Andrew McAuley1, Alison Munro2, Sheila M Bird3, Sharon J Hutchinson4, David J Goldberg4, Avril Taylor2. 1. Health Protection Scotland, Meridian Court, Cadogan Street, Glasgow G2 6QE, UK; Institute for Applied Health Research, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK. Electronic address: andrew.mcauley@nhs.net. 2. School of Media, Culture and Society, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, UK. 3. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK; Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Strathclyde University, Glasgow G1 1XH, UK. 4. Health Protection Scotland, Meridian Court, Cadogan Street, Glasgow G2 6QE, UK; Institute for Applied Health Research, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 0BA, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Availability of the opioid antagonist naloxone for lay administration has grown substantially since first proposed in 1996. Gaps remain, though, in our understanding of how people who inject drugs (PWID) engage with naloxone programmes over time. AIMS: This paper aimed to address three specific evidence gaps: the extent of naloxone supply to PWID; supply-source (community or prisons); and the carriage of naloxone among PWID. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of Scotland's Needle Exchange Surveillance Initiative (NESI) responses in 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 was undertaken with a specific focus on the extent of Scotland's naloxone supply to PWID; including by source (community or prisons); and on the carriage of naloxone. Differences in responses between the two surveys were measured using Chi-square tests together with 95% confidence intervals for rate-differences over time. RESULTS: The proportion of NESI participants who reported that they had been prescribed naloxone within the last year increased significantly from 8% (175/2146; 95% CI: 7-9%) in 2011-2012 to 32% (745/2331; 95% CI: 30% to 34%) in 2013-2014. In contrast, the proportion of NESI participants who carried naloxone with them on the day they were interviewed decreased significantly from 16% (27/169; 95% CI: 10% to 22%) in 2011-2012 to 5% (39/741; 95% CI: 4% to 7%) in 2013-2014. CONCLUSIONS: The supply of naloxone to PWID has increased significantly since the introduction of a National Naloxone Programme in Scotland in January 2011. In contrast, naloxone carriage is low and decreased between the two NESI surveys; this area requires further investigation.
BACKGROUND: Availability of the opioid antagonist naloxone for lay administration has grown substantially since first proposed in 1996. Gaps remain, though, in our understanding of how people who inject drugs (PWID) engage with naloxone programmes over time. AIMS: This paper aimed to address three specific evidence gaps: the extent of naloxone supply to PWID; supply-source (community or prisons); and the carriage of naloxone among PWID. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of Scotland's Needle Exchange Surveillance Initiative (NESI) responses in 2011-2012 and 2013-2014 was undertaken with a specific focus on the extent of Scotland's naloxone supply to PWID; including by source (community or prisons); and on the carriage of naloxone. Differences in responses between the two surveys were measured using Chi-square tests together with 95% confidence intervals for rate-differences over time. RESULTS: The proportion of NESI participants who reported that they had been prescribed naloxone within the last year increased significantly from 8% (175/2146; 95% CI: 7-9%) in 2011-2012 to 32% (745/2331; 95% CI: 30% to 34%) in 2013-2014. In contrast, the proportion of NESI participants who carried naloxone with them on the day they were interviewed decreased significantly from 16% (27/169; 95% CI: 10% to 22%) in 2011-2012 to 5% (39/741; 95% CI: 4% to 7%) in 2013-2014. CONCLUSIONS: The supply of naloxone to PWID has increased significantly since the introduction of a National Naloxone Programme in Scotland in January 2011. In contrast, naloxone carriage is low and decreased between the two NESI surveys; this area requires further investigation.
Authors: E Aspinall; S J Hutchinson; A Taylor; N Palmateer; M Hellard; E Allen; D Goldberg Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2012-06-29 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Bradley M Mathers; Louisa Degenhardt; Chiara Bucello; James Lemon; Lucas Wiessing; Mathew Hickman Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2013-02-01 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Seonaid Nolan; Jane Buxton; Sabina Dobrer; Huiru Dong; Kanna Hayashi; M J Milloy; Thomas Kerr; Julio Montaner; Evan Wood Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Sheila M Bird; John Strang; Deborah Ashby; John Podmore; J Roy Robertson; Sarah Welch; Angela M Meade; Mahesh K B Parmar Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Commun Date: 2017-03
Authors: Christine E Grella; Erika Ostlie; Christy K Scott; Michael L Dennis; John Carnevale; Dennis P Watson Journal: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy Date: 2021-02-22
Authors: Andrew McAuley; Janet Bouttell; Lee Barnsdale; Daniel Mackay; Jim Lewsey; Carole Hunter; Mark Robinson Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-11-06 Impact factor: 6.526