Marianne Jauncey

High incidence of hepatitis C virus reinfection within a cohort of injecting drug users.

Summary.  A retrospective cohort study was established of injecting drug users (IDUs) to assess evidence for hepatitis C virus (HCV) protective immunity through a comparison of incidence of initial HCV infection and HCV reinfection. Incidence of initial HCV infection was determined among HCV seronegative IDUs, and HCV reinfection determined among IDUs with newly acquired HCV infection, HCV viraemia and subsequent HCV RNA clearance. Serum was available for HCV RNA analysis from stored samples taken at the time of prior blood‐borne virus screening. Potential HCV reinfection was defined as a positive HCV RNA following at least one negative HCV RNA. Incidence of initial HCV infection was 17/100 person‐years (95% CI, 14–20/100 person‐years). The incidence of potential HCV reinfection was 42/100 person‐years (95% CI, 25–61/100 person‐years), and after excluding cases without a change in HCV genotype and less than three consecutive HCV RNA negative assessment, incidence of reinfection was 31/100 person‐years (95% CI, 17–62/100 person‐years). Following adjustment for HCV risk behaviour variables the incidence rate ratio of HCV reinfection to initial infection was 1.11 (P = 0.8). Several cases of HCV reinfection appear to have developed persistent infection.

Clearance of hepatitis C virus after newly acquired infection in injection drug users.

A retrospective cohort of injection drug users with newly acquired hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection was established to examine viral clearance. Newly acquired HCV infection was defined by anti-HCV antibody seroconversion within a 2-year interval. Stored serum samples were tested for HCV RNA, with viral clearance defined as >/=2 consecutive negative HCV RNA test results after infection. Ninety-nine cases of HCV infection were identified; 57 had >/=2 HCV RNA test results after infection. Viral clearance occurred in 24 (42%) cases, with Kaplan-Meier estimated probabilities of 23%, 38%, and 40% at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

Injecting-related injury and disease among clients of a supervised injecting facility.

BACKGROUND The process of drug injection may give rise to vascular and soft tissue injuries and infections. The social and physical environments in which drugs are injected play a significant role in these and other morbidities. Supervised injecting facilities (SIFs) seek to address such issues associated with public injecting drug use. AIMS Estimate lifetime prevalence of injecting-related problems, injury and disease and explore the socio-demographic and behavioral characteristics associated with the more serious complications. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS Self-report data from 9552 injecting drug users (IDUs) registering to use the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC). FINDINGS Lifetime history of either injecting-related problems (IRP) or injecting-related injury and disease (IRID) was reported by 29% of the 9552 IDUs; 26% (n=2469) reported ever experiencing IRP and 10% (n=972) reported IRID. Prevalence of IRP included difficulties finding a vein (18%), prominent scarring or bruising (14%) and swelling of hands or feet (7%). Prevalence of IRID included abscesses or skin infection (6%), thrombosis (4%), septicaemia (2%) and endocarditis (1%). Females, those who mainly injected drugs other than heroin, and those who reported a history of drug treatment, drug overdose, and/or sex work, were more likely to report lifetime IRID. Frequency and duration of injecting, recent public injecting, and sharing of needles and/or syringes were also independently associated with IRID. CONCLUSIONS IRPs and IRIDs were common. Findings support the imperative for education and prevention activities to reduce the severity and burden of these preventable injecting outcomes. Through provision of hygienic environments and advice on venous access, safer injecting techniques and wound care, SIFs have the potential to address a number of risk factors for IRID.

Potential biases in estimates of hepatitis C RNA clearance in newly acquired hepatitis C infection among a cohort of injecting drug users

Estimates of hepatitis C virus (HCV) clearance following acute infection range from 14 to 46%. This wide range is likely to be due to the characteristics of the populations studied and analysis methods. This paper examines how differing definitions of clearance parameters affect estimates of viral clearance in a cohort of 85 injecting drug users with newly acquired HCV infection. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to HCV clearance were determined using varying definitions of eligible cohort, viral clearance, date of infection and date of clearance. Based on which combinations of definitions were used, the number of subjects eligible for analysis ranged from 27 to 75, clearance rate ranged from 14 to 68% and time to achieving 25% clearance ranged from approximately 5 months to 14 months. Standardized definitions and methodologies are required to enable valid comparisons of rates of clearance across newly acquired HCV infection natural history studies.

