Improving Liver Health for People Who Inject Drugs

A recently published study in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that providing Hepatitis C treatment to people who inject drugs (PWID) showed significant improvement in liver health outcomes when provided with community-based access to care and treatment. The study, which drew its cohort from Baltimore and collected data from 2006 to 2019, found a particular value to participants in low-barrier access to care – a mainstay of harm reduction advocates.

The qualifying condition for participants was a chronic HCV diagnosis, with the majority of participants being Black, assigned male at birth, and not having an HIV diagnosis. Within the last 6 months of the participants’ lives prior to study enrollment, 54% had injected drugs and 27% were on methadone. 56% of participants also scored as having had severe, harmful, or hazardous alcohol use. The initial rate of cirrhosis was 15%, rising to 19% in 2015 and dropping dramatically in 2019 to 8%, with the rate of detectable HCV RNA reducing from 100% in 2006 to 48% in 2019. Self-reported treatment also increased from 3% to 39% across the study period. Some of the most significant findings of the study were specific to broader outcomes – those with undetectable HCV RNA were 72% less likely to develop cirrhosis and were at 46% lower risk of all-cause mortality. While 430 of the participants died across the span of the study, 394 had chronic HCV and 36 had no detectable HCV RNA. 29% of those deaths were categorized as from drugs or trauma, 41% from chronic illness, and 6% from liver disease/cirrhosis.

The study itself did not depend on distribution of treatment to patients but rather, it sought to assess how patients engaged in care in community-based settings and what accessing services through these settings means for patient health outcomes. The study’s findings aren’t particularly surprising for anyone familiar with providing services to communities which are often marginalized. Indeed, for communities and patients experiencing poverty or living in health care deserts, also coinciding with red-lined neighborhoods and thus associated with Black communities, access to “traditional” health care settings is limited or not meaningfully existent. Trust of traditional health care and even public health services is equally limited due to historical traumas, including forced sterilization, concerns for law enforcement engagement, and – perhaps most directly – due to provider bias. Community-based, low-barrier care in light of these realities and lived-experiences are simply…more welcoming.

In recognizing a sense of welcoming, observers should also recognize the sense of safety patients to these settings feel – that trust in tangible for patients. It’s also important to recognize a particular failure in federal funding focuses in entities that may claim being based in a particular community but are not necessarily required to hire providers or staff from the service area or served populations. Indeed, during a recent O’Neill Institute call, this distinction was of particular complaint. Funding is typically awarded to larger entities rather than smaller ones and holds no particular requirement for staff to be reflective of the patient population. For those larger entities, they tend to also be stuck in programming with limited creativity, are explicitly tied to specific clinical outcomes, and extraordinarily strict and onerous reporting requirements. Those requirements can and do translate into administrative barriers for patients and limit the creativity that may also translate less directly or immediately to measurable health outcomes. The complaints were broad, generally stating a need to take a more diverse approach that looked at longer-term investments into patient health through relationship building.

Those relationships are critical to the success of patients and introducing the ideas behind “harm reduction”. Another barrier to successful harm reduction can be found in particular state and federal policies which may run contrary to the best practices identified by academics and advocates. In this, the details matter. For example, most “good Samaritan” laws maintain a carve out of exception for drug dealers in reporting overdoses – even if they wanted to help, they could be prosecuted for homicide if a person dies, discouraging intervention from the course. For states with syringe exchanges (now facing conservative backlash by way of moralizing substance use rather than viewing substance use as a health condition), many still maintain paraphernalia laws which means patients engaging with syringe exchange programs can be arrested and charged either going to or coming from accessing services at syringe exchange sites.

Community Access National Network’s HIV-HCV Co-Infection Watch monitors certain state-level harm reduction measures in an effort to provide a resource to advocates and our Annual Monitoring Report discusses these nuances. Advocates know well the positive health outcomes for patient and communities when public health programs are designed with long-term investments are made and comprehensive approaches are taken. State and federal law and policy makers would do well to reconcile the conflicts between these and strive to achieve a policy environment which fosters the development of creative, safe, low-barrier care and reduces risks to people who inject drugs.

