Difference between revisions of "Increase Access to Needle Exchanges"
(Imported from text file) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | <div | + | <div class="mw-parser-output"><div class="wiki" id="content_view" style="display: block"> |
| − | + | = = | |
| − | = | + | Return to [[Opioid_Top-Level_Strategy_Map|Opioid Top-Level Strategy Map or]] [[ZOOM_MAP_-_Expand_Harm_Reduction_Practices_Associated_with_Opioid_Misuse|Zoom Map (Expand Harm Reduction Practices Associated with Opioid Misuse)]]<br/> <div id="toc"> |
| − | Return to [[Opioid Top-Level Strategy Map]] | + | = Table of Contents = |
| − | =Table of Contents= | + | <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Background|Background]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 2em"> </div> <div style="margin-left: 2em">[[#Background-Different_Models_for_Syringe_Exchanges|Different Models for Syringe Exchanges]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Return_Rates_of_Needle_Exchanges|Return Rates of Needle Exchanges]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Peer-Delivered_Needle_Exchanges|Peer-Delivered Needle Exchanges]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 1em"> </div> <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Success_Stories|Success Stories]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 2em">[[#Success_Stories-Scott_County.2C_Indiana|Scott County, Indiana]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Tools_.26_Resources|Tools & Resources]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Scorecard_Building|Scorecard Building]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Resources_to_Investigate|Resources to Investigate]]</div> <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Sources|Sources]]</div> </div> |
| − | <div style="margin-left: 1em">[[#Background|Background]]</div><div style="margin-left: 2em"> | + | = Background = |
| − | =Background= | + | |
| − | Needle exchange programs (NEPs) are programs which distribute sanitized needles in exchange for contaminated or used needles. NEPs reduce the spread of blood borne diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C. | + | Needle exchange programs (NEPs) are programs which distribute sanitized needles in exchange for contaminated or used needles. NEPs reduce the spread of blood borne diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C. |
| − | == == | + | |
| − | ==Different Models for Syringe Exchanges== | + | Hepatitis C is more than three time more prevalent among people who inject drugs than HIV. In most countries, more than half the people who inject drugs are living with Hepatitis C.<sup class="reference">[1]</sup> In addition, the number of undiagnosed cases is estimated to be very high: between 50 and 90 percent of people living with Hepatitis C may be unaware of their infection. In countries with repressive drug laws, Hep C testing rates among people who use drugs are often even lower largely due to stigmatisation in health care settings, fear of arrest, or the unavailability of treatment and testing. |
| − | [http://www.nchrc.org/syringe-exchange/syringe-exchange-models/]<br /> | + | |
| − | =Return Rates of Needle Exchanges= | + | Harm reduction services such as the provision of sterile needles and syringes can effectively prevent hepatitis C transmission among people who inject drugs, provided they are accessible and delivered at the required scale.<sup class="reference">[2]</sup> |
| − | One prominent study sought to answer the question "is the number of needles distributed from NEPs proportionate to the number of needles returned to NEPs?" | + | |
| − | =Peer-Delivered Needle Exchanges= | + | While chronic Hepatitis C is not a death sentence, it creates a slew of long term problems. About one in five people will develop more progressive liver damage with fibrosis (scarring of the liver). Hep C can also cause cirrhosis to the point where the scarring diminishes liver function. Aside from discomfort, this slow burn inflammation can exacerbate other conditions, and in up to five percent of people lead to the kind of full liver failure that requires an organ transplant.<sup class="reference">[3]</sup> |
| − | One option being used in King County, WA is to use peers to bring new syringes to people injecting drugs. (Find out more.) | + | |
| − | = = | + | |
| − | =Success Stories= | + | Prevention is a extraordinarily cost effective. In 2013 the FDA approved a new class of direct-acting antiviral drugs for Hep C, which can clear the body 90% of the time. However, a course of treatment for either of the most common medications, Viekira Pak or Harvoni, can cost $85,000 to $94,500. It would cost more than 10 percent of all the medical care in the country to treat the roughly 3.5 million Americans estimated to be infected with Hep C.<sup class="reference">[4]</sup> Hep C treatment is costly to public programs as well. In 2015, Medicaid spent about $2.2 billion on just one Hep C medication, Harvoni, made by Gilead Sciences. This Hep C treatment cost more than any other individual medication.<sup class="reference">[5]</sup> |
| − | ==Scott County, Indiana== | + | |
