“Everything is not right anymore”: Buprenorphine experiences in an era of illicit fentanyl

Abstract

Background

Conducted in the Dayton Metropolitan area of Southwestern Ohio, this qualitative study explores the self-treatment practices of people who use illicit opioids (PWUIO) amidst the new risk environment produced by illicit, non-pharmaceutical fentanyl (NPF). We explore local perceptions of the presence of NPF in the Dayton area, and how this has both positively and negatively impacted practices of non-prescribed buprenorphine use among PWUIO.

Methods

This study analyzes qualitative data from 63 interviews conducted between October 2018 and June 2019. Participants were selected from a larger longitudinal study on non-prescribed buprenorphine use among individuals with opioid use disorder. Qualitative interviews were transcribed in their entirety, and their transcriptions were analyzed using NVivo software, drawing on a mix of thematic and inductive coding.

Results

Interview respondents ranged from 19 to 70 years old, with a mean age of 38.9 years. 54% of them were male, and 85.7% identified as non-Hispanic White. 98.4% of the sample had used heroin, and 93.7% of the sample reported use of NPF. Participants agreed NPF dominated the illicit opioids market in the area, and was perceived as both dangerous and desirable. The domination of NPF and associated overdose experiences prompted some to seek positive change and initiate self-treatment with non-prescribed buprenorphine. For others, NPF sabotaged established practices of harm reduction, as unanticipated experiences of precipitated withdrawals prompted some participants to give up non-prescribed buprenorphine use as a tactic of self-treatment.

Discussion

The changing nature of heroin/NPF necessarily gives rise to new beliefs surrounding self-treatment attempts, treatment seeking behaviors, and harm reduction practices. While buprenorphine treatment continues to offer promising results for treating opioid use disorders, it is urgent to reconsider how the unpredictable biochemical mixture of NPFs circulating on the streets today may impact the initiation and success of treatment.

Introduction

Illicit, non-pharmaceutical fentanyl and fentanyl analogues (henceforth referred to as NPF)—have largely come to replace heroin in many parts of the United States. While fentanyl, a Schedule II synthetic opioid, is used frequently as a highly potent anesthetic in medical settings, the current flood of NPF on the illicit drug market is rarely a case of pharmaceutical diversion (CDC, 2015; Marinetti & Ehlers, 2014). Rather, new sources of NPF are originating largely from China and Mexico (DEA, 2018), and are arriving directly into the illicit US drug market without the need for prescription. NPFs are typically unpredictable in both their strength and composition (Armenian, Vo, Barr-Walker & Lynch, 2018). The shift from heroin to NPF has had diverse impacts on the understandings and practices of people who use illicit opioids (PWUIO), who must adapt to new risks emerging from changes in the chemical composition of their drugs (Carroll, Marshall, Rich & Green, 2017; Ciccarone, Ondocsin & Mars, 2017; Goldman et al., 2019).

The biochemical risks incurred by illicit opioids do not occur in isolation, but rather are shaped by local structural factors that create a risk environment unique to time and place (Rhodes, 2002). In the Dayton metro area of southwestern Ohio, as in much of the Midwestern U.S., drug sales and use fill social and economic gaps left by a declining industrial sector (McLean, 2016, Quinones, 2015). The greater Dayton metropolitan area, home to a population of approximately 800,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017), once hosted a great number of manufacturing jobs in the auto and related industries, at one point holding the record for the highest per-capita number of patents (Millsap, 2018). But in recent decades the region has followed a larger pattern of post-industrial decline, with illicit drug sales and use seeping into the gaps left by receding industry and urban blight.

In Dayton, the dominance of opioids, and particularly NPF, is palpable. Billboards advertising drug treatments dot I-70 and I-75—two key U.S. drug trafficking routes that intersect on Dayton's perimeter. This region has been hit by all three incarnations of what Ciccarone (2019) has called a “triple-wave epidemic” of opioid use—first pills, then heroin, and now NPF (ODH, 2018). At the time that this study was conducted, NPF had come to saturate the local opioid market (Daniulaityte, Carlson, Juhascik, Strayer & Sizemore, 2019a). Here, as in other regions east of the Mississippi River, powder heroin has been more prevalent than tar, making adulteration or substitution with NPF more seamless (Ciccarone, 2017; Mars, Ondocsin & Ciccarone, 2018; Zoorob, 2019).