The definition of opioid-related deaths in Australia: implications for surveillance and policy

The reported number of deaths caused by opioid use depends on the definition of an opioid-related death. In this study, we used Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) mortality data to illustrate how choice of classification codes used to record cause of death can impact on the statistics reported for national surveillance of opioid deaths. Using International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10) codes from ABS mortality data 1997-2002, we examined all deaths where opioids were reported as a contributing or underlying cause. For the 6-year period there was a total of 5,839 deaths where opioids were reported. Three possible surveillance definitions of accidental opioid-related deaths were examined, and compared to the total number of deaths where opioids were reported for each year. Age restrictions, often placed on surveillance definitions, were also examined. As expected, the number of deaths was higher with the more inclusive definitions. Trends in deaths were found to be similar regardless of the definition used; however, a comparison between Australian states revealed up to a twofold difference in the absolute numbers of accidental opioid-related deaths, depending on the definition. Any interpretation of reported numbers of opioid deaths should specify any restrictions placed on the data, and describe the implications of definitions used.

Risk of fentanyl overdose among clients of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre.

BACKGROUND: Fentanyl is a powerful analgesic, the prescription of which has increased markedly in recent years. The emergence of the drug at the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre (MSIC) warranted a retrospective clinical audit to assess the risk of fentanyl overdose in comparison with other opioids, in the context of a drug consumption room. METHOD: Heroin, fentanyl or other prescription opioids (PO) injections resulting in overdose were audited (September 1, 2012 and August 31, 2015). Rates of overdose per 1000 injections and relative risks (RR) of overdose were calculated. RESULTS: In the audit period 189,203 injections by 4177 individuals occurred, with fentanyl injections increasing by 1000%, heroin injections increasing by 70% and, inversely, a sharp decline in other PO injections. Fentanyl injections had approximately four and half times the risk of resulting in overdose than heroin or other PO injections combined (RR=4.6); and, had two times the risk of heroin injections, and eight times the risk of resulting in overdose than other PO injections (RR=2.2 and RR=7.9). CONCLUSION: Findings from a drug consumption room, such as the Sydney MSIC can effectively inform harm reduction services and emergency services of the increased use of, and therefore risk of, fentanyl overdose relative to other opioids. The dynamic nature of drug markets mean that services such as MSIC are uniquely placed to provide not only real-time data on drug use trends, but also safer injecting advice to those engaging in new practices.Copyright

An overview of take-home naloxone programs in Australia: Take-home naloxone programs in Australia

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS Take-home naloxone (THN) programs commenced in Australia in 2012 in the Australian Capital Territory and programs now operate in five Australian jurisdictions. The purpose of this paper is to record the progress of THN programs in Australia, to provide a resource for others wanting to start THN projects, and provide a tool for policy makers and others considering expansion of THN programs in this country and elsewhere. DESIGN AND METHODS Key stakeholders with principal responsibility for identified THN programs operating in Australia provided descriptions of program development, implementation and characteristics. Short summaries of known THN programs from each jurisdiction are provided along with a table detailing program characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS Data collected across current Australian THN programs suggest that to date over 2500 Australians at risk of overdose have been trained and provided naloxone. Evaluation data from four programs recorded 146 overdose reversals involving naloxone that was given by THN participants. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Peer drug user groups currently play a central role in the development, delivery and scale-up of THN in Australia. Health professionals who work with people who use illicit opioids are increasingly taking part as alcohol and other drug-related health agencies have recognised the opportunity for THN provision through interactions with their clients. Australia has made rapid progress in removing regulatory barriers to naloxone since the initiation of the first THN program in 2012. However, logistical and economic barriers remain and further work is needed to expand access to this life-saving medication.