| − | Before Scott County set up its syringe exchange (plus more) program in 2015, the rural county in Indiana was seeing 10-20 new HIV cases every week. Almost immediately after, the number of new cases was slowed to 1-2 a month.<sup class="reference">[8]</sup> | + | Sharing needles has become the most common mode of HIV transmission among injection drug users (IDUs). IN turn, IDUs often spread HIV to other, non-injecting populations through sexual relations. In addition, used syringes and needles are a potential biohazard throughout the geographic area within which IDUs primarily reside, and beyond it as well.<sup class="reference">[6]</sup> |
| − | =Tools & Resources= | + | |
| − | [[TR - Increase Access to Needle Exchanges]] | + | Studies have found that needle exchange programs also reduce pollution. |
| − | =Scorecard Building= | + | |
| − | [[ | + | |
| − | =Resources to Investigate= | + | == == |
| − | [[ | + | |
| + | == Different Models for Syringe Exchanges == | ||
| + | |||
| + | [http://www.nchrc.org/syringe-exchange/syringe-exchange-models/ [1]]<br/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Return Rates of Needle Exchanges = | ||
| + | |||
| + | One prominent study sought to answer the question "is the number of needles distributed from NEPs proportionate to the number of needles returned to NEPs?" | ||
| + | Overall, the global return rate for NEPs was 90% based on a total distribution of 11,971,584 needles (needles out) and 10,793,270 needles returned to the NEPs (needles in). The US return rate was over 90% (315,942 needles distributed, 282,897 needles returned).<sup class="reference">[7]</sup> | ||
| + | |||
| + | The evidence regarding return rates presented in this this study makes it clear that supplying IDUs (Injecting Drug Users) with clean needles does not lead to more "dirty" needles in any given community. While NEP critics argue that distribution of needles to IDUs does nothing more than increase the number of needles in circulation, the evidence presented here does not support that assertion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | = Peer-Delivered Needle Exchanges = | ||
| + | |||
| + | One option being used in King County, WA is to use peers to bring new syringes to people injecting drugs. (Find out more.) | ||
| + | [http://harmreduction.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/pdse-toolkit-with-links.pdf [2]] | ||
| + | [https://www.talkingdrugs.org/the-benefits-of-peer-delivered-syringe-exchange-programs [3]] | ||
| + | Research on the [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5241304/ influence of peer-delivered syringe exchanges on mental health] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | = = | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Success Stories = | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Scott County, Indiana == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Before Scott County set up its syringe exchange (plus more) program in 2015, the rural county in Indiana was seeing 10-20 new HIV cases every week. Almost immediately after, the number of new cases was slowed to 1-2 a month.<sup class="reference">[8]</sup> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | = Tools & Resources = | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[TR_-_Increase_Access_to_Needle_Exchanges|TR - Increase Access to Needle Exchanges]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Scorecard Building = | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[PO_-_Increase_Access_to_Needle_Exchanges|Potential Objective Details]]<br/> [[PM_-_Increase_Access_to_Needle_Exchanges|Potential Measures and Data Sources]]<br/> [[PA_-_Increase_Access_to_Needle_Exchanges|Potential Actions and Partners]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | = Resources to Investigate = | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[RTI_-_Increase_Access_to_Needle_Exchanges|More RTI on Increase Access to Needle Exchanges]]<br/> <br/> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px">'''<span style="color: #4d4d4d">PAGE MANAGER</span>:''' </span><span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #ff0000; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px">[insert name here]</span><br/> <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px">'''<span style="color: #4d4d4d">SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT</span>''': </span><span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #ff0000; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.8px">[fill out table below]</span> | ||
| + | |||
{| class="wiki_table" | {| class="wiki_table" | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | | + | | '''Reviewer''' |
| − | | | + | | '''Date''' |
| − | | | + | | '''Comments''' |
| + | |- | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | | | ||
| + | | | ||
|} | |} | ||
| − | =Sources= | + | |
| + | = Sources = | ||
---- | ---- | ||
| − | # [http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/] | + | #[http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/ [4]] |
| − | # [http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/] | + | #[http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/ [5]] |
| − | # [http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/] | + | #[http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/ [6]] |
| − | # [http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/] | + | #[http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/ [7]] |
