Zolopa Camille, Brothers Thomas D, Leclerc Pascale, Mary Jean-François, Morissette Carole, Bruneau Julie, Martin Natasha K, Hyshka Elaine, Larney Sarah
Centre de recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CRCHUM), 900 rue St-Denis, Montréal, Québec H2X 0A9, Canada.
Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, 6299 South St., Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada; UCL Collaborative Centre for Inclusion Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Pl., London, WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.
Int J Drug Policy. 2025 Mar;137:104711. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104711. Epub 2025 Jan 21.
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.
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).
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).
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.
监督注射点(SIS)提供了一个卫生的环境,人们可以在观察下注射毒品;因此,这些减少伤害服务一直处于过量用药流行的前沿。我们试图了解加拿大蒙特利尔监督注射点中预测需要紧急应对干预的过量用药的因素。
我们使用了2018年3月1日至2022年10月31日期间蒙特利尔所有四个监督注射点的行政数据,首先计算需要干预的现场过量用药率(例如,使用纳洛酮或输氧、护士或护理人员评估等)以及描述性统计数据。然后,我们使用逻辑回归模型,并采用广义估计方程来调整客户的重复就诊情况,以测试现场过量用药干预与客户性别、年龄、注射毒品类型(芬太尼与其他阿片类药物与非阿片类药物)、最常注射地点、注射频率、注射持续时间、住房稳定性、在多个监督注射点就诊以及时间段(2020年3月15日之前或之后)之间的关联。
在观察期内,蒙特利尔监督注射点共接待了来自2127名不同客户的122509次就诊。需要干预的过量用药率为每1000次就诊8.16例(95%置信区间7.66,8.68)。虽然278名(13%)客户经历了现场过量用药干预,但这些客户占监督注射点就诊次数的64267次(52%)。与男性相比,跨性别客户(调整后比值比[aOR]=2.28,95%置信区间1.18,4.41)以及25岁以下的客户经历需要干预的现场过量用药的风险更高(例如,与25岁以下的客户相比,35 - 44岁的客户aOR = 0.44,95%置信区间0.30,0.64)。最常在公共场所注射与需要干预的现场过量用药风险更高相关(aOR = 3.62,95%置信区间3.04,4.30),而报告住房不稳定(aOR = 0.56,95%置信区间0.47,0.66)和在多个监督注射点就诊(aOR = 0.13,95%置信区间0.10,0.16)则预示风险较低。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%置信区间1.18,1.85)、每周注射1 - 2天(aOR = 2.43,95%置信区间1.90,3.11)以及“偶尔”注射(aOR = 2.60,95%置信区间2.13,3.18)的客户发生需要干预的过量用药风险更高,但过去几个月未注射的客户除外(aOR = 0.44,95%置信区间0.25,0.79)。与注射五年或更长时间的客户相比,注射持续时间为1 - 4年与需要干预的过量用药风险降低相关(aOR = 0.79,95%置信区间0.64,0.98),而刚开始注射(<1年)的客户发生此类干预的风险更高(aOR = 2.11,95%置信区间1.50,2.97)。与打算注射芬太尼的客户相比,注射其他阿片类药物(aOR = 0.22,95%置信区间0.18,0.26)或非阿片类药物(aOR = 0.06,95%置信区间0.04,0.08)的客户发生需要干预的过量用药风险较低。2020年3月15日之后注射也与更高风险相关(aOR = 1.99,95%置信区间1.65,2.41)。
在蒙特利尔的四个监督注射点中,需要干预的过量用药就诊与跨性别身份、年轻、住房稳定、打算注射芬太尼、注射频率低于每日、注射时间超过五年或少于一年、在单个注射点就诊以及最常在公共场所注射有关。蒙特利尔监督注射点服务于多样化的注射毒品客户群体,现场过量用药风险各不相同。