Uptake of wheel-filtration among clients of a supervised injecting facility: Can structured education work?: Wheel-filtration uptake among SIF clients

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS Wheel-filtration of pharmaceutical opioid tablets is a recognised harm reduction strategy, but uptake of the practice among people who inject drugs is low. The study aimed to: (i) examine perceptions of filtration practices; (ii) provide structured education on wheel-filtration; and (iii) assess uptake of the practice. DESIGN AND METHODS Frequent opioid tablet injectors (n = 30) attending a supervised injecting facility in Sydney, Australia, received hands-on instruction on wheel-filtration based on recommended practice. Pre-education, post-education and follow-up questionnaires were administered. RESULTS Wheel-filtration was generally regarded as better than cotton-filtration (the typical method) in terms of perceived effects on health, ease of use and overall drug effect. Sixty-eight percent of those who said they would try wheel-filtration after the education had actually done so. Of those who usually used cotton-filtration, over half (60%) had used wheel-filtration two weeks later. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Uptake of safer preparation methods for pharmaceutical opioid tablets increases after structured education in wheel-filtration. Findings suggest that SIFs are an effective site for this kind of education. Supervised injecting facility workers are uniquely positioned to provide harm reduction education at the time of injection. [Steele M, Silins E, Flaherty I, Hiley S, van Breda N, Jauncey M. Uptake of wheel-filtration among clients of a supervised injecting facility: Can structured education work? Drug Alcohol Rev 2018;37:116-120].

Bipartisan support for Australia's supervised injecting facility: a decade in the making.

TO THE EDITOR: This year marks 10 years of successful operation of the Sydney Medically Supervised Injecting Centre — Australia’s only supervised injecting facility (SIF). It is one of 90 such facilities globally, with SIFs operating in eight different countries for up to 25 years. Legislation to lift the trial status of the Sydney centre was passed in the lead-up to the recent New South Wales state election, nearly a decade after the centre opened. Despite not having explicitly supported the centre while in opposition, at the Centre’s 10-year anniversary event on 6 May 2011, the newly elected Liberal– National coalition government signalled its willingness to contribute to bipartisan support of the centre. While the Sydney SIF has survived this transition into institutional “adulthood”, operation of the only other SIF in the English-speaking world, located in Vancouver, Canada, remains a politically sensitive issue. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada is currently deciding whether the right to establish and operate a SIF lies with the provincial or the federal government. The Australian and Canadian SIFs have much in common: both have a history of politicisation, both were established under trial conditions, and both have been subject to rigorous independent scientific evaluations. They have each contributed much to the large body of evidence showing the benefits provided by SIFs to individual drug users and to surrounding communities. Specifically, SIFs have been shown to reduce numbers of deaths from drug overdose,1 reduce numbers of ambulance call-outs2 and hospital admissions, improve client outcomes,3 enhance referral to drug treatment programs,4 improve public order (eg, by reducing injecting drug use and syringe disposal in public locations),5 and be cost efficient.6 No adverse consequences have been associated with their operation. There is widespread support for SIFs. This includes many Australasian specialist medical colleges as well as the Australian Medical Association and many scientific and research institutions. The majority of the Australian population also support SIFs, as shown in the recent National Drug Strategy Household Survey.7 Yet despite this, and the continually accumulating evidence showing the public health benefits of SIFs, the idea of establishing new facilities remains politically charged in the Australian context. In Melbourne, a local council recently urged the Victorian state government to consider establishing a SIF in an area with entrenched, street-based drug use. However, this was swiftly rejected, and calls for SIFs in other Australian states have been similarly refused by state governments. Indeed, the current legislation in NSW precludes the operation of any additional SIFs. But for the Sydney SIF, it appears that the repeated political hurdles which characterised its first decade of operation have finally diminished. In this single instance at least, the scientific evidence on SIFs has prevailed.

An epidemiological investigation into an outbreak of rash illness among methadone maintenance clients in Australia

In late 2004, NSW Health received several reports of a serious desquamating rash among clients of the methadone program. We sought to identify the extent and likely cause of this outbreak. We initiated active surveillance for cases throughout Australia, a survey of dosing points in NSW, and a case control study of clients receiving methadone syrup (MS) at two clinics. Between October 2004 and March 2005, 388 cases were identified, largely in NSW. The dosing point survey found almost all cases were clients prescribed MS (attack rate 4.5%). In multivariate analysis of data from dosing points that dispensed MS, use of take away doses or location of the dosing point in greater western Sydney were associated with illness. In the case control study, MS injection, use of street MS, high doses of MS, frequent takeaway doses, or use of benzodiazepines were associated with illness. Testing found no abnormality in associated batches of MS. Batches of MS temporally associated with the outbreak were quarantined from use and the outbreak subsided. While a direct causal link could not be established, available evidence suggests that a contaminant may have caused the outbreak. Epidemiological analyses are important for assessing concerns about product safety following marketing approval.