Dayton, the urban hub of Montgomery County, has been particularly hard hit by NPF-related overdoses. In 2017, Montgomery County had the highest per capita overdose mortality rate in the state of Ohio, with 521 overdoses, at an age-adjusted rate of 95.24 per 100,000 (Rossen, Bastian, Warner, Khan & Chong, 2019). About 90% of all fatal overdose cases in the area tested positive for NPFs (Daniulaityte et al., 2017; 2019b). Further, the number of unintentional overdose death cases testing positive for NPFs increased by 377% between the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2017. Local toxicology reports noted a shift towards increased diversification of fentanyl analogues, such as the highly potent synthetic opioid carfentanil, which appeared in 29.7% of the toxicology reports of overdose deaths during that same time period (Daniulaityte et al., 2019b).

Recent studies demonstrate that PWUIO are increasingly cognizant of the presence of fentanyl in the drug supply (Ciccarone et al., 2017; McLean, Monnat, Rigg, Sterner & Verdery, 2019; Stein, Kenney, Anderson & Bailey, 2019). This knowledge may prompt some individuals to seek formal treatment (Carroll et al., 2017; Cicero, Ellis & Kasper, 2017), or further develop indigenous or lay strategies to mitigate NPF-related harms (Goldman et al., 2019; Rouhani, Park, Morales, Green & Sherman, 2019). These include practices such as visually scrutinizing or tasting their drugs before injecting (Carroll et al., 2017), beginning consumption episodes with “tester shots” (Mars et al., 2018); and even the use of fentanyl testing strips prior to opioid use (Peiper et al., 2019). Building on this growing literature, we aim to address a yet-unexplored aspect of indigenous harm reduction practices (Friedman et al., 2007) in an era of NPF: the impacts of NPF on use of non-prescribed buprenorphine among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD).

Buprenorphine, a semi-synthetic opioid, is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist and kappa-opioid receptor antagonist that is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Because of its partial agonist properties, buprenorphine is considered to have a lower non-medical use potential and a better safety profile in terms of overdose risk, compared to the full mu agonist methadone (Johnson, Strain & Amass, 2003). Beyond its growing prevalence as a prescribed medication used to treat OUD (Arfken, Johanson, di Menza & Schuster, 2010; Stein et al., 2012), recent research has begun to demonstrate that in the U.S. non-prescribed buprenorphine has also become an indigenous strategy for mitigating the risks and harms associated with OUD (Bazazi, Yokell, Fu, Rich & Zaller, 2011;Daniulaityte, Falck & Carlson, 2012; Gwin Mitchell et al., 2009; McLean & Kavanaugh 2019; Schuman-Olivier et al., 2010). In Rhode Island, for instance, Carroll, Rich and Green (2018) found that non-prescribed buprenorphine among PWUIO was almost never used euphorically, but rather as a form of self-treatment often tied to future treatment-seeking behaviors. In Baltimore, Monico et al., (2015) also found that illicit buprenorphine usage often preceded entry to formal treatment, suggesting that buprenorphine diversion worked as an important tactic of harm reduction for individuals not yet ready or able to seek formal treatment for OUD. In a qualitative study among PWUIO in New York City, Allen and Harocopos (2016) noted that diverted buprenorphine was used as an emergency or back-up measure to ease withdrawal symptoms when other opioids were not available. Our research has shown that more frequent use of non-prescribed buprenorphine was associated with a decreased risk of overdose (Carlson, Daniulaityte, Silverstein, Nahhas & Martins, 2019; Daniulaityte et al., in press), suggesting that use of non-prescribed buprenorphine may indeed be a life-saving tactic of harm reduction.

As a growing body of evidence demonstrates increased interest among PWUIOs in buprenorphine treatment (Yarborough et al., 2016), anecdotal evidence also suggests that the changing chemical composition of an NPF-dominant opioid supply may be impacting the role of buprenorphine in treating OUD. For instance, Bisaga, in a commentary published in Addiction (2019), notes concern among treatment providers who report that NPF users undergoing buprenorphine induction experience more frequent instances of precipitated withdrawal. This, in turn, may lessen patient confidence in the effectiveness of buprenorphine treatment (Walsh & Eisenberg, 2003). As buprenorphine treatment providers scramble to respond to new challenges faced by the growing domination of NPF, it will be important to better understand how informal self-treatment practices with non-prescribed buprenorphine are also impacted.

In this paper, we explore this question qualitatively. The overall aim of this study is to explore experiences, beliefs, and attitudes of PWUIO who have attempted self-treatment with buprenorphine in an era of non-prescribed fentanyl and fentanyl analogue use. We discuss local perceptions of the dominance of NPF in the Dayton area, and how this has both positively and negatively impacted practices of non-prescribed buprenorphine use among PWUIO.