| − | # [http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/] | + | #[http://www.alaskapublic.org/2017/06/28/wave-of-addiction-costs-is-hitting-alaskas-healthcare-system/ [8]] |
| − | # [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419716/] | + | #[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419716/ [9]] |
| − | # [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419716/] | + | #[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC419716/ [10]] |
| − | # [http://sideeffectspublicmedia.org/post/indiana-law-makes-harm-reduction-opioid-addiction-yearly-battle] | + | #[http://sideeffectspublicmedia.org/post/indiana-law-makes-harm-reduction-opioid-addiction-yearly-battle [11]] |
| − | </div> | + | </div> </div> |
Revision as of 22:41, 6 January 2019
Contents
Return to Opioid Top-Level Strategy Map or Zoom Map (Expand Harm Reduction Practices Associated with Opioid Misuse)
Table of Contents
Background
Needle exchange programs (NEPs) are programs which distribute sanitized needles in exchange for contaminated or used needles. NEPs reduce the spread of blood borne diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C. Hepatitis C is more than three time more prevalent among people who inject drugs than HIV. In most countries, more than half the people who inject drugs are living with Hepatitis C.[1] In addition, the number of undiagnosed cases is estimated to be very high: between 50 and 90 percent of people living with Hepatitis C may be unaware of their infection. In countries with repressive drug laws, Hep C testing rates among people who use drugs are often even lower largely due to stigmatisation in health care settings, fear of arrest, or the unavailability of treatment and testing. Harm reduction services such as the provision of sterile needles and syringes can effectively prevent hepatitis C transmission among people who inject drugs, provided they are accessible and delivered at the required scale.[2] While chronic Hepatitis C is not a death sentence, it creates a slew of long term problems. About one in five people will develop more progressive liver damage with fibrosis (scarring of the liver). Hep C can also cause cirrhosis to the point where the scarring diminishes liver function. Aside from discomfort, this slow burn inflammation can exacerbate other conditions, and in up to five percent of people lead to the kind of full liver failure that requires an organ transplant.[3] Prevention is a extraordinarily cost effective. In 2013 the FDA approved a new class of direct-acting antiviral drugs for Hep C, which can clear the body 90% of the time. However, a course of treatment for either of the most common medications, Viekira Pak or Harvoni, can cost $85,000 to $94,500. It would cost more than 10 percent of all the medical care in the country to treat the roughly 3.5 million Americans estimated to be infected with Hep C.[4] Hep C treatment is costly to public programs as well. In 2015, Medicaid spent about $2.2 billion on just one Hep C medication, Harvoni, made by Gilead Sciences. This Hep C treatment cost more than any other individual medication.[5] Sharing needles has become the most common mode of HIV transmission among injection drug users (IDUs). IN turn, IDUs often spread HIV to other, non-injecting populations through sexual relations. In addition, used syringes and needles are a potential biohazard throughout the geographic area within which IDUs primarily reside, and beyond it as well.[6] Studies have found that needle exchange programs also reduce pollution.
Different Models for Syringe Exchanges
[1]
Return Rates of Needle Exchanges
One prominent study sought to answer the question "is the number of needles distributed from NEPs proportionate to the number of needles returned to NEPs?" Overall, the global return rate for NEPs was 90% based on a total distribution of 11,971,584 needles (needles out) and 10,793,270 needles returned to the NEPs (needles in). The US return rate was over 90% (315,942 needles distributed, 282,897 needles returned).[7] The evidence regarding return rates presented in this this study makes it clear that supplying IDUs (Injecting Drug Users) with clean needles does not lead to more "dirty" needles in any given community. While NEP critics argue that distribution of needles to IDUs does nothing more than increase the number of needles in circulation, the evidence presented here does not support that assertion.
Peer-Delivered Needle Exchanges
One option being used in King County, WA is to use peers to bring new syringes to people injecting drugs. (Find out more.) [2] [3] Research on the influence of peer-delivered syringe exchanges on mental health
Success Stories
Scott County, Indiana
Before Scott County set up its syringe exchange (plus more) program in 2015, the rural county in Indiana was seeing 10-20 new HIV cases every week. Almost immediately after, the number of new cases was slowed to 1-2 a month.[8]
Tools & Resources
TR - Increase Access to Needle Exchanges
Scorecard Building
Potential Objective Details
Potential Measures and Data Sources
Potential Actions and Partners
Resources to Investigate
More RTI on Increase Access to Needle Exchanges
PAGE MANAGER: [insert name here]
SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT: [fill out table below]
| Reviewer | Date | Comments |