Addressing the Intersection of HIV and Methamphetamine Use

A recent convening, hosted by the O’Neill Institute, found government representatives, service providers, and community advocates discussing methamphetamine use among gay/bisexual men, transgender women, and transgender men under the lens of exploring stigma, sexual health, and HIV. The intersectionality between HIV and Methamphetamine, commonly known as “meth”, is significantly associated with greater risk for HIV transmission and numerous co-morbidities for people living with HIV.

Attendees received updates on existing data and policy relevant to methamphetamine use. Often overshadowed by the opioid epidemic, wherein the “gaps” in epidemiological data explicitly on meth use were glaringly obvious and largely dependent on supplemental data gathered during HIV outreach activities or related to broader assessments of substance use. Similarly obvious were the reasons why these data would be challenging to gather: law enforcement. According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Data Archive (SAMHDA), in 2019, more than 400,000 people who use methamphetamine were arrested and booked into jail for at least one time during the previous twelve (12) months. While the convening focused on gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM), transgender women, and transgender men, federal data found similar rates of methamphetamine use among heterosexual men and MSM. Additionally, there was no statistical difference in methamphetamine use between heterosexual women and lesbian-identified women. There was however an increase in self-reported methamphetamine use among bisexual women. Data provided did not distinguish between cisgender and transgender people, an issue explained as participants in data gathering were not asked necessarily asked questions regarding their sexual or gender identity, rather this information was largely assumed unless a participant disclosed otherwise.

Following the data sharing, patient advocates and service providers discussed their perspectives on what to consider in assessing policy and federally funded programs. Presenters highlighted their own lived-experiences as influencing their ideas on where policies and programs have succeeded and failed – largely coming to an unspoken consensus that we must do at least something differently than we are today. One presenter stated existing funding structures tend to reward large entities which is perceived to be at the expense of small service entities, which may or may not be trusted by people who use substances. Another focused on the contrary policy priorities being voiced by the Biden Administration between supporting harm reduction and supporting law enforcement – giving an explicit voice from community advocates that law enforcement often poses a threat of harm to drug users. Presenters also pointed out the need to distinguish between recreational use, misuse, and addiction, as the stigma associated with substance use often conflates these experiences with one another, when the reality is very, very different. For my part, I shared the idea that existing funding designs associated with HIV, where substance use harm reduction is largely aligned both on issues advocacy and service provision, may perpetuate social stigma by prioritizing the experiences and work of health care providers over that of patients – especially with regard to metrics of “success”. A reworking of funding and program designs and incentives that look at addressing health disparities from a human rights lens is necessary. Envisioning Ryan White programs as workforce development and community investment programs in addition to being public health programs, recognizing the potential detriment of a consolidating provider market and the need to incentivize provider diversification, and shifting funding and goals to better reflect efforts to meet the needs of communities as those communities define them.

Lastly, presenters shared honest assessments of “on the ground” perspectives and what programs are working. With meaningful geographic and demographic diversity represented on the final panel, confirming sentiments of the previous one, presenters discussed novel (and often underfunded) approaches to ensuring affected communities are receiving high quality sexual health education, linkage to care, and low-barrier interventions for those people are seeking them. Panelists discussed the need for policy makers and funding to reinforce those novel programs which do work and to consider novel metrics to better capture these successes. From reinvestments in the Ballroom scene as a safe and empowering space of expression to the successful effort from affected Latino communities in Texas to engage with their state health department, educating health care administrators and providers on the necessity of harm reduction, these programs which originate from the priorities of communities, rather than from the dictates of statehouses are already doing more and going farther than traditional programming.

So…why don’t we have more of this?

To learn more about the initiatives of the O’Neill Institute at Georgetown University, click here.

