11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Public health messaging and harm reduction in the time of COVID-19

      letter
      a , b , c , a , d , a , e
      The Lancet. Psychiatry
      Elsevier Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic on March 11, and the disease is now expected to spread to most countries, if not all. 1 The public health messaging mainly concerns personal hygiene, physical distancing, respiratory etiquette, stocking up on food supplies and essential medicines, contact tracing, and staying indoors as much as possible. We are concerned that the current public health messaging might be leaving out an important at-risk population: people who use drugs, including beverage and non-beverage alcohol, and in particular, individuals who are marginalised and street entrenched. Marginalised people who use drugs might be at an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, and of poor outcomes of COVID-19, because of limited personal resources, unstable and densely populated housing conditions, substance use sharing practices, and compromised immunity (eg, in individuals living with HIV, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and other comorbidities). Other concerns pertain to limited access to essential medicines (including opioid agonist treatments) and harm reduction supplies. Investments in harm reduction supplies and services need to be expanded now. These investments should focus on increasing supplies for safer smoking, snorting, and injecting drug use, access to alternatives to non-beverage alcohol, and providing sanitising supplies and educational materials in harm reduction packages. Harm reduction services should prepare for logistical challenges by developing emergency plans for potential volunteer and employee absences, illness, and burnout as well as communication plans in case of service disruption in essential services (eg, access to prescribed medications, safe consumption rooms, and overdose prevention sites). Treatment continuity plans (eg, permitting online visits, phone-based refills, extended prescriptions, permitting take-home doses, permitting prescriptions to be transferred between pharmacies, and providing ongoing access through outreach and delivery options) are needed for individuals living with HIV, hepatitis C virus, and substance use disorders. Because emergency services are likely to be overburdened, responses to overdoses or other medical emergencies related to substance use (eg, severe alcohol withdrawal) might be delayed; efforts should be made to ensure access to appropriate clinical sites and specialist care, as well as a high penetration and uninterrupted supply of naloxone kits. In settings such as those in North America, where there is an influx of fentanyl and its analogues, 2 scaling up services to provide a safer supply of drugs, tablet-based and injectable agonist treatments, and slow-release oral morphine could help mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by reducing the need to spend time outdoors procuring drugs: these interventions could rapidly be incorporated in existing harm reduction services.3, 4, 5 Developing public health messaging tailored towards marginalised people who use drugs is of utmost importance. These messages should highlight the need to minimise sharing substance use supplies because respiratory infectious diseases can be easily transmitted via e-cigarettes, pipes, and nasal tubes. In situations in which sharing supplies is inevitable, harm reduction messages should emphasise washing or sanitising hands before substance use, wiping the supplies and surfaces used for drug preparation with alcohol or disinfectants, and stocking up on supplies to avoid unnecessary trips to harm reduction facilities. Public health messages around self-isolation and physical distancing should be modified for people who use drugs who live in shelters or who are involved in sex work. As a society, we can protect vulnerable populations by practising the fundamentals of public health and prevention science. We have a moral, societal, and professional responsibility to ensure that people living on the margins are not left out of these efforts.

          Related collections

          Most cited references2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Known fentanyl use among clients of harm reduction sites in British Columbia, Canada

          North America is in the midst of an opioid overdose epidemic and it is commonly suggested that exposure to fentanyl is unknown. Using a provincial survey of harm reduction site clients, we aimed to characterize known and unknown fentanyl use and their correlates among people who use drugs in British Columbia, Canada.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Slow release oral morphine versus methadone for the treatment of opioid use disorder

            Objective To assess the efficacy of slow release oral morphine (SROM) as a treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources Three electronic databases were searched through 1 May 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. We also searched the following electronic registers for ongoing trials: ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Current Controlled Trials and the EU Clinical Trials Register. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies We included RCTs of all durations, assessing the effect of SROM on measures of treatment retention, heroin use and craving in adults who met the diagnostic criteria for OUD. Data extraction and synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled using the random-effects model and expressed as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed (χ2 statistic) and quantified (I2 statistic) and a sensitivity analysis was undertaken to assess the impact of particular high-risk trials. Results Among 1315 records screened and four studies reviewed, four unique randomised trials met the inclusion criteria (n=471), and compared SROM with methadone. In the meta-analysis, we observed no significant differences between SROM and methadone in improving treatment retention (RR=0.98; 95%CI: 0.94 to 1.02, p=0.34) and heroin use (RR=0.96; 95% CI: 0.61 to 1.52, p=0.86). Craving data was not amenable to meta-analysis. Available data implied no differences in adverse events, heroin, cocaine or benzodiazepine use. Conclusions Meta-analysis of existing randomised trials suggests SROM may be generally equal to methadone in retaining patients in treatment and reducing heroin use while potentially resulting in less craving. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was low-to-moderate.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Contributors
              Journal
              Lancet Psychiatry
              Lancet Psychiatry
              The Lancet. Psychiatry
              Elsevier Ltd.
              2215-0366
              2215-0374
              27 April 2020
              May 2020
              27 April 2020
              : 7
              : 5
              : 390-391
              Affiliations
              [a ]British Columbia Centre on Substance Use, Vancouver, BC V6Z 2A9, Canada
              [b ]School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
              [c ]HIV/STI Surveillance Research Centre, and WHO Collaborating Centre for HIV Surveillance, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
              [d ]School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
              [e ]Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada
              Article
              S2215-0366(20)30144-9
              10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30144-9
              7185931
              32353270
              93b03342-de69-46f7-8d3f-d29b16aa87d7
              © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

              Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

              History
              Categories
              Article

              Comments

              Comment on this article