AimsTo assess the effectiveness for Scotland's National Naloxone Programme (NNP) by comparison between 2006–10 (before) and 2011–13 (after NNP started in January 2011) and to assess cost‐effectiveness.DesignThis was a pre–post evaluation of a national policy. Cost‐effectiveness was assessed by prescription costs against life‐years gained per opioid‐related death (ORD) averted.Setting Scotland, in community settings and all prisons.InterventionBrief training and standardized naloxone supply became available to individuals at risk of opioid overdose.MeasurementsORDs as identified by National Records of Scotland. Look‐back determined the proportion of ORDs who, in the 4 weeks before ORD, had been (i) released from prison (primary outcome) and (ii) released from prison or discharged from hospital (secondary). We report 95% confidence intervals for effectiveness in reducing the primary (and secondary) outcome in 2011–13 versus 2006–10. Prescription costs were assessed against 1 or 10 life‐years gained per averted ORD.FindingsIn 2006–10, 9.8% of ORDs (193 of 1970) were in people released from prison within 4 weeks of death, whereas only 6.3% of ORDs in 2011–13 followed prison release (76 of 1212, P < 0.001; this represented a difference of 3.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.6–5.4%)]. This reduction in the proportion of prison release ORDs translates into 42 fewer prison release ORDs (95% CI = 19–65) during 2011–13, when 12 000 naloxone kits were issued at current prescription cost of £225 000. Scotland's secondary outcome reduced from 19.0 to 14.9%, a difference of 4.1% (95% CI = 1.4–6.7%).Conclusions Scotland's National Naloxone Programme, which started in 2011, was associated with a 36% reduction in the proportion of opioid‐related deaths that occurred in the 4 weeks following release from prison.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and AimsIt has been suggested that distributing naloxone to people who inject drugs (PWID) will lead to fewer attendances by emergency medical services at opioid‐related overdose incidents if peer administration of naloxone was perceived to have resuscitated the overdose victim successfully. This study evaluated the impact of a national naloxone programme (NNP) on ambulance attendance at opioid‐related overdose incidents throughout Scotland. Specifically, we aimed to answer the following research questions: is there evidence of an association between ambulance call‐outs to opioid‐related overdose incidents and the cumulative number of ‘take‐home naloxone’ (THN) kits in issue; and is there evidence of an association between ambulance call‐outs to opioid‐related overdose incidents in early adopter (pilot) or later adopting (non‐pilot) regions and the cumulative number of THN kits issued in those areas?DesignControlled time–series analysis.SettingScotland, UK, 2008–15.ParticipantsPre‐NNP implementation period for the evaluation was defined as 1 April 2008 to 31 March 2011 and the post‐implementation period as 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2015. In total, 3721 ambulance attendances at opioid‐related overdose were recorded for the pre‐NNP implementation period across 158 weeks (mean 23.6 attendances per week) and 5258 attendances across 212 weeks in the post‐implementation period (mean 24.8 attendances per week).InterventionScotland's NNP; formally implemented on 1 April 2011.MeasurementsPrimary outcome measure was weekly incidence (counts) of call‐outs to opioid‐related overdoses at national and regional Health Board level. Data were acquired from the Scottish Ambulance Service (SAS). Models were adjusted for opioid replacement therapy using data acquired from the Information Services Division on monthly sums of all dispensed methadone and buprenorphine in the study period. Models were adjusted further for a control group: weekly incidence (counts) of call‐outs to heroin‐related overdose in the London Borough area acquired from the London Ambulance Service.FindingsThere was no significant association between SAS call‐outs to opioid‐related overdose incidents and THN kits in issue for Scotland as a whole (coefficient 0.009, 95% confidence intervals = −0.01, 0.03, P = 0.39). In addition, the magnitude of association between THN kits and SAS call‐outs did not differ significantly between pilot and non‐pilot regions (interaction test, P = 0.62).ConclusionsThe supply of take‐home naloxone kits through a National Naloxone Programme in Scotland was not associated clearly with a decrease in ambulance attendance at opioid‐related overdose incidents in the 4‐year period after it was implemented in April 2011.

Background COVID-19 has likely affected the delivery of interventions to prevent blood-borne viruses (BBVs) among people who inject drugs (PWID). We examined the impact of the first wave of COVID-19 in Scotland on: 1) needle and syringe provision (NSP), 2) opioid agonist therapy (OAT) and 3) BBV testing. Methods An interrupted time series study design; 23rd March 2020 (date of the first ‘lockdown’) was chosen as the key date. Results The number of HIV tests and HCV tests in drug services/prisons, and the number of needles/syringes (N/S) distributed decreased by 94% (RR=0.062, 95% CI 0.041–0.094, p < 0.001), 95% (RR=0.049, 95% CI 0.034–0.069, p < 0.001) and 18% (RR = 0.816, 95% CI 0.750–0.887, p < 0.001), respectively, immediately after lockdown. Post-lockdown, an increasing trend was observed relating to the number of N/S distributed (0.6%; RR = 1.006, 95% CI 1.001–1.012, p = 0.015), HIV tests (12.1%; RR = 1.121, 95% CI 1.092–1.152, p < 0.001) and HCV tests (13.2%; RR = 1.132, 95 CI 1.106–1.158, p < 0.001). Trends relating to the total amount of methadone prescribed remained stable, but a decreasing trend in the number of prescriptions (2.4%; RR = 0.976, 95% CI 0.959–0.993, p = 0.006) and an increasing trend in the quantity prescribed per prescription (2.8%; RR = 1.028, 95% CI 1.013–1.042, p < 0.001) was observed post-lockdown. Conclusions COVID-19 impacted the delivery of BBV prevention services for PWID in Scotland. While there is evidence of service recovery; further effort is likely required to return some intervention coverage to pre-pandemic levels in the context of subsequent waves of COVID-19.