Biden Drug Policy Agenda: NIH Invests in Harm Reduction

On December 29th, 2021, the National Institute of Health (NIH) issued two new requests for application (RFA), one for the establishment of a “Harm Reduction Network” and another for a data coordination center in support of the network. The idea the NIH proposes is to develop and test new harm reduction strategies, examining the efficacy of existing harm reduction models, effective implementation of harm reduction strategies, and examining new models targeting diversified settings and delivery models of harm reduction services. The data coordination center will focus on meeting with relevant stakeholders, defining common metrics, developing research and clinical practice models, and otherwise analyzing the landscape of harm reduction across the nation. This move represents the “investigative” phase of the Biden Drug Policy Agenda.

Of note, the NIH very specifically cites interest in exploring the impacts of decriminalization and safe consumption sites as harm reduction policies and syringe service programs (including vending machines and mail programs), community based infectious disease services and prevention programs (specifically mentioning HIV and HCV), naloxone programs, and fentanyl testing strip programs.

In discussing decriminalization as a policy, much existing work is focused on marijuana decriminalization (either for medical or recreational use) in which several states have progressed in passing legislation in recent years. However, few of these pieces of legislation address people who are incarcerated currently or previous criminal records or restitution to these people for imprisonment related to possession, use, or distribution of marijuana. This has left an extraordinarily inequitable landscape with regard to marijuana as an industry – white guys are getting rich for what Black men and women are being imprisoned for. But none of this speaks to the motivation of NIH in these RFAs: reducing fatal and non-fatal overdose deaths and marijuana isn’t typically associated with these types of outcomes. Rather, state drug paraphernalia laws may be more apt at addressing these issues. For example, Louisiana’s statute outlines anything used to test a substance’s “purity” as prohibited and criminal. Decriminalization efforts should be broadly construed for applications and not just focus on particular illicit substances but also the items substance users may access to consume products safely. Indeed, being able to “test” a substance is a well-established mechanism for users to reduce potential harms.

Similarly, safe consumption sites have long faced an uphill battle in the United States due to the “crack house” provision of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), exemplified by the legal fight Safehouse of Pennsylvania is currently facing. Safehouse argues the relevant provision of the CSA doesn’t apply to them; the language makes it a crime to own or operate a property meant for the consumption of illegal or illicit substances, Safehouse argues they operate for the purposes of saving (a religious calling protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act), not drug consumption. The most effective way to save lives is by offering services where they’re needed most, including overdose reversal, housing and recovery linkage to care, syringe exchange, and HIV screenings. The Office of National Control Policy has expressed support for safe consumption sites, generally speaking, but refuses to address the legal issues Safehouse is facing. The clear lack of alignment between OFNCP and the Department of Justice has left advocates more than a tad frustrated. What’s important to note about the CSA’s “crack house” provision is the reason users gather is often related both to enjoyment of experience but also safety; they’re “unsanctioned” consumption sites, as users have until recently had to rely upon their own networks for safety. Like with any issue of access to care, sanctioned safe consumption sites pose the potential to further existing health disparities. As states warm up to the idea of supervised consumption as a service to the community, policy makers and program planners need to consider those areas which exist as medical deserts may very well be the same areas in which safe consumption sites need to exist.

Biden’s drug police agenda has numerous other items of note, including strengthening protections for people with substance use histories in the labor market under the Americans with Disabilities Act, addressing the illicit and illegal drugs supply in the country, and preventing youth from engaging in drug use. Arguably, a key component missing in much of these discussions is how to protect the interests of drug users and strengthen families struggling with substance use disorder. Under the existing punitive approach, drug users are isolated from their families by way of criminal and family courts, isolating them from a core source of social support. A common refrain in recovery, “addiction is a disease of isolation”, also has decent behavioral science research support. Separating people from their families, when those families are generally well-situated to provide necessary support, operates in direct contrast to addressing the needs of a drug user and only sets them up for failure. The Biden administration needs to evaluate family strengthening policies and incentives, including education directives and best policy practices to family courts and child protection agencies as part of this effort and the NIH initiatives should consider qualifying and quantifying how policies in these areas intersect with other harm reduction efforts.

While these initiatives and this funding opportunity is a good start. The Biden administration has a long way to go to fulfilling campaign promises and we’re already twenty-five percent of the way through his first term.