervention, these clients accounted for 64,267 (52 %) SIS visits. Transgender clients (aOR = 2.28, 95 % CI 1.18, 4.41, compared to men) and clients younger than 25 were at greater risk of experiencing an onsite overdose requiring intervention (e.g., clients 35–44 had an aOR = 0.44, 95 % CI 0.30, 0.64, compared to clients younger than 25). Injecting most often in a public place was associated with greater risk of an onsite overdose requiring intervention (aOR = 3.62, 95 % CI 3.04, 4.30), while reporting unstable housing (aOR = 0.56, 95 % CI 0.47, 0.66) and attending more than one SIS (aOR = 0.13, 95 % CI 0.10, 0.16) predicted lesser risk. Compared to clients who reported injecting daily, greater risk of overdose requiring intervention was observed among those who reported injecting 3–6 days a week (aOR = 1.48, 95 % CI 1.18, 1.85), 1–2 days a week (aOR = 2.43, 95 % CI 1.90, 3.11), and “occasionally” (aOR = 2.60, 95 % CI 2.13, 3.18), but not those who reported not injecting in the past several months (aOR = 0.44, 95 % CI 0.25, 0.79). Compared to clients who had been injecting for five or more years, an injection duration of 1–4 years was associated with reduced risk of an overdose requiring intervention (aOR = 0.79, 95 % CI 0.64, 0.98), while those newer (<1 year) to injecting were at greater risk of such an intervention (aOR = 2.11, 95 % CI 1.50, 2.97). Compared to clients intending to inject fentanyl, we observed a lower risk of an overdose requiring intervention for those injecting other opioids (aOR = 0.22, 95 % CI 0.18, 0.26) or non-opioids (aOR = 0.06, 95 % CI 0.04, 0.08). Injecting after 15 March 2020 was also associated with greater risk (aOR = 1.99, 95 % CI 1.65, 2.41).
Conclusion
Across four Montréal SIS, site visits with an overdose requiring intervention were associated with transgender identity, younger age, stable housing, intending to inject fentanyl, injecting less frequently than daily, injecting for either more than five years or less than a year, single site attendance, and injecting most often in a public place. Montréal SIS serve a diverse clientele who inject drugs, with differing risks of onsite overdose.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Drug Policy provides a forum for the dissemination of current research, reviews, debate, and critical analysis on drug use and drug policy in a global context. It seeks to publish material on the social, political, legal, and health contexts of psychoactive substance use, both licit and illicit. The journal is particularly concerned to explore the effects of drug policy and practice on drug-using behaviour and its health and social consequences. It is the policy of the journal to represent a wide range of material on drug-related matters from around the world.