Background The US is experiencing an unprecedented opioid overdose epidemic fostered in recent years by regional contamination of the heroin supply with the fentanyl family of synthetic opioids. Since 2011 opioid-related overdose deaths in the East Coast state of Massachusetts have more than tripled, with 75% of the 1374 deaths with an available toxicology positive for fentanyl. Fentanyl is 30–50× more potent than heroin and its presence makes heroin use more unpredictable. A rapid ethnographic assessment was undertaken to understand the perceptions and experiences of people who inject drugs sold as ‘heroin’ and to observe the drugs and their use. Methods A team of ethnographers conducted research in northeast Massachusetts and Nashua, New Hampshire in June 2016, performing (n=38) qualitative interviews with persons who use heroin. Results 1) The composition and appearance of heroin changed in the last four years; 2) heroin is cheaper and more widely available than before; and 3) heroin ‘types’ have proliferated with several products being sold as ‘heroin’. These consisted of two types of heroin (alone), fentanyl (alone), and heroin-fentanyl combinations. In the absence of available toxicological information on retail-level heroin, our research noted a hierarchy of fentanyl discernment methods, with embodied effects considered most reliable in determining fentanyl’s presence, followed by taste, solution appearance and powder color. This paper presents a new ‘heroin’ typology based on users’ reports. Conclusion Massachusetts’ heroin has new appearances and is widely adulterated by fentanyl. Persons who use heroin are trying to discern the substances sold as heroin and their preferences for each form vary. The heroin typology presented is inexact but can be validated by correlating users’ discernment with drug toxicological testing. If validated, this typology would be a valuable harm reduction tool. Further research on adaptations to heroin adulteration could reduce risks of using heroin and synthetic opioid combinations.

Since 2001, heroin-related overdose deaths in the United States have risen six-fold, a rise unaccounted for by the expanding user population. Has heroin become a more dangerous drug? Reports of fentanyl and its analogs, often concealed in or sold as heroin, have also increased sharply. This paper investigates heroin injectors’ perceptions and experiences to changes in the heroin supply in the East Coast city of Baltimore, Maryland, currently experiencing an epidemic in heroin- and fentanyl-related overdose deaths. Unusually, Baltimore’s heroin market is divided between two types: ‘Raw’, believed to be Colombian in origin and relatively pure, and the more adulterated ‘Scramble’ (Raw heroin traditionally blended with quinine and lactose). Users reported that Scramble heroin, while gaining market share, has become a highly unstable product, varying dramatically in appearance, intensity of onset, duration of action and and effect. Some considered that scramble was no longer ‘heroin’ but heavily adulterated or even replaced, mentioning fentanyl, benzodiazepines and crushed opioid pills as additives. There was intense awareness of overdose as a present danger in users’ lives, which they linked to the recent adulteration of the heroin supply. Responses to this perceived adulteration varied, including information gathering, attraction, avoidance, taking precautions and acceptance.

BackgroundInternationally, overdose is the primary cause of death among people injecting drugs. However, since 2001, heroin-related overdose deaths in the United States (US) have risen sixfold, paralleled by a rise in the death rate attributed to synthetic opioids, particularly the fentanyls. This paper considers the adaptations some US heroin injectors are making to protect themselves from these risks.MethodsBetween 2015 and 2016, a team of ethnographers collected data through semi-structured interviews and observation captured in field notes and video recording of heroin preparation/consumption. Ninety-one current heroin injectors were interviewed (Baltimore, n = 22; Chicago, n = 24; Massachusetts and New Hampshire, n = 36; San Francisco, n = 9). Experience injecting heroin ranged from < 1–47 years. Eight participants, who were exclusively heroin snorters, were also interviewed. Data were analyzed thematically.ResultsAcross the study sites, multiple methods of sampling “heroin” were identified, sometimes used in combination, ranging from non-injecting routes (snorting, smoking or tasting a small amount prior to injection) to injecting a partial dose and waiting. Partial injection took different forms: a “slow shot” where the user injected a portion of the solution in the syringe, keeping the needle in the injection site, and continuing or withdrawing the syringe or a “tester shot” where the solution was divided into separate injections. Other techniques included getting feedback from others using heroin of the same batch or observing those with higher tolerance injecting heroin from the same batch before judging how much to inject themselves. Although a minority of those interviewed described using these drug sampling techniques, there is clearly receptivity among some users to protecting themselves by using a variety of methods.ConclusionsThe use of drug sampling as a means of preventing an overdose from injection drug use reduces the quantity absorbed at any one time allowing users to monitor drug strength and titrate their dose accordingly. Given the highly unpredictable potency of the drugs currently being sold as heroin in the US, universal precautions should be adopted more widely. Further research is needed into facilitators and barriers to the uptake of these drug sampling methods.

Background West Virginia is a largely rural state with strong ties of kinship, mutual systems of support and charitable giving. At the same time, wealth inequalities are extreme and the state’s drug overdose fatality rate stands above all others in the USA at 51.5/100,000 in 2018, largely opioid-related. In recent years, harm reduction services have been active in the state but in 2018 Charleston’s needle and syringe program was forced to close. This paper considers the risk environment in which the state’s drug-related loss of life, and those attempting to prevent it, exist. Methods This rapid ethnographic study involved semi-structured interviews (n = 21), observation and video recordings of injection sequences (n = 5), initially recruiting people who inject heroin/fentanyl (PWIH) at the Charleston needle and syringe program. Snowball sampling led the research team to surrounding towns in southern West Virginia. Telephone interviews (n = 2) with individuals involved in service provision were also carried out. Results PWIH in southern West Virginia described an often unsupportive, at times hostile risk environment that may increase the risk of overdose fatalities. Negative experiences, including from some emergency responders, and fears of punitive legal consequences from calling these services may deter PWIH from seeking essential help. Compassion fatigue and burnout may play a part in this, along with resentment regarding high demands placed by the overdose crisis on impoverished state resources. We also found low levels of knowledge about safe injection practices among PWIH. Conclusions Hostility faced by PWIH may increase their risk of overdose fatalities, injection-related injury and the risk of HIV and hepatitis C transmission by deterring help-seeking and limiting the range of harm reduction services provided locally. Greater provision of overdose prevention education and naloxone for peer distribution could help PWIH to reverse overdoses while alleviating the burden on emergency services. Although essential for reducing mortality, measures that address drug use alone are not enough to safeguard longer-term public health. The new wave of psychostimulant-related deaths underline the urgency of addressing the deeper causes that feed high-risk patterns of drug use beyond drugs and drug use.

The year 2021 was the most deadly year for overdose deaths in the USA and Canada. The stress and social isolation stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with a flood of fentanyl into local drug markets created conditions in which people who use drugs were more susceptible to accidental overdose. Within territorial, state, and local policy communities, there have been longstanding efforts to reduce morbidity and mortality within this population; however, the current overdose crisis clearly indicates an urgent need for additional, easily accessible, and innovative services. Street-based drug testing programs allow individuals to learn the composition of their substances prior to use, averting unintended overdoses while also creating low threshold opportunities for individuals to connect to other harm reduction services, including substance use treatment programs. We sought to capture perspectives from service providers to document best practices around fielding community-based drug testing programs, including optimizing their position within a constellation of other harm reduction services to best serve local communities. We conducted 11 in-depth interviews from June to November 2022 via Zoom with harm reduction service providers to explore barriers and facilitators around the implementation of drug checking programs, the potential for integration with other health promotion services, and best practices for sustaining these programs, taking the local community and policy landscape into account. Interviews lasted 45–60 min and were recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to reduce the data, and transcripts were discussed by a team of trained analysts. Several key themes emerged from our interviews: (1) the instability of drug markets amid an inconsistent and dangerous drug supply; (2) implementing drug checking services in dynamic environments in response to the rapidly changing needs of local communities; (3) training and ongoing capacity building needed to create sustainable programs; and (4) the potential for integrating drug checking programs into other services. There are opportunities for this service to make a difference in overdose deaths as the contours of the drug market itself have changed over time, but a number of challenges remain to implement them effectively and sustain the service over time. Drug checking itself represents a paradox within the larger policy context, putting the sustainability of these programs at risk and challenging the potential to scale these programs as the overdose epidemic